The Reporter writes about the lucrative year "Hollywood North" had in entertainment production:
Canadian film and TV production volume hit a record high last year, thanks to Hollywood. In all, [their] industry saw overall production levels rise 8.9% to a new record of $5.49 billion last year.
Our northern neighbor is all the rage with film makers these days thanks to the Canadian Film Production Tax Credit. Entertainment tax incentives have become such a primary consideration, that each state in our country now offers their own tax carrot in the attempt to lure productions to their soil.
A few months back, we discussed the inner workings of these incentives and why not participating is the smartest move. Now it appears that message is becoming all too clear.
In our previous post, we highlighted who ultimately funds those incentives and why backing them could be detrimental for all locales. A tragic example of this was brought to light recently in the great state of Michigan:
Raleigh’s Pontiac Studios, the flagship state-of-the-art $80 million studio complex is reportedly going to default on a bond payment next month and, tragically, the state’s pension funds are on the hook for over $600,000.
Raleigh is not the first movie studio to have financial issues that not only effect the studio, but also end up costing the Michigan taxpayers. The people in Allen Park, Michigan, got burned when a planned studio project blew up in their face, leaving the city unable to pay for things like their fire department (which they had to close).
Blog author Adrian McDonald writes the following which encapsulates the matter:
What film backers in these incentive states (and many others) need to start realizing is that no matter how much film industry infrastructure these places build, the key to their ultimate survival is a steady flow of productions. The infrastructure is not, and never will be, the key to drawing that steady stream. The only draw that has ever mattered is the money they (the filmmakers) get from ridiculously massive film incentives. No incentives means no Hollywood. It is literally that simple.
It is apparent that the precarious incentives are starting to show their weakness as states are now realizing that simply offering the money will not ensure the beginnings of their own production industry. Its unfortunate that the public are the ones being made to suffer.
What's also apparent is the fact that the studios will continue to seek them out until such time as they are completely eliminated. Hopefully now people will realize the best move is to withdraw their incentives and wait for the whole scheme to come crashing down. Until that time, the conglomerates will continue to feed off the free money being thrown their way.
Posts
34 comments:
Ayn Rand was right. Get government out of the business of business. Even supporting it financially. Let businesses succeed on their merits.
Just make sure there is a level playing field, especially for the private sector unions. The public sector unions can all rot.
ayn rand was always wrong (and a REAL whore---even if most the people in Hollywood she tried to sleep with to further her career rejected her). Selfishness is always a losing proposition. Hence the trouble the gNOp has brought this country to at the moment.
If you look at the states who offer these tax incentives, they're almost all run by wingnuts who "don't believe in government" unless it can line their pockets.
They got what they paid for. We can only hope the citizens of these states wake up and tar and feather them all--starting with nikki haley, rick scott, scott walker, haley barber, bobby jindal, and jan brewer. Crucify them all.
^ this is that same guy with so much ugliest. A lot of hate in there pal, I wish you better days.
Not really... Although he/she does list some people who really hate America and it's citizenry.
And, as far as Rand being extremely promiscuous sexually (with men and women), that's a well established fact. That she did it in an attempt to further her career shows the shallowness of her thinking--with selfishness at her core.
Wait, hang on - you mean to tell me someone used SEX to better their lot in life? I am shocked! Shocked I say!
Be honest, if you agreed with her politics you'd not give a rat's ass about her sex life.
^ this is that same guy with so much ugliest. A lot of hate in there pal, I wish you better days.
This is why arguing on the Internet is stupid. It's nearly impossible to detect a retard. Thankfully, posts like this remind me that they are clearly out there. Be careful folks, don't forget about retard strength.
Ayn Rand was damaged anti-communist goods who did not understand America, and over-compensated for her harsh past by writing pulp fiction. No true economic thinker takes her work seriously. She is the L. Ron Hubbard for naive, disaffected so-called American 'Libertarians'. Her theories are as juvenile, flawed, and cult-like as Scientology. She tends to attract people who respond to simple, axiomatic, ten-step seminars on self-improvement. Small business, hyper-individualist, and militant personalities tend to adopt her pseudo-economic science to justify everything from war to the exploitation of entire populations of marginalized nations. She was an asshole.
You can disagree with Objectivism and Rand's philosophy--and I wouldn't blame you. But point your argument at her premises, not by ad hominem attacks on the messenger. Unless her actions contradicted her philosophy; they are in fact irrelevant to the discussion of the idea itself.
You mean objectivism. Of all the economic -isms, it deserves a capital letter least of all. It was still born.
I stand corrected! *tips hat*
Thank you anon 7:52. Don't even know why Rand was brought up. What did she have to do with the Michigan tax incentive and the collapse of that studio in the first place??
Shouldnt there be a way to persuade companies to keep jobs here instead of using cheaper labor elsewhere? Who else has the power to do that other than the goverment?
If 'tax incentives' are not the answer, what is? I don't have an answer to the last question, but I though Id throw it into the disscussion....
d
I think you mis-read what the problem is. Nothing wrong with tax incentives for the employer, but it ultimately doesn't help the city that is giving them is the point.
A good idea would be to penalize anyone taking jobs off-shore as they eliminate jobs hear. Seems like I've heard that somewhere...
No, the only thing companies need in America is little fat blobs who have money to buy mountains of consumer goods that break or become unfashionable in the shortest amount of time possible. That is it. And if the little fat blobs don't buy the shit, companies go selling it elsewhere, end of story. If they can bribe the weak politicians enough to get extra fiat cash in the hands of the little blobs so they can begin taking cruises again, the crap jobs come back overnight. That is the only American Dream I currently know of. It would be great to have a real economy, but that is not looking likely, considering the state of the current political debates.
I know we are not a union signatory but we over here at Imageworks were told last week that they are relocating animation to the Van-fucking-couver office. The Union artists at Sony Pictures Animation will stay in Culver City but we animators are out. I'm not going to get all political here but something has to be done to stop the studios from just pulling up stakes and leaving town. I mean come on I just bought a house, my kid is in school, my wife has a career. It's not like relocating to Canada is even an option for me but when I told my manager all that I got "Well then you should start looking" What the fuck?
HAHAHA! bet you Imageworks ppl wished you'd voted for the Union to come in now don't you? No you all thought "Managaement loves us and they will take care of us". No you understand management loves money and if Canada throws money at them they will run wherever they can to get the best deal. Sorry for your troubles but you all asked for it.
Not sure how many people who were at Sony way back then (when the union vote happened) are still at Sony now. My impression is not many. Bad mouthing someone with petty schadenfreude is uncool.
That sucks. Disney and Dreamworks are both hiring animators.
Best of luck
"HAHAHA! bet you Imageworks ppl wished you'd voted for the Union to come in now don't you?"
And if they HAD voted union, do you really think Sony would have done anything differently? Don't be a dick. These are people's lives.
^ Agreed.
And some of the other shows are crunching and need help to finish so hopefully they can pick up some project employment.
Sounds like you answered your own question...
Doesn't really make much difference... Union or Not... Studios like Imageworks and Dreamworks, Disney or Rhythm and Hues... They're all farming out work to other countries like India, Canada and China.
SO what arguments do you have for being pro-union? you're not protecting us from this rampant offshore production are you????
Health benefits? 401k? What good are benefits are when I don't have a job????
Wake up and smell the curry. You collect dues and don't do shit.
You really think Sony would be in any different state than they are now if they were 100% Union?
.....waiting to be called a "troll" by the union President.
Troll .. and I'm no president.
Sadly though, I have validated some of your statements in a new post.
Happy reading.
@10:30pm
For all the work that you have said is going away, TAG membership is the highest it's been in it's 50 year history.
Imageworks once attempted to move all the work to New Mexico a few years ago. Guess where all those artists are now? Many are back working at Imageworks in Culver City.
The facilities are going to try to go to Canada and other subsidized regions because the studios coerce them to go. Remember, the facilities don't get the rebate money, the Studios do. The facilities actually lose more money going up to Canada.
No matter how good or how strong a union is, it will never stop employers from making bad decisions.
"Bad mouthing someone with petty schadenfreude is uncool"
I wish this was true - but go back and check all the petty schadenfreude that appears on here when it comes to a studio's film not making box office numbers, etc. This blog is a cyber dog pile.
VFXSoldier -
I know you only want work to be done in LA but I'm pretty tired of reading your uninformed assumptions about the NM office. 1) Sony never had any notions of moving ALL the work to NM. 2) "guess where all those artists are now? Many are back in Culver..." That part doesn't even make sense (and it's supposed to be your "ha! See?! Moment). There are still many artists in NM too.
I'm sorry we don't all want to live in LA. I personally would never move back even if it were my only option. Please stop throwing people under the bus in your quest to make sure work is only happening in your backyard.
I know artists who were told by execs that the intention of new mexico was to move all the work to New Mexico. Most of the artists refused to move and many went to DreamWorks.
NOW, the new execs are focused on Vancouver and giving them ultimatums to move or get fired.
I don't care where the work is done, what I don't like is artists being forced to sell their homes, move their families so the big rich US Studios get a rebate and the facilities and artists lose. I want the work to be done where the artists want to reside.
If they all say New Mexico then go for it. But from many I talk to they don't want to move and yet are forced to move. Soon you will be asked to move to Vancouver as New Mexico kills it's subsidy program.
Sony is not moving people to Vancouver because of the status of the NM subsidy (which is not in the process of being killed). They're doing it because it's the next shiny thing. I don't like it anymore than you do. I don't want people to be forced to chase the work around either. I'm just tired of you dumping on NM like it was some failed experiment when in fact, it is profitable and people are happy. That's all I have to say.
When you say Vancouver is the "next shiny thing" you understand why right?
Because the studios prefer that over New Mexico: The subsidy is larger and the NM subsidies were capped. If doing in NM was so successful and so profitable then why doesn't this exist?
http://vfxsoldier.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/sony-imageworks-facility.jpg
That was the intended facility to be built in New Mexico. It was clear the intention was to get the artists to move there. Compare that photo to what the NM facility is today. Its a far cry from what was intended.
and you just say that its profitable and people are happy. Really? What basis do you have that Imageworks is making a profit there. If that was true why are artists moving back? Why hasn't Sony told people to move there?
Do you think the workers' happiness is a factor when it comes to executive business decisions? Try telling that to the hundreds of artists that lost their homes when they were coerced to move to these subsidized location.
You're just as much at risk of being a victim of this as anyone in LA, Canada etc. You may be tired of me pounding this issue, but I'm not.
I'm all for artists choosing to reside in cities that are far better off than L.A. Preferably in the U.S. where there are a lot of states with much better living conditions than southern California. Its a new world and lots of quality work can be done remotely.
People like to rag on LA, but almost all artists I know here, love it here. The weather, theres tons to do, close to skiing and surfing, hiking, galleries, great restaurants, I could go on and on. Plus if you're laid off, there's dozens of studios (large small and games) to apply to.
Studios opening satellite studios is fighting a losing battle I think
I agree with several of the previous posts but it's all relative and really depends on where someone finds the best value and quality of life for his or her family. No artist should feel strapped to a city they don't want to live in.
'People like to rag on LA, but almost all artists I know here, love it here. The weather, theres tons to do, close to skiing and surfing, hiking, galleries, great restaurants, I could go on and on. Plus if you're laid off, there's dozens of studios (large small and games) to apply to.'
LOL. Your personal experience bias does not let you even conceive the notion than some people might simply not like LA. Could it be that those who didnt like living there have left?
I dont think it matters if you like LA or not. some love it some dont. As said being forced to move is the key point!
Sony promised lots of imageworks people long contracts if they go to NM and now some dont get extended. does it still exist? yeah, does it get smaller? also true. Some bought houses and did not get extended. Is it nicer than La? depends on perspective, I can totally under and respect that some prefer it.
Now Sony is moving animation to Vancouver. the split of imageworks vs SPA was always weird and this make sit even more apparent what union vs non union can do: you are asking steve if they could help jobs not moving? Why do you THINK SPA artist are staying in Culver City while all of anim at Imageworks is moving to VAN? this is very clearly an ADVANTAGE of being a union show/shop.
About schadenfreude: Sure it sucks to point fingers but the point is valid, if Imageworks had voted YES for IATSE at that time, theyd be all union now, so MAYBE anim would not move, otherwise keeping SPA in Culver makes no sense!
Sony had a big change of execs and keep denying many artist culver positions but offering them Vancouver ones. they tried that on green lantern with NM and at the end they still had to hire like crazy for Culver to get the movie done.
the VAN artist pool is not nearly big enough to satisfy the need.
disclosure: LA is my home, i have works at Sony in Culver and am currently working in Vancouver (not at Sony)
Post a Comment