So, there's a mistake the author is making here: since film budgets have gone up, the increased cost has to be for more VFX, and thus the reason why CGI ruins m

So, there's a mistake the author is making here: since film budgets have gone up, the increased cost has to be for more VFX, and thus the reason why CGI ruins movies isn't so much that CGI is cheap but that directors are unconstrained by it. There is definitely a kernel of truth in there, but I want to point out that VFX is actually still comparably cheap. VFX artists are unusual in that they are one of the few parts of Hollywood that isn't unionized in any meaningful way. This is because of outsourcing. On paper, this is all above-board because the artists being hired live in lower-cost-of-living cities. However, in practice, this also means the artists do not have the option of unionizing. So the studios can browbeat their artists into churning out uninspired work quickly[0]. The article brings up a few more technical problems; such as CGI characters not fitting into practical sets all that well, or not having all that much visual weight to them when interacting with practical actors. However, that's something that can be worked around and planned for with creative set or prop design. This doesn't happen because the people involved don't care, or don't have the time to care, if their bad guy looks like a hologram. That's really the core problem. Bad CGI work in an otherwise good movie can be excused, and it is possible to make good CGI that will hold up over time. But uninspired movies are bad whether or not they use special or practical effects. The problem is not so much that CGI is a cheap filler material for movies or that directors don't want to work under constraints; but that studios are running the show and asking for safe, uninspired work. Everything else is just a symptom. The traditional Hollywood business model was that creatives would option off novel projects to the suits. This has now changed to a model in which the suits ask creatives to create derivatives of works they already own. It's why every studio was jumping over themselves to create a "cinematic universe" about a decade ago. Why go picking through a bunch of projects that might succeed or fail on their own merits when you can bring out a franchise with a built-in audience[1][2]? [0] This is also a problem in 2d animation, specifically Japanese animation studios that churn out lots of light novel adaptations. [1] Yes, your minds turned to Marvel at this point; but I don't think we should blame the MCU for this. The trend towards franchise film started long before we started making true-to-the-comics superhero movies. [2] China is also a big factor here. If you can please the PRC censors, big-budget Hollywood blockbusters do very well there even if they get panned for being too derivative in the states.