Are Practical Effects Better Than CGI In Film Productions?

For over a century, film and television production debates have, at their core, focused on the conflict between tradition and modernity, and for the last four decades, the main focus of this debate has been focused on the merits of CGI as compared to practical effects.

This discussion has taken many dimensions, but with technologies such as generative AI entering the workflow of some postproduction studios, the debate has become more intense, more complex and more misunderstood in recent years.

As computers have become more powerful and Oscar-winning animated films are produced with free and open-source rendering software, there has been a shift away from the use of makeup, prosthetics and other practical effects towards computer-generated alternatives.

In practice, for most professionals it is not a case of either-or; films such as Terminator II and Jurassic Park augment their CGI work with extensive practical effects and animatronics.

Particularly in the 2020s, where both computer and practical effects are more sophisticated and more widely available for smaller productions than ever before, CGI and practical effects are very good for different purposes.

CGI And Survivorship Bias

Whilst both CGI and practical special effects are used to showcase the impossible on screen, some people find that practical effects seem more real and tactile on the screen than CGI.

Whilst there is some merit to this argument, it is also important to note the effects of survivorship bias; people will often compare the CGI they notice to the practical effects they notice, and may not discuss instances where it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference.

A very interesting example of this is the 2015 film Mad Max: Fury Road. Whilst some people have erroneously claimed the film is entirely made using practical effects, behind-the-scenes photography shows the impressive blending of the two.

The Power Of Tactility

The biggest difference between practical effects and CGI is tactility, and how much extra work it takes to make the latter look closer to the former in terms of lighting, colour grading and integration with practical effects and physical actors.

As with many aspects of cinema, the differences are difficult to see when both are done well but are far more noticeable when something goes wrong during production.

Ineffective practical effects are generally more warmly received by audiences than conspicuous CGI, in part because whilst, for example, an obvious monster costume, ineffective squib or piece of puppetry may not convince an audience that something is more than a prop, there is still something real and tangible.

By contrast, conspicuous CGI is more likely to negatively affect an audience's reaction, partly due to the effect of the uncanny valley, but also because the practical necessities of CGI mean that if it looks unconvincing, it will have an effect on the performances of actors.

Infinite Possibilities

However, there are limitations to what is possible with what Julie Turnock described as “Plastic Reality”, and the rise of CGI was catalysed by attempts to film what would have otherwise been unfilmable scripts.

The first major success in this regard was the 1991 film Terminator II: Judgement Day, which used state-of-the-art morphing technology to make a liquid metal shapeshifting machine possible in conjunction with practical effects and some painted frames.

Peter Jackson’s The Lord Of The Rings trilogy was an even greater example of CGI making it possible to film scripts and create that were previously considered impossible without unfathomably large budgets.

In particular, as The Two Towers and The Return of the King demonstrated, it allowed for large-scale battles to be shot using digital doubles and fantastical creatures and effects to be realised fully.

It is possible to lose sight of the ground whilst gazing at infinity, however, and the best uses of CGI often use practical effects and physical props as a way to ground the work and allow audiences to see the transition as seamless.

The Mother Of Invention

An interesting irony with practical effects is that they are often considered to be at their most effective when they are used extremely sparingly.

The most famous example of this was the 1975 film Jaws, which very sparingly used what turned out to be an unconvincing and unreliable shark animatronic and took full advantage of the audience’s imagination to create a tense thriller.

In many productions, CGI is used somewhat sparingly to remove strings, fix continuity errors and help augment existing effects.

A good example of this being used stylistically was in the 1999 film The Matrix. Whilst most of the set-pieces were achieved using conventional effects, martial arts choreography and wire-fu, it served to emphasise effects only possible using CGI, such as the highly influential Bullet Time scene.

Ultimately, as with any other aspect of film and television production, CGI and practical effects, both have a place and are best used in ways that maximise their effectiveness.