> Is this because such visualizations are useless clutter or because film makers have better tools for creating them than actual programmers do? Experience sug

> Is this because such visualizations are useless clutter or because film makers have better tools for creating them than actual programmers do? Experience suggests mainly the former, a little of the latter. In a film visualisations could be said to fall into "scenery/looks cool/thematic" (which normally corresponds to useless) and "drives the story". For a vis to drive the story it needs a single interpretation - and animation helps with that. Real world vis rarely has a single interpretation, so attempting to animate like they do in a film would often make the vis less useful (as it would 'hide' valid interpretations, and most vis exists to help explore). That said, some vis does exist to tell a story (often deliberately hiding the inconvenient truths rather than highlighting useful ones) and benefits from film like tools. These tools do exist, but are (rightfully) focused on creative media rather than programmers. The overlap exists, but is small.