The recent science fiction epic “Project Hail Mary” has all of the visual appeal a space adventure promises. Its vibrant backdrops, complicated set and dynamic alien character are all brought to life beautifully — and all, as the marketing boldly claims, without the use of computer graphics. Unfortunately, this claim is a lie, or at best a half-truth, and it’s part of a disturbing Hollywood trend that’s taken hold in recent years.
In the past few years, many critically acclaimed films have leaned heavily into practical effects. Best Picture winner “Oppenheimer” made headlines for its massive practical explosion, achieved using propane and gunpowder instead of CGI. “Top Gun: Maverick” claimed to put Tom Cruise in a real F-18 instead of a digital one. “Project Hail Mary” is no different: Real sets were built for the Hail Mary space shuttle, and a complicated puppet was used for Rocky, the film’s alien companion.
In many cases, this has been a positive trend. The use of practical over digital effects makes a film more authentic and provides an extra level of realism and immersion that CGI-heavy productions often lack. Rushed and poorly composed CGI has become an unfortunate staple of the industry, even in films with massive budgets, and audiences are often left feeling frustrated at the poor quality of effects in blockbuster movies. Superhero flicks like “The Flash” (2023), “Ant-Man 3” and “Captain America: Brave New World” (2025) all cost many hundreds of millions of dollars to make — more than both “Oppenheimer” and “Maverick” — and yet suffered from egregiously bad visual effects. With these and many other visual disappointments in mind, it’s no wonder practical effects are making a dramatic comeback.
The problem, though, is that many studios are dishonest about the role of practical effects in their films. Despite what many marketing departments like to claim, practical shots have come nowhere near replacing digital effects. While “Maverick” did capture footage in real fighter jets, a significant amount of what you see on screen is digital. “Oppenheimer” may not have included obtrusive 3D effects, but it did contain over a hundred compositing shots. Most of the artists who worked on these shots went uncredited. Some films have taken the narrative even further, such as “Barbie” (2023), which ironically used digital effects to edit out the green screens from behind-the-scenes footage to create the illusion of a practical set.
“Project Hail Mary” continues this unfortunate trend. The Rocky puppet has generated significant media buzz, but in many scenes, Rocky is completely computer generated. Director Chris Miller has said no green screens were used throughout the film, but many shots still feature complete background replacements and heavy rotoscoping — the same effect a green screen would accomplish. While not technically untrue, it’s a bad-faith claim that minimizes the work of the VFX artists that created these digital backgrounds. Just as it would not only be unethical but completely ridiculous for an actor to claim they improvised every line without crediting the writers, it’s similarly unethical to discredit the work of visual effects artists by claiming everything was shot in-camera.
Talented artists have proved time and time again — most recently on films like “Dune,” “Alien: Romulus” and “F1” — that well-planned and executed CGI is indistinguishable from even the best practical effects. While bad CGI does exist and is arguably becoming more prevalent, the drop in quality is almost always due to rushed deadlines, poor planning and an unclear vision from executives rather than any fault of the artists. Marvel Studios, in particular, has drawn recent criticism for setting difficult deadlines, frequently requesting shots to be redone and underpaying artists. It is perhaps unsurprising that recent Marvel films have been among the most heavily criticized for poor visual effects. CGI is a staple of the modern filmmaking landscape, and when done well, it’s almost invisible. Even “The Social Network,” a grounded biopic from over 15 years ago, contained almost 1,000 effects shots — more than “Godzilla” (2014) — yet most viewers couldn’t pick out any of them. Technology is clearly not the problem. Putting the blame for poor visuals on the CGI itself rather than studio decisions to rush and underpay visual effects houses is dishonest and unfair to artists and audiences alike.
