There are a few nice exceptions. They built a small viking village for a childrens movie at a bavarian lake, and after the filming it was kept as a tourist attraction.
Yeah, if it's done with that in mind from the beginning, you can get some really interesting things (and the cost may not be that much more than a one-off set and removal, too).
I feel like having that in mind from the beginning should be more common. Filmmakers get their movie sets, local communities get cool landmarks, win-win.
If you see the quality of workmanship of sets and props (see: used Fast & Furious stunt cars bought by Tavarish) you’d be glad they tear them down and return the area to pre-filming state. Making things look good on camera are not at all related to human usability long term.
Implicit in my comment was the idea that props be built with long-term human usability in mind. Even better if communities pitch in with labor and/or supplies to help make that happen.
Ah! In that case I agree, I think it could be a good rehabilitation concept for the incarcerated non-violent offenders and great for youth to build old world skills with a hammer and measuring tape.
Yeah, imagine if the set from Carrot Top's Chairman of the Board was preserved as a local community landmark. What a gift to humanity!
If the film isn’t a huge success (p > 0,5 for the typical movie, I would guess), local communities get some weird set of buildings designed not live in, but to provide the right cool video shots, and lose, potentially, some nature.
Success is relative. A global flop might be a local blockbuster or vice versa.