THE UNCANNY VALLEY — A lot can be said about how computer-generated images, also known as CGI, have advanced the ability of movie directors to tell their stories on screen.

The idea of CGI is really no different than the use of cartoon animation painted over the top of live action films, like the original “Mary Poppins” and most of “Space Jam.” These days, the animation is done with computers and achieves a much deeper layer of believability.

Properly done CGI should blend seamlessly into the movie's environment and overall story without being a distraction. For the most part these days this can be done remarkably well — with a few exceptions.

CGI has always rendered things like robots and cars with amazing accuracy, which makes sense since those things tend to be geometrically shaped and display smooth textures.

Where I have been most impressed lately with the technology is in its ability to render animals so well. This is much more difficult given the fact that animals are not geometrically simple nor are they smooth and metallic. Movies like “Kong Skull Island” or the 2016 "live-action" version of Disney’s “The Jungle Book” provide examples of this.

So why can’t Hollywood get the formula right for creating a believable CGI human face in 2019?

The answer is complicated and it comes down to the “uncanny valley." That basically means that humans are so good at recognizing other humans that we can immediately tell there is something not right if what we are seeing isn't actually human.

If the "human" we are seeing looks almost real but is not actually human, our brains pick up on this and we get an uneasy feeling.

With the release of “Alita: Battle Angel”, which features a CGI "human" protagonist, as well as the reveal of Will Smith as the CGI-altered genie from “Aladdin” this week, it looks like moviegoers will get plenty of the uncanny valley effect at the theater in 2019.

The 'Aladdin' trailer has people talking and they're scared

Disney's latest look at the upcoming live-action version of "Aladdin" has a few people wishing the genie would go back in the bottle.

Here's hoping Hollywood gets this straightened out or realizes that humans are off limits when it comes to convincing CGI. Here are few examples of some of the better and not-so-good attempts at CGI for humans:

The good

“Terminator 2: Judgment Day” (1991)

This is an older movie and CGI was still in its relative infancy in 1991, but the animation for T-1000 absolutely blew my mind when I saw "Terminator 2."

I had never seen anything like it in my life and could not believe that a computer could create such a believable version of a human.

Looking back, it was all very primitive and not really believable. Director James Cameron’s genius was getting the animation close enough, and then swapping out the CGI for a real human actor after the killer robot morphed back into a human form.

“The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” (2002)

Again, this movie is a bit older but it can’t be denied that the CGI for Gollum blew minds.

It wasn’t just the CGI, though. The brilliant acting from Andy Serkis also helped pull it off.

To be fair, Gollum was not meant to look like a real human and the uncanny valley alarms weren't going off in all of us. It was meant to be that way on purpose to give viewers a sense of unease about the character himself.

“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (2008)

This interesting story could not have been a movie if it were not for CGI.

The premise of the movie revolves around a man named Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) who ages backward. Benjamin is born an old man, and over the course of the movie ages into an infant.

It is quite a remarkable story. What impressed me the most is how convincingly they were able to make Pitt appear to age in reverse. The aging was done by digitally superimposing Pitt's aged head onto the bodies of younger actors.

The vision and confidence to make this work was impressive and believable enough to not distract from the bigger story.

The bad

“The Polar Express” (2004)

Just because the movie falls into the “bad” category here does not mean I think it is a bad movie overall. I like "The Polar Express" and all they were able to do with it, but I think there is a point when too much of a good thing does not make it better.

I could handle the imaginary train and North Pole in this movie, but what put me over the top was all the human characters in the movie that looked and sounded enough like Tom Hanks — but not exactly.

What could have been a really magically movie left me feeling unsettled at the end.

“The Matrix Reloaded” (2003)

What held so much promise for the "Matrix" franchise quickly devolved into a comical street rumble with a bunch of identical rubbery men. The Agent Smith fight toward the end is particularly bad.

Don’t get me wrong, the "Matrix" trilogy did as much as any movie to revolutionize the special effects industry, but this scene does not hold up. While I am a die-hard fan of the first "Matrix" movie and most of the second one, this scene for me marked the downward spiral the franchise took.

“Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” (2016)

I know I’m going to get some hate for this choice, but "Rogue One" is a perfect example of how even the best technology and most talented actors and animators still can't bridge the uncanny valley.

'Rogue One' adds depth, context to the Star Wars universe

This year with Christmas comes Star Wars— what an exciting time of year! "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" does it's part to put the magic in the holiday season.

In the scene where Princess Leia makes a brief appearance to continue the Star Wars saga into the new generation of films, we see a CGI version of young Leia as she passes on valuable information to the Resistance.

While this scene is short, it is completely obvious it is not the original Carrie Fisher playing the part. It is a stand-in actor with young Leia’s face digitally superimposed onto a new body. It is just not quite right and has a hint of that creepy feeling to it that made it difficult to watch for very long.

Related topics