Except that SFX houses have cannibalized each other by rampant underbidding.

Studios love that. But its literally putting the majority of SFX houses out of work.

The fact that they can give a section of movie to some guy in India to do the SFX work is another problem.

We'll see a SFX union rise up in a few years time.

I'm actually cool with that whole "star power" dynasty coming to a close, Scott. It created a rather homogenized era of largely forgettable films... probably everything from 1992 through 2004 or so... all star driven... with questionable value. The movie posters of this period tell the tale... huge shots of Ellen DeGeneres or Julia Roberts or Adam Sandler with nary a clue as to what the film might be about.

Even though I'm not exactly a huge fan of the F/X-destructo-porn of someone like Emmerich or Bay, at least there's SOME level of creativity being exercised there... and that, in the long run, is a good thing for writers, I would say.

Scott, why do you think it is that Roland Emmerich has been so successful? I mean there are many other "spectacle" movies that have flopped.

It's not like the critics are praising Emmerich's movies either: 2012 has a RT rating of 39%, The Day After Tomorrow has 45%, 10,000 BC a measly 9% - it had a budget of $105M and a WW gross revenue of $270M - so obviously it can't have anything to do with what the critics think.

And none of these films have a built in brand like Transformers or a preexisting super hero, for instance.

But, I guess they do have a built in high-concept that people can buy into. "Freedom" (Independence Day), "Global Warming" (The Day After Tomorrow), "End Of The World" (2012).

Could that be it? Or are his movies just a better spectacle than others?

I think one thing Emmerich did was capitalize on the apocalyptic fear that swept this nation in the decade after 9/11. He tapped into that hopeless, so-big-it-must-crumble, we're all in trouble American zeitgeist the way Fox News has. While people have always set rapture/world ending deadlines, it's seems like we've had more - or at least more have been publicized - in this past decade than another other, building up to the big kahuna, 12/21/12. But I think people are getting tired of watching the world get destroyed. Is it just me, or is this starting to feel done to death, like the cat's out of the bag and we all know we're a pretty hearty species and it's going to take a lot to actually wipe us off the face of the earth?

While this article is grounded in some validity, it ends with flawed logic. To make a concise argument you must understand ALL the facts. First he compares two Rom-Coms to a huge blockbuster film, with heart stopping special effects. Audience will always gravitate toward that. To the average moviegoer (not film nerds like us lol) they much rather see something blow up than see a middle-aged Tom Hanks find love again. Second, Transformers are a franchise with decades of history behind it and generations of fans. Releasing an original rom-com during the same weekend as Transformers was essentially box office suicide. Look at the triumphant return of Woody Allen with Midnight in Paris. There you have a legendary director and recognizable stars and the film probably won’t even come close to a third of what this new Transformer films makes.

A-List actors are still hugely important. They can take a good script and make it into a great film. And they can take a great script and make it into an Academy Award winning film.

I think FX is a new star among movie stars now. I mean if you boast a budget of $XXX million and add a director known for good FX I think that adds to the box office.

As for Star power, in a classical sense, I think you have to look at who really is a star now. It's sort of up in the air. Is Shia Lebouef a star? I'd say so, look at his box office numbers. We are simply looking a younger breed of star, that is all.

Re Emmerich: I think Annika's probably right. As the recent weirdness with that crazy minister predicting the apocalypse, how the media got caught up in that, clearly the idea of 'end times' has some sort of resonance with a wide audience. So stories work on a meta level, but also on a more personal level, that is the simple fact of our own eventual date with death.

As to why Emmerich's movies in particular work and others don't, that's probably worth a GITS post. One thing is he always works that contrast between BIG and SMALL -- the Big Event (apocalypse) and the Small People (potential victims). But I'm not sure there's ever been an apocalypse / destruction porn movie that hasn't done the same thing.

I think I will post something on this subject, see what folks think.

"Destruction porn" - what a great way to put it!