There's also how things are designed to mesh with audience expectations of how reality looks. Sometimes what looks realistic, isn't actually realistic. This happens with CGI, it happens with practical effects, and it happens with writing. I've heard critiques made for decisions that track better than what people expect. It's all an illusion, at every step of the process. Violence cannot be used non-lethally; modern VFX always incorporates computer generated effects.

It's not only cheaper to do things this way, it's more ethical/safe, AND it looks better. People don't have to get injured or die, animals don't need to be harmed, and you get to see shit that couldn't be done before computers. Saying "instead of CGI" disregards the labor of artists, when 9/10 times, time constraints and poor upper management are to blame.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 47 points 1 week ago

This 100%. The issue is not CGI in general, it's cost cutting and extremely time-constrained CGI. Most people would be surprised what is replaced or reprocessed with CGI in everything they watch. To do things right, takes time. And in many cases it takes the on site production team doing some things as well to assist. If the VFX team has references for things like lighting angles and on-scene pyrotechnics, then they can make things blend a lot better than if they're spending time trying to match after the fact.