[Fr0styMatt88]

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 https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo

[recursivecaveat]

For anyone without the time: my biggest takeaway when I first watched this was: audiences certainly like the idea of practical effects, so both media outlets and productions are incentivized to talk up every practical element, right up to the point of outright deception. In reality it's very common for stuff to be filmed "for real" and then painted over or extended with CGI anyways because having the reference footage helps the CGI so much. This way you can have your actors go on the talk show circuit and say "those are real tulips" or whatever and have good CGI at the same time.

[oliyoung]

Exactly, Nolan's use of CGI is perfect. Elegant and purposeful, and incredibly well executed.