- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why does it seem like special effects are getting worse?
Posted on 7/7/25 at 5:04 pm to Neutral Underground
Posted on 7/7/25 at 5:04 pm to Neutral Underground
quote:
Isn't it possible that the movie studios were hiring less qualified individuals to do the work because of DEI policies?
I mean, certainly it's possible... but it's more probable that they are taking the easy way out with substandard (by ILM standards) CGI rather than augmenting their practical effects with CGI. That's the more likely culprit.
"Eh, no need to make a model death star and then blow it up... we'll just CGI one".
"No need for Superman to fly via wiring and harnesses and what not, we'll just throw him in front of a green screen and make it look like he's flying using CGI."
Sometimes, technology makes things worse.
This post was edited on 7/7/25 at 5:05 pm
1
Posted on 7/7/25 at 5:09 pm to MemphisGuy
I think the formula for a great looking movie is a combination of the two. I love practical effects, miniatures, mattes. Just using CGI is lazy. I just don't understand how they spend so much money and still have a shtty looking movie.
Posted on 7/7/25 at 9:29 pm to Madking
quote:
It doesn’t make any sense when you see what someone like Villeneuve or Robert Eggers can do visually on much smaller budgets.
These numbers are from Wikipedia so TIFWIW.. but:
Budgets adjusted for inflation (so in 2025 $):
Sicario: $41 million
Arrival: $64 million
Blade Runner 2049: $199-245 million (est.)
Dune: $203 million
Dune Part Two: $198 million
Jurassic World Rebirth: $180 million
I wouldn’t say Denis Villeneuve is doing it on “much smaller budgets” when his last three films (adjusted for inflation) were more expensive to make than Jurassic World Rebirth.
That said, I would agree that he made better use of those budgets than most filmmakers today.
Posted on 7/7/25 at 9:41 pm to lostinbr
Might wanna double check those numbers, they may include promotional and distribution costs. Blade Runner was $150 mil Dune was $165 mil, Dune 2, 190. Yes Jurassic rebirth is reporting a budget of $180 mil but Fallen Kingdom was $430mil, TFA $440, Dial of Destiny was over $375 and there are 12 other recent, major studio films that were over 100mil more than anything DV has done and over 4x more than anything Eggers has done.
This post was edited on 7/7/25 at 9:45 pm
Posted on 7/7/25 at 11:27 pm to Madking
quote:
Might wanna double check those numbers, they may include promotional and distribution costs. Blade Runner was $150 mil Dune was $165 mil, Dune 2, 190.
Right, wiki says production costs were $150-185 million for Blade Runner 2049. Converting 2017 to 2025 dollars that’s $199-245 million. That’s part of the issue comparing production costs.. even since 2017 inflation is like 32%.
quote:
Yes Jurassic rebirth is reporting a budget of $180 mil but Fallen Kingdom was $430mil, TFA $440, Dial of Destiny was over $375 and there are 12 other recent, major studio films that were over 100mil more than anything DV has done and over 4x more than anything Eggers has done.
I mean TFA and Fallen Kingdom are the two most expensive films ever made. Dial of Destiny is #11. I wouldn’t say the most expensive movies in history are necessarily representative of most movies made nowadays (or even most made by the major studios).
If you look at the wiki article for most expensive film productions, the top 10 includes:
- 4 Marvel movies
- 2 Star Wars movies
- Avatar: Way of the Water
- Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
These movies were always going to be expensive. James Cameron, Marvel, Pirates, Star Wars… none are exactly synonymous with “cost savings.”
I think a huge factor is that the studios are just throwing money at certain properties. I believe that DV could probably make a better Doctor Strange movie for less money. There’s a reason he’s getting so many accolades right now. But (assuming they could actually get him on board) he wouldn’t have to make it with less money.
I guess my point is that I think the root cause of the big budget discrepancies has a lot to do with how studios treat these big franchises. It’s not all VFX - some is casting, particularly the need to bring back recurring A-listers for multiple films in many cases - but the VFX mentality obviously plays a huge part as well.
I do think (or at least hope) we might be starting to see the pendulum swing back towards practical effects with more tasteful/artistic CGI.
Posted on 7/8/25 at 12:03 am to lostinbr
I don’t disagree with that
Posted on 7/8/25 at 12:35 am to boxcarbarney
quote:
finally got around to watching Andor.
I haven't pulled the trigger to watch yet. How is it?
Posted on 7/8/25 at 5:57 am to VOR
quote:
Holy shite. You can’t blame DEI for everything. Get serious, man…
Sure you can.
Just like the thanks Obama.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News