Because the thread was discussing CG becoming a commodity and Toy Story was the first thing that popped into mind for 90s CG; I have a vague recollection that it was the first feature-length full-CG film.
I only checked its production budget while writing my comment.
Actually, I picked the first CGI movie from the 90s, and it just happened to be good and very cheap.
But more importantly, the other half of my point was that $250 million ought to be enough to pay for a high effort production. It's not like "well Blender is free now so of course theatres are flooded with amateur CG films since their production has been commoditized".
Correcting for inflation (I used this tool by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm), 30M USD in nov. 1995 would have a purchasing power equivalent to roughly 62M USD in feb. 2025. This is below half the budget of Moana 2 (150M USD, released in nov. 2024) for instance.
I would never use the official inflation numbers (they underestimate the actual inflation). It's easy to see that the most expensive movie ever made back in the day has a much lower budget that the most expensive movie made now, even adjusted for the official inflation rate.
There does seem to be a sort of sampling bias thing that I've only recently noticed, that I think does come from being older now. I started to get back into old retro games I used to play, and I can't help but realize how many games back then were really bad, like not worth playing at all, and I just cherry picked the good ones. And being older, I'm not into gaming anymore, or really much of a consumer at all besides essential goods, being younger you do consume more entertainment products, like games. So I think there's definitely some sampling bias going on here where things look like they're getting worse. Or it could be both things, like it could actually be getting worse, but also not as much as it looks like because of this sort of sampling bias thing. Like having to have multiple accounts, like a Switch account plus some special Switch account and/or another account to play a game, or you buy a game and then there's an online store as well, or you buy a game in person but you can't get a copy digitally, or you buy a digital copy and you can't get a physical copy made for you for a flat fee, or that increasingly people don't actually literally own things anymore and it's all subscriptions or some sort of permission to use, or that a lot of games are just remakes of older games, or that you can't play single player offline, or that you can't transfer or give your digital game that you "bought" and "own" to someone else (less it be a physical copy, obviously), etc.
I mean, I see no issue with comparing high profile old games with high profile new games. The thing is thst there's less high profile bad games becsuse... Well, back then when you put in that money you werre trying to go for quality, I suppose.
It also was because development budgets were microscopic compared to today, so a bad release from a dev team of 5 people and 12 months won't bomb as badly as a 500 person 5 year "blockbuster" release. So yeah, Superman 64 was laughably bad but didn't sink a company the way Condord or even a not-that-bad game like Saints Row would.
Economy is different, as is the environment. There's still quality, but when a game flops, it's a tsunami level flop and not just a painful belly flop.
If the neighbor kid (Sidney "Sid" Phillips) from toy story appeared in a modern movie of a similar budge (not even inflation adjusted) people would comment about the bad CGI.
Toy Story was a good idea because attempts at depicting humans with CGI at the time had a very plastic look.
