I mean- the #1 grossing movie of all time with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars that needed enough animation for a 3 hour story vs. A TV show hinges on a novelty premise is a bit of an unfair comparison- sort of like comparing the SR-71 black bird to a cottage built aircraft from 2022- the fact that a massive government project from over a half century ago with nearly unlimited budget and resources would beat out a smaller scale project from the present with a more limited budget makes a bit of intuitive sense.
Of course The Transformers franchise is another example of massive budgets and profits, and given a choice between transformers graphics and transformers caliber story telling and something like the horrific CGI of Babylon 5 but with strong story- I’ll prefer a future where the graphics are lousy but the stories are worth my time. Of course we can have both, it doesn’t have to be one or the other, and numerous film/Tv or video games show you can have both.
But more than anything economics is behind it. The truth is that as is generally well known at this point, CGI is often an exploitive industry. It relies on fans- people who would work on their favorite franchise for free just to be a part of it or who t want to be a part of the entertainment industry. Many acclaimed and/or successful films with amazing CGI have seen the responsible studios lose money or even go under for their efforts. On the studio end most of the time they aren’t so concerned with making art as money. If they can make $10 million dollars against a budget of $10,000 why wouldn’t they? Doubly so in streaming and serials where most of the profits aren’t from people viewing the individual content but in the contents ability to fill out portfolios and draw subscribers and sell merchandise and brand recognition or protect IP ownership through use.
As we see more and more countries develop large and profitable box offices and consumer bases in their own countries and abroad, we have seen many non Hollywood films entering into major profitability internationally despite often not meeting peak Hollywood production values, but asides from various social and political reasons concerning distribution rights or media controls, simply put, these films often are cast, styled, and written to be more tailored to international audiences. We know that the “dumb CGI block buster” in Hollywood primarily exists to maximize international returns. Nuanced writing and character pieces and humor and such can not translate well or not carry across cultures. “Giant monster” and “explosion” tend to transcend language and so Hollywood has mostly gone that route to try and make films that can be profitable globally. Just like American audiences however, international film goers aren’t all toddlers and do like films other than CGI showcases,
So we’ve seen a surge of films from all over the world that have been highly profitable despite poor effects by telling stories that contain some more substance and have various elements tailored for more specific audiences.
Streaming in many ways represents boutique television- where a diverse array of content and formats can exist on one platform and libraries or feature content can be tailored in creation and presentaron to different markets. This has pros and cons. To feed streaming libraries requires a constant stream of new content- the demand for content outstripping basically any period in media history. This means that more creators have the opportunity in theory to have their ideas come to the screen. It also means that you aren’t stuck with the same set schedule of shows, the same rotation of a handful of programs on a handful of networks. It also means there is a lot of room to miss out on great content due to the sheer volume of choice.
The volume of content means that you can’t expect that by default most of a market is watching your program. The sort of percentages of total viewership that hits of the last saw or even mediocre media are uncommon today- if there are 10,000 things the watch the odds that 70% of people are watching the same thing are much lower than when there are 10 or 100 things to watch or nothing.
That does mean that no matter how much money or effort you place into a show or film that your profit potential decreases in a packed market where you’re sharing with others. The jump in total viewer numbers has offset this to a degree, but an advantage and disadvantage of more content diversity is that the more tailored the content the smaller the group it theoretically resonates with or appeals to.
Movies for the silver screen have any ways to make money, viewers however mostly pay through ticket sales and then rentals and purchases of home release if we ignore certain properties merchandizing.
Streaming platforms of course care about subscribers, getting new subscribers generally trumps retention as retention is fairly high and new content tends to boost both retention and conversion whereas continuing content only theoretically boosts retention and even then it can be questionable and up to a point. So there are cost benefit reasons for poorer CGI in streaming but there is also a factor of time- streaming shows need new content and often many episodes each season or so. The king post production times and such in film are not conducive to most streaming.
In the end, the caliber of CGI we can muster in 2023 obviously beats that of years past, but you need the artists and time and budget to pull that off.
It’s also the case that even very high quality CGI often looks “fake” because there is a lot more to it I won’t get into. If you have to choose between spending $100 million on great but fake looking CGI and $10 million on fake looking CGI a that is obviously CGI… the end result is still something that doesn’t look completely real but the cost difference is huge and the turn around times differ greatly. It can even be a benefit- we can avoid “uncanny valleys” and such that creep people out or negatively impact their experience in viewing realistic CGI that isn’t quite right- simply by using CGI that doesn’t look so realistic. The brain isn’t overanalyzing each frame and shot. There isn’t a nagging feeling that something is wrong that the brain can’t quite place. It’s obvious it is fake and so the brain takes it as such.
Of course The Transformers franchise is another example of massive budgets and profits, and given a choice between transformers graphics and transformers caliber story telling and something like the horrific CGI of Babylon 5 but with strong story- I’ll prefer a future where the graphics are lousy but the stories are worth my time. Of course we can have both, it doesn’t have to be one or the other, and numerous film/Tv or video games show you can have both.
Streaming in many ways represents boutique television- where a diverse array of content and formats can exist on one platform and libraries or feature content can be tailored in creation and presentaron to different markets. This has pros and cons. To feed streaming libraries requires a constant stream of new content- the demand for content outstripping basically any period in media history. This means that more creators have the opportunity in theory to have their ideas come to the screen. It also means that you aren’t stuck with the same set schedule of shows, the same rotation of a handful of programs on a handful of networks. It also means there is a lot of room to miss out on great content due to the sheer volume of choice.
That does mean that no matter how much money or effort you place into a show or film that your profit potential decreases in a packed market where you’re sharing with others. The jump in total viewer numbers has offset this to a degree, but an advantage and disadvantage of more content diversity is that the more tailored the content the smaller the group it theoretically resonates with or appeals to.
Streaming platforms of course care about subscribers, getting new subscribers generally trumps retention as retention is fairly high and new content tends to boost both retention and conversion whereas continuing content only theoretically boosts retention and even then it can be questionable and up to a point. So there are cost benefit reasons for poorer CGI in streaming but there is also a factor of time- streaming shows need new content and often many episodes each season or so. The king post production times and such in film are not conducive to most streaming.
It’s also the case that even very high quality CGI often looks “fake” because there is a lot more to it I won’t get into. If you have to choose between spending $100 million on great but fake looking CGI and $10 million on fake looking CGI a that is obviously CGI… the end result is still something that doesn’t look completely real but the cost difference is huge and the turn around times differ greatly. It can even be a benefit- we can avoid “uncanny valleys” and such that creep people out or negatively impact their experience in viewing realistic CGI that isn’t quite right- simply by using CGI that doesn’t look so realistic. The brain isn’t overanalyzing each frame and shot. There isn’t a nagging feeling that something is wrong that the brain can’t quite place. It’s obvious it is fake and so the brain takes it as such.