Georgia is quickly taking over the TV and Film Industry (Decatur: school, to move)

[chuckshere]

Originally Posted by JoeP

"What's your point?"

The previous comments are what make the point. The jobs are aren't coming to GA for its climate.
They are coming because we are paying them to come.

If other states had comparable incentives and a movie like Anchorman 2 needed an urban setting that could double as New York (which is what they needed), do you think they'd choose Atlanta or Kansas? And the airport is a big draw. Atlanta has many daily flights to and from LA.

[chuckshere]

Originally Posted by JoeP

So when confronted with reality, you just don't want to hear and your response is to insult others? Really?

"Debbie Downer?" really?

As noted, why do you think that other states who had already gone down this route, have a stop point where they realized that's not the most sound use of state dollars?

Why did California recently increase their incentives so they wouldn't lose this business, if it's so inconsequential?

[JoeP]

If other states had comparable incentives and a movie like Anchorman 2 needed an urban setting that could double as New York (which is what they needed), do you think they'd choose Atlanta or Kansas? And the airport is a big draw. Atlanta has many daily flights to and from LA.

That's an illogical argument. You wouldn't choose a farm to be a city or vice versa. The amount of business escalated because of the subsidies. That's just a fact. I don't understand why some can't admit the rush of productions is do to corporate welfare. Once GA threw out such big subsides other states started losing business - LA and NC come to mind.

[JoeP]

Why did California recently increase their incentives so they wouldn't lose this business, if it's so inconsequential?

California didn't have to compete like this before. They are the center of the industry so they feel it more.
Other states are built on film. LA is.

[chuckshere]

Originally Posted by JoeP

California didn't have to compete like this before. They are the center of the industry so they feel it more.
Other states are built on film. LA is.

I think you have a typo there. Did you mean to say other states "aren't" built on film? But, if LA is built on film and it's very important to them, why wouldn't another state want that kind of important industry?

[chuckshere]

Originally Posted by JoeP

That's an illogical argument. You wouldn't choose a farm to be a city or vice versa. The amount of business escalated because of the subsidies. That's just a fact. I don't understand why some can't admit the rush of productions is do to corporate welfare. Once GA threw out such big subsides other states started losing business - LA and NC come to mind.

It's your argument that's illogical.. My point is that Atlanta can be a rural, farm setting or an urban setting. Tax incentives aside, there are many states that can't compete with GA in choice of settings. Also, there's another thread in this forum with a posted an article from Atlantic about the appeal of Atlanta's architecture in futuristic movies.

[JoeP]

I think you have a typo there. Did you mean to say other states "aren't" built on film? But, if LA is built on film and it's very important to them, why wouldn't another state want that kind of important industry?

There are 2 different things - One is the recent subsidy competition of all non film industry states
and the second one is the film industry state - California feeling the impact of all of this.

For every other state, it's not a foundational industry, but for CA it is.

My point is that Atlanta can be a rural, farm setting or an urban setting. Tax incentives aside, there are many states that can't compete with GA in choice of settings.

Wrong, several states can compete with GA in choice of settings.
I get it - it gets exciting and the Chamber PR machine rolls out lines that no state offers the versatile settings that GA offers, but that's all it is - PR. Yes GA offers it, but so do other states.

All things being equal and GA doesn't get as much business. How do I know this? Because before the state significantly offered such subsidies it got as much productions as most states did.

It's the subsidies that made the decision.

[Tryska]

So what if they did though? How is that a bad thing for Georgia? Our economy is robust enough that it's not like Film will make it or break it - it's just another layer of revenue. And there is revenue.

[sedimenjerry]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Wrong, several states can compete with GA in choice of settings.
I get it - it gets exciting and the Chamber PR machine rolls out lines that no state offers the versatile settings that GA offers, but that's all it is - PR. Yes GA offers it, but so do other states.

This is true. In fact anything remotely arid will have to be elsewhere.

[chuckshere]

Originally Posted by sedimenjerry

This is true. In fact anything remotely arid will have to be elsewhere.

When the X-Files TV show was filmed in Vancouver, they did a New Mexico desert scene filmed in Vancouver. They even painted the rocks. And GA is arid compared to Vancouver.