Practical Effects vs CGI: The Ongoing Debate in Modern Filmmaking

Two Philosophies of Illusion

Every film is an elaborate trick. The question that has defined visual storytelling for three decades is deceptively simple: should that trick be performed in front of the camera or inside a computer? The answer is rarely one or the other — but the debate reveals deep truths about what audiences value in their cinematic experiences.

The Practical Effects Era

Before computers entered the pipeline, every visual effect had to exist physically. The original Star Wars (1977) was built from meticulously crafted miniatures, matte paintings, and innovative camera rigs. The Death Star trench run used detailed models photographed with a computer-controlled camera system called Dykstraflex.

This era produced enduring imagery. Alien (1979) used H.R. Giger’s physical creature designs to create a monster that felt disturbingly organic. The Thing (1982) employed Rob Bottin’s animatronics for body horror that remains shocking decades later. Blade Runner (1982) combined miniatures and atmospheric lighting to build a future Los Angeles more convincing than many modern CGI cityscapes.

The appeal of practical effects is fundamentally about physicality. When a creature exists on set, it interacts with light and occupies space in ways that actors respond to naturally. There is an authenticity that audiences perceive intuitively, even when they cannot articulate what makes it feel “right.”

The Digital Revolution

Everything changed in 1993. Spielberg’s Jurassic Park used CGI to bring dinosaurs to life with unprecedented realism. The film used only about four minutes of CGI — most dinosaur work was still Stan Winston’s practical animatronics — but those four minutes changed the industry permanently.

The floodgates opened. Titanic (1997) recreated the ship’s sinking digitally. The Matrix (1999) introduced bullet time, requiring digital environments and camera interpolation. George Lucas pushed CGI further with the Star Wars prequels, demonstrating the technology’s limitations as much as its capabilities. Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001–2003) found what many consider the ideal balance — massive practical sets like Helm’s Deep extended digitally, actors in prosthetic makeup alongside CGI creatures, and Gollum proving that motion-captured digital characters could carry genuine emotional weight.

The CGI Saturation Point

By the mid-2010s, CGI had become the default. The Marvel Cinematic Universe built entire worlds digitally — the climactic battle of Avengers: Endgame was essentially a fully animated sequence with actors composited into digital environments.

This saturation produced a backlash. Audiences grew increasingly vocal about “CGI fatigue” — a sense that digital effects, no matter how technically sophisticated, lack the weight and presence of physical work. The criticism centers on what VFX artists call “the uncanny valley of physics”: environments where gravity feels slightly wrong, surfaces look too clean, and cameras move in ways no physical camera could achieve. Compare the visceral truck chase in The Dark Knight — a real 18-wheeler flipping on a real Chicago street — with the abstract digital battles concluding many superhero films. The difference in audience engagement is palpable.

The Practical Renaissance

Several filmmakers have responded by championing practical effects. Christopher Nolan built a rotating hallway for Inception, crashed a real Boeing 747 for Tenet, and detonated a practical nuclear explosion for Oppenheimer. His philosophy: if the camera photographs something real, audiences will sense that reality.

George Miller’s Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) became the gold standard for practical action. Real stunt drivers in real vehicles in the Namibian desert. CGI was used for sky replacement and the sandstorm, but the foundation was always physical. Top Gun: Maverick (2022) placed actors in actual fighter jets, grossing over $1.4 billion. Audiences repeatedly cited the “real” flying as a primary reason for seeing it in theaters.

The VFX Artist Crisis

The debate has an overlooked human dimension. VFX artists have spoken out about unsustainable conditions: 80-hour weeks, last-minute changes, and a race-to-the-bottom bidding system. Multiple studios have closed despite working on billion-dollar films. The reliance on CGI means creative decisions are often deferred to post-production, pushing tremendous pressure onto teams working under tight deadlines with shifting targets. The formation of a VFX artists’ union reflects the severity of the problem.

Finding the Balance

The most effective filmmakers understand this is not a binary choice. Denis Villeneuve’s Dune films combine massive practical sets on real desert locations with seamless digital extensions. The sandworms are entirely CGI, but they interact with practical sand and physical lighting in ways that ground them in reality. Jordan Peele used practical creature work and digital enhancement for Nope, ensuring both physical presence and impossible scale.

The answer is not which technique is superior, but which serves the story best. A spaceship conversation benefits from a physical set actors can touch. A planet-destroying explosion requires digital tools. The best visual effects are the ones audiences never question — and achieving that invisibility usually requires both traditions working together.