« Updating how our endorsees fared | Main | Mississippi Burning up the road »
Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Will these fare better than 'Nailed?' Let's hope so
As you may recall, we have questioned whether the money S.C. spends trying to lure movie productions here is well spent. The Commerce Department does not question it, however, even after "Nailed" had to leave town after running out of money several times. You have to wonder whether an employer that keeps failing to pay its employees is the kind of business you want in town, even if one of the employees it brings in is a total babe.
But the Commerce Department doesn't wonder. Here's a release I got today:
S.C. Department of Commerce Announces Two New Feature Films Approved to Shoot in the Palmetto State
COLUMBIA, S.C. – June 25, 2008 – The South Carolina Department of Commerce today announced two new feature films have been approved to begin filming in South Carolina in 2008. Both productions are quality family entertainment that will offer a positive reflection of South Carolina.
“Band of Angels” is a Hallmark Production directed by Bill Duke. The film traces the history of the Fisk University Jubilee Singers from their roots as a struggling opera company to their early success as gospel and spiritual singers. It is set post Civil War and will be shot primarily in and around Charleston.
“Dear John” was written by Nicholas Sparks and is a New Line studios production with Production Designer Sarah Knowles. New Line studios and Knowles both worked on “The Notebook,” which was filmed in South Carolina in 2003. “Dear John” will be directed by Lasse Hallstrom, who directed Julia Roberts, Dennis Quaid and Robert Duval in “Something to Talk About,” which was also shot in South Carolina in 1995.
“Dear John” is the story of a soldier who falls in love with a conservative college girl who he plans to marry, but time and distance take their toll on the fledging relationship. If the production company opts to move forward, the film will be shot in multiple locations along the South Carolina coast.
“Both of these productions were recruited under the incentive guidelines revised by the Department of Commerce and the Coordinating Council for Economic Development. As a result, the state did a much better job of utilizing our crew base in South Carolina. The film recruitment success this spring should end the debate that South Carolina needs to pay more to recruit more films to the state. The goal relative to film recruitment should be to lower the negative fiscal impact and create jobs for South Carolinians. The productions recruited since the first of the year are a step in the right direction to achieve both goals,” said Joe Taylor, Secretary of Commerce.
“Even with the national writers’ strike slowing productions around the country in the fall of 2007, South Carolina enjoyed its strongest spring of film recruitment ever. With four feature films and a television series, our resident crew base has been virtually fully utilized. The focus of film recruitment should be employing South Carolina residents and keeping the South Carolina crew base working is the strongest measure of film recruitment success,” said Daniel Young, Executive Director of the Coordinating Council for Economic Development.
“The New Daughter” completed filming along the coast in May and “Nailed” has completed production in the Columbia area. “Army Wives” is still in production filming in Charleston.
“Band of Angels” is currently in preproduction and is scheduled to begin filming in South Carolina soon. Individuals interested in applying for work on the production should contact the South Carolina Film Commission or visit www.filmsc.com.
“Dear John” has been approved for film incentives by the Coordinating Council for Economic Development. The production company is still finalizing details concerning the production including the exact schedule.
-###-
Notice how Commerce worded that: “Nailed” has completed production in the Columbia area.
That's a funny way of putting it, in light of the facts.
Of course, I'm sure that there was some positive economic impact while the production lasted. I hear, for instance, that a certain underground bar across from the State House got so much business from cast and crew -- including at various times Paul Rubens and a guy who was in "X-Men" -- that they recently they had to shoo out some of the "Nailed" folks so they could close the place.
But as much as I love movies -- and I do -- we on The State's editorial board remain unconvinced that money spent in this sector is worth it.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 02:04 PM in Business, Movies, Popular culture, South Carolina, The State
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/337487/30572880
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Will these fare better than 'Nailed?' Let's hope so:
Comments
Anything that needs subsidies is a questionable business venture. The subsidies create lots of pie jobs for South Carolinians with political connections, but without the talent to actually run a real movie business.
And how much sense does it make for working class taxpayers in a poor state to subidize the incomes of Hollywood actors, directors, producers, NFL players, etc?
Posted by: Lee Muller | Jun 25, 2008 2:31:08 PM
Oh, come on, guys. I can see St. Matthews or Six Mile or Coosawatchie as the next Hollywood.
Why can't you?
Posted by: p.m. | Jun 25, 2008 8:26:01 PM
The two comments above depict a typically facile worldview.
Truth: Film shoots have an economic impact no matter the size of the production, and as such, offering a tax incentive makes sense. Not on the order of attracting a BMW plant, but every little bit helps. "Nailed," had it had studio backing and a more mainstream (ie, dumbed-down script), would have been a $60m budget and not a $25m one, leaving many of those dollars behind in its glamourous wake--as this production did.
In any case, you can see from the amusing anecdote about The Whig that local businesses do benefit. My own store was patronized by Mr. Russell and other members of the crew numerous times(as were other 5 Pts businesses), so I know first hand.
Of course, a mainstream studio-backed picture would never have had to seek out a cheap location like Columbia. They'd have shot on stages in LA and done the rest in DC.
And with only two days left, pickup shots in DC, and an A-list cast like that, I predict "Nailed" will be completed--just not here.
Posted by: James D McCallister | Jun 26, 2008 6:48:03 AM
So Brad are you a fan of the Whig... do you like $.50 Taco Tuesday? Or is it the gouda mac and cheese and sweet potato fries?
There's no doubt that despite the problems with financing (which was hollywood issue not an incentive issue) Columbia hit it big with the "Nailed" Crew and Cast and made quite a bit of money, and lets not forget those South Carolinians who were hired to participate whether as extras/stand-ins or as crew members and PAs - they're still getting paid despite the producers hit and miss money gathering skills, which means even more money to pump back into the economy as these folks buy things, hopefully more than just gas.
Posted by: Mattheus Mei | Jun 26, 2008 8:27:48 AM
To paraphrase a previous poster:
"My store benefitted from a film shoot once, so it follows that film shoots should be subsidized by taxpayers"
Wow. This is the kind of piercing logic and persuasive reasoning that bring me back to this blog over and over again.
By the way I have no store, but if film shoots are going to bring in totally babe-ilicious movie stars and models for me to gawk at, then I say we should subsidize them too.
dave
Posted by: David | Jun 26, 2008 9:23:33 AM
The most heavilty subsidized industry in America is the oil industry. If it wasn't we'd be spending about $8/gallon for gasoline.
Posted by: bud | Jun 26, 2008 11:25:06 AM
I presume by "facile" you mean lacking depth, James. Well, let me plumb matters a bit more, since you think your store benefiting from a filmmaking tax subsidy gives the subject depth.
Typically, films make fun of anyone in the South who's not black. I'm not black, so that gives me two reasons against subsidizing films being made here: 1) I don't want to pay someone to make fun of me; 2) I don't want to subsidize your store, because you irritate me.
But thanks for giving me the opportunity to feel facile in another sense of the word.
Posted by: p.m. | Jun 26, 2008 11:27:56 AM
All I said was the big supporters of taxpayer subsidies for cinema ventures are those lining their pockets with Other People's Money - the Dept of Commerce employees, the out-of-state producers, actors, directors and crews, and the local businesses plugged into the system.
"Facile" means skilled, that things are easy to do, so I take it as compliment that Mr. McAlister notices how easily I exposed movie subsidies as another welfare scam.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Jun 26, 2008 11:46:32 AM
I'd like to know exactly how Bud thinks that the oil industry is so heavily subsidized, but I don't want to listen to any of the other silly liberal nonsense he'll inevitably spew so I haven't the stomach to ask him.
In any case, I read a statistic in an article today at American Thinker that shows that oil companies on average have paid three times as much in taxes over the last 25 years as they've taken in profits. In other words, for every dollar of profit they've made they have paid the non-producing, business inhibiting, drag-on-the-economy, pimple-on-the-a$$-of-progress government that Bud loves so much three dollars.
If the oil industry is involved in any subsidies, it seems to me that IT subsidizes the government - not the other way round.
Just sayin. David
Posted by: David | Jun 26, 2008 2:02:29 PM
Does that "three times" number include fuel taxes to? (As oposed to just corporate taxes and windfall profit taxes?)
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html
Posted by: just saying | Jun 26, 2008 2:36:18 PM
Oil companies make 9.0 cents per gallon of gasoline.
Federal, state and local taxes average 45.9 cents per gallon of gasoline.
IOW, government makes 5 TIMES as much profit as the oil companies do, without any investment or risk.
Source: Congressional Research Service, May 2008
Posted by: Lee Muller | Jun 26, 2008 2:39:41 PM
"government makes 5 TIMES as much profit as the oil companies do, without any investment or risk."
Which is different than saying they are taxing the gas companies for all of that.
How does the amount collected in federal, state, and local taxes on gas compare to the federal, state, and local outlays for roads, bridges, and environmental clean-up of petroleum products? (e.g. in particular, what % of the tax at the pump is essentially a usage fee, and what percent is used to subsidize other parts of the government)
Posted by: just saying | Jun 26, 2008 2:49:53 PM
One set of figures shows expenditures on roads in 2003 were $121 billion... total taxes collected on fuel were less than $100 billion.
http://nats.sct.gob.mx/nats/sys/tables.jsp?id=10&i=3
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html
(I'm apparently not being very google savvy today as those are the best I've turned up so far.)
Posted by: just saying | Jun 26, 2008 3:02:19 PM
I am not attempting to make the case that the oil industry should not be taxed. As a related issue, I have made the point elsewhere on this blog as loudly as I could that corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES. PEOPLE pay taxes, meaning that ultimately, ANY taxes paid by Exxon or BP are simply passed on to their customers...in other words, WE pay every penny of the taxes our government forces the oil industry to collect.
In any case my point isn't that we shouldn't pay some taxes, it is that Buds' attempt to assert that government subsidizes the oil industry is ridiculous on its' face.
David
Posted by: David | Jun 26, 2008 3:19:27 PM
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Record oil prices netted Exxon Mobil a $10.89 billion profit in the first three months of the year, sharply higher than a year earlier but short of Wall Street estimates and below what was needed to set a new all-time profit record.
-CNN Money
If this doesn't qualify for ludicrous profiteering I don't know what does. They can earn this kind of profit because our bloated military ensures the free-flow of oil from the various places we import it from. In addition, we subsidize oil company profits by the endless construction of more and more miles of roads that allow a single person the luxury of driving a Hummer into work alone. And then there's all that pollution we're subjected to. Indeed we are subsidizing an addiction - pure and simple.
Posted by: bud | Jun 26, 2008 3:25:14 PM
And I don't believe your statistic which says the gov'mnt spent $121B on infrastructure while collecting $110B in taxes. Maybe so...it just doesn't sound legit to me.
In any event, that statistic does not mean that it's right for government to collect three times as much in taxes per gallon as the company which explores, extracts, transports, refines, stores, transports to retailers and sells makes per gallon.
It just doesn't.
As I think about it, it's actually sort of amazing that we can even get the gasoline we need: Investors actually put up with this robbery and harassment from their own government. It's a beautiful 'ting.
David
Posted by: David | Jun 26, 2008 3:26:36 PM
You're a loon bud.
David
Posted by: David | Jun 26, 2008 3:28:36 PM
"If this doesn't qualify for ludicrous profiteering I don't know what does."
Shouldn't whether $10.89 billion is ludicrous depend on how much the inputs were and also take into account surrounding years profits/losses as well? (e.g. if they only spent $1 bil to make that, sure, if they spent $220 bil, then certainly not)
Posted by: just saying | Jun 26, 2008 3:29:08 PM
"And I don't believe your statistic"
Like I said, its the best I could find. I found another on an NC site saying that spending on highways was something like $90 billion for that year, so if you added in local roads it was in the ball park.
"that statistic does not mean that it's right for government to collect three times as much in taxes per gallon as the company"
I assume you aren't claiming we should stop building roads unless the oil companies make several times more in profit than we spend on them? What would you prefer to fuel taxes to pay for roads? Since its the "people" paying for it, why does it matter if its on the fuel or on the car or by the person, or whatnot. (We apparently can't even figure out how to tax sales over the internet, so I don't see how we're going to get some system to allocate money from you to the separate road maintainers and environmental control people based specifically on where you were driving and what it was you were driving).
Posted by: just saying | Jun 26, 2008 3:34:02 PM
The average vertically integrated oil company makes 8% profit. Many years, Exxon and others have made much less than that.
Because of sudden increases in prices of existing inventories, Exxon has temporarily made profits approaching 19%.
There have been 30 federal investigations of price gouging and fixing in the last decade, and all of them found nothing wrong, but Democrat socialists continue to put on a circus for their profit-hating constituencies.
5 Tech companies make more than Exxon
http://www.techvat.com/5-tech-companies-more-profitable-than-exxon-mobil.html
Posted by: Lee Muller | Jun 26, 2008 3:45:17 PM
Hey! That director never called me to take him to get his nails done by Betty Lou Thelma Liz -- with her tried-n-true Texas Nail-Doing Thingies! What's up with that? Ran out of Moolah? She would have been VERY reasonable.
Posted by: You Know Who It Is | Jun 26, 2008 5:37:05 PM
Lee makes an outstanding point about the average profitability of petroleum companies.
People like Bud and Just Saying take one abstract number ~ the profit number for one oil company in one specific year ~ and then use that to attempt to build this horrible picture of that company as a price gouging, profiteering, evil bloodsucking entity while completely ignoring context and industry history. Shallow thinkers and angry liberals then buy this Barbara Streisand (BS) because they have an agenda, want someone to blame, and oil companies make EZ targets.
For grownups who are willing to take a reasonable look at this industry:
-Context demonstrates that the exploration, extraction, refinement and retailing petroleum are huge undertakings that require massive capital outlays and tremendous investment by people willing to take risks. I have no problem whatsoever with a company making billions a year if that company must expend tens of billions a year to make it.
-Industry history demonstrates that even though oil companies are enjoying a boom at present, there are many years in the recent past in which the companies lose money. The long term average profit for companies in this industry is, as Lee pointed out, 8%.
Taxes extracted by government amount to more than 8% of gross revenues. That's all I am saying. Government makes more from a gallon of gas than does the company which produced that gallon. This is an irrefutable fact. And it is the grownup way to look at this whole thing, as opposd to the views of Bud and Just Saying. David
Posted by: David | Jun 26, 2008 6:16:47 PM
"Just Saying ... use[s] that to attempt to build this horrible picture of that company as a price gouging"
I did no such thing. In fact I called Bud on it. (Go back to my post of Jun 26, 2008 3:29:08 PM and check!)
I also pointed out that much of the taxes from the gas aren't extracted on the profits of the oil companies, but at the pump from the consumers. Are you arguing that gas companies would raise there prices if we reduced the taxes? And what is a better use fee for road improvements than taxes at the pump (roughly proportional to vehicle size and miles traveled = road damage caused)? (Now, I am certainly not defending other uses of gas taxes except for clean up.)
Posted by: just saying | Jun 26, 2008 6:22:54 PM
Mattheus Mei,
Please see official apology @ "Hillary's diehards: For them, fight goes on" post.
:)
Posted by: Mrs. Peacock | Jun 26, 2008 9:26:23 PM
I liked that underground bar when it was a dive called Rupert's Blue Dog Cafe.
If The Whig offered lunch, I'd try it out.
Posted by: Ralph Hightower | Jun 27, 2008 6:06:33 AM
