Counterpoint, Godzilla Minus One was very well received and it's 100% CGI. People aren't against CGI, they are against shoddy work, which includes bad CGI.

Project Hail Mary and not CG-stuffed? WHAT??? So they actually flew to the sun and found an actual rock alien in a huge space ship to film with? Because no, Rocky isn't an actual puppet in every single scene. It's mostly CG and so is the bubble around the guy. I despise this type of sensationalism so much because it spits and pisses on the work of dozens, if not hundreds of VFX artists doing heavy lifting to make movie magic happen. I haven't watched Odyssey but I've seen all his other movies and Nolan himself said he's heavily reliant on VFX in his acceptance speech at the VES awards 2011. This is a bunch of BS.

"No CGI" is primarily dishonest marketing hype that actively minimizes the work of talented artists. Yes, they had a puppeteer steering a plastic ball around for Project Hail Mary, but they also replaced 100% of the practical ball with CG. Especially at a time when people are so opposed to AI because it devalues human art, I think it's important to be aware of the other ways we devalue art that have nothing to do with AI.

This fantastic YouTube series done by a career FX artist does an excellent job of dispelling the marketing hype and recalibrating the conversation around CGI in movies.

Yes and no. Correlation is not causation. Movies cost so much that consumers have to be picky. As a cost/benefit are you more likely to get your money's worth from the Odyssey or Moana 2? If Moana 2 had more practical effects would it be a better movie?

A theater trip for a family of 4 can be ~$100. It is for my family where we live. That's 1/3 the cost of a 55 inch TV, or a 65 inch TV at Black Friday, plus a big box of microwave popcorn.

If you want people to see the poorly written, phone-it-in, low effort remakes these studios are intent on putting out, you have to price it accordingly, or everyone walking out of the theater says the same thing: "Wow. That wasn't worth it."

People are still very willing to see well crafted, thought out, intentional pieces from direrectors or studios they trust to do a good job. It's worth it.

Hi, cinema nerd here. Both are hard work, and both are still art. What I think it really comes down to is the art style, and the actors' response and training.

CG-effects tend to force actors to imagine two very different things when they interact, leading them to ignore or otherwise misinterpret things the audience will see. While for some, depending on their training, this can be fairly natural (stage players have to interact with imaginary scenery all the time), film actors tend to expect costars and sets they can see and touch, and this does affect the way they act in small ways.

What CG really helps with is it alleviates the burden on suited actors. Wearing a big bulky monster costume is a thing of the past for many lucky stunt actors, now that complex and difficult scenes that might require multiple takes can be done by a dude in a leotard and stilts instead of 80 lbs of yak hair.

I will say, I am absolutely thrilled to see movies like the Mandalorian and Project Hail Mary making puppetry mainstream again. I love love love puppets.

The bean counters don’t seem to comprehend that the effort and work that goes into practical effects is part of the draw for people. Sure they go for the movie itself, but if it’s nothing but green screen the whole time, nothing feels truly at stake or at risk. You can’t convey the same intensity in CGI battles as you can in practical stunt work battles.

It’s similar to how I hate my job as a programmer now that we’re all forced to use AI. “But your job is easier now” - in ways maybe, but part of why I liked my job was because I had to solve problems myself hands-on. I didn’t need a robot trying to solve all of the problems. When you remove those stakes and the learning through building, you remove the essence of what made it appealing for people.

This is just ridiculous. Movie goers don’t give a shit how hard it is to make a movie.

Backrooms deserves a nod on this point too, at very least. It's got truly brilliant set design and execution, among many other really strong points.

That's a conclusion you could draw but it's hardly proof! The other cited were a film-length conclusion to a tv series, an unnecessary live action remake of an animated movie, and another superhero movie. Another conclusion one could draw is that people don't want derivative crap and don't care how it's made or what the budget is if it's a good film. Or you could conclude it's a success of viral marketing, or...

It probably has more to do with the director and people wanting to see good movies in general.

Watch this guy. Every modern movie you think was done practically probably has hundreds or thousands of CGI shots. Including moments where not a single practical thing is on screen. https://youtu.be/AFLcP-t0-kI

Just waiting for the behind the scenes material on The Odyssey showing how they recreated the real longship entirely in CGI because it didn’t look right on the waves, and also added CGI dolphins while they were at it.

More likely, folks just wanna see Nolan films

Well he could have made it a lot easier and cheaper by not doing it in 70mm imax, which adds absolutely fuck all for 99% of the audience. (Most people will see half he screen cause it is not even possible to watch it like he intends it). And I really doubt people go see the movie because of it, it's a bonus if they can. He can do whatever the fuck he wants ofcourse but I find it a bit too much work for neglectable results.

This entire thread can be summed up with:

Art is art regardless of medium