A trailer was released recently that stands out from the slew of other promotional material for upcoming summer movie releases. “Blood Father,” starring Mel Gibson, hits theaters in August and looks as old-school as Gibson’s bearded, cracked-with-age face.

The trailer and behind-the-scenes videos reveal the film is taking a retro approach to its story and action. Using dangerous effects involving motorcycles on real locations, it’s not the only movie to recently go old-school.

Last year’s “Mad Max: Fury Road” was a two-hour film about a giant car chase in a dystopian desert with a quiet but capable man in the middle of the action.

Filmed on location in places like Namibia, the movie took nearly a year to film as all the cars were specially built and nearly everything was filmed “in camera,” with little to no special effects utilized. Audiences embraced the retro style, pushing “Mad” to a big box office take and six Academy Award wins.

Other filmmakers like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino have similarly waved off digital cameras, despite their growing popularity. Both directors have opted for shooting on film, a sometimes costly and timely endeavor that filmmakers like Cecile B. DeMille had to endure.

[lz_third_party includes=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJHL3srsMy8″]

Tarantino presented last year’s “Hateful Eight” in a throwback roadshow, even outfitting some theaters with the proper equipment to present the film in its “glorious 70mm.” Nolan did the same personal outfitting when releasing “Interstellar,” another story captured on grainy, but colorful film — a strong contrast to the slick digital look audiences are used to. Both movies also took advantage of practical sets and effects more than others.

Still, most modern movies are all about computers. Giant blockbusters, filled with green screen backgrounds and visual effects (VFX) shots, are Hollywood’s biggest obsession these days. They may be expensive gambles, but they can pay off big.

There’s “Batman v Superman,” already closing in on $800 million worldwide, and plenty more special effects-driven extravaganzas coming nearly every week over the course of the upcoming summer movie season. And Disney’s “The Jungle Book,” a retelling of the classic story, saw a staggering $103.6 million in domestic sales alone its opening weekend.

Every location in the movie was reportedly created using computer-generated visual effects and green screen, and every animal in the movie is brought to life using a mix of motion capture and VFX. It’s a film bustling with wall-to-wall animation created by computers. It’s a hit. 

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

But despite movies like “The Jungle Book” and other digital  blockbusters, many fans pine for Old Hollywood, where action needed to be done “in camera.” Of course, it’s more risky, more expensive, and slightly impractical today, but the results can speak for themselves.

[lz_third_party includes=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtR9tqPa48s”]

Auteur directors generally prefer the ‘classic’ look of film. Part of it is nostalgia (they all grew up on 70mm), and the other part of it is that the audience ‘trusts’ the movie more,” says screenwriter John Sullivan, who penned the upcoming movie “Security,” starring Antonio Banderas. He notes audiences feel far more adrenaline from the “in camera” stunts from “Mad Max” than digital creations from films like “I Am Legend.” Still, he says, there is a pushback for filmmakers going too practical.

“CGI actually costs less than practical effects. Main reason: insurance. Practical effects invite the risk of something going horribly wrong,” Sullivan says, noting the struggles of classics like “Jaws,” a film still effective thanks to its pre-digital making, but a famous nightmare to create behind the scenes.

Potential difficulties and signs of the digital future in Hollywood are not enough to deter some, and audiences embrace those figures. Nolan and Tarantino carry their own strong audiences from film to film, and “Mad Max” received far more praise from fans than any special effects-driven film in the last decade.

[lz_related_box id=”68656″]

It’s the reason mid-budget movies like “Blood Father” are still being turned out at the same time as digital dreams like “The Jungle Book.” There’s still an audience looking for a break from the oversaturation of slick digital cameras and animated scenes of destruction.

“I wish there was an exact moment where we could say, ‘ah, this is where the digital monster got loose…’ I do not think practical effects will ever become obsolete … Audiences will absolutely abandon the moving image of film and tv if it becomes one hundred-percent computer generated and fake … I want to feel something real,” screenwriter Jack Reher (“Into the Grizzly Maze”) tells LifeZette. He notes how his own film, “Grizzly,” about a group of people trying to survive being hunted by a murderous grizzly bear, went the extra mile in keeping things “real.” They flew an actual bear back and forth from location and only used digital effects when needed to enhance the action. “First class all the way for that bear,” he jokes.

While a handful of filmmakers push for the nostalgia of old-school filmmaking, it’s hard to tell how long it will last. How long before younger generations take over with digital cameras and Internet access and bring a future full of “Jungle Books,” but devoid of the classic “Ben Hur”-type films that still take our breath away?

Reher says, “I think there’s a balance that can be found within practical and digital. An effect is supposed to enhance something. Not replace it outright. That’s where some films are getting lost.”