Digital economics.(popularity of movies because to digital-effects)

Given the incredible string of blockbuster digital-effects movies and computer-animated films released over the past decade and longer, there should be little doubt, even from those outside the computer graphics industry, about the quality of work that digital studios have been producing. Unfortunately, there appears to be a gap between the real versus perceived value of their work.

Consider that of the 25 highest-grossing movies of all time, all but two were effects films--that is, films that rely on digital effects or animation to take audiences places they've never been before and show them things they've never seen before.

Consider, too, that most of these films became blockbusters without the benefit of big-name "A-list" actors. In fact, all but a few featured performers who were not considered major stars at the time--although several subsequently became ones, including Harrison Ford (after Star Wars) and Leonardo DiCaprio (after Titanic).

Moreover, many other effects movies were hugely profitable, including those lacking in other qualities, such as the recent hit The Day After Tomorrow, which brought in more than a half-billion dollars at the box office despite a deficient plot and script.

Clearly, audiences enjoy effects films and always have, ever since the screen's first science-fiction story--the 14-minute black-and-white French satire A Trip to the Moon--premiered in 1902. Unfortunately, although effects drive box-office revenues, and although effects artists command relatively higher salaries than any group of artists likely have ever received before, effects studios as a whole are not necessarily being compensated according to their value, at least with respect to today's leading actors.

The main reasons for the inequity are steeped in movie-industry ...