Movie Studios: Boston is the new Hollywood.

nm88 - the above story from the Globe obviously contradicts every point you make in your post. Will you be retracting it, now?

Mr. Keith, you appear to be angry about something. I'm not interested in making this personal.

The GLOBE article paints a more complicated picture than I did. True enough. But I stand by what I said. I believe long term benefits exist. Are there short-term compromises and costs? That would appear to be the case according to this article and the committee's findngs. If that is the case, is the program worth it? I say, yes. You say, no.

I would suggest that not all benefits are dollar denominated.

Does this program need fine-tuning -- restrict employment to state residents, for instance --maybe that would be a good idea. Unlike some states with similar programs we are close to other urban centers with their own talent pool and location possibilities, making us a different and possibly more complicated provider.

I know we all can agree on two things: we want what's best for the state; and we distrust the legislature's ability to wisely spend our money.
 
Why government handouts to Hollywood are growing
The Economist

WITH its deserts and its slight air of decay, New Mexico is a good place to shoot a post-apocalyptic action film. But the state?s natural charms alone would probably not have been enough to lure the makers of ?The Book of Eli?. Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove, who are producing the Warner Bros film, say they were particularly enticed by New Mexico?s generous production subsidies and interest-free loans.

All but seven of America?s 50 states now offer incentives to lure filmmakers. Some states refund a portion of in-state production costs, which may include actors? salaries. Others issue rebates against state taxes that can be sold to local residents. The club is growing quickly. California, which resisted subsidies for years, recently approved its first clutch of recipients. Kentucky is considering its first application. With banks and hedge funds virtually out of the game, state governments are now the most important external source of funding in the film business.

Public largesse has led to some odd artistic decisions. ?Gran Torino?, a story that originally revolved around Minnesota?s distinctive community of Hmong immigrants, was transplanted to Michigan to take advantage of that state?s subsidies, which can amount to 42% of production costs. The forthcoming ?Battle: Los Angeles? will be filmed mostly in Baton Rouge, Louisiana?a reversal of the tradition by which southern California stands in for everywhere else.

Studies commissioned by the states tend to show a healthy return on investment. Filmmakers have certainly learned to follow the money: California?s share of big-studio productions dropped from two-thirds in 2003 to less than one-third in 2008 as its politicians dithered over subsidies. It is also likely that subsidies have helped America compete with Europe and Canada, although the weak dollar has probably done more to restrain what is known as ?flyaway production?.

The continuing bidding war is likely to result in diminished returns for the states. Michigan?s subsidies, once considered improbably lavish, may soon be matched by Washington, DC. Alaska has approved a 44% rebate, although production companies must film in rural areas during the state?s gruelling winter to qualify for the full sum. Whatever the benefit to the states, however, the subsidies are becoming ever more important to Hollywood.

But as state budgets tighten, a backlash is gathering. This summer Indiana and Wisconsin reduced their rebates. A bill to do the same is before the Michigan legislature. In the Midwest the surge in foreclosures and the collapse of traditional industries has hardened hearts. Jud Gilbert, a Michigan state senator who opposes film subsidies, points out that if he could offer a 42% rebate on car production, that industry would not be in crisis.

Yet a broad retreat from film subsidies is unlikely. Some of the first places to offer rebates, such as New Mexico and Louisiana, now have impressive sound stages and a deep pool of production workers. States that want to compete with them will have to be extremely generous. And big studios and independent outfits are sharply trimming their film output in response to the credit crunch and a faltering DVD market. As the supply of work shrinks, the squabbling will only intensify.
 
Plymouth Rock Studios announces $550-mil loan to start construction

California film executives who came to Plymouth two years ago with a plan to build the first full-fledged production studio on the East Coast are ready to make good on that promise.

Plymouth Rock Studios announced today that it has secured a $550 million construction loan from an international lender in Florida, Prosperity International LLC.

Prosperity International arranges financing for large projects like casinos, resorts, and mega-housing complexes around the world, including the Caribbean, Europe, Western and South Africa, Latin America, and the United States.

With money in hand, Plymouth Rock's can soon start construction of its planned complex of 14 sound stages, a 10-acre back lot, production and post-production facilities, a theater, hotel, and amenity village.

...

Read the full article at The Boston Globe.
 
And, more:

Some states sour on film tax credits
CommonWealth Unbound, by Bruce Mohl

Several of the 40 states that offer film tax credits to movie producers are having second thoughts about the generous benefits, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The Times says that many states continue to support and even expand their film tax credit programs, but it also reports that a number of states, including Wisconsin and Iowa, are scaling back their film tax credits as they deal with shrinking tax revenues. Others, like Michigan, are debating whether to reduce their outlays for films.

In Wisconsin, Gov. Jim Doyle scrapped the state's 25 percent film tax credit after the Department of Commerce issued a report indicating there was little economic benefit. The report said the state's $4.6 million outlay for the Johnny Depp film Public Enemies was just barely offset by the estimated $5 million the producers spent in Wisconsin, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Iowa had been offering a 50 percent tax credit on certain qualifying film expenses, but faced with a large budget shortfall this year, lawmakers capped the program's cost at $50 million a year. Gov. Chet Culver put the program on hold more recently after an internal audit found a number of irregularities.

Gov. Deval Patrick also had second thoughts about the Massachusetts film tax credit during budget deliberations earlier this year, pushing through the Legislature a measure that would have capped at $2 million the amount of a star's salary that would qualify for the state's 25 percent film tax credit. Patrick administration officials estimated the change would save the state $20 million this year.

But after the producers of a Tom Cruise-Cameron Diaz movie complained about the change and suggested they might take their $150 million movie elsewhere, Patrick changed course and signed another measure into law that eliminated the star salary tax credit cap. Cruise and Diaz are currently in the state filming.

A push by Patrick to require more public disclosure about the costs and benefits of the state's film tax credit also died in the Legislature. Patrick pushed for a measure that would have required state agencies to identify all tax credit recipients and disclose how many credits they received, how many jobs they created, and what those jobs paid.

The House and Senate both approved the measure, but the Senate amended it to shield the names of tax credit recipients from public scrutiny. Senators said they feared naming names might discourage filmmakers from coming to Massachusetts. Patrick balked at the change and urged lawmakers to approve the measure the way it was originally drafted, but the Legislature never took it up again and it died.

One of the reasons sentiment turned against the film tax credit in Wisconsin was the release of details about what kind of spending the state was supporting with its tax credit program. For example, Public Enemies paid almost twice as much in salaries to non-Wisconsin residents as it did to Wisconsin residents, according to the Journal Sentinel. The film also received tax credits to offset part of the $5,625 cost of Depp's hairstylist, part of the $16,490 cost of his makeup artist, and part of the $38,771 cost for two chauffeurs, according to the Times.

The Times story said critics of the film tax credits don't see the longer-term economic benefits of promoting the nomadic movie industry and favor using economic development tools to support less mobile industries that will put down roots.

Here in Massachusetts, Plymouth Rock Studios today took another step toward putting down roots. The company announced it had secured a $550 million construction loan from Prosperity International of Orlando to build a film studio in Plymouth with 14 soundstages, offices, a theater, hotel, and retail facilities. Plymouth Rock officials say they have leasing commitments for almost 60 percent of the available office, postproduction, and retail space.
 
Seen in Harvard Square today:

img2422k.jpg


img2436mz.jpg
 
What percent of on-set labor and equipment is local in any of these recent shoots?
 
Blake Lively is the film's hot female...she really isn't of note but she is 22 and blond.
 
Yeah, there were some cuties around, but I didn't really see anything that screamed STAR. The focus of filming when I was there was on the guy elevated in the cherry picker working on a utility box (first pic).
 
Blake Lively is the film's hot female...she really isn't of note but she is 22 and blond.

Yea she's dope for sure.

They blocked off Copley Square for some filming a couple weeks ago and there were a couple really hot extras standing around. I guess that's one of the positive externalities of more movies being filmed here haha.

Give em all the tax breaks they need if it means tons of sexy chicks walking the streets!
 
Are you kidding? Of course Blake Lively is of note. She is very much of note.
 
Nice one, Ron.

I DEFINITELY did not see her yesterday... damn.
 

Back
Top