The rejection of AI and CGI becomes the best marketing tool for Nolan’s ‘The Odyssey’

What did you think of the ‘Avengers: Doomsday’ trailer‘? There is something in it that sounds like “already seen”, and it is not just what is guessed about an argument that seems to be going to follow point by point what ‘Endgame’ already told. There is also something in that aesthetic of pure CGI, where there is not a stage, not a special effect, not even a single suit that is not a digital invention, that does not smell of the past. Because paradoxically, the success of Nolan’s ‘The Odyssey’ has brought with it a digestive stimulant for CGI fatigue: the future is analog. 140 kilos of camera. Christopher Nolan shot ‘The Odyssey’ with IMAX cameras, something no non-documentary feature film had done before. The camera weighs more than 140 kilos, and is enclosed in a soundproof casing, because without it it makes noise, according to Matt Damon himself“like a mixer stuck to your face.” That casing allowed Nolan to film intimate dialogue with the machine a few centimeters from the actors. The developed roll weighs even more: each 70mm copy exceeds 360 kilos and measures 2.1 million feet. The camera costs between $40,000 and $50,000 to make, and moving it requires a forklift. The man likes it. The director has been betting on the format since 2008. ‘The Dark Knight’ was the first Hollywood film to use IMAX cameras for action scenes, and ‘Oppenheimer’ premiered the first 65mm black and white IMAX roll. ‘The Odyssey’ comes full circle having been filmed entirely with cameras of this type. Yes indeed: only 41 theaters worldwide can project it in its 1.43:1 IMAX 70mm format, which has generated complaints of “elitism” and also an obvious FOMO effect. Exclusivity, here, sells as much as the technique itself: the more difficult it is to see the film as Nolan wants it to be seen (a phrase that already has meme status), the more it is commented on. The dust that is noticeable. The analog aesthetic not only affects the format, the celluloid (in this case, as can be seen, very expensive to shoot), but also the visual finish of the film itself. Nolan wantedlayers of real dirt in the costumes and sets that looked like places that resembled those that were really lived in at the time the film portrays. Dirty and tangible realism was sought at all times, not CGI gloss, and that search for physical texture led the team to shoot in Morocco, Greece, Italy, Iceland and Scotland over 91 days, and to upload the actors to authentic boats. Likewise, Nolan used practical effects whenever he could: he wanted the monsters, gods, and storms of mythology to feel fanciful but believable, and he wanted the crew’s fatigue in the storms to be noticeable because it was real, not simulated in front of a green screen. The Trojan horse. While promoting the film, Nolan called generative artificial intelligence a “Trojan horse,” in an interview. Days before he had said he felt encouraged by the speed with which the young public rejects the worst visual side of the phenomenon. Nolan described this rejection as “rapid and massive” and said he had never seen anything like it in the face of a supposed fundamental technological leap. As proof, he cites the commercial success among young audiences of low-budget films with practical effects like ‘Obsession’ or ‘Backrooms’ and in the process turns it into the commercial argument for his own film. The strategy. Nolan is not adopting a traditionalist or old-fashioned stance, quite the contrary: he knows that a vision of ‘The Odyssey’ full of CGI and effects that, aesthetically, will be outdated within a few months, is the least intelligent way to adapt a classic text. Analogue (whether in the medium or in the aesthetics) not only guarantees timelessness but, in these times, is equivalent to a certain ambition and aesthetic luxury: previously only blockbusters could afford CGI. Today it is the opposite: digital is the economic resource, it is the B series that turns to computers to solve any problem. Nolan has been fortunate that Disney, which has declared that AI is one of the three pillars of its growth strategyhas released a video for ‘Doomsday’ that guarantees more of the same with the usual aesthetic. Paradoxically, Nolan has turned to the classics to suggest that the winds of change are blowing… towards what worked so well long ago. In Xataka | Christopher Nolan explains why ‘The Odyssey’ does not deviate from the IMAX format for even a single minute

The first video game made entirely with AI comes to Steam. The players’ rejection has been almost unanimous.

The video game industry receives a controversial experiment that some already describe as dystopian, although in reality it has much of a privileged look at a reality that is, potentially, around the corner. ‘Codex Mortis‘ is a title that is openly presented as the first video game developed entirely using artificial intelligence, which has released its demo version on Steam and has immediately unleashed a divided (but mostly hostile) response among the gamer community. What did you sew? The project, signed by a developer who signs with the pseudonym Grolaf, has generated controversy for its shameless proposal (a clone of the acclaimed indie hit ‘Vampire Survivors’, one of the great surprises of recent years, but replacing the delicious retropixelated aesthetic with the blurry and rough aesthetic typical of generative systems). But also, as it could not be otherwise, it has reopened the debate about the ethical and creative limits of AI in video game development. It comes at a time when major studios are facing similar accusations and sectors such as voice actors are organizing strikes against these technologies. I don’t like it. In the Steam community reviewsthe demo registers only 60% positive ratings among around thirty reviews, with comments that range between technical curiosity and, above all, outright rejection. The press has not been much more generous, and some means gives it the dubious honor of being “a foundational milestone of poorer AI.” Various websites They have collected opinions from players as strong as “games are ART. They need soul, life, virtue. Something that AI will never be able to capture”, which define the game as “machine-generated garbage.” How it was born. ‘Codex Mortis’ was developed over three months in which Grolaf exclusively used artificial intelligence tools to build all elements of the game. The developer used ChatGPT to generate the images and Claude Code to write the code. As a programming language it used TypeScript, instead of traditional engines such as Unity or Unreal Engine. The technical architecture is supported by libraries such as PIXI.js for graphics and Electron for desktop execution, a decision that apparently makes it difficult to correct errors, since the developer does not fully understand, by his own admission, how the systems generated by the AI ​​interact. The lightning that does not stop. The negative reaction to ‘Codex Mortis’ is not isolated, but the latest episode in a battle that has been shaking the industry for months. In November, for example, ‘Arc Raiders‘, Embark Studios’ extraction shooter, received a score of 2 out of 5 from Eurogamer exclusively due to its use of AI-generated voices. This rating sank the title’s Metacritic from an impressive 94 to 86, sparking a debate on whether the use of AI should be considered in critical assessments. Controversy escalated when the game received a single nomination at the Game Awards, leading many gamers to accuse the awards of deliberately punishing the title for its technology. Another case: ‘Call of Duty: Black Ops 7’ included clearly AI-generated assets (with characters with the typical six fingers, among other visual irregularities characteristic of AI). The scandal forced Activision to issue supporting statements given the disclosure policy on the use of artificial intelligence that Valve requires to include in games sold on Steam. Rejection among professionals. The State of the Game Industry 2025 survey from the Game Developers Conference reveals a drastic change in the perception of AI by professionals: just 13% of developers consider that generative AI will have a positive impact on the industry, falling from 21% the previous year. The percentage of those who see it negatively shot up from 18% to 30%. The most revealing part of the study is who adopts these tools: 50% of the professionals are from Business and Finance, followed by 40% in Production and Marketing. However, among programmers and artists, the true creators, adoption is significantly lower. 87% of developers surveyed expressed concern on the impact of AI on the industry. In Xataka | Someone put ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude and other AIs to play a kind of Risk. The results could not be more different.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.