Why special effects no longer impress

brumgrunt writes: When an advert for toilet roll now has a CG dog in it, have we come to the point where special effects have no lasting impact whatsoever? As Den of Geek argues, "Where we once sat through Terminator 2 and gasped when Robert Patrick turned into a slippery blob of mercury, we now watch, say, Inception and simply acknowledge that, yes, the folding city looks quite realistic." http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/694475/the_numbing_ubiquity_of_computer_graphics.html

Suspension of disbelief

[3vi1]

I believe the effect from TFA is not merely due to overuse, but because we've now consistently seen effects of high enough caliber that we can completely suspend our disbelief. Unfortunately, this effect appears to have carried over to all movies and television, hence the popularity of Fox News.

Overuse

[Haedrian]

Its no longer "Special" Effects when its used in every single film.

Taking a really good example - the star wars prequels. Yes they exist.

Every scene had so many aliens, lightsabres, CGI sets, or whatever - that the next time you see an alien that doesn't look like a guy in a suit you barely nod.

I don't think so

[The_Battousai]

I wouldn't say they don't impress. A reaction to seeing good special effects doesn't need to be an overtly strong one. I've always been amazed by really good effects (this includes small amounts used in clever ways as well as larger amounts) like those in Jurassic Park (which holds up amazingly well for 1993), Lord of the Rings, King Kong ('05), Avatar, Inception, 2001: A Space Odyssey (amazing for 1968), etc. It seems like the apathetic response to special effects is on more of an individual level than the