The special effects of 2025 are worse than those of 2010. And part of the blame lies with us viewers

When James Cameron released ‘Avatar’ in 2009, the film industry contemplated what seemed the future of visual effects. The film set a technical standard that, paradoxically, today’s cinema not only has not surpassed, but often does not even reach. The problem is not technological: software tools have advanced exponentially since then. But the industry has evolved in a way that everything looks worse than before. The sooner, the better. It is not necessary to go to the undisputed peak of the digital image that represented Cameron’s movie. ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest’ featured Davy Jones and his beard of tentacles, one of the best live-action CGI integrations ever seen. ‘Interstellar’ featured the participation of astrophysicist Kip Thorne for their spatial sequences. It is enough to compare the photorealistic texture of Na’vi or Jones with the plasticized finishes of Marvel or DC to see that something fundamental has changed in the way of producing special effects. The common denominator in all of them was time. In this analysis about the visual effects crisisit is explained that the productions of that decade had post-production calendars that ranged between 18 and 24 months. ‘Avatar’ He had two full years for the effects phase. Its consequences have started from comparable times. The spectacular images in ‘Inception’ of the city folding in on itself, another milestone of the era, took months of planning. Luxuries that are practically unthinkable today. Increasingly. The problem is the quantity. The latest studies indicate that while a commercial film from 2010 contained approximately 600 shots with visual effects, current productions usually exceed 3,000 shots. This 400% increase has not been accompanied by proportional budgets or calendars. Quite the opposite: hasty effects, poorly worked compositions and a digital homogenization that detracts from the personality of the images. Tremendous expectations In your situation analysisTreehouse Detective explains the case of the prequel to ‘The Thing’, which in 2011 remade John Carpenter’s 1982 classic. The special effects team Studio ADI, led by Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff Jr., built physical creatures with animatronics and prosthetics over several months of pre-production. After test screenings, Universal Pictures made a decision that Gillis would rate how devastating: Almost all practical work was replaced by CGI in post-production. Audiences expected to see digital effects in a science fiction horror film and considered practical effects “old-fashioned.” Paradigm shift. This case illustrates a profound cultural shift in expectations. During the 2010s, CGI went from being an exceptional tool for what was thought unattainable with practical effects to becoming the standard. The irony is that the greatness of films like ‘Alien’ or ‘Jurassic Park’ (where CGI was mixed with practical effects) was built precisely on the tangibility of their creatures. But the industry, and with it the audience, developed a dependence on digital finishing that is associated with prestige and quality, regardless of whether the final result can be improved with traditional effects. The economy of effects. The proliferation of streaming platforms has radically reconfigured the economics of special effects. Films produced directly for Netflix, Amazon Prime or Disney+ operate with significantly lower budgets than productions destined for cinemas, while the public maintains their visual expectations. This impossible equation has put pressure on the entire FX production chain. The era of auctions. The contract awarding system has evolved towards an auction model that prioritizes cost and speed over quality. The studios put projects into competition between multiple effects companies. The one who offers to complete the job in less time and for less money gets the contract. This process creates a competitive spiral in which small studios accept unsustainable conditions in the hope of maintaining their position in the market. Studies that close. It is a system that sometimes has extreme consequences. ‘Sonic the Hedgehog’ case: after the public’s rejection of the character’s original design, Paramount ordered a complete redesign. Moving Picture Company, the studio responsible for the effects, had to redo hundreds of shots without a deadline extension or significant additional budget. The studio closed its Vancouver headquarters shortly after, with multiple sources indicating that the project had contributed significantly to their financial problems. It is not an isolated case: Rhythm & Hues, winner of the Oscar for the effects of ‘Life of Pi’ in 2013, declared bankruptcy weeks before the awards ceremony. The company had agreed to complete the job at a loss to maintain its reputation, a pattern that media outlets such as VFX Voice have documented. Visual effects artists and technicians frequently operate in crunch to meet deadlines that were unfeasible from the beginning. The lower union rate In the visual effects sector, unlike other technical departments in film, it leaves these professionals without protection against abusive working conditions. The causes. The deterioration in the quality of the special effects does not respond to a single cause, but to pressures from two opposite directions. Movie studios have optimized their production structures to maximize profit margins, outsourcing visual effects work to companies competing in a wild race. The public has developed inflexible expectations about the omnipresence of CGI, rejecting alternatives. As technology advances, the time and money available to apply it decreases. Just compare budgets: ‘Avatar’ operated on a total budget of $237 million, of which a substantial portion was allocated specifically to technological development and visual effects over several years. Meanwhile, an MCU production distributes a similar budget among multiple items (salaries, marketing) while compressing post-production calendars to just six or eight months to meet immovable release dates, established years in advance. In Xataka | Either CGI designers get their act together or our televisions will continue to put their movies on the ropes

All viewers believe that the trailers spoil the movies too much. But there is a reason: fear of lawsuits

The paradox of trailers: they serve to encourage the public to see upcoming releases, but more and more people decide to literally cover their eyes or start talking to their neighbor, because the feeling that the trailers reveal too much is widespread: plot twists, climatic scenes that should be a surprise. There is a more or less intuitive reason: the market is increasingly competitive and it is important to show the public what each film offers that the others do not. But there are more prosaic reasons why trailers reveal more and more about movies. The trailer as a marketing tool.For decades, trailers were considered pieces with their own narrative: small works that condensed the spirit of a film, not mere advertisements. That premise was shaken in December 2022, when a court ruling questioned the legal limits of film marketing. The case pitted Universal Pictures against two viewers who claimed to have been misled by the ‘Yesterday’ trailer. The ‘Yesterday’ case.Two viewers had rented the film after seeing the trailer, in which Ana de Armas appeared in an apparently relevant role; but in the film he had disappeared: his character had been completely eliminated after test screenings. The plaintiffs alleged that they would never have paid for the film if they had known that de Armas was not in it. In Xataka The AI ​​trailers for ‘Avengers: Doomsday’ are indistinguishable from the real thing. In the end, Scorsese was right Universal Pictures requested the case be dismissed, arguing that the trailer conveyed the film’s theme in three minutes, but the judge rejected this line of defense. Although trailers involve creativity and editorial decisions, these elements do not nullify their fundamentally commercial nature: they must be treated as advertisements, and the sample they show of the film must correspond to the final product. The judge specified that his resolution was limited to the presence or absence of interpreters, excluding subjective assessments of tone, quality or generic expectations, but set a precedent. It’s not the first. The friction between what the trailers promise and what the movies deliver has generated some attempted litigation. None went so far as to establish firm jurisprudence, but all illustrate a recurring tension between public expectations and studio marketing practices. {“videoId”:”x88pexn”,”autoplay”:false,”title”:”Yesterday Trailer”, “tag”:””, “duration”:”180″} Drive (2011).a spectator sued the distributor claiming that the trailer presented the film as an action film in the style of ‘Fast & Furious’, when in reality it was an atmospheric drama with few chases and a practically mute protagonist. The case dragged on for years without success for the plaintiff: the film did contain driving scenes, but the discrepancy lay in the tone and pacing, not in objective matters. Suicide Squad (2016).The trailers had highlighted Jared Leto as Joker, but his presence in the final cut turned out to be less than fifteen minutes. a scottish fan announced his intention to sue Warner Bros. for false advertising. Leto himself fueled the controversy by confirming that the deleted material It was so extensive. what would make for an independent film. The lawsuit was unsuccessful, but it highlighted the problem of trailers edited before final editing. Dune (2021).Zendaya featured prominently in promotional material: posters, trailers, and a press tour placed her on the same level as Timothée Chalamet. However, his screen time barely exceeded seven minutes of a total footage of 155and most of his appearances were dream sequences. There were no legal repercussions: Zendaya had previously warned that her presence was reduced and that she had only filmed for four days. {“videoId”:”x88q6ut”,”autoplay”:true,”title”:”Dune Trailer”, “tag”:””, “duration”:”208″} The Castaway case.Robert Zemeckis, with his usual ability to anticipate the rest of the industry, had already traveled this path years before. The trailer for ‘Castaway’ (2000) was criticized at the time because it revealed the eventual rescue of the protagonist. Zemeckis defended himself with an argument that is still valid in the industry, beyond the current legal precautions: market studies indicate that the public wants to know exactly what they are going to see before paying for a ticket. The problem of outsourcing.Trailer production rarely falls to the films’ creative teams. Studios hire specialized agencies (Buddha Jones, Trailer Park or Mark Woolen & Associates, only in Los Angeles) that work with raw material, often months before there is a final assembly. These agencies operate fromdailieseitherrushesthe raw footage that comes directly from filming. The process of creating a trailer can take up to a year, a calendar that forces you to work without knowing the final cut. The case of ‘Yesterday’ is a direct consequence of this dynamic. In Xataka Good series are a journey that no spoiler can ruin The pressure for difference.When a franchise accumulates multiple installments, marketing teams face an additional dilemma: how to convince the public that this film offers something different from the previous ones? The answer often involves revealing the differentiating element. The trailer for ‘Terminator: Genesis’ (2015) told that John Connor, traditionally the leader of the human resistance, had been turned into a machine, a twist that constituted the dramatic core of the film. Director Alan Taylor acknowledged that the decision responded to a complex calculation: how to signal to the public that this installment was not a mere repetition of the previous ones? A dilemma that promises to continue giving us headaches for a long time. In Xataka | Disney is looking for a successor to Bob Iger as CEO and has only one condition: that he does not look like Bob Iger’s previous successor as CEO (function() { window._JS_MODULES = window._JS_MODULES || {}; var headElement = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)(0); if (_JS_MODULES.instagram) { var instagramScript = document.createElement(‘script’); instagramScript.src=”https://platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js”; instagramScript.async = true; instagramScript.defer = true; headElement.appendChild(instagramScript); – The news All viewers believe that the trailers spoil the movies too much. But there is a reason: fear of lawsuits was originally published in Xataka by John Tones .

Disney+ wants viewers to create AI content of its characters. The precedents are not very encouraging.

The company that literally changed copyright laws To prevent Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain, it wants its subscribers to create content with its ultra-protected characters. The company’s CEO announced that Disney+ will integrate generative AI tools so that viewers can produce short videos with characters from the house. Contradiction or strategy? Perhaps it is the first diffuse step towards something more radical: a future where studios tolerate spin-offs created by fans. The advertisement. In its last communication of results to shareholdersCEO Bob Iger announced that platform users will be able to create and consume self-generated content, primarily short videos. He has called these changes the most significant since 2019, and Iger confirmed that in addition to its already known alliances with companies with Epic Games, Disney has conversations with AI companies that have not been revealed. His priority, as he has commented, is to protect the properties of the house, which undoubtedly contrasts with the idea of ​​letting viewers generate content to their liking. Where are the shots going? The model Disney is likely exploring already exists. Showrunner, from Amazon-backed Fable Studio, calls itself the “Netflix of AI”. The platform allows you to generate complete animated episodes using simple 10-15 word descriptions. Its SHOW-2 technology automatically manages aspects such as script, animation, voices and editing. Last year they created nine unauthorized episodes of ‘South Park’ that racked up 80 million views. Edward Saatchi, CEO of Fable Studio, has confirmed that he has had conversations with Disney about licensing intellectual property. Saatchi’s vision: specific models where fans pay subscriptions to create stories within official universes. Users could even insert themselves into episodes by supplying photos or videos. Of course, the limitations are abundant: we are talking more about a gimmick with episodic content than about a real possibility of extensive narrative arcs. Showrunner also currently only produces animation. But it represents exactly what Disney seems to be trying: turning its passive audiences into co-creators, all under strict controls. Why now. According to the Deloitte Digital Media Trends 2025 study56% of Generation Z affirm that content on social networks is more relevant to them than traditional series and movies. They don’t just want to passively watch: they also want to participate. On the other hand, Disney+ added 3.8 million subscribers in the last quarter, but needs to differentiate itself in the saturated streaming market. And AI, in which Platforms like Netflix are also enteringgives that opportunity that will reward the fastest, which also has clear precedents in the publishing world: the fanfic phenomenon. Where are we going? We can guess. In the short term, we could see basic tools that allow creating short clips with limited characters and strict moderation. The content probably cannot be exported or taken to social networks. In the medium term, things get interesting. If the model workswe could see more complex narratives and a change that would be truly revolutionary: the entry into the canon of fan content that is especially popular. In an ideal world, compensation models would arrive for featured creators, in a similar way to partner programs that we already see on YouTube or TikTok. New rates could be proposed for platforms that allow creation, compared to cheaper ones that only allow content to be consumed. Again, we have very clear precedents: the communities of modding of the video games that have turned games like ‘Minecraft’ into fully participatory experiences. And before that, games like ‘DOOM’ they grew to infinity thanks to the contribution of the fans. The risks. For the brand, they are very clear: the loss of control of what can and cannot be shown. Disney would have to implement very strict and possibly costly moderation strategies to avoid situations like the memorable chaos generated by ‘Fortnite’ players when they started interacting with Darth Vader’s voice. Then there’s the legal maze: who actually owns the authorship of fan-generated content? Is it a derivative work, a collaboration, or a complete property of Disney or whoever it may be? Not to mention sexual or violent content that breaks laws: who is responsible for that? Beyond the legal implications are the concerns of artists: as Kotaku statedthis may be a way for large corporations to bridge the agreements reached after the 2023 strikes. If it is the viewers who work for free… why pay professional story creators? In Xataka | The chaos of streaming is causing a phenomenon that we thought was in recession: downloads are increasing

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.