>>213648120
Big-budget Hollywood CGI could still look incredible up until circa 2007. That year is roughly the tipping point from when shooting on digital instead of film became more common too. It's all about saving a couple bucks here and there, ultimately. What's the point having cutting-edge CGI or shooting on film stock when the audience doesn't even care (and can't even tell if it looks good) and your movie bombs at the box-office?

>>213431098
>How often do we get that level of CGI…
You forget how 20 years ago most Hollywood CGI was still made in the USA.

>>213334534
This is what CGI used to look like when it was made in the USA, nearly two decades ago. Nowadays it's just outsourced to the lowest bidder, usually in India, etc.