"NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI - 1

What people said

Fr0styMatt88 · 2026-07 · Strong recommendation

On the specific no/low-CGI bent — I find the obsession with using this (mostly false) claim so utterly disrespectful to the people in VFX that have poured thousands upon thousands of hours of their lives into the craft, only to be actively derided (or outright denied) by producers hoping to capitalise on whatever this weird obsession is. For anyone that hasn’t seen it but is interested in the topic, this series is HIGHLY worth a watch: “NO CGI” is really just INVISIBLE CGI - 1 [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

troupo · 2025-12 · Strong recommendation

I highly recommend this 5-part essay series "NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI" [VIDEO] (it starts with "Top Gun: Maverick"). Current-era CGI is insanely good . The problem is that it's used and abused everywhere, often with very little consideration for whether it's needed, or if there's time to do all the VFX shots etc.

Read the original HN comment ↗

jsheard · 2025-04 · Strong recommendation

Typically the way it goes is that the studio underplays how much CGI they used during the marketing campaign, while the VFX vendors are forced to bite their tongues, and then 6 months after the movie debuts their NDA expires and they finally get to show how much CGI there really was. This series is a great watch on the subject: [VIDEO] In the later parts there's some really egregious examples where promotional behind-the-scenes footage was actually doctored to key out the green screens or present composited shots as if they were done in-camera.

Read the original HN comment ↗