Films with too much CGI effects look bad in ten years and less and will not remembered fondly because they don't trust stories or actors and very often the direction is like from a computer too. Lord of the Rings does not look that good on TV because the CGI effects are too evident.

One of the good examples here mentioned is The Fantastic Voyage, what is the difference? The special effects were obviously needed to tell the story.

The story  in Clash of the Titans from 1981 was extremely bad, the acting too (even by Laurence Olivier), it was considered a box office flop then and nevertheless it was remade by an even worse version last year that tried to cash in the recent 3D vague. When I read the reviews last year the 1981 version was mostly described as a "classic". That's false, it was never a classic and it will never be (Raiders of the Lost Ark made in the same year is a classic), just crap, despite the work special effects guru Ray Harryhausen had in it, they looked cheap but it's the only thing that one remembers about the film.

I'm a James Bond fan, I had to live with Roger Moore and those boring Octopussy, but I was very very disappointed with Die Another Day (Brosnan's last) - the first Bond that used CGI effects instead of classic special effects and stunts. The scenes outside the Ice Hotel, especially at the cliff and waterfall were badly done and did NOTHING to tell the story or deliver needed action. Thankfully the Bond producers started all over again with Casino Royale (Quantum of Solace was bad but that had to with the cinematography and editing).

I did not like Avatar, what an idiotic story and I don't care about 3D films anyway, but I have to admit the director knows at least how to tell that story carefully and the acting was not bad either.

The problem are the formula films Hollywood produces like other industries put out their formula fast food or those all similar looking cars from all over the world. I cannot stand Jennifer Aniston and I don't understand why she is in one "romantic comedy" after the another, to me they are disaster movies, the woman has no charisma, the stories are shit, it's like going in the bathroom and see your face in the mirror: it's always the same and you cannot change anything about it. But it can be worse, if Aniston is starring in action movie or those brainless comic adaptions with lots of CGI effects that I discover without my glasses on, add to that a noisy bombastic sound score by Hans Zimmer and sound effects that make the dialogue unrecognizable and you know why the best films are told in 13-22 parts every year on TV now, True Blood, Six Feet Under, Lost, NipTuck - the writers behind such TV shows should produce and write for films and replace the Hollywood generation that knows life only from film schools that teached them a lot about money but nothing about the creative process.