I came across a blog post on Gizmodo the other day, where Casey Chan posted a video that proposes that Visual Effects have gotten too good and have led to a flattening out in audience attendance on effects-driven movies. I don't necessarily agree with the message, but it did bring some interesting thoughts to mind.

I remember when I saw Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow at a Visual Effects Society screening back in 2004 and wondered if we might be jumping past a point of no return in film making. Sky Captain was one of the first (if not the first) effects-driven films where the entire movie was shot in front of a green screen. The actors were only given props to interact with when necessary and the rest was done entirely in the computer during post production. While the movie was visually stunning to watch, I felt a distinct disconnect between the actors and the place they were in that left me unsatisfied with their performances. I think the film grossed just shy of $40 Million and disappeared into history...

Filmmakers seem to be going back to building practicals on large effects-driven movies (JJ Abrams built set pieces for Star Wars: The Force Awakens for example). Have they found that the movie just works better when everyone involved in the storytelling is actually interacting in the world they are telling about ?

Or is it a cost based choice ? After all, several hundred VFX artists in front of a large studio infrastructure animating and rendering images over a couple of years is an expensive proposition as well...

No conclusions here... Just some food for thought. I for one believe the world is a better place since they actually built the Millennium Falcon.