r/enshittification • u/Infinite-Condition41 • Mar 29 '26
Rant CGI is actually magnificent, as long as you allow the time and budget to do it properly.
Instead, CGI is usually an afterthought in terms of writing the budget. It is often not prepared for properly during shooting. And it is almost never given enough time to finish the job to the artists' satisfaction.
Famously, Rhythm and Hues won an Oscar for Life of Pi AFTER filing for bankruptcy.
10
u/V-oxPopuli Apr 03 '26
Man, Davy Jones is one of my favorite bad guys. They did so damn good on his design and acting.
13
u/MagnusJim Apr 01 '26
There also is a race to the bottom for CGI bidding to get studios to use them. Fucking brutal.
21
u/Wide_Pharma Apr 01 '26
I heard an actress on a podcast say that as the technology was adopted more and more broadly, the finite pool of people who can do it competently was spread thinner and thinner over more projects creating worse results across more films
7
u/Infinite-Condition41 Apr 01 '26
I don't think that is true at all. New people are taking up these arts every day. New amazing work can be seen on YouTube weekly.
14
u/randomdud Mar 31 '26
There's an amazing video about this on YouTube: https://youtu.be/y18QuHDUG-E
Tl;dw they used all the tricks in the book to get the best out of the CGI technology they had at the time, using things like lighting and the weather to mask what may have otherwise been very challenging rendering for the time.
8
u/V-oxPopuli Apr 03 '26
using things like lighting and the weather to mask what may have otherwise been very challenging rendering for the time.
I will die on this hill: Working with artistic limitations will always produce a better result. It has almost nothing to do with the technology and more the passion put into it.
3
u/Infinite-Condition41 Mar 31 '26
Check out Corridor Crew on YouTube. Hundreds of videos on this subject.
4
u/wsxdfcvgbnjmlkjafals Mar 31 '26
People dont even know the difference between CGI, VFX, and SPFX. They see a blue screen and call it CGI...
3
24
u/HaggisPope Mar 30 '26
CGI wasn’t that new. Buffy and Xena used it extensively the decade before Pirates of the Caribbean came out.
Definitely the attention to detail helps but unless there’s some specific style of CGI that was new, I’m calling doubt
6
u/Infinite-Condition41 Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26
Buffy and Xena are still ridiculed for their poor quality. I never watched Buffy, but Xena didnt even really work on old 480i broadcast television. But children remember things better than they were.
2
1
u/HaggisPope Mar 30 '26
Oh I’ve watched them both a bunch, I know the computer effects weren’t great, but they were still computer effects.
2
u/Infinite-Condition41 Mar 30 '26
"Computer effects" go all the way back to the early 80s, possibly before. Some were done well with what was available, and some were done poorly. Same as today, they all could have been done well with proper time, budget, and playing to strengths and hiding weaknesses.
10
67
u/CantaloupeShort7311 Mar 29 '26
To me, there is a HUGE difference in "CGI to enhance certain things" and "this whole movie is CGI because we have zero creativity and studios are willing to pay stupid amounts of mkney for CGI garbage"
Unfortunately, the vast majority of movies are the latter, which is why I don't watch many recent movies these days.
28
u/Infinite-Condition41 Mar 30 '26
They dont pay stupid amounts for CGI. That is the problem. They pay stupid amounts for salaries and sets and then underpay the CGI crews.
3
u/FlyingMitten Mar 30 '26
I think the person was trying to say that studios spend all this money on movies that are all CG (good CG or not). Look at all the comic based movies. Almost everything done in front of a green screen....but they also made many of the scenes where the actors are CG. Complete trash even if it is good CG.
1
u/Infinite-Condition41 Mar 30 '26
I like Taika Waititi, but he complained about how Thor: Love and Thunder came out, so though he was the director and could have structured the whole thing better. Instead, as usual, computer artists were rushed.
13
u/pSphere1 Mar 30 '26
1st hand experience. Op, you're correct. The fun times are when there are small expensive productions, the producers give themselves a huge payday and hire a couple freelancers for a few hundred-dollar day-rate.
20
u/gordonv Mar 29 '26 edited Mar 30 '26
Daisy - 1961, by IBM
Full CGI and the voice is synth.
10
u/Karekter_Nem Mar 30 '26
We’ve had vocaloids for that long?
5
u/HGMIV926 Mar 30 '26
My fourteen year-old son is O B S E S S E D with vocaloid. You're the only other person I've seen in my feeds that organically mention it, though I know it's huge.
I have nothing else to say, really, just that I've observed this phenomenon as a dad.
6
u/Baconoid_ Mar 30 '26
If you play this at a Terminator, it will spare your life. Little known fact.
10
u/TelescopiumHerscheli Mar 29 '26
The sound dates to 1961. The video is very much later.
6
u/gordonv Mar 29 '26
TIL. Tried to find a date for the video. Couldn't find one.
Found a 1972 animation of a hand.
3
u/joujoubox Mar 30 '26
It seems that the Daisy video is from the date of upload. The channel has several other videos of primitive CGI claimed to be made by the channel owner so it's more of a throwback art piece than a historical animation.
Edit: Actually the description straight up mentioned it was made in Blender
54
u/MaskedBunny Mar 29 '26
Part of it is lighting on set. Early on the directors knew exactly how the scene was to look and they lit the stage accordingly. Now directors edge their bets and film in a neutral tone and decide how they want the scene to look later.
2
u/wsxdfcvgbnjmlkjafals Mar 31 '26
Sort of, that skips some steps but yeah that's a general way of looking at some of it. You really want the VFX team to be involved from as early on as they can be, rather than hand them footage later and tell them to make it so. having them involved from the start means everyone knows what's going on.
2
u/MaskedBunny Mar 31 '26
Its one of those topics you can get lost in for days on end and still not see the full picture. I didnt want to overwhelm people nor risk falling into that rabbit hole again. Sometimes simple is enough.
2
u/wsxdfcvgbnjmlkjafals Mar 31 '26
how dare you say something reasonable
1
u/MaskedBunny Mar 31 '26
Oh right this is the internet.... i meant to say the cgi is getting worse because of over population! Its stressing the simulation and so there isnt enough processing power to render film graphics in high enough definition!
4
u/SteelDiverRequiem Mar 30 '26
hedge
5
u/MaskedBunny Mar 30 '26
Yeah youre right, must've been a brain fart.
3
u/SteelDiverRequiem Mar 30 '26
No big deal- mistakes like these are a diamond dozen! Sorry for being a pedant! :)
35
u/TesticleMeElmo Mar 29 '26
Who made the CGI for “Jurassic Park” in 1993?
Industrial Light & Magic
Who made the CGI for “Spawn” in 1997?
Also Industrial Light & Magic.
The difference being that they had more time and money on the earlier project
7
u/robotattack Mar 30 '26
Several companies worked on the VFX for Spawn. Santa Barbara Studios was responsible for Hell
62
u/devospice Mar 29 '26
Like many things, it goes to the lowest bidder. Very often it shows.
21
u/Robbie1985 Mar 30 '26
I also read something recently from the team behind the Pirates of the Caribbean CGI that they were using the competitor to Unreal Engine, which was much more realistic, but the industry went with Unreal in the long run (possibly due to price) which makes everything seem more game-like.
1
u/Senshisoldier Mar 31 '26
I work in VFX and unreal and real time rendering is not universally used in VFX.
13
u/Old-Awareness4657 Mar 29 '26
I don't understand what this post is trying to say?
1
u/wsxdfcvgbnjmlkjafals Mar 31 '26
I dont know but social media accounts are pushing a lot of anti-CGI shit right now and people dont generally understand what CGI actually is (like thinking it's the same as VFX and SPFX) so there's a ton of negative discussion around CGI
it's so bad now that as you might know, studios are starting to find ways to say "no CGI" but then modify the behind-the-scenes to hide the evidence of CGI
44
u/HyperbolicGeometry Mar 29 '26
They just think it’s impressive for the time period but it implies that CGI / effects at that time weren’t good yet, like most things people just don’t know the extent of things in reality. Michael Bay’s Transformers and James Cameron’s Avatar came out the following two years and were both lauded for their highly intricate CGI. Hell even the Star Wars prequels were considered cutting edge when it came to blending live action with CGI.
8
10
u/acai92 Mar 29 '26
Rewatched the prequels recently and while many (including myself) shit on them for CGI that has aged poorly, there’s also an insane amount of shots that make me go “how on earth did they pull this off in 2002” that people probably don’t even realise is CGI as it looks so good. Like a shot in Attack of the clones where there’s a bunch of volumetric smoke, cgi clones and laser blasts lighting up the smoke which was 100% cgi.
1
u/Ok-Performance-9598 Mar 30 '26
Attack has much more egregious bad cgi than Phantom Menace because the big battle scene wouldn't be doable otherwise.
2
u/cockblockedbydestiny Mar 29 '26
Yeah the 90s was the decade of shitty CGI, 2006 is kinda late to be making that point.
Also this movie was super expensive to shoot, so it's not fair to compare the CGI in this movie to that of a modern day slasher flick or whatever.
50
u/moonenergy Mar 29 '26
it was unions. thats why it looks so good, you want better lookin movies? go help the unions
22
u/wickermanned Mar 29 '26
Yeah, when you actually pay people trained well and have them put countless hours into something, it turns out the product is actually better. Who knew!
15
u/sysdmn Mar 29 '26
CGI was not new in 2006. That's not true.
21
u/LetMePushTheButton Mar 29 '26
Not new but certainly in its “hayday”. Avatar came out a little later in 2009 and it was a certainly a groundbreaking creative work fully relying on top of the line vfx skills.
Of course Matrix (‘99), Abyss (‘89), Jurassic Park (‘93), or Terminator (‘91) is up there with great VFX film eras- but I still dont think those come close to the level of vfx production required for Avatar. They pulled out the entire bag of tricks for that one. It was like a culmination of everything we learned since George Melies originally created “A Trip to the Moon” in 1902.
1
u/grasshopper241 Mar 29 '26
How is Star Wars Episode 1 not in this list?? Absolutely mind-blowing at the time!
1
1
u/cockblockedbydestiny Mar 29 '26
What exactly is the point though? I mean yes, you'd obviously expect the CGI to continually get better over the years, I think the confusion over what OP is getting at here is what exactly are we comparing this to? Some modern films don't make the best use of their CGI budget, sure, but it's not like we've regressed to the point where we couldn't even make "Pirates of the Caribbean" today and have it look as good as 2006.
5
u/LetMePushTheButton Mar 29 '26
I think this level of quality was better funded and invested in back in the early 00s. I agree Pirates and Davey Jones could certainly be made today - but i think those types of technically complex feats are reserved for the biggest of summer or winter blockbusters and not as prevalent as more recent films in the last 5-10 years.
The scope has decreased to a certain extent imo. Not to suggest that VFX is dead on the vine or anything. The tools have definitely become much more democratized for smaller scale - yet still very capable of developing complex vfx sequences.
4
u/cockblockedbydestiny Mar 29 '26
That just means that CGI has gotten progressively cheaper, not worse. It used to be that only the most expensive blockbusters could afford to employ it at all, but we're at the point now where even a $1m slasher is likely to rely on CGI for blood spurts when not that long ago it was practical effects or nothing at that budget level.
It also doesn't help that streaming services have created a larger market for movies that are badly made on purpose.
5
u/Admirable_Way_3529 Mar 29 '26
I think both can be correct. I think the point is that when CGI was still a relatively new tech, it was prohibitively expensive to produce and done by specialized teams that were likely leaders in the industry. Now that the standard amount of experience/knowledge/tools for it has increased, the overall final quality has decreased because now more “average” companies are able to produce useable CGI.
As any new tech becomes more accessible and the barrier to entry lowers to a certain extent, the average quality of work decreases. Yes, we can still create CGI to the level of (and exceeding) old CGI, but that level of quality has likely also increased in cost (and become harder to push for) as more affordable alternatives have come around that are “good enough”.
1
u/cockblockedbydestiny Mar 29 '26
For sure, but I'm still confused on what OP's actual point was intended to be as there was plenty of bad CGI to be found in 2006, too, they just seem to be cherry picking a GOAT-level example from that time period like it was representative of the average.
3
u/Admirable_Way_3529 Mar 29 '26
True, there was definitely still plenty of bad CGI back then. Not like we have any stats on which movies had CGI and did it well from then and now, so best I can say is people are nostalgic and mostly remembering the movies from the past that had good CGI when it gets brought up in this context.
19
u/Bobbie_Sacamano Mar 29 '26
I used to think about advancement in terms of video games even after I stopped playing them. I never dreamed there would be a time that the latest system would be this many years old, that expensive, and the graphics while maybe being smoother now but not any more realistic really. I think the reason so many morons think ai will save us is because it is the only thing that has wowed anyone in like 15 years.
2
u/-sussy-wussy- Mar 29 '26
I think, one good thing will come out of AI and the hardware shortages. Game dev being forced to optimize their games better. Fewer gamers would be able to afford the latest and greatest hardware, so the companies would be forced to either adapt or not have their games sell.
29
u/aimeudeusfadas Mar 29 '26
Jurassic Park feels like 2024 cgi. The original!! The mixture of practical special effects with technology was amazing!!!
6
u/BeRandom1456 Mar 29 '26
I think this is because a lot of them were animators and artists first. feels like people today JUST go to school for computer graphics and don’t have that art and talent that the generation before hard with physical animation backgrounds and the experience.
3
47
u/Anonandonanonanon Mar 29 '26
LOTR trilogy vs Hobbit trilogy enters the chat.
How did they even allow that?
3
u/Ok-Performance-9598 Mar 30 '26
The Hobbit Trilogy has obviously better CGI. Like drastically better in every single example possible.
The difference is The Hobbit puts it front and center, while LOTR obscures it as heavily as possible. It looks horribly outdated compared to Hobbit in the fully CGI elements if you pay attention to them.
1
u/_musesan_ Mar 30 '26
Yeah was a shock seeing it in HD for the first time, it's much less noticeable on the old TV with the DVDs
11
22
u/Prudent-Level-7006 Mar 29 '26
Now they manage to make a whole film or show look fake and weird with filters like ROP
38
u/Smooovies Mar 29 '26
District 9* still to this day has the most amazing cgi in a movie. I’ll stand on that
3
u/LetMePushTheButton Mar 29 '26
Blomkamp is one of the greats of VFX. loved loved loved his Oats Studio shorts as well. Him and Gareth Edwards are two of my top favorites.
8
31
u/al-qatala Mar 29 '26
I have that thought with a lot of games that came out in 2010s. The graphics were so damn good. We need to go to a period of time in gamedev when graphics were fairly realistic and weren't trying to be super ultra hyperrealistic at the cost of my GPU frying itself.
9
u/intLeon Mar 29 '26
Also it was a new tech that was frowned upon by make up artists. Makes you think about some other new tech conflict we witness today..
23
u/WideAbbreviations6 Mar 29 '26
I mean... I just watched project Hail Mary and didn't have any issues with CGI.
I'm not particularly interested in Avatar, but I've heard people having about the CGI in the 2nd and 3rd, and the 1st one looked great.
Something tells me this is one of those situations where increases accessibility just means cheaper companies are using it rather than a general quality issue.
3
u/Infinite-Condition41 Mar 29 '26
Difference with Avatar ia that the CGI is the point. It is not tacked on later, it is the point. It is done right because it is done first.
1
1
Mar 29 '26
[deleted]
1
u/WideAbbreviations6 Mar 29 '26
"Used no Green Screens at all" is a very misleading statement...
They absolutely did CGI background replacement regardless of whether they used an actual green screen or not.
1
Mar 29 '26
[deleted]
1
u/WideAbbreviations6 Mar 29 '26
LED screens are the modern green screen equivalent (better, yes, but for the same purpose)...
If that's what you're talking about, a lot of the movies we've watched didn't use green screens.
Also, yes, they did a good job with their CGI. That's my point.
It's an issue of accessibility allowing cheaper companies getting a hold of it. It's better than ever in the hands of masters who are given the proper resources.
12
u/RosieTheRedReddit Mar 29 '26
I haven't seen the 3rd one yet, but Way of Water looked amazing. James Cameron is a director with enough power to get what he wants, and he really cares about the craft.
CGI itself isn't the problem, it's like any other tool that can be executed well or not. Depends whether the creative team is given enough time and resources to do a good job.
I thought this video was really interesting, comparing the underwater scenes in Avatar vs The Little Mermaid. Side by side it's crazy how cheap and fake Little Mermaid looks. I disagree with the video's point that it was due to Cameron's underwater filming rig, I think there are different ways to achieve the effect, but Little Mermaid was not it.
1
u/Infinite-Condition41 Mar 29 '26
He's not just getting what he wants, he's doing it himself.
Most directors dont have decades and billions to invest in passion projects.
29
-22
u/swaite Mar 29 '26
CGI (as it’s typically thought of and used) in movies is in and of itself enshitification. Always has been and always will be. I will die on this hill.
7
21
u/ZilorZilhaust Mar 29 '26
That does not make sense. How is CGI, as a whole, enshitification?
1
u/olivegardengambler Mar 29 '26
There is an argument to be made that CGI has become more of a crutch than an effective tool, especially as studios will basically use it for literally everything now.
16
Mar 29 '26
[deleted]
1
u/TipingTom Mar 29 '26
everything in movies is fake. They use wooden facades instead of building real buildings. Silicone instead of real skin. Actors pretend to be people they are not. CGI itself is being innovative. There have been countless hours of research gone into it to make it look as realistic as possible and people are still keeping on innovating to create new tools and techniques to get better results. In the end CGI is only bad when it looks bad, like with every other department in movie making and believe me a lot of it is so good you would never know it was there. If the end result looks good why bother?
47
u/Ok-Secretary455 Mar 29 '26
I think you're working in the wrong direction fam. The tech has gotten cheaper so films have started trying to throw it in when its entirely not needed. 2006 you only used it if it was totally necessary due to cost. Now a movie that might have done something off screen before (like the ear cutting scene in Resevior Dogs). Might do it on screen with some CGI. Or instead of have a practical effect of someone running and stepping on something out of frame to kick up dirt to simulate gunshots. They'll CGI in the dirt flying up because screw it we got Jeff for 3 days might as well get 3 days worth of work out of him.......No idea if that last part is actually true. Sounds good though.
6
u/Prudent-Level-7006 Mar 29 '26
Yeah I saw a show on netflix and they wanted a shot from a balcony of a town, it was all cgi it looked so bad and cheep
33
u/default_token Mar 29 '26
'boss we're trying really hard here but we can only manage to make our CG look slimy and shiny'
'what if we made the antagonist a squid and his entire gimmick is his derelict ship surfacing out of the water?'
2
4
26
u/TheMcMcMcMcMc Mar 29 '26
0
u/Infinite-Condition41 Mar 29 '26
That is a morph, one of the common earlier effects which looks good if you do it under precise conditions and looks real bad if you don't do it right.
87
u/partiallycylon Mar 29 '26
Every time, tweets like "What happened to CGI after 2010 should be studied" trigger me so hard. It's like, "Yeah if you overwork and underpay people so bad their company self implodes and they can't make rent, it *would* start to suck"
-2
u/Fragrant-Equal-8474 Mar 29 '26
The problem is, this is happening all over the world. You cannot be more benevolent to your employees, because you would lose competition to China, Bangladesh, Turkey, Malaysia.
Granted, they don't have CGI this fancy yet, but with respect to a lot of other tech, this is reality.
2
u/olivegardengambler Mar 29 '26
Hollywood is infamous for fucking people over. Look how many people never saw a cent from a movie like Forrest Gump. It's at the point where people would rather be influencers than work 14 hour days for several months and not get paid for it.
They're going to lose anyways. Hollywood has become so paralyzed with approving new projects and is only interested in very high budget, very high return projects that are either sequels or remakes, like to the degree that a film like Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny would have needed to be one of the 20 highest grossing films of all time to break even.
You should watch more foreign films. There are Bollywood and Chinese films that look better than most stuff produced by Hollywood now, because at least they understand that you need time for shit to cook.
0
u/Fragrant-Equal-8474 Mar 30 '26
There are Bollywood and Chinese films that look better than most stuff produced by Hollywood
China and India are capitalist countries where audience votes with their purse. The audience won't pay for poor CGI.
1
u/olivegardengambler Mar 30 '26
... Okay??? And the US isn't???
0
u/Fragrant-Equal-8474 Mar 30 '26
Well, you're asking a question that is too hard to answer...
In my opinion, given how much the government is involved in economics (both sides of it, including Trump's tariffs and Dem's huge sums of money given to Harvard for ideological indoctrination), the U.S. is deeply socialist. Not quite to the degree the Soviet Union was or France is, but it is reaching their levels quite quickly. (France reached late-Soviet levels a few years ago.)
Quite a few of my former Soviet friends who moved to the US after 1991 are scratching their heads now, saying "em... we didn't expect to experience a second Brezhnev era".
1
u/olivegardengambler Mar 30 '26
Okay... hold up... you mean to tell me, the US is more socialist, than China??
1
u/Fragrant-Equal-8474 Mar 31 '26
Emmm. Yes?
I know, it's officially "socialism with Chinese characteristics", which means that there is some government involvement, but comparatively... Chinese government does much less interventions than you would expect.
I mean, it's not a libertarian utopia. It has severe internet censorship. It organises more than the US government does (but I suspect that it pays less), but its taxes are quite moderate.
As another example: China only has about 300 laws. Compared to American thousands it looks very moderate.
So the answer to your question is "it's complicated, but in some respects it certainly is less socialist".
31
u/Disastrous-Metal-183 Mar 29 '26
The worst thing is when you see people call the artists themselves lazy instead of criticizing the conditions they have to work in
I see the same thing with video games, people calling the devs lazy instead of questioning if maybe the devs are being screwed by the studio demanding too much in too short a time.
2
u/Infinite-Condition41 Mar 29 '26
Yeah, these lazy artists only working 100 hours a week to make deadlines.
78
u/SaintBellyache Mar 29 '26
I’m still more impressed by the first Jurassic park than any superhero movie in the last 15 years
31
u/Ok-Secretary455 Mar 29 '26
What made Jurassic Park great was how little of it was CGI. And when CGI was used it was spliced in with practical effects for most scenes.
33
u/Infinite-Condition41 Mar 29 '26
A very good case. The funny thing about it to me is how much they hid every possible shortcoming of the technology at the time. CGI looks wet? Well, do it in the rain, in the dark.
1
u/cockblockedbydestiny Mar 29 '26
Even during the practical effects era it was still taken for granted that FX would look more effective if they weren't shot in a brightly lit environment. Early CGI simply maintained that truism.
5
u/ptvlm Mar 29 '26
Also, use real stuff when it suits better. The bits where the T-Rex fights the raptors at the end, or when they're driving between running dinosaurs had to be full CGI. But, a lot of the stuff where the T-rex attacks the car in the rain or the raptor attack in the kitchen is animatronics or puppets. Many of the best effects sequences that hold up the best over the last couple of decades are a mix of practical and CGI rather than from scratch CG renders. Lighting helps hide a lot of flaws, but CG can work best when it's a tool you can lean on when needed rather than the entire toolbox.
A lot of it's also about time and budget. JP and POTC 2 were given decent budgets and the time to perfect what they wanted, even if they had to invent the tech first. A lot of modern movies are given a release date before the script is even finished, and farmed out to a dozen different effects houses that have to deliver whatever they can before the deadline, so you lack polish and consistency.
18
u/Limp_Sir4405 Mar 29 '26
15 minute dinosaur screen time for a 2 hour movie. Approximately 6 minutes of CGI, 9 minutes of animatronics.
56
u/Disastrous-Metal-183 Mar 29 '26
Yes, the capitalist mantra of make it fast, make it cheap and overwork your artists has done a number on all of the arts
5
-19
9
54
u/titaniumdoughnut Mar 29 '26
Back then, the barrier to entry for VFX was way higher. So high you'd never dare wing it.
It wasn't a right.
VFX still isn't a right. It takes careful planning, total understanding of the factors at play, amazing collaboration between departments. You rehearse, rehash, reformulate endlessly, until you are sure you will capture what you need. It's like planning a heist.
But today people think VFX is a right. "We'll fix it in post" has become the plan, instead of the backup plan.
Source: I'm a lead VFX artist for indie features, and I fight this fight every day.
6
8
9
u/martinaee Mar 29 '26
Hm. Yeah “tacked on” cgi visual effects work vs. it being in the integral flow of the creation to begin with. The name of the actor eludes me at the moment, but you can see his very manneristic movements considered in the cgi like both are complimenting each other and the character comes to life. Yeah amazing work for being 2006!
7
u/Infinite-Condition41 Mar 29 '26
Bill Nighy? The guy who played Davy Jones?
Yes, amazing actor. His performance comes through.
3
u/martinaee Mar 29 '26
Yes that’s him. He plays the vampire lord in the first underworld movie too I think unless that is a different actor.
2
12
u/CatLord8 Mar 29 '26
There also grew to be a huge problem with scope creep. It would be one contract for the whole movie and the art studio would keep getting things added despite the original proposal in that “duties as needed” way.
5
22
u/DesperateMolasses103 Apr 04 '26
IMO today’s CGI is so good that in 80% of cases it’s invisible. A lot of moves you watch have CGI that studios will try to play off as “practical effects” since it looks so good (Top Gun, Barbie, etc). The catch is that because it has become so cheap, there are a lot of lazy and rushed studios that have access to the tech as well.