I have no idea what you're talking about. I never suggested "dismissing" either approach. Nor did I say that effects have no merit or value. And you say that taking my idea of limiting effects shots to the extreme would mean no effects at all, which is silly. Yes, you're right, which is why I said limit, and not remove. What's the point of taking a reasoned argument to the extreme? I don't support such an extreme. My philosophy doesn't suggest that if limiting is good, removing is better. That's idiotic. I'm not sure what the point is of arguing with points I deliberately didn't make.

In any case, to clarify: story first, then effects as needed. The effects must not detract, merely enhance the story. It has been proven conclusively that the upper limit for any production seems to be around 300 for CG effects shots to remain absolutely top-grade. Beyond that, the quality slips and they effects become less convincing, and detract from the story.

Whether you like Spielberg or not, he is a great storyteller. He also sets himself VERY rigid shot counts on his films - surprisingly low shot counts, actually - and the work in his film is always absolutely consistent. It also helps that he won't final a shot until it's right.

_Mike