Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Pinewood coming to USA

Hats off to Georgia for being pro-active in accommodating the movie industry.
 
Elsie N said:
Hats off to Georgia for being pro-active in accommodating the movie industry.
Click to expand...


One person's "proactive accommodation" is another person's outright bribe to try to steal part of an industry that is well established in another location for many, many years. And an attempt to join the race to the bottom in doing so, all the while hoping that someone else doesn't come along who's even more desperate and willing to lose money than they are. Which has proven to inevitably be the case.

Just saying...........
 
M Most said:
One person's "proactive accommodation" is another person's outright bribe to try to steal part of an industry that is well established in another location for many, many years. And an attempt to join the race to the bottom in doing so, all the while hoping that someone else doesn't come along who's even more desperate and willing to lose money than they are. Which has proven to inevitably be the case.

Just saying...........
Click to expand...

Excuse me, how has anyone stolen something here? Something cannot be stolen if it was never owned in the first place. California has been killing themselves for years taxing the populace to death. It's no wonder many have looked elsewhere. Of course Georgia tried, and did so successfully, to lure them to town. California does not have a lock on the movie industry. More and more though, it's looking like the legacy of what once was, and if they don't change things, you're only going to see more companies looking elsewhere to prosper.
 
I never said it has a "lock." What I did say is that attracting anything by selling yourself as "cheap" ultimately results in someone else coming along who's even cheaper than you are, forcing you to become ever cheaper over time. That is a lesson that's been learned the hard way in numerous places over the last few years. Just ask Michigan. Or Massachusetts. Or Pennsylvania. Or Vancouver. Or...............
 
And so the solution is to have everything go to California? I'm sure that would make the folks in MI, MA, PA quite happy. I'll leave out Vancouver since it's not in the USA. Maybe they're not selling themselves as "cheap" but rather not as outrageously expensive as California. Maybe California has priced itself out of the market because they think people will pay it, simply because of it being California. It IS a great state, many wonderful benefits to it, but companies are not wanting a hostile business environment and so they will gladly consider all their options. Same kind of logic for the gun manufacturers in Connecticut and Colorado moving elsewhere due to newly restrictive legislation. Why stay when the grass IS greener elsewhere? It's a novel concept really, let people keep more of the money they earn. They're likely to spend it in the local economy, thereby raising revenue.
 
M Most said:
One person's "proactive accommodation" is another person's outright bribe to try to steal part of an industry that is well established in another location for many, many years. And an attempt to join the race to the bottom in doing so, all the while hoping that someone else doesn't come along who's even more desperate and willing to lose money than they are. Which has proven to inevitably be the case.

Just saying...........
Click to expand...

Of course I'm understanding your point, but I see it more as expansion than just shifting from one coast to another or stealing business. I think we are in a content creators boom cycle and there is room for more people being trained in the digital movie making process in another location as was pointed out in the article. Hollywood will always have its tentpoles, but maybe its good for the industry to spread out and create more interest in other places?
 
Mark Phelan said:
And so the solution is to have everything go to California? I'm sure that would make the folks in MI, MA, PA quite happy. I'll leave out Vancouver since it's not in the USA. Maybe they're not selling themselves as "cheap" but rather not as outrageously expensive as California. Maybe California has priced itself out of the market because they think people will pay it, simply because of it being California. It IS a great state, many wonderful benefits to it, but companies are not wanting a hostile business environment and so they will gladly consider all their options. Same kind of logic for the gun manufacturers in Connecticut and Colorado moving elsewhere due to newly restrictive legislation. Why stay when the grass IS greener elsewhere? It's a novel concept really, let people keep more of the money they earn. They're likely to spend it in the local economy, thereby raising revenue.
Click to expand...


I'm only going to post this one reply, because I can see this turning into a "religious" issue, and that shouldn't be the case.

If incentives are intended to target certain industries, they're much better off targeting industries that can be permanent, offer permanent jobs, and staying power, as well as contribute to the tax base. Something like gun manufacturing requires factories and a permanent labor force, so it represents something that makes a lasting contribution, both to the community and the tax base. It's the same with any industry that has a manufacturing component, like automobile factories, electronics assembly plants, and even data centers. The motion picture industry offers none of that. They come to town, set up the circus tents, work for a month or two, and leave. And sometimes they come back again, but under similar circumstances. The "jobs" they offer are always temporary, and the contribution to the tax base is, well, non-existent when the state gives them back even more than their tax obligation amounts to. Eventually, the same legislators who enacted the incentive programs with stars in their eyes (when they start using the term "Hollywood North/South/East/West/Southeast/Northwest" or any variation thereof, that should be a pretty big warning sign) come to the startling realization that any revenues gained were both temporary and local, and that ultimately all they're doing is subsidizing rather wealthy large companies that own the studios with little gain for their efforts. At that point the program gets questioned, and it ultimately either gets slashed in the mistaken belief that they've already established a "permanent" film industry presence that already loves being there and will never leave (see: Vancouver/North Carolina/New Mexico/Australia....), or it gets "doubled down" in a continuing race to the bottom (see: Michigan), or it gets abandoned when reality sets in (also see: Michigan). Shows are not being shot in other states because of some need to "abandon" California, nor are they going to flee some "hostile business environment." They are going because other states are giving away money. It's that simple. As long as they are giving it away, and in ever increasing amounts, studios are happy to come and get it. And the moment they decide to give away less - even a few dollars less - they will stop coming (see: Vancouver, Australia, Michigan, Florida, Utah, et. al.). And it doesn't even matter if there are investments in studio infrastructure (see: Michigan). Other locations might not like to realize it, but the primary talents involved in motion picture creation - namely, writers, producers, directors, and to a lesser degree, actors - largely live in one of two places: Los Angeles, and New York. And they're not moving. Not to Louisiana, not to Georgia, and not to Canada. As long as that's the case, it will be easier and sometimes even more economical to do things in either L.A. or New York. That's why post production isn't leaving L.A., regardless of incentives.

Stories will always be written for many different locations, and if authenticity is the goal, they deserve to be shot in those locations. I have never had any problem with that. And I have never thought that L.A. "owns" the industry, it is simply the center of it. But I DO think that if states want to incentivize industries to relocate, they would get a lot more bang for the buck targeting industries that will actually bring something to the region that has some permanence that justifies taxpayer's money being spent on it. The motion picture industry is only too happy to show up and rape you, regardless of what state you are, and they are happy to use the stars in your eyes as their invitation to do so. Because they know that next time, you'll do exactly the same thing when they come pleading poverty and leave laughing all the way to the bank.

Ah, show business. There's no business like it.
 
Just want to point out one thing that is being overlooked in the discussion. That is, Pinewood STUDIOS is setting up in Atlanta (with the help of some local private wealth) and they aren't there just to make one movie. They are building sound stages. The same for another back lot also near Atlanta. They are big facilities and are going to be staying in the state rather than just coming in, shooting a movie to take advantage of the tax breaks, then everybody goes home. They are staying and growing the talent level there by instructing people who want to learn the business.

Just wanted to point this out as it was, in my mind, the crux of the thread.
 
As someone who has benefited from productions shooting in Massachusetts and Atlanta, I have to say that there is a lot of reality in what Mike is saying. Massachusetts has had its share of production roll through in the past few years, largely due to enticing tax incentives, stars with Boston connections (Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Adam Sandler), and the support of the community. In fact, filmmaking started to reach a fever pitch when Plymouth Rock Studios, a mega studio started to look like a reality. Well, a lot of us know how that turned out. Not so well. There have also been attempts in the legislature to cut the incentives down, salary caps, etc. And when that happened, seems like productions found another place to shoot. Things are okay here, but the reality is that at best, Boston is a nice place to come film a movie, with decent tax incentives. However, it is not a place that can support ten major movies being shot at the same time. Probably not even five. There are only a couple of legitimate camera rental houses, a few G+E shops, and a small assortment of post houses, studio space, etc. The infrastructure is just not there to become a Hollywood East.

Atlanta has built itself into a nice filmmaking community with some resources to handle it. Panavision is there, there are studios there. The infrastructure is suited to handle multiple productions happening simultaneously. Some stars have set up shop there. I believe Tyler Perry has a studio in Atlanta. Is it Hollywood East? Probably not. Certainly has had a nice run though, and I'll be there again soon on a project.

But to Mike's bigger point, these places, all of them have fought over attracting productions through incentive programs. Call it bribery, call it free money, call it whatever you want the bottom line is that once those incentives are no longer attractive, it's easy enough for the studios to look elsewhere. In order to sustain, you need talent, infrastructure, support from the state in terms of permitting, police details, all of the logistics necessary to pull of large productions. Obviously that's something that California and New York have had a lot of time to put in place. Other cities have been able to do it to a lesser extent.

LA is not entitled to the movie industry. But it is theirs to lose in some ways. They need to get the state into a good financial position and then work on keeping some of that work that has been going elsewhere. They have talent there. They have infrastructure. They have state logistics in check. They just need to give producers a reason to not go elsewhere.
 
Steve Sherrick said:
LA is not entitled to the movie industry. But it is theirs to lose in some ways. They need to get the state into a good financial position and then work on keeping some of that work that has been going elsewhere. They have talent there. They have infrastructure. They have state logistics in check. They just need to give producers a reason to not go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Seems the politicians in Sacramento are doing the opposite of that.

"California loses most amount of jobs since recession"

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2012/03/26/california-job-loss-recession-analysis.html
 
Elsie N said:
Just want to point out one thing that is being overlooked in the discussion. That is, Pinewood STUDIOS is setting up in Atlanta (with the help of some local private wealth) and they aren't there just to make one movie. They are building sound stages. The same for another back lot also near Atlanta. They are big facilities and are going to be staying in the state rather than just coming in, shooting a movie to take advantage of the tax breaks, then everybody goes home. They are staying and growing the talent level there by instructing people who want to learn the business.
Click to expand...

We'll see. If the incentives change, all bets are off. The only thing that will sustain a local flim infrastructure is locally produced, indigenous production. Relying on studio pictures from Los Angeles based producers by definition requires not only keeping these deep incentives in place, but probably increasing them over time. That takes a lot of willingness on the part of both the legislatures and the taxpayers.

Let's check back in about 5 years and see how that goes.
 
M Most said:
...
Let's check back in about 5 years and see how that goes.
Click to expand...

The test of time is the real true test. But from what I've read, I'd risk a two dollar Place ticket on Atlanta.
 
M Most said:
I'm only going to post this one reply, because I can see this turning into a "religious" issue, and that shouldn't be the case.

If incentives are intended to target certain industries, they're much better off targeting industries that can be permanent, offer permanent jobs, and staying power, as well as contribute to the tax base. Something like gun manufacturing requires factories and a permanent labor force, so it represents something that makes a lasting contribution, both to the community and the tax base. It's the same with any industry that has a manufacturing component, like automobile factories, electronics assembly plants, and even data centers. The motion picture industry offers none of that. They come to town, set up the circus tents, work for a month or two, and leave. And sometimes they come back again, but under similar circumstances. The "jobs" they offer are always temporary, and the contribution to the tax base is, well, non-existent when the state gives them back even more than their tax obligation amounts to. Eventually, the same legislators who enacted the incentive programs with stars in their eyes (when they start using the term "Hollywood North/South/East/West/Southeast/Northwest" or any variation thereof, that should be a pretty big warning sign) come to the startling realization that any revenues gained were both temporary and local, and that ultimately all they're doing is subsidizing rather wealthy large companies that own the studios with little gain for their efforts. At that point the program gets questioned, and it ultimately either gets slashed in the mistaken belief that they've already established a "permanent" film industry presence that already loves being there and will never leave (see: Vancouver/North Carolina/New Mexico/Australia....), or it gets "doubled down" in a continuing race to the bottom (see: Michigan), or it gets abandoned when reality sets in (also see: Michigan). Shows are not being shot in other states because of some need to "abandon" California, nor are they going to flee some "hostile business environment." They are going because other states are giving away money. It's that simple. As long as they are giving it away, and in ever increasing amounts, studios are happy to come and get it. And the moment they decide to give away less - even a few dollars less - they will stop coming (see: Vancouver, Australia, Michigan, Florida, Utah, et. al.). And it doesn't even matter if there are investments in studio infrastructure (see: Michigan). Other locations might not like to realize it, but the primary talents involved in motion picture creation - namely, writers, producers, directors, and to a lesser degree, actors - largely live in one of two places: Los Angeles, and New York. And they're not moving. Not to Louisiana, not to Georgia, and not to Canada. As long as that's the case, it will be easier and sometimes even more economical to do things in either L.A. or New York. That's why post production isn't leaving L.A., regardless of incentives.

Stories will always be written for many different locations, and if authenticity is the goal, they deserve to be shot in those locations. I have never had any problem with that. And I have never thought that L.A. "owns" the industry, it is simply the center of it. But I DO think that if states want to incentivize industries to relocate, they would get a lot more bang for the buck targeting industries that will actually bring something to the region that has some permanence that justifies taxpayer's money being spent on it. The motion picture industry is only too happy to show up and rape you, regardless of what state you are, and they are happy to use the stars in your eyes as their invitation to do so. Because they know that next time, you'll do exactly the same thing when they come pleading poverty and leave laughing all the way to the bank.

Ah, show business. There's no business like it.
Click to expand...

Mike, I'm not taking an adversarial position, I have no dog in this contest. You make valid points, but to a certain extent all I'm hearing is static. It's a done deal. Pinewood is opening their first US location just outside of Atlanta. You can cite all the reasons why LA is better, but they didn't choose California. So why is that? I have no idea. Could be they liked the scenery and topography. Maybe it reminded them of the UK more so than California. Maybe they like the fact that the flight from London isn't as long to Atlanta as it would be to Los Angeles. Maybe they like the fact that we speak funny like they do. I'm sure there are many reasons. Quality of life is better here than LA, that sort of thing. I know other parts of the country still think Atlanta is backwards and hick town, that is a very unrealistic assessment.

But the local folks have done fairly well in the entertainment area here and it's only growing. All of what you said has some truth, but the decision was made. This also sounds a bit like the film vs digital debate. You can give a million reasons why Rochester was the center of the film universe and yet what happened to Kodak?

I was in financial printing for thirty years and that was a business that had been around far, far longer than Hollywood. But it's gone with the wind too. (See what I did there? I crack myself up.) All this to say, nothing in this world is permanent, not even Hollywood. Is Atlanta going to replace it? Lord, I hope not! I'll have to move. No, Atlanta is never going to be the next Hollywood, and to be successful, they don't have to try and replicate it. Times have changed.

And you are right about the infrastructure being in place in California, but how much do these gypsies you speak of need if they're here today, gone tomorrow? That works both ways.

Atlanta had a flash in the pan in the mid '70's with the film industry with all the Burt Reynold's movies. Then it died. But the incentives did revive the industry and there has certainly been talk about what will happen when/if they are removed. Who knows. But for Pinewood to build an entire complex here and not be the first studio to do so, ( have you ever heard of EUE/Screen Gems?) that has to mean something. What that is, your guess is as good as mine. I just thought it was neat.
 
Maybe ODEMAX will have a virtual presence there. '-)
 
Mark Phelan said:
ou can cite all the reasons why LA is better, but they didn't choose California. So why is that? I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Probably because L.A. already has more existing stages and studio lots - by far - than anyplace else in the world. Which, by the way, didn't stop the Manhattan Beach Studios from getting built in the late 1990's, or the L.A. Center Studios in downtown L.A. from getting built in the early 2000's, or Disney's plans for an all new studio in Santa Clarita from going forward over the next few years. Not to mention the fact that all of the major lots in the Los Angeles area are already owned and operated by the studios that are based there. There isn't a big need for independent studio operators like Pinewood to enter an already well served market.

And BTW, I never said L.A. is "better." I said it was the center of the industry. I also said that most other locations get their L.A. based studio work based largely (if not almost entirely) on how big an incentive they're willing to put up. And I do stand behind both of those statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top