Best Visual Effects is usually the category summer blockbusters vie over, with superhero films being particularly overrepresented in the last 20 years despite few wins (“Spider-Man 2” is the only film in that genre to get it in that time period). As such, films nominated in this category usually have budgets exceeding $100 million, with last year’s winner, “Avatar: The Ways of Water,” having a budget estimated to be over $300 million.

So how much did this year’s winner cost?

If you said $250 million, you would be mistaken, but that is the estimated sticker price of “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3,” which was nominated for the award.

You would also be incorrect if your guess exceeded that, as nominee “Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 1” is estimated to have a ridiculous price tag of about $290 million.

If you guessed lower, like $200 million (the cost of fellow nominee “Napoleon”) or $80 million (the cost of nominee “The Creator”), you still would be dead wrong.

The winner for Best Visual Effects, “Godzilla Minus One,” cost about $15 million to make. That’s peanuts when it comes to film budgets. To put that in perspective, that’s in the ballpark of what it cost to make horror films “M3GAN” ($12 million) and “Evil Dead Rise” ($15-19 million) — a genre known for ultra low budgets.

The production of “Godzilla Minus One” is truly fascinating. It relied on skillful, clever uses of practical effects — including Godzilla puppets — blended with convincing visual effects, which is an approach many films attempt but few pull off so well, especially on a shoestring budget. Much of its high production values also comes from its tight direction — it’s very careful to not show Godzilla too much ala “Jaws” so the monster never feels fake — with most of the film taking place in static locations where its human characters interact. Much of what makes the film effective is what’s not on screen, as it effectively builds this impending sense of dread as its characters warily expect another attack.

But when it’s time for action, particularly when Godzilla is destroying a location or during the film’s final fight scene in which our heroes confront the seemingly unstoppable beast — which is executed flawlessly with high octane emotional payoff and fantastic moments of misdirection — the film doesn’t miss. “Godzilla Minus One” might be a technical marvel based on how it managed to do so much with so little, but it’s also a masterclass on what to show, how to show it and when that the producers and directors of bloated Hollywood blockbusters should study.

For me, that’s what sets “Godzilla Minus One” apart visually against even the best superhero films — which perhaps sport CGI-induced bloat better than any other genre. Marvel and DC productions have become lazily dependent on CGI and what it allows them to do that they’ve stopped thinking about how to bring these stories to live in an interesting way. Most live action superhero films and shows have so much CG that they feel like cartoons. Gone are the days of Christopher Reeve’s “Superman,” where there were clear limitations on what special effects could do and there was an understanding that they should be used sparingly (something ironically the sequels to that film should have done). Now, we can have characters do anything anywhere — and writing and direction has suffered as a result.

The triumph of “Godzilla Minus One” serves as a resounding victory over the current state of Hollywood. It proves you don’t need an excess of $100 million to make the best looking film of the year and that tight direction, good writing and effective acting that culminate in a product that’ll make you feel something profound will always win out over hours of mind-numbing computer generated nonsense.