I like to think that the tidal wave of films that trailers and preview critics have characterized as having monstrous, overwhelming gobs of CGI in lieu of plot, story, character development and every other quality value of film will be the first shovelful of dirt on this subgenre's coffin.

I've watched several iterations of trailers for Transformers 2, G.I. Joe and 2012, as well as for other films both released and not-yet, and from those and what I've read as a film-buzz addict is that they are complete, total, unmitigated crap. Their only feature is giant, staggering, C.B. DeMille you've-never-seen-THIS-before CGI.

Aircraft carriers being rolled by tidal waves and then dropped on the White House. Nope, never seen that. Hundred-foot robots slugging it out and destroying everything around them in crystal-clear, count-the rivets resolution. Nope. Planets being destroyed, with itty-bitty people flying around and screaming. Nope.

I think - I hope - this summer is the nadir and the end of this grotesquely excessive use of what is a tremendously valuable film technology. It looks as if December's Sherlock Holmes uses a great deal of CGI in reconstructing 1885 London... but if it's seamless and only adds to a film's veracity and framework, it's a plus.

An aircraft carrier dropped on the White House is not. At least, now that Bush is gone, it's not.

I am reminded of the covers on the first generation of SF magazines: arresting, often grotesque images of things you've never seen before. Monstrous insects menacing pretty girls. Astonishing vehicles in vivid colors. People with bizarre gadgets stuck on their heads. Mechanical men menacing pretty girls. A battleship hanging upside down over an urban skyline. Rockets flying to distant planets. Tentacled creatures menacing pretty girls.

SF illustration eventually got more sophisticated (though some of it still relies on shock value to this day).

Here's hoping.