"NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI - 1

Why HN readers recommended it

Strongly recommended whenever HN discusses CGI, practical effects, or trusting behind-the-scenes footage.

This is a summary from the source dataset, not an endorsement by Hacker News or the video creator.

Video & recommendation details

Creator / channel

The Movie Rabbit Hole

Topic

invisible visual effects

Format

explainer

Level

general

HN recommenders in dataset

6

HN mentions in dataset

9

Recommendation years in dataset

2024–2026

These counts and years describe the included Hacker News records; they are not YouTube views or the video’s publication date.

From the original HN conversations

Excerpts from the recorded comments. Follow each source for the full comment and surrounding discussion.

• 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 …

• 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, …

• 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 …