Sorry Ivan. I didn't mean anything bad by it. Not trying to put it down. It's just that you don't really hear of C4D or AE being used for example in Hollywood features apart from the exotic situation where the guy is a AE fan and use it for a shot, not because it was the best tool for the job since Nuke and Fusion run miles around AE for film compositing, but because he could. Same thing with C4D.
In the higher end compositing is normally done on Nuke, Fusion or Autodesk with Shake still being quite used as well.
3D is normally Maya and Lightwave with Max being bigger in the game industry than in the film industry.
AE will be used for motion graphics and so will C4D and only be used for the rest by the mid level and down. Not saying a Hollywood feature has not used AE for some shot like I said or even C4D. But they are usually not the tools of choice in that level. Many times not even for motion graphics.
Of course Nuke and Fusion suck at motion graphics. They are not made for that. They are specialist tools and do not try to gather to the one man band type of market that AE does. But I have to disagree with you when you say you can do much more serious compositing in AE than you can do motion graphics in Nuke / Fusion. I can't see myself doing serious compositing at all in AE unless I absolutely had to.
For me serious compositing would mean a something like this:
http://www.vfxtalk.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4950&d=1195469194 ,which I would probably shoot myself in the head if I had to do in AE.
Now for your occasional green screen interview and 2.5D presentations, sure.
