"NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI - 1

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 ▶ this video

It's not true either way. Very little is actually practical, it's just that when something looks good people think it is practical because they want to believe that. Marketing feeds into this and tells people movies were done all practical or made "heavy use of practical effects" and it's just lies. This is 5 part series. ▶ this video Even before this people were saying stuff like mad max was done "almost all practical" because they saw behind the scenes stuff of flipping a few cars even though the movie is wall to wall digital effects. Sometimes the elaborate "practical effects" don't even move right and are used for reference and completely replaced.

This has tended to be significantly overblown recently with a huge amount of 'no CGI' advertising coming from studios, which often verges into utter BS. There's an incredible amount of CG at every level of modern productions, regardless of how much stuntwork and practical effects were done as well. (this video series has a good breakdown on it, which has included studios releasing doctored 'behind the scenes' footage! ▶ this video ). That's not to say that doing these things is pointless or unimpressive, but it's often used to denigrate and minimize the work of a lot of already quite underappreciated artists.

I'm not sure you can trust behind the scenes featurettes like this anymore. See ▶ this video for more details.

I highly recommend this 5-part essay series "NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI" ▶ this 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.

Yeah that's the thing, with good execution of a plausible effect you don't even realize you're looking at CGI. It's the toupée fallacy. Obligatory Jonas Ussing plug: ▶ this video

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: ▶ this 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.

CG still looks more often than not, too clean (even if trying to look dirty), too polished, too uniform, no character, and just feels like CGI for CGIs sake. The truth is that this is what you notice. Most of the effects fly by and you have no idea. When you see slivers that don't work as well you think of that as 'all cg' and the 'cg look'. "NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI ▶ this video link link link

i really enjoyed the 4 videos made by 'The Movie Rabbit Hole' which explores the "No CGI was used in this movie"-lie/exaggeration/misdirection. ▶ this video