Matte Object’s Comments

• Jun 5th, 2015 @ 10:47am

  Re:

  on The Out And Out Corruption Of Hollywood's State Subsidies
  Maybe because most of those jobs aren't highly mobile.
  
  The film industry is, by definition, a highly mobile industry, all of it's infrastructure requirements fit into one of their white trucks. Even soundstages are just converted warehouses and there's no shortage of those around the country.
  
  Film subsidies don't create jobs, they just rent them temporarily at huge expense - remember that these aren't tax cuts, the states renting the jobs are covering up to a third of the cost of making a film just in exchange for hiring a few locals and the second they stop giving Hollywood free money, Hollywood leaves (look at North Carolina).
• Feb 26th, 2015 @ 10:33am

  Re: Its Simple

  on Despite Losing Money Year After Year, States Still Wondering How They Can Hand Out BIGGER Subsidies To Hollywood
  Lord of the Rings worked well for New Zealand, but that's really the exception rather than the rule.
  
  NZ spent a fortune subsidizing The Hobbit trilogy which barely feature any real locations at all and they're spending even more subsidizing the upcoming Avatar movies which feature even less.
  
  When Cleveland acts as a cheaper stand in for New York in Avengers, does it generate lots of tourism for Cleveland or New York? When Maryland stands in for DC in House of Cards, who gets the tourist dollars? Do people flock to the fake MD Capitol Building or do they go to the real one?
  
  The idea that just because LOTR was a good investment as advertising for NZ means that all film subsidies are an equal investment is fundamentally flawed - of course, it doesn't stop MPAA based studies from claiming that all tourism is film related which is about the only way they can show a net positive impact from giving billions to Hollywood.
• Feb 26th, 2015 @ 10:12am

  Re:

  on Despite Losing Money Year After Year, States Still Wondering How They Can Hand Out BIGGER Subsidies To Hollywood
  Yep, the only way to build a film industry is to finance local film makers to make their own movies in the state.
  
  It's not glamorous and it's slow to create jobs, but the jobs created (and any profits gleaned from the movies) are genuine and stay resident in the state.
  
  Curiously, states like NC reduced their spending cap AND increased the minimum spend to ensure that this kind of thing is impossible, it's like they're saying "we don't like giving money to Hollywood, but we're going to make damned sure we don't create our own permanent film industry either".
• Feb 26th, 2015 @ 10:06am

  Re: British Columbia

  on Despite Losing Money Year After Year, States Still Wondering How They Can Hand Out BIGGER Subsidies To Hollywood
  BC is giving Hollywood $330m this year (a jump of $70m over last year) in order to retain those jobs, particularly the ones in post production where Canadian taxpayers cover roughly 60% of salaries (not an exaggeration, post production is eligible for a further 20% credit on top of the base 25%, then add in the Canadian Federal one and you get to 58.4%).
  
  If you're covering more than half of someone's salary by mailing a check to Hollywood, how can you possibly be even close to breaking even on those subsidies?
  
  Even California doesn't come close to breaking even on these subsidies and all the movie studios are based here.