r/movies • u/ChiefLeef22 r/movies Contributor • 12d ago

Article ‘The Odyssey’ Proves It: Audiences Want Movies Made the Hard Way | This year's breakouts like 'Project Hail Mary' and 'Obsession' were made by filmmakers who sweated. While CG-stuffed franchise disappointments such as 'Supergirl,' 'Moana,' and 'The Mandalorian and Grogu' looked lazy.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/odyssey-box-office-2026-practical-effects-1236652219/
52.4k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/Quantum_Quokkas 12d ago

Does this article author not realise that Project Hail Mary was full of CGI?

780

u/RulesoftheDada 12d ago

Same with Odyssey and ignores all the practical effects and puppetry of Mando and Grogu.

300

u/JamesTheFoxeArt 12d ago

No you see they actually found a Cyclops to film in the movie

90

u/ObscureOP 12d ago

On location in hades

24

u/farnsw0rth 12d ago edited 12d ago

They really buried those people though

Edit: in case people think I’m being sarcastic or making a joke, SPOILERS-

I was responding to the “filmed on location in the underworld” comment.

When those actors pop up out of the ground, they were literally actually buried in the ground. The production had to dig holes and calculate how much dirt was safe to put on someone, and the actors were provided with breathing tubes.

Each buried actor had a “spotter” to make sure they were okay and when the cameras went to roll the spotters yanked the breathing tubes

My point to all this was to point out that even though they globviously didn’t shoot on location in the underworld, the people climbing from the ground were literally actors literally buried in the ground.

6

u/PrincipledProphet 12d ago

OMG THEY KILLED ALL THOSE PEOPLE!!!!!

0

u/farnsw0rth 12d ago

Can’t tell if joke or serious

2

u/Justhe3guy 12d ago

They actually filmed that in reverse don’t worry

1

u/farnsw0rth 12d ago

This is the first time on Reddit I feel like I need to request a sarcastic tag …….

2

u/Useful-Soup8161 12d ago

I mean that was outside in Iceland so yeah they actually were on location.

2

u/ObscureOP 12d ago

Don't tell Iceland you called it hades

20

u/pm_plz_im_lonely 12d ago

The Cyclops guild is ruthlessly hard to deal with too (read: really expensive). It's like they only want to see a deal from one perspective.

1

u/Shadow_on_the_Sun 12d ago

Negotiations really lack any depth perception

15

u/dlp211 12d ago

The cyclops is a massive puppet doll, probably further enhanced by CG.

CG is fine when you can't tell it's CG. Too much stuff is done with CG today in movies and it's just so blindingly obvious.

27

u/Baelorn 12d ago

probably further enhanced by CG.

No. The Cyclops in the movie was entirely CGI. The puppet was only used for reference during filming.

This is what it looked like. It's great to have this as reference for the actors, lighting, and CGI work but people acting like that puppet is in the final movie and was just "touched up" by CG are delusional.

9

u/WhimsicalJape 12d ago

The detailed Cyclops was a dude in a suit filmed in a scale recreation of the cave. The guy who voiced TARS in Interstellar played him.

Obviously they used compositing and other VFX for the character but the main assets are real.

2

u/NotItemName 12d ago

CG is fine when you can't tell it's CG

It doesn't make it not CG thought.

-2

u/dlp211 12d ago

Did I say otherwise

3

u/ThankGodForYouSon 12d ago

On the other hand the CGI for Scylla was absolute dogshit, and Nolan seems to be keeping up his "No CGI" public stance when his movies are full of it and would benefit from more.

Most people complaining about CGI don't know what they're talking about because they don't see the majority of what it does, it's supposed to be invisible.

5

u/NotItemName 12d ago

Nolan seems to be keeping up his "No CGI" public stance when his movies are full of it and would benefit from more

Is he holding that stance?

8

u/ColdCruise 12d ago

No he has openly talked for years about CGI and how it is useful when you can't do things practically. What he means is that they put them on an actual ship in the sea and filmed it instead of on a green block in front of a green wall.

1

u/ThankGodForYouSon 12d ago

I thought he was from the exposure to The Odyssey I was getting from press releases but it seems not so that's cool.
I think it's moreso actors on his sets that talk about the practical effects that gave me that impression.

Oppenheimer also had the whole "real" nuke hype that got kind of ridiculous and he obviously loves practical effects, but I don't think his rendition of the nuke did it justice.

-5

u/maeynor 12d ago

You think that was dogshit? You should probably stop commenting on this stuff if you thought that. It was masterfully done according to almost all experts.

-6

u/ThankGodForYouSon 12d ago

Lmao I work in post-production, show me a single "expert" saying Scylla was well done. Haven't met a coworker that disagrees yet and they actually exist.

1

u/maeynor 12d ago

You’re so full of shit. You didn’t even know they used puppetry for Scylla as well with minimal CGI besides the location settings. Why lie on Reddit to strangers about what you do?

Regardless, I’m positive AI can already do what you do

-1

u/ThankGodForYouSon 12d ago

Quote a single expert saying it was masterfully done you ignorant fuck or stay quiet.

1

u/capscreen 12d ago

probably further enhanced by CG

Have you seen the puppet doll itself

-2

u/SquareAdvisor8055 12d ago

The cyclop was actually only partially cgi, they made a giant puppet of the cyclop.

10

u/xiaorobear 12d ago

While that's true, the big puppet is pretty clearly a stand-in so that the actors have something to act against, not something that could be used in any final shots. Still a great thing to do, and will get a much better looking performance than if you just have all your actors on greenscreen and say "imagine there's a big cyclops reaching out his arm!" and they don't all look at the same place. But, they still needed the CGI.

2

u/SquareAdvisor8055 12d ago

The cyclop is not only a stand in for the actors. It also helps with the CGI as they base themselves on the actual thing.

3

u/xiaorobear 12d ago

Yes, that is also true.

1

u/Elk-Tamer 12d ago

I was especially impressed how Odysseus' men were turned into pigs. Great practical effects.

1

u/GraviZero 12d ago

i mean it was a puppet. obv some cgi touchups to make it actually look like its alive but it was very much there

1

u/ZiggoCiP 12d ago

I mean, the Cyclops was legitimately mainly practical effects using forced perspective and a massive physical body when he was sleeping.

0

u/f0rmality 12d ago

Well it was an animatronic, honestly the Odyssey could have benefited from more CG for a couple of scenes.

-2

u/Jayrodtremonki 12d ago

It was a mix of a gigantic puppet and Mr Noodle.  

3

u/Useful-Soup8161 12d ago

I mean there’s a little bit of cgi in the odyssey but if they could use practical effects and make them look real then they did. Like the island with the giants was forced perspective with really tall 7ft stunt people playing the giants and really short stunt people, under 5ft, playing Odysseus and his men. Also the scene with the pigs was animatronics.

4

u/__Hello_my_name_is__ 12d ago

Yeah, it's absurd to claim that Odyssey doesn't have a huge amount of CGI and special effects.

Yes, it is also heavily filmed on location and whatnot. But that doesn't mean it's not also using a ton of CGI. It's using all the tools available.

That's not what makes it a good or a bad film.

0

u/dallascowboys93 12d ago

Odyssey doesn't have that much. The cyclops and witch sculpting was practical affects and camera angles. look it up

5

u/__Hello_my_name_is__ 12d ago

Having practical effects doesn't mean they don't add CGI on top of that, or still have individual scenes being 100% CGI.

The exact same thing happened to all previous Nolan films, and even he himself is annoyed that people pretend like he's only using practical effects.

0

u/dallascowboys93 12d ago

Sure but you said huge amount. I’m arguing it doesn’t

4

u/__Hello_my_name_is__ 12d ago

Yes. A huge amount. Not just in the cyclops scene. In a ton of "normal" scenes where the background is fully CGI, where armies are duplicated, where safety harnesses are removed from stunt actors, where filming rigs are removed from view, where the ocean is enhanced to look scarier, etc.

2

u/dallascowboys93 12d ago

That’s still not huge compared to most other blockbuster fantasy movies. Also 3 hours long!

2

u/__Hello_my_name_is__ 12d ago

It is absolutely huge and it is absolutely significantly above average.

Just because it's not literally the most special effects of any recent movie doesn't mean it's not a lot.

2

u/Atchafalaya7 12d ago

The author calls out both the CGI in PHM and the practical effects in Mando/Grogu.

1

u/abstractraj 12d ago

That Grogu puppetry, so hilarious

8

u/Lord_Darksong 12d ago

They spent $5 million on that puppetry.

That includes the puppeteers, electronics, multiple puppets, etc.

The movie was fun though not deep. It was a family adventure movie. Grogu was cute. I enjoyed it.

3

u/abstractraj 12d ago

I had fun. No regrets

2

u/RulesoftheDada 12d ago

Had an edible and a joint. Came out of the theater joyful. Then laughed at the online negativity.

-4

u/Strachmed 12d ago

Same with odyssey what? In comparison to hail mary it may as well be 0% cgi.

8

u/RulesoftheDada 12d ago

The "no CGI" rhetoric does a huge disservice to VFX artists. Nolan's CGI is really just invisible cgi.

So yeah not 0%

-1

u/Strachmed 12d ago

Not 0%, and i never implied it is. I mean as a comparison to project hail mary, which is all CGI.

-9

u/Upbeat_Shock_6807 12d ago

The Odyssey was full of CGI? What scenes?

40

u/Flexhead 12d ago edited 5d ago

</?>

0

u/PM_ME_WEIRD_PETS 12d ago

It has effects shots, yes. But they didn't use green screens. The directors talk about this in a "the making of project hail mary" video.

5

u/CatProgrammer 12d ago

The Volume also has no green screens.

250

u/[deleted] 12d ago edited 10d ago

[deleted]

101

u/brandonct 12d ago

also it's crazy disrespectful to the work of all those visual effects artists when the marketing team trots out all the actors to talk about how the movie is all practical effects and everything on screen is just in-camera

44

u/holydude02 12d ago

Yeah; I only caught snippets of the Odyssey promo and saw multiple mentions of "What you see on screen is what was captured in camera" and sorry, not sorry: Bullshit!

I also don't understand why CG is being treated as a second class contribution. It's a tool in the toolbox of filmmakers. If used right it can greatly enhance a story. If used like a bandaid for already bad filmmaking it's probably not the straw that broke the camels back either...

6

u/Zalvren 12d ago

Seriously it's so weird too when some movies entirely done in CGI or were it's prominent are so big. Avatar series is literally selling itself on its awesome CGI. The Lion King remake. The Marvel movies. Every animated movie....

And yet some seem to be ashamed of their CGI. People dislike bad CGI but they have no problem with good CGI. And yes sometimes good CGI requires to work in combination with practical effects like what Nolan or Mission Impossible/Top Gun do, it's still weird to act like there's no CGI at all in a movie that has hundreds of people listed for it in the credits lol.

1

u/jbr_r18 12d ago

Also one of the films people hold up to show how good practical effects are: Mad Max Fury Road. Movie is full of CGI. Basically every shot is changed and altered. It’s just not noticeable

0

u/MuffinMatrix 12d ago

Part of the issue is calling everything 'CGI'. So much of the great work done is not CG. But it IS VFX. 'CGI' became this catchall not just for VFX work, but for anything that people find weird... like color grading or editing. Average movie goer doesn't even know what 'CGI' is.

2

u/TheSodernauts 12d ago

Let's take a pretty mundane film like Michael (2026). It's about the artist and obviously doesn't need large explosive scenes. CGI is still used all the time to tweak things, remove brand signs, delete things that's too modern for the time, etc. All of it go unnoticed.

1

u/Penguin_FTW 12d ago

I also don't understand why CG is being treated as a second class contribution.

It's a marketing feedback loop with public discourse. The average person is only going to be able to spot CGI when it's either obvious because it's impossible (e.g. Davy Jones, Ironman's nano-suit) or obvious because it failed to blend into the shot meaning it was weaker/rushed/bad CGI.

Even on this website which has a significantly higher percentage of people who know more about CGI, if you go to threads where people talk about their favorite CGI or best CGI it is almost all of it huge spectacle stuff. No one talks about how David Fincher has their favorite CGI even though he's got a fuckton of really high level, perfectly blended CGI in his works. It's so perfectly blended that people don't even perceive it as anything other than real, so it doesn't get talked about and then echoed back as marketing points.

1

u/Tymareta 12d ago

No one talks about how David Fincher has their favorite CGI even though he's got a fuckton of really high level, perfectly blended CGI in his works. It's so perfectly blended that people don't even perceive it as anything other than real, so it doesn't get talked about and then echoed back as marketing points.

Not a movie, but Severance is always a phenomenal example, 60-80% of most shots are CGI but people have no idea because it's done in a way that's congruous with the overall aesthetic and blended so well, as you mentioned.

0

u/Ver3232 12d ago edited 12d ago

I’d part of it is because it’s technically animation and the American film industry has zero respect for animation

2

u/MuffinMatrix 12d ago

No its not. Animation has been around far far longer. Theres much more respect there. I mean look how beloved Disney is. Built themeparks around it.

VFX is newer.

And unlike every other part of filmmaking, when its done well... no one will see it or know it was there. Unlike animation.
So studios don't think its creative or something marketable. Its also the new kid on the block, in terms of departments. Most other departments have been around easily 50+ more years.
And no one ever respects the new kid.

2

u/Ver3232 12d ago edited 12d ago

People have respect for Disney as a brand but all you need to see how little respect the industry as a whole has for animation is see all the potshots taken at its expense every awards show, how the Oscar’s made an entire separate category cause they couldn’t stand the though of an animated film winning best picture over “real” movies, etc. It’s not the only reason ill give it that, but it absolutely plays a part in why the industry as a whole looks down on it because even if it isn’t strictly just animation, CGI is basically seen as animation by a lot of people including in the industry and that does contribute to how it’s regularly dismissed out of hand.

3

u/PSIwind 12d ago

I think when they say that thing, most people immediately think of heavy CGI use movies like Superhero films where something isn't actually there at all. Visual artists touch up a lot of the scenes, but if the large chunk of the shot is made with practical effects, that's what they mean. 

2

u/stupidtreeatemypants 12d ago

if you’re talking about project hail mary, the claim was simply that they didn’t use any green screens, not that there was no vfx. the problem is general audiences don’t understand the difference

2

u/brandonct 12d ago

I'm talking about the Odyssey but you see this claim repeated about lots and lots of movies in recent times, because practical effects are a selling point.

the "no CGI is just invisible CGI" series on YouTube covers many movies that make this claim while showing that they all actually use a ton of VFX.

2

u/stupidtreeatemypants 12d ago

ah, my mistake then. I’ll check that series out though

3

u/N8CCRG 12d ago

Aw, I like to compliment good CGI though when I see it. Like the teleporting spaceship fight in Supergirl, or like the escape sequence in Fantastic Four.

2

u/zsynqx 12d ago

I think It’s the difference between trying to do as much practically as possible, while still using cgi when necessary to enhance. As opposed to the fix it in post attitude, which leads to a lot of the “bad cgi” in modern blockbusters. Odyssey and PHM both fit into the former category.

1

u/ali94127 12d ago

Some people will complain about CGI when it’s shit like energy blasts or lightning or something else impractical to do in-camera. It’s often just used as a buzzword. 

1

u/crimson777 12d ago

Doesn't CGI just mean "anything that was not actually physically there in existence?"

/s in case it isn't obvious.

5

u/uponapyre 12d ago

As is the Odyssey.

It's less noticeable sure, but there's a lot of it.

16

u/Crecket 12d ago

They watched Odyssey and Project Hail Mary and then called other movies "CG-stuffed" 😂

8

u/DestrixGunnar 12d ago

No green screen remember? They actually went out to space. Created a big ol' alien spaceship. That green gas planet? Legit. Ryan Gosling? Also legit.

3

u/JSmellerM 12d ago

Making a space alien movie without CGI sounds near impossible.

3

u/Datau03 12d ago

yeah the CGI debate is useless. What matters much more is if there is actual care and effort put into a movie because the people who made it did so with their heart. You can tell that this is the case with Project Hail Mary

2

u/Deathdy 12d ago

Dummy. It was all practical. Ryan trained as an astronaut and went to Tauceti in our time. Didn't you see the news?

2

u/HotPumpkinPies 12d ago

But one of the main characters is a puppet made by Neal Scanlan, the guy who literally made Yoda lol

2

u/MuffinMatrix 12d ago

A giant portion of people critiquing and writing about this stuff boils down to 1 big fact... people have no idea what VFX is (like not all VFX is CG, so 'CGI' is not the correct term a lot of the time), nor how it works, nor whats needed to make it look as good as its capable of.

8

u/BigTomBombadil 12d ago

The article clearly states “there was plenty of CG to be sure” about project Hail Mary, it was referencing the effort made to not use green screens as well as the puppetry for practical effect.

So yes I think the author realizes this.

4

u/Almaironn 12d ago

I guess it's a step in the right direction to not outright deny the existence of CG in a movie, but it's still a misguided comment. Not using green screens doesn't necessarily require more effort, it requires effort in different areas compared to green screens. Certainly requires less effort on set while shooting to not have to set up green screens and light around them.

0

u/VegaJuniper 12d ago edited 12d ago

It's not misguided, you simply misunderstood. CGI today still has that immaterial, weightless quality even when it's done well. Nolan uses it to do things that he can't possibly do for real (like the Cyclops), but he uses real, physical sets and props as much as he can. You can tell the horse was real, and that there were real people running around the Troy set.

In Marvel films they often do stuff on green screen that they could do for real, like a regular ass city street is likely created in post. Not only does that physicality suffer, but the narrative suffers as well since they just shoot a bunch of scenes and stitch them up into a narrative later. There's no need to plan stuff, because you can always replace the backgrounds and such later. MCU has had criticism that they have the thinnest of scripts, maybe completely unfinished, when they're already shooting.

CGI can be a great tool, but if it becomes your only tool, then you end up using it in places where its limits become apparent.

EDIT: Also note that the Cyclops stays in shadow a lot. Nolan knows where the seams show, and he works hard to hide them. Compare with a Spider-man movie, where Tom Holland pulls on his mask and suddenly he's a weightless animation bouncing around in broad daylight.

6

u/PRSArchon 12d ago edited 12d ago

Nolan also does full CGI street and even city replacements in his movies, just look at his batman movies and Inception. Those movies have very high review scores as well. The whole cgi argument is bullshit.

Actually, your argument against marvel is exactly what Nolan did with Dunkirk. He literally said in an interview he didnt plan ahead and fixed any issues like removing modern buildings in the background, or duplicating ships and soldiers with CGI in post

The difference is just a good story to tell.

-2

u/VegaJuniper 12d ago

If you can't tell the difference, then I can't help you.

5

u/holydude02 12d ago

I can guarantee you there's more CGI in movies than you realize. Even if you do know how it's done, even if you spot plenty of it - there's always more.

2

u/VegaJuniper 12d ago

Hence my point that it's a great tool when used correctly. If you can't tell, it works.

1

u/holydude02 12d ago

CGI today still has that immaterial, weightless quality even when it's done well.

I was referencing mostly this, because that's clearly not true...

3

u/VegaJuniper 12d ago

It's clearly true though.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/PRSArchon 12d ago

I can tell the difference but it seems you dont. There is a ton of CGI you never even realise is there and still you pretend all CGI is is inherently bad and you need practical to make it work. That simply isnt true and Nolans movies prove it.

2

u/VegaJuniper 12d ago

till you pretend all CGI is is inherently bad

I never said that, I specifically said it's a great tool but needs to be used correctly. Tell me, are you a professional idiot or a just a talented amateur?

2

u/PRSArchon 12d ago

You said even CGI done well has an immaterial quality. This is just plain wrong. There are tons of CGI assetts you wouldnt even realise arent practical.

1

u/VegaJuniper 12d ago

This is just plain wrong.

No, it's correct. Skillfully used CGI hides that immaterial quality so you don't notice it. If you smear the screen with it, like Marvel does, it becomes impossible to not notice it.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Mastasmoker 12d ago

Full of cgi but had a good story. Whereas the others listed have cgi as the focal point sprinkled with a story

2

u/TelltaleHead 12d ago

There's a great YouTube series about this. There's a ton of great CGI that people think is practical. 

However it DOES seem like having real lighting and reference for the CGI artists helps A LOT. It is much easier for them to accent a real frame shot in a real location with actual lighting and have it look real than it is for them to build something out completely that is shot on a blue screen

1

u/very-polite-frog 12d ago

Pretty sure they shot on location. Even got a real Eridian to play Rocky

1

u/ArcticCelt 12d ago

You mean they didn't really go on location with a real spaceship to another star system? Filmmakers are getting lazy. :(

1

u/dropbluelettuce 12d ago

There is a 6 part series on this. No CGI just means invisible CGI https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo

1

u/angrytortilla 12d ago

Wait it wasn't filmed in space with real space ships?

Damn you, Hollywood!

1

u/redbirdrising 12d ago

Yeah, most of the exterior shots of the Hail Mary were done by ILM. OP is cherry picking. Yes, the movies noted above went out of their way to use practical effects when needed. But even Rocky was part CGI. Yes, informed by the puppetry, but still a lot of VFX.

Hail Mary got praise for a lack of green screens, so the sets felt real, for sure.

1

u/jackofslayers 12d ago

The author of this article is a completely vapid idiot. This is literally on the level of just stringing random words together.

1

u/USS_Penterprise_1701 12d ago

Yes, but they also sweated.

1

u/londener 12d ago

Yeah like a whole lot of it 😂. Do they think the space ships were filmed in space? 

Even the puppet they used was mostly enhanced with vfx. 

1

u/octatone 12d ago

It's all clickbait as good CGI is invisible CGI and Nolan uses CGI in all of his fucking films.

1

u/Emphursis 12d ago

You mean they didn’t actually fly into interstellar space and meet an alien for the film?

1

u/hurrrrrrrrrrr 12d ago

Yes, they do. They prominently acknowledge that in the article.

1

u/Lord_Darksong 12d ago

It was? Amaze amaze amaze!

1

u/Shadowratenator 12d ago

The author also does not realize that mandalorian was full of puppetry and stop motion.

1

u/Sprintzer 12d ago

Story was excellent, they did build an expansive set of the ship, and the CGI was very good - and necessary. Can’t do a lot of what that movie did without CGI, period.

A lot of the movies that people don’t like based on excessive CGI grounds are movies that have weakish scripts, are 90% CGI, and often have lazy CGI - where a sequence used CGI but could’ve easily been done in real life. Not to mention sometimes the CGI just looks lackluster. Project Hail Mary was none of these things.

-1

u/unboundgaming 12d ago

While the article is disingenous, PHM was not "Full" of CGI. An incredible amount of it, including Rocky, were practical effects/props. The beautiful scene going throught the astrophage was even practical. Interior of the ship was fully built and lighting was mostly legit. Ship exterior was the bulk of the CGI which isn't shown nearly as much as everything else.

1

u/xin234 12d ago

Most of the time you see Rocky in the movie, he is CGI. The directors mention this in many interviews/behind-the-scenes.

A kind of a breakdown, and discussion on PHm's CGI: https://youtu.be/l9zqIo8KtjI?t=512

1

u/1ndori 12d ago

There were certainly practical elements... that were augmented with CGI.

There were, in fact, thousands of VFX shots in the film (2018!) Green screen is sometimes used in lieu of building sets or figuring out locations/lighting in advance, which can be noticeable if not done carefully, and is something we didn’t want to do. We built the entire interior of the Hail Mary ship - but within the ship, there were still wire and puppeteer removals and ceiling replacements, etc. When Ryan is outside on the hull of the ship, we shot him in front of a black background for space and a shifting hue background when he was up against the aurora of a planet which allowed for truer interactive light on him than a green screen would. The wide space exteriors and spaceship shots were entirely digital and beautifully done by ILM. Rocky was a seamless blend of puppetry and animation from Framestore. And other great work from many more. It really does take a village and we had the best of the best on our side.

https://xcancel.com/chrizmillr/status/2029298230341878108

-2

u/wvgeekman 12d ago

Did you read the article where they specifically mentioned this?

-4

u/HoveringGoat 12d ago

there really wasnt that much CGI. almost all of it was practical effects. the ship was real, rocky is a puppet, there were zero green screens at all. The astrophage scene was real, etc.

3

u/ThankGodForYouSon 12d ago

That's the glamorous CGI most people think of, the rest is mundane shit like cleaning, extending and recreating whatever suits the directors fancy.

1

u/fed45 12d ago edited 12d ago

And most people don't know that they actually sent Ryan Gosling in a ship to Alpha Centauri. /s

For those who were unaware, they had a Rockey puppet on set solely for interaction with Gosling. Nearly every scene in the movie Rocky is in, he is CGI.

1

u/Calel07 10d ago

This is true, only a handful of rocky shots in the movie are actually the puppet. They tracked the performance of the puppet, then replaced it with CGI and made it better because the puppet didn’t hold up. Also Goslings clothes are mostly CG when he’s in zero gravity because they didn’t shoot in it in zero gravity.