How Hollywood Tricks Conservatives Into Supporting Socialism

Want to play a fun trick on a conservative friend? Do what Hollywood is doing.

Recent efforts by California politicians and the US studios to pass new larger subsidies have not only irked irked me, but a bunch of low tax loving conservatives.

Why? Well it should be no surprise as Hollywood is calling the subsidies a “tax break” or “tax incentive”. So conservatives get angry because Hollywood is okay for tax cuts for themselves but not other businesses. The problem is they’ve fallen for one of Hollywood’s oldest tricks in the book. Hollywood essentially calls guvmint subsidies used to fund their productions a “tax break” which is tricking everyone into supporting a program which many conservatives would call socialism if they actually did some research.

California could lower business taxes to effectively to ZERO and nothing would change as far as the loss of work to subsidized locations because they are getting effectively free money for their films from guvmints.

Pretend you’re a Hollywood producer. What sounds more attractive to you:

Guvmint A: Zero business taxes!
Guvmint B: We’ll pay you 60% of your labor costs!

Guvmint B because US producers don’t pay that much in taxes and even if they did, it wouldn’t come close to the millions they would get from the Canadian guvmint there. Hollywood has been able to get these programs passed all over the world and so many states. How? By calling it a “tax break”!

Conservatives have been some of the most gullible ones falling for Hollywood’s trick. Louisiana gave Oprah’s The Butler $7.9 million for $15.5 million spent there. The Republican state of Louisiana has a very large subsidy program that leads to one of the largest recorded losses: For every $1 they spend they lose 85 cents! Watch the video in that link to see how dumbfounded the lawmakers are trying to figure out why they are losing so much money.

The list goes one with other conservative states like Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Florida loses 60 cents for every $1 they spend on film subsidies. Why are they so easily confused because Hollywood groups like the MPAA put out competing bullshit reports that claim Florida gains $5 for every $1 they spend. Think about that for a second. That’s a better investment than Google and Apple COMBINED. How did the MPAA arrive at such an incredible number? In the study they admit the numbers were derived from an online poll that had 61 respondents. Is the MPAA getting interns to do their studies?!

So great job Hollywood! Keep tricking those cons into falling for your socialistic tricks. Together we’ll rule the world and take those poor conservatives’ guvmint money and do what we really were setting out to do: RE-ELECT BILL CLINTON FOR 5 MORE TERMS!!!!!!

But seriously if you really want to understand why these subsidies aren’t tax breaks and why they don’t make economic sense read this recent article: And the Winner of the ‘Worst Tax Policy’ Oscar Is …

Soldier On.


64 Responses to How Hollywood Tricks Conservatives Into Supporting Socialism

  1. vfxguy says:


  2. VFX_Boom says:

    I’ve always wondered how regions with subsidies could claim returns of 5x on what they shelled out for the film productions. If it were true, why not “Invest” 10x more and solve any and all debt issues facing that region? I mean after all, it’s like printing your own money, right? Right?

    • Studio_Spotter says:

      Reductio Ad Absurdum: Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes.

      Im no proponent of film tax incentives, but this is a common erroneous argument. Just because some of X might be a good thing does not mean that an infinite amount of X must also be a good thing.

      That being said film tax incentives, otherwise, have plenty of cons. For one, that the program is a net budget loss on municipalities taking tax payer money and moving it into established and already very profitable studio’s bank accounts.

  3. Dave Rand says:

    “The amount of public money spent on a production company, it said, was the equivalent of paying a factory 40 times what it owed in taxes.”

  4. minoton says:

    Louisiana?! Alabama?! Georgia?! FLORIDA?!



  5. boba fett says:

    I work in LA and know that this is only going to make things worse. Oh well, another thing to protest I guess. And since it’s oscar season:

  6. foxly007 says:

    I find the whole crying socialism antic very melodramatic. This entry is so sensationalist I am finding it hard to take seriously enough to read in entirety.

    • vfxPeon says:

      Where’s the sensationalism? A government agency handing out cash is socialism. If you happen to be a conservative like a lot of the people who run states like Louisiana and Florida that should counter to your values.

      Where is the sensationalism? Can you point to anything in the article that is an exaggeration?

      • LAskyline says:

        Socialism would be if they were giving it to the people. What you’re describing is coporatism.

      • vfxPeon says:

        Oh! Well, in that case I guess it’s A-OK!

      • makeitstop says:

        Please stop using words you don’t understand. You are embarrassing yourself. I know Americans like to use “socialism” a a four letter word, without having even a faint clue… just as they like to use the word “democracy” without knowing what it actually means.
        But this is so ignorant and uneducated it makes me gag.

        Also: congrats on a “national journalist” sending you that beautiful message: “You’ve done some terrific reporting. Keep it up – and keep me posted with any scoops.”

        Ha, took the guy 10 seconds to stroke your inflated ego with some silly phrase – the last six words is what it’s all about. Keeping you warm for some potential “scoop”, I say those 10 seconds are well invested.

        I liked your blog at some point. Now it’s a source of laughs and eye rolls.

      • VFX Soldier says:

        Welcome. I had an hour long interview with that reporter yesterday. Big announcement coming out Tuesday that he will be reporting on. Enjoy.

        On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 10:58 AM, VFX Soldier wrote:


      • makeitstop says:

        Enjoy your 15 minutes while they last… you’re so self important and defensive it’s getting hard to “watch”.

      • VFX Soldier says:

        One things for sure: you’ve been negatively commenting on my blog for over 1 year, much longer than 15 minutes. Nobody is forcing you to read my blog but I appreciate it.

        On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 12:16 PM, VFX Soldier wrote:


      • Studio_Spotter says:

        Oh please he embarrassed himself?

        Two childish reactions in a row like that isnt exactly the highlight of this comment section either.

  7. ran says:

    So basically the Government are in the filmmaking business now.

    • gj says:

      And in health care, energy, agriculture, education, finance. There is no such thing as a free market. While theoretically it would be nice to end the distorting influence of subsidies in film and every other industry mentioned it would be an enormous undertaking requiring near universal support. It’s not socialism. The excess money generated doesn’t go to caring for the elderly, or disabled. It doesn’t go to rebuilding our infrastructure or educating our children. It doesn’t benefit local communities. It lines the pockets of corporations, rewarding them for finding clever new ways to lower the cost of labor.
      Conservatives aren’t duped. They love subsidies for agriculture and other industries. Democrats know what’s up, too. Seriously, as long as it isn’t their job being off shored they just don’t care.

  8. jonavark says:

    Wow. You’ve let your ego take over and you’re in way over your head. Stick with green shirts and BBQs. This is getting pathetic.

    • VFX Soldier says:

      I think I’ll listen to the opinion of a national journalist which sent me this message today:

      “You’ve done some terrific reporting. Keep it up – and keep me posted with any scoops.”


      Sent from my iPhone


      • jonavark says:

        You should stick with the task you’ve set for yourself and keep the politics out of it. Seriously? A “National Journalist ” You mean Like Giraldo? LOFL Dan.

      • VFX Soldier says:

        This blog has been paying some good dividends in getting the word out about the issues I write about. The point of my post is to show that Hollywood is tricking even the most anti-welfare people into supporting welfare for hollywood and many in the national media are starting to pick up the story:

        For example my blog was the resource for many of the sources for this article released today:

        and earlier this week I was invited to do an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The BBC has reached out to me and were in talks to do in interview.

        amidst all these I have never heard any of these journalists or credible people in the industry refer to any of your suggestions in your comments from over the years as a viable direction. Why is that? I wonder. 😉

      • Peter Greenaway says:

        Every day I send an email to CBC Canada, trying to see if they are aware of this issue (subsidies) and the fact that taxpayers are ripped off.
        So far, no answer. Maybe they are aware, and this is the reason they want an interview with you.
        Please let me(us) know when this is happening so maybe I can participate.

      • VFX Soldier says:


        I had no idea but thank you so much for your effort. I had no idea I was on their radar but we had quite an extensive interview that will be part of a larger piece before the Oscars on VFX. We’ll see if the juicy cuts get put in.

        The interview occurred last Tuesday and they were VERY aware of my blog so I thank you so much for the help. The people in the studio even stayed 15 minutes after to ask questions personally about our legal effort. People are really intrigued by what we are doing.

      • Peter Greenaway says:

        No problem Daniel.
        I was sending CBC tons of links with you posts, and several articles. Something has to be done.
        I will keep up the good fight from this side.

      • jonavark says:

        Well.. that’s easy. Because my posts are usually questions and statements, not suggestions or direction. The notion I put forth that the VFX business in the US is eroding out to the rest of the world isn’t a tactic or a suggestion. It’s just reality.

        Perhaps, now that you’ve taken to targeting people because of poorly reported or misinterpreted statements, and bashing Conservatives, they’re now interested in talking to you. Don’t let it go to your head.

      • vfxmafia says:

        To joan of arc…

        are you trying to make a point.??…or are you just here to bash Daniel?

      • Scott S says:

        Uh, you realized that the CBC is 100% public subsidized? Of COURSE they don’t care about subsidies. THEY ARE A SUBSIDY.

        That’s the one thing Americans will never understand about Canada in this matter. Canadians have a socialist economy and for the most part, they’re fine with it. Sure, you get the odd right-wing politician who rails against “socialism”, but even the federal conservatives don’t get much more than 30% of the vote. No one simply cares about this “issue” in Canada.

      • urizen says:

        “That’s the one thing Americans will never understand about Canada in this matter. Canadians have a socialist economy and for the most part, they’re fine with it.”

        I would hope that the distinguishing qualification between the American’s understanding of socialism and the Canadian’s, is that the average walking around Canadian likely has the chops to discern the difference between a subsidized project underwritten with their hard earned money to support local Canadian culture, talent, and interests through a Canadian product, vs. a heaping plate of nothing.purchased for stupid money by dumb suckers depositing their pay checks directly into the bank accounts of grinning American business vultures on the lookout for their next fat and happy cash cow.

      • Long Time Post & VFX Producer says:

        David Cohen patting you on the back again?

      • Scott says:

        “I would hope that the distinguishing qualification between the American’s understanding of socialism and the Canadian’s, is that the average walking around Canadian likely has the chops to discern the difference between a subsidized project underwritten with their hard earned money to support local Canadian culture, talent, and interests through a Canadian product, vs. a heaping plate of nothing.purchased for stupid money by dumb suckers depositing their pay checks directly into the bank accounts of grinning American business vultures on the lookout for their next fat and happy cash cow.”

        You just described NAFTA, or the way the entire Canadian economy has been structured for the past 20 years. See? You just don’t get it.

      • Peter Greenaway says:

        “Uh, you realized that the CBC is 100% public subsidized? Of COURSE they don’t care about subsidies. THEY ARE A SUBSIDY.”
        Right. But in this case it is about a Canadian Institution, not the same thing to give money away.

    • vfxPeon says:

      And yet you keep coming back and commenting.

      What about this article is incorrect?

      • VFX Soldier says:

        I just find the angle silly: As if he wants to provide me advice to be more successful in my effort. Really?

        On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:19 AM, VFX Soldier wrote:


  9. gj says:

    OMG, do you honestly think conservatives are against corporate welfare?

    • kyoseki says:

      That’s rather his point.

      Conservatives love reduced taxes, they hate subsidies. The states exploit this by calling the subsidies “tax relief” which makes people think that all that’s happening is a reduction in tax liability.

      “Non-refundable tax credits” are simple tax cuts.
      “Refundable tax credits” are subsidies

      With the exception of California, all states offering “tax relief” are offering refundable or transferable tax credits, which gift the movie production companies far more money than they’d ever pay in taxes.

      Nobody questions this because all they see is “tax credit” and assume that the amount of money refunded is capped to the amount of tax paid, which is nowhere near the case almost everywhere.

      • Long Time Post & VFX Producer says:

        The conservatives who own companies like Fox and Viacom and other various other media companies love the incentives. Don’t kid yourself. But calling them tax credits is misleading for sure. But does it matter, America already subsidizes so many profitable industries and nobody says boo? Many of those subsidies hurt other nations economies too just like the VFX industry is being hurt here but that is ok according to the blogger of this site. “I don’t give a fuck about the African Farmer” is one of his paraphrased quotes.

        Good luck standing before a judge complaining about incentives in other countries when 48 states participate in their own forms of incentives in the same industry. And if California increases its incentives it will put the nail in the coffin of this CVD cause. Hope we have a plan b.

        The real winner here is VFX Soldier, he will parlay this into a successful career as a lobbyist for some other cause one day, as he begins to transform himself from politician to lobbyist. I think his days of working as one of the cattle is over, it’s obvious he’s loving the spotlight. Total Sarah Palin business model.

      • jonavark says:

        @Long Time

        You pretty much nailed it. What I want to know is.. if the CVD isn’t greater than the savings from subsidies.. how is it that anyone thinks anything will actually change?

      • The point of the CVDs is to neutralize the subsidies. (i.e. cancel out any benefit from the subsidies) At that point it’s up to the studios to choose where to send the work based on companies and not on politicians. They won’t be penalized for going anywhere but they also won’t be rewarded.

      • jonavark says:

        Thank you Scott. Unless I am missing something that would mean the CVDs would have to be huge. Is that even possible?

      • Yes it’s possible. That’s the whole point of the CVDs and that’s how they work in other products such as shrimp or honey. Either there’s a tariff when the item is imported or it’s calculated at the end of the year. But it has to be close to equal otherwise there’s no point. If it’s $100 tariff on $10 million then it’s certainly not going to discourage anyone.

        Keep in mind if the CVDs do pass then any subsidized product that qualifies from the time the original court documents were submitted (which could be a year before) will have retro tariffs applied. That could be a fairly large sum of money.

      • jonavark says:

        Thanks Scott..

        As far as I can tell, the Shrimp and Honey CVDs were thrown out in 2012. I do not know what the value of the CVDs were.

        Yes, it makes sense that they would have to be huge. I can’t see how that can happen though. But for the sake of argument, wouldn’t that entice some companies to move to foreign operation completely?

        I’m not really arguing a point, but I’m just trying to understand where you envision this ending up.

      • Well some of those involved in the honey China scam (Honeygate as it was called. bypassing tariffs) will be serving time in prison and paying millions of dollars in fines. They were trying to avoid $180 million in tariffs. So I don’t think it’s small.

        There is no simple method to avoid it. The parent companies and the large corporations that are the source are based in the US. If they were easy to circumvent then CVDs would not be implemented and you’d be seeing a lot of other goods flooding the market.

        If these were implemented then most companies would probably stop offering subsidies since their main source of ‘revenue’ is the US. It’s not like they’re trying to get Italian films or films from other countries, even their own. And the studios have been the main lobbyists so if they’re not the main recipients then the subsidies would fade.

        Since these don’t involve politicians it’s also much less possible to manipulate the outcome.

        Obviously it still has to be pass an approval. And it could be that some agreement may occur at that point because there would be real leverage. So I’m not going to second guess how it will finally end up. But for those against the idea of politicians manipulating the vfx industry then this would be the thing to back. As I say it’s not dependent on politicians as increasing subsidies are nor would it require politicians to keep it as subsidies do.

      • minoton says:

        Long Time, not all subsidies are created equal. I’m not defending any, but American government paid subsidies spent in America to help American farmers are different than Canadian government paid subsidies spent in America, paid to rich American corporate owned film studios to send work outside of the country. It takes a little of the sting off it when you know that your tax dollars are at least being spent in your own country benefiting your fellow citizens.

      • jonavark says:

        Scott. Wouldn’t it require a separate CVD for every off shore location with a subsidy as well as separate audits for every feature?

      • No need for separate CVDs for each location. One covers everything coming into the US. Audits would likely preformed for each studio. If something ‘odd’ is happening and it’s reported it will be investigated (like the Honeygate scam where the hone went through a few countries and was filtered for pollen to avoid showing where it was from) (* I’m not a lawyer so I’m passing on my understanding from those that are. )

        Bottom line:
        CVDs seem to be the only likely tool to stop subsidies.
        Indication are good that it can happen – provided there is support, which also seems to be good.
        What twists or turns may happen between now and completion I couldn’t say.
        CVDs are already implemented on many products and services. They are a legal instrument which are enforced and have proven to be very difficult to avoid once implemented.

      • vfxrealist says:

        Well, there are enough holes here to drive many Studio trucks through. To start with:

        1) As another person said the US has been subsidizing MANY industries for decades, including current high-tech subsidies that go to companies like Netflix and Google for hundreds of millions of dollars. The idea that Australia, NZ, England, or Canada are going to allow the US to now tax or dictate which subsidies are “ok” in their eyes is ludicrous. It’s just not going to happen.

        2) You mention Honey and Shrimp CVD’s, and even those had mixed results. And that is based entirely on trackable, physical inventory which has to be shipped in and out of countries and is subject to inspection and regulation. Labor costs are an entirely different ballgame, and are subject to so many subjective regulations, visa requirements which vary by country, labor laws, collective bargaining, and on and on and on. If you think Hollywood Studios aren’t going to figure out a way to declare their income and expenses in a way that gets around tariffs and country-specific duties then you haven’t been working in Hollywood very long. This is an industry BUILT on accounting which says no movie ever makes a profit. Do you get that? That’s what these Studios have been doing for 100+ years. And you think a bunch of angry fx artists are going to change the way the Studio system accounts for expenses or taxes? Look, whatever tariff or cvd you get passed they’re just going to move to the next country or jurisdiction that doesn’t recognize that ruling.

        3) CVD’s or Tariffs will take many, many years to come to any kind of fruition (if they do at all). Between challenges to the WTO, changing political landscapes, and domestic issues that the American people find more important, this is what politicians call a non-starter. And even IF you manage to get this to hold up in some form 5 years from now the industry will have evolved and changed in ways you can’t even begin to fathom right now. Work could all be done from cloud servers located in tax-advantaged countries. From places that don’t belong to the WTO. From countries with no labor laws. From Countries with no reciprocity with US trade relations. There are so many way this can and will evolve that we have no way of predicting, that filing some multi-year CVD/Tariff effort is like spitting into the wind.

        4) ALL of the Studios and California companies already get tax subisides, which are no different than the ones overseas companies get. It’s called the Corporate Tax Rate, which is about 12%. In Canada, Corporations are taxed at around 30%. Off the TOP. Not just from specfiic subsidies or based on how many residents they have working on a show. US companies get a Federal and State tax rebate. You can call the tax credits that London or Canada give out “subsidies” if you think demonizing that word makes your case stronger. The reality is that US Corporations get many Billions of dollars more back in Corporate tax shelters and loopholes than ANY film subsidy in the world.

      • meinvan says:


        im still confused about this, and have asked about this in several posts, without ever getting a answer.

        you say this: “No need for separate CVDs for each location. One covers everything coming into the US. ”

        but looking through the survey done by the the atorneys it says this, which is in direct conflict with your statement:

        “………and the country providing the subsidy; if there is more than one subsidizing country, each one is the subject of a separate petition……..”

        this is from page 8, second paragraph.

        Also, you and vfxsoldier always say that this is the best and easiest way, as you dont need politicians or congress support to pass a CVD ruling…which I get and I see the beauty of this, but reading the documentation….its not quite that simple….and certainly not when Canada (NAFTA) is involved.

        “Final determinations by Commerce and the ITC are subject to court review. Appeals are made to the Court of International Trade, a federal district court of specialized jurisdiction located in New York, and from there to the Court of Appeals for the Federal
        Circuit in Washington. Theoretically, appeals are also possible to the Supreme Court, but it is exceptionally rare for the Supreme Court to accept a case involving the administration of trade remedies. Usually, final duty payment is delayed until all appeals are resolved. If the goods are from Canada or Mexico, a NAFTA panel of trade law experts sits in place of the U.S. court system, and its decisions are final.”

        So can you please tell me how a why joint (US-Canadian) NAFTA board, will ever approve CVD’s…as far as i know…..the NAFTA is known to be extraordinary pro corporatism?

      • For those still confused check out this article

        Secret weapon

        No, we don’t have to re-file for every country. I’m not a lawyer but this made applicable to multiple countries and can be split up but doesn’t require and entire process to do each.

        And since this not just Canada it’ not affected by NAFTA as such.

      • meinvan says:

        Not sure how that article should clear anything up that i asked. Im also not a lawyer, hence why i quoted the “holy” study.

        So what are you saying….the study is incorrect? the lawyers were wrong when they drafted the document….or do the laws not apply in this case.?

        So lets just assume that this is the case regarding on how this has to be filled, and can be filled as a blanket CVD against anybody who tries to subsidize (vfx / production or both?) regardless of location.

        Even then, if Canada is involved then the review HAS to be done by a joint NAFTA panel. Again this is all black on white, in the feasibility study….please enlighten me, with facts and tell me why what YOUR lawyers say is incorrect.

        Im sure people out there once again think of me as some internet troll, trying to stir things up just because im not a Yes man. I agree that the current subsidy system in place in some of the locals is way out of whack, and needs serious oversight and reassessing. I am a far ways from thinking that subsidies are the core of all evil, and have no economic potential/power at all (regardless of the industry).

      • LAskyline says:

        But this isn’t an actual ruling, it’s just the MPAA’s current position on digital transmissions as a means for piracy. The authorities haven’t ruled in their favour yet so all they need to do is withdraw from their position and that advantage goes away. Or am I missing something here?

      • That is correct but as the article makes clear it is difficult for the MPPA to have it both ways.

        If digital data is an ‘article or product’ then it’s protected. Protected from piracy and other laws related to physical products. That’s certainly the way the MPPA and most digital companies want to treat it because at the end of the day that’s what they are making and selling whether it’s movies or ebooks or software.

        And if that’s the case then those same laws and regulations apply to those ‘digital products ‘. (i.e. subsidies ).

        So by arguing for digital protection the MPPA jas a hard time trying to say it’s not protected by all the laws, only the ones they want.

        Now the MPPA could argue that digital goods are not the same as physical goods. But then they give up on many piracy protections. (i.e .they’re between a rock and hard place and have tackled one of the key issues the CVD was going to have to deal with – is digital covered)

        None of this has gone through the full legal process yet but they have gone on record of voicing their views and making a strong case. That alone will make it easier to get digital viewed as a real product by the courts unless there is a full 180 degree legal filing.

      • minoton says:

        Scott, how does this work when a company such as Imageworks, ILM, Scanline, and Method have locations both in L.A. and a subsidized location such as BC? When work on a shot can be done in both locations at the same time? Is that considered importing? Can a company import to itself in such a way? In a PCOIP environment, where work lives on servers in L .A. but is done remotely in a subsidized zone, does that skirt the issue?

      • Any work that is subsidized outside the US (if this all goes through) would be subject to taxation. If this does go through then there’s little incentive for these governments to offer vfx incentives. The companies they’re trying to attract are the studios and if the studios can’t get free money then it will be strictly by choice of where to do the work without the influence of politicians. (i.e. no point in passing out coupons to customers if they can’t use them).

        If any company here in the US (vfx company or studio) wishes to do some or all of the work elsewhere they can. That’s still a valid option. They just won’t be getting the free money.

        Some places such as Vancouver may see reduction in the amount of work. Especially true for any location whose main existence is based in large part on subsidies.

        Note it would then be up to the vfx company where they choose to set up branches and where it makes real business sense to do so. Right now they’re spending a lot of money that they don’t have simply chasing the subsidies, not for any real business reason other than that. Soem may close soem of their branches if they can’t justify the business aspect of it.

        Ultimately the idea is to remove political manipulation so the industry is in control of the companies (who can at least try to operate as real businesses) and the vfx workers. More stability and more sustainable.

      • minoton says:

        Thanks, Scott. I wasn’t sure if there was any differentiation between the work being done and the final product, as far as the CVD effectiveness is concerned. I can see if this passes, it would remove the studios’ incentive to dictate where their vfx is handled. At that point I guess it would be on a company by company basis as to where they want to set up shop, and there are much cheaper, and more practical locations closer to the studios base of operations here in the States.

      • To be clear this is specifically related to vfx. It does not and can not cover live action. Each CVD has to have a specific scope.

        NAFTA – Same rules are applied across a number of countries, not just Canada. It’s not a done deal. I’m sure there will be filing and other issues. But rather than worrying and fretting about every potential wrinkle that might happen I’m leaving the lawyers to deal with the details. I have flagged your issues and they have responding in the positive with regard to them.

        Will this pass and will it avoid NAFTA I could’t say. But at the moment this is the most likely solution we have and it has certainly made a few people and companies take notice.

        People can focus on trying to find flaws, no matter how small or we can start trying to get something done.

      • minoton says:

        Hopefully we’ll be coming from a place where all our bases are covered and not get disappointed from something that was overlooked. Don’t worry, I’m with ya.

      • You now have companies setup with skilled workers throughout the world. You can still transmit digital data and work in different areas. So now it does come down to where it makes the most sense on a project by project basis. I don’t see anyplace losing all of their work. It’s just the criteria wi l return to what it was pre-susbidy. Can these people do what we need for the price and the time we need it? Can we work together well? etc. All this as opposed to ‘How much are your subsidies?’

    • LAskyline says:

      Well, I guess it comes down to whether the Big 6 – who fund the MPAA – feel that it’s better to keep the current supply of money or to push for piracy protection of unknown value – perhaps none at all. It would seem like a case of a bird in the hand…

      • It’s still a long and uphill process. What will happe and when it will happen I don’t know. But for all the naysayers in the peanut gallery this certainly shows a new wrinkle and it can not be as easily dismissed. The idea has traction and merit and has been confirmed by at least some media and legal circles. For those who wish to actually work on a solution this is the most likely candidate to the largest problem the vfx industry faces. No one else has yet to put forward an alternate solution.

  10. Johan says:

    If we weren’t taxed so high in the first place, maybe we wouldn’t need subsidies? Ever consider that?

    • No, because it’s not the California taxes that are driving productions away, it’s the subsidies of 20-30+ % elsewhere. (i.e .a lot of free money) More than the tax amount. And the studios themselves are still based in LA and are still taxed at least in part as California corporations.

      • LAskyline says:

        But this isn’t an actual ruling, it’s just the MPAA’s current position on digital transmissions as a means for piracy. The authorities haven’t ruled in their favour yet so all they need to do is withdraw from their position and that advantage goes away. Or am I missing something here?

  11. CASINO says:


    How Hollywood Tricks Conservatives Into Supporting Socialism | VFX Soldier

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: