This shot from Spider-man has ignited a fierce CGI debate

Before and after shot from Spider-man: Far From Home showing Nick Fury sitting on a chair before and after CGI
(Image credit: Sony Pictures)

The abundance of CGI in movies has been a contentious topic for years, and it's clear that computer-generated imagery isn't going anywhere. With the advent of the MCU (Marvel Computer-generated Universe), practical stunts and effects can feel like a thing of the past – as can ageing (see: the most recent Indiana Jones film).

Unless you're literally watching an animated movie, CGI arguably shouldn't announce itself. But as you've no doubt experienced, crappy effects can immediately spoil the illusion of a thrilling action scene. But a recent Twitter thread has revealed that CGI isn't all about explosions – sometimes a shot as seemingly simple as a person sitting in a chair can be littered with effects. (Looking for VFX inspiration? Check out the best 3D modelling software.)

See more

Sharing a before-and-after shot from 2019's Spider-man: Far Way Home, Twitter user TheDiscFather calls modern studios' reliance on CGI "pathetic". The finished shot features Nick Fury sitting down in a house holding a comically large gun. But the greenscreen-heavy 'before' shot, taken from a behind-the-scenes features, reveals that the entire background, and the gun itself, are fake – leading many to ask: why?

"What is the purpose?! it's a fucking wall chair and table with a lamp. It would cost so much less than having a CGI person waste time on this," one user comments, while another adds, "A simple house scene and a digital pistol instead of a prop? I‘m seriously asking—why would you use CGI for these mundane things?"

See more

But while it certainly seems strange (and a little depressing) to see so much CGI in such an innocuous scene, some users have also rushed to the studio's defence, claiming that Covid made reshoots involving various cast members logistically difficult. And then there's the fact that it arguably looks pretty real. "If you didn't notice it until this it's good, actually," another users comments. "This is how you save money on reshoots without flying actors back out and refitting a whole set to get exactly one shot, and dozens of movies you'd never notice do exactly this to fix minor issues."

See more

Indeed, it's hardly the worst piece of CGI we've ever seen (and we've seen some shockers), and the practical considerations do make sense. But the issue seems symptomatic of a larger and more insidious trend in Hollywood – a total lack of imagination. Our cinema screens are littered with sequels, which are littered with mushy-looking CGI action scenes. But hey, perhaps we have something to look forward to this week.

Thank you for reading 5 articles this month* Join now for unlimited access

Enjoy your first month for just £1 / $1 / €1

*Read 5 free articles per month without a subscription

Join now for unlimited access

Try first month for just £1 / $1 / €1

Daniel John
Senior News Editor

Daniel John is Senior News Editor at Creative Bloq. He reports on the worlds of art, design, branding and lifestyle tech (which often translates to tech made by Apple). He joined in 2020 after working in copywriting and digital marketing with brands including ITV, NBC, Channel 4 and more.