CGI vs. Practical Effects: What Actually Makes Cinema Beautiful?

From Metropolis to Star Wars, Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Peter Jackson, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron and modern Asian blockbusters, the history of visual effects suggests that neither technology wins by itself.

AI-generated illustration exploring the relationship between practical effects, CGI, and large-format filmmaking, showing how greater image detail can enhance realism while also exposing imperfections in both physical and digital effects.

The argument between CGI and practical effects has become strangely ideological. One group treats practical filmmaking almost as proof of artistic integrity. If a filmmaker built the set, crashed the vehicle, photographed the miniature or created the creature mechanically, the effect is automatically considered more authentic. The other side sees computer-generated imagery as cinema’s natural technological evolution. If computers can create an entire planet, destroy a city or simulate a black hole, why should filmmakers remain restricted by what can physically exist?

I disagree with both absolutes. Practical effects can fail spectacularly. CGI can produce some of the most beautiful imagery cinema has ever created. What matters is whether the filmmaker understands why a particular technique is being used. My own way of describing visual effects is that they should normally behave like icing on a cake. They can expand, decorate and complete the film, but they…