Feature filming in LA down 50% since 1996, tv production down 38% from 2008 (Long Beach: condos, daycare)

[yby1]

Can LA City ultimately make more money by offering tax incentives now?

[jm1982]

That's the question..where does the money really go?..

[quixotic59]

Originally Posted by jm1982

That's the question..where does the money really go?..

The claim is that it brings "notoriety" and business to the city, thereby increasing revenues.
I think it's a load of bull and the bill is paid by the resident tax payers so the politicians can have bragging rights, as you said.

With LA the difference is that so much of the support end of the industry is based there that it makes more sense to film in or near LA. Prop houses alone are so much more numerous. And let's not forget the original reason the industry moved out to LA, the weather. I think the tax incentives serve to fund things like weather delays and other inconveniences.

[Ceece]

Those "incentives" are a crock.

[drunk on kool aid]

Why is the city of L.A. being blamed for the lack of tax incentives? This is primarily Sacramento's fault. I think there is a pot of $100 million dollars of tax breaks that gets divvied up by a process of triage and a lottery. This amount is less than that given by some other states and is consumed instantly. Hollywood has lobbied to increase the tax giveaway but the state government has repeatedly turned us down. I think the most recent Brown budget has no increases.

This is typical of Sacramento's disinterest in SoCal, just as Washington tends to underfund California. Is the state willing to fund hundreds of millions or a billion dollars of budget money to help out L.A?

Could the city and county of L.A. do things to help curb runaway production? Probably, but the responsibility for the majority of the financial incentives lies in the Capitol, not in City Hall.

I wonder if Arnie did much to help out the industry which put him where he is now?

[rzzz]

At least half of any big Hollywood movie is green screen these days. Some of them are more like 90% green screen. Productions don't need to spend as much time shooting on site. They can spend a couple days getting the key scenes and then CGI the rest. TV is similar. Talk shows are starting to have people film their segments in their home studio and then beam it in. Then there's stuff like the Atlanta effect. Georgia gives big incentives to boost their film and TV industry. Atlanta can look like almost anywhere: midwest, northeast, deep south, DC, "urban", "rural", even... LA. LA looks like LA. Shooting is down because states like Georgia give better incentives, and technology has made it so far less on-site shooting needs to be done.

[TurcoLoco]

Originally Posted by yby1

Can LA City ultimately make more money by offering tax incentives now?

They don't really need to make more money. They need to do a better job with their budgeting but they won't.

[SpaceMonkyPunks]

I agree that this actually has a lot more to do with the rise of CGI than anything else. Many movies/scenes that previously required on-site filming can be entirely shot on a greenscreen and put together in VFX.

On the upside. I think that the animation houses here have been doing very well the past year or so, IMO they are on the verge of an upswing, like they were in the 90's.

[aboveordinary]

If the impact was that huge, annual entertainment award shows like the Oscars would have moved out of LA. Filming may be taking place in Georgia and cities like Austin but the heart of the entertainment industry has and always will be Los Angeles and New York City.

[PalmsTown]

^
It's not. And the Studios and production companies love the Hollywood culture here. The execs, the writers, directors, etc.

Many directors moan and ***** when they have to shoot outside of LA.

Austin? Please.