When promotion stills and trailers for Ramayana, Jailer 2 and Dada began getting picked apart online, the loudest complaint was a simple two-letter accusation: AI. National Award-winning animation and VFX expert CB Arun Kumar says that label is being applied too quickly, and it says more about how audiences now watch than about how those images were actually made.
From one channel to frame-by-frame scrutiny
Kumar, dean of communication, film and gaming at Pearl Academy, began working in animation and VFX in the 1980s, when CGI and AI were still jargon. Back then, exposure to visual material was limited and criticism sat with a small group of reviewers. Then came TV channels, VHS tapes, VCDs, DVDs and online piracy—and with them an audience that could pause, zoom and judge every frame.
“Everyone now does deep research on everything, frame by frame, becoming both critic and creator,” Kumar told Hindustan Times. That shift, he says, is why the industry is seeing so-called nitpicking of every frame.
CGI, VFX and AI are not synonyms
The VFX veteran points to a key misunderstanding: CGI, VFX compositing and generative AI are not interchangeable terms. A visual anomaly, an unrealistic-looking image, or even a hyper-real look is not necessarily evidence of AI.
- CGI: computer-generated imagery used to build elements within a shot.
- VFX compositing: combining real footage with those created elements.
- Generative AI: models that create or transform images from learned data.
“The sad truth is that saying, that’s AI, is becoming a convenient label for anything we don’t like visually,” he said. That, he argues, is unfair to traditional VFX artists and to filmmakers genuinely exploring AI as a creative tool.
Marketing is part of the trust problem
Kumar adds that audiences often don’t realise trailers and posters are not finished film frames. Marketing teams may enhance promotional material with AI to add polish or elements that may not even appear in the final film. For big-ticket titles, that gap between promotion and release has made viewers sceptical.
He also has a larger worry. “The real problem now is whether AI is making content more engaging, and I fear not,” he said. The distrust is so high, he notes, that even Christopher Nolan has to go the extra mile to prove his work is entirely real and shot without VFX in a film like Odyssey.
What filmmakers should do next
His prescription is transparency. Showing behind-the-scenes work on complex shots, he says, can help audiences appreciate the craft and build trust instead of suspicion. Without that, the confusion is likely to deepen because AI video models are being trained on existing VFX classics, making AI output imitate the established digital look.
“Everything will then look like AI, because it can imitate anything that has already been done by humans,” he warned. For fans, the takeaway is not to stop asking questions, but to ask the right one: not whether a frame was assisted, but whether the image works, and whether the makers were open about how it was built.
Source: Hindustan Times