The Plaid Press

This year, practical effects usurped CGI. This summer’s movie-run seems to prove as much, with films like “The Odyssey” and “Backrooms” that mainly used practical effects stealing the spotlight from “box-office flops” like “Supergirl” and “The Mandalorian and Grogu” that relied on CGI.
Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey,” released on July 17, quickly became one of the most popular films of the year, reaching $124.5 million in its opening weekend. At the moment, the film has grossed over $1.4 billion. This could become Nolan’s most popular film to date, surpassing “The Dark Knight Rises” (2012) and even “Interstellar” (2014).
The difference, perhaps, is his approach to effects. One of the appeals of his newest film is the use of mainly practical effects to create the historical and mythological aspects of “The Odyssey.” But what are practical effects, anyway?
Practical effects are things like physical sets, special effects makeup, animatronics, prosthetics, and more. They help create unique visual effects for the audience to immerse themselves in the world that the filmmaker has created. On the other hand, there’s CGI, or computer generated imagery, which can create scenes that are near impossible for humans to make–and with just a computer program. Not to mention that CGI takes less time and less money. It seems to be the more “logical” choice, but directors like Nolan disagree.
During the creation of “The Odyssey,” the director insisted on practical sets, effects, and real filming locations, despite the challenges that it raised for himself and his crew.
“I definitely hit the limits of my own stamina and everybody’s stamina. I mean, it’s ‘The Odyssey,’ of course it should be difficult,” Nolan said, according to the Hollywood Reporter. “We’re not doing the job right making a film of ‘The Odyssey’ if it doesn’t seem difficult.”
However, there was a time when CGI was the focus, the awe factor. Early adapters such as Steven Spielberg for his film “Jurassic Park” (1993) boasted impressive effects, all due to what was new technology at the time. “Avatar” (2009), another highly praised film, also used digital effects to create its characters and build the world of Pandora. As time went on, CGI became less about the wonder of new tools and rather, a cost-effective alternative.
The 2019 blockbuster “Avengers: Endgame” was heavily reliant on CGI for its effects, its usage ranging from fight scenes like the intense final battle to even costumes, like the “Quantum Realm” suits. In fact, according to IndieWire, this film contains more VFX than most comic book films. However, its usage was largely due to scheduling conflicts and deadlines.
“Issues like this have led to a decline in quality of work,” aspiring filmmaker and senior Zachary Prasad said. “Worsening conditions like overworking have forced the overall quality of effects to decrease, not to the fault of the artists, but the industry and its executives.”
But as of late, it seems that new filmmakers are moving more towards practical effects rather than its cheaper cousin. Films such as “Obsession” (2026) and “Backrooms” (2026) have proved just as much. Both were fronted by relatively unknown directors, Curry Barker and Kane Parsons, respectively. The response has been overwhelmingly positive– “Obsession” grossed over $501.5 million, and “Backrooms” made $395 million. Both films were praised by Christopher Nolan himself for how, shockingly, “young people can’t seem to get enough of them.”
According to the entertainment news site Deadline, 88% of the “Backrooms” audience is under 35 years old, with 18-24 at 43%, 25-34 at 25%, and 13-17 at 20%. The Hollywood Reporter states that 75% of the “Obsession” audience is between 18 and 34 years old. The storytelling and cinematography of these two films have captured the attention of the youth, while big Hollywood productions struggle to bring in crowds. So why are younger audiences starting to move away from CGI?
There are many reasons, but one answer appears to be CGI fatigue. Much like “Superhero fatigue,” which is the idea that Hollywood has been producing too many superhero movies, CGI has become overused in recent years. Fans want something new, more tangible. That’s why directors have started moving towards practical effects, rather than relying on the more effective (yet emotionless) technology.
“Movie franchises such as Marvel or DC have always relied on CGI, and it hasn’t been much of a problem,” senior and aspiring actress Sofia Olivar said. “However, right after ‘Avengers: Endgame,’ that’s where people have started to feel the ‘Superhero fatigue’ a lot more. The writing has become mediocre and the use of CGI has gotten out of hand.”
Young people appreciate the effort that goes into making movies the old-fashioned way, especially those that plan to join the entertainment industry in the future. Audiences want to feel immersed in the world-building, not taken aback by “uncanny” faces and extreme explosions.
“I have made short films, so I really enjoy having it be real,” senior and filmmaker Meloni Vardeh said. “I think we should try to focus on the plot of the movie, the scripts, the actors, instead of focusing on how much stuff is going on at once.”
But it’s not just an overuse of CGI that moviegoers are rejecting– it’s the integration of AI. In June 2026, the film studio A24, which is known for its support for small indie filmmakers, announced a deal with Google to “create an artificial intelligence research partnership,” according to the online newspaper The Independent. The studio will receive AI tools and access to Google’s DeepMind research. The partnership has gained lots of attention online, with fans and filmmakers alike voicing their disdain.
“The outrage was incredibly heart-warming to see online at such an invasion of the creative medium of filmmaking,” Prasad said. “Telling stories is a uniquely human skill, and we will protect it forever, using more practical effects in this new era of creation.”
Not everyone shares Prasad’s sentiment. Earlier this year, an exclusively AI-generated film, “Hell Grind,” premiered at the Marché du Film in Cannes. It only took two weeks to make and cost just $500,000, according to WSJ. To compare, an average major studio film costs up to $65 million to make. With AI, “filmmakers” no longer have to pay a majority of their crew, because they simply do not exist anymore. Using AI takes less time and less money.
Yet, the public, particularly young people, continues to reject AI and its creations.
For a generation that has mainly grown up surrounded by technology, the rebuking of AI and even tools like CGI initially feels confusing. Nevertheless, this reaction reveals the truth about the youth and young creatives, in particular. They want originality and authenticity, not recycled ideas and “AI slop.”
Filmmakers like Nolan, Barker, and Parsons are bringing back detail and care to Hollywood, which audiences greet with open arms. The box office numbers are proof of that.