Why economics and politics ARE important to Cinematography.com

[klas persson]

I'm not mixing up anything.

To this end, we need to stop and define terms.

 

Unfettered Free Market Capitalism suggests that "the Market" is "Best" served when it is entirely uninhibited. This means absolutely NO regulations, rules, restrictions of any kind imposed by a government or anyone at all. The idea being that if a "market" is allowed to just "exist," then the bad/unworthy businesses and people will die while only the strongest/most worthy will survive and thrive.

 

Fascism is when an established government is essentially run by Corporations. Corporate/Business interests take precedence in public policy no matter what, not matter how much people suffer or die.

 

Socialism is when a government runs businesses for the things that the people need/want. For example, a government may decide that privatized automobile companies aren't a good idea, so the government owns and operates the car company.

 

True Democracy is when "The People" have a say in how their nation works, from the economy to the justice system.

Well, your definitions are a little biased though. I mean. People will die while only the strongest will survive?

You're right though that free market capitalism suggests that "the market"(=the people)knows best how their money is spent.

Socialism, national socialism, conservatism, fascism and what you call true democracy on the other hand are all Planned Economies which suggests that the government(still only people, just a selected few) is better than ourselves deciding where our money should be spent. I tend to disagree on that regard. Wether it's a socialist or a conservative doing it, he can't now me better than I do.

 

Everybody are liberal at least to some extent. A socialist maybe want to legalize cannabis or gay marriage. A conservative might want religious private schools to be legal or lower taxation. You could agree or disagree with either of them but they'll never get what they want as long as the other side want the total opposite and can't stand the thought of them getting it. It is a loose/loose situation.

Liberalism(libertarianism in the US) means that all humans are different and should be treated that way. Not right, not left but up.

 

So, to that end, it is undeniable that a true "Socialist" society has never truly existed, so any suggestion that "it" doesn't work is based on no true facts. What is true about Socialism, if it were ever allowed to exist, is that no one would suffer as the system is designed to not let anyone fall through the cracks no matter their race, creed, or status in life.

There are several levels of hell. Socialism has been tried in several versions. Everything from socialism lite here in Sweden where I live and the horror that is North Korea. The more the country leans left though the more misery is laid over the people. And you could say that there's never been a real socialist country. Well, if these isn't exactly the real deal then I don't think I want to see the full realization of it. Many socialists also believe that there can't be real socialism until the whole world is socialistic which is a thought to horrible to imagine. Think 1984.

Because people don't want to give all their money to the government which must point their guns towards our heads to get what they want. The more they need the more regulations they have to put on us.

 

And because the people in charge are ordinary people but with unordinary powers it is easy for the rich to buy powers too which is why socialism always ends with corporatism. Ironically, yes but true none the less.

 

And arguably, no true unfettered Free Market Capitalist society has ever truly existed either. What is true about unfettered Free Market Capitalism is that if it ever were allowed to exist, that many many many people would likely suffer and die while just a small percentage of humans would hoard most of the resources and survive. It is a very discriminatory system designed to let only a few live and enjoy their 80ish years of life.

So you're sure that that is true are you? How come that countries that lean towards freedom always leads to prosperity? In fact there is a clear line between a country's higher degree of freedom=better lives for it's people. Look at your own country. Look at which ever socialist country. Compare.

 

Corporatism is an extension of Fascism in that Corporations are encouraged, as an extension of unfettered Free Market Capitalism, to do whatever it takes to create short-term profits. To this end, it means not only shipping jobs to whatever arena is necessary to lower manufacturing costs, but to influence governmental policies to benefit the Corporations no matter the effects on nations, the environment, or democracies. Profit is the God for Corporatists. Fascists are merely enabling the Corporatist ideology by subverting government controls in favor of Corporate desires.

Oh, but you're so wrong. It's not an extension of free market. It is planned economy which is much closer to socialism. Different goals, yes, but the same means. I agree though that corporatism is evil.

What has been proven over the years is that a well-regulated mix of Socialist policies with regulated Capitalistic ideas is the ONLY system that allows real progress/innovation while still protecting Democracy and protecting the weak and formerly oppressed (ie, minorities, poor).

 

What IS true today is that USA Republicans/Conservatives favor Fascist ideology that serves Corporations regardless of its overall effect on Democracy, the US Constitution, and on real lives in our own nation and abroad. In other words, Republicans really don't give a sh** who lives or dies so long as their own profit making ideology is allowed to continue unfettered without regulations and laws to hold them back.

But you've got democrats in charge now and the difference isn't that big. Still planned economy. Still corporation bailouts. Still in war all over the world. Still...

And THAT ideology, whether you agree to it or not, has brought the world to this point. The significant push for this "New World Order" (their words) began about thirty years ago. (details about it all here: http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-...0798&sr=1-1 ) (this book also explains the realities of Russia that you bring up)

Yep, that ideology(corporatism)has brought the world to this point as that is the dominant ideology right now. Even former socialist countries like China has corporatism now. And it is evil.

New World Order is some kind of conspiracy theory, isn't it? And Naomi Klein, well... Let's say I disagree with her and think she, if not lies, has got it quite wrong.

I could recommend reading Ron Paul or Ayn Rand but I think you would disagree with them too. So lets not hold up any books and say it is the truth, as all got a separate version of what is true.

"High taxation," as you put it, used to be equitable prior to 1980, in order to maintain and build a strong society (middle class) and keep a strong democracy (in the USA). A society simply cannot be sustained when just 1% of the population is allowed to hoard the majority of the wealth and power. It is unsustainable for any real economy and for a true democracy to exist. So, I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say, "High Taxation," but what is clear is that the eroding Middle Class (in the USA) has been bearing the brunt of the costs of society while the very wealthy have gotten off with very little taxation since 1980. Toss in "runaway" manufacturing to foreign lands where Corporations can get VERY cheap labor (they'd take slaves if they could get away with it), and the USA has steadily been eroded from the inside out.... all so that the very rich can get even richer.

I mean this(48% + 25% vat) with high taxation. As I live in Sweden and have ever only payed taxes in this country.

Edited March 15, 2010 by klas persson

[Thomas James]

It's really funny how Fascism has become so tolerated in this country that my own family is tempted to disown me because I am contemplating the filing of bankruptcy because of the bad economy. After my Mother and Daughter called me a thief I reminded them that the bankruptcy laws were modeled after the year of Jubilee where all the debts were cancelled and land reform was initiated where the peasants could get back their land for free once every 50 years even if it was sold to the landlords. Needless to say I was denounced by my family as a Communist and told to leave their property.

[George Ebersole]

I normally don't say anything when debates get this heated, but you guys are kind of out there.

 

Stay competitive, and get what you can. One of the reasons I didn't become a DP was I didn't want spend my time lugging around an Ikegami or SONY Betacam at weddings or shooting corporate videos. In retrospect that was probably a bad move, but, based on this thread and others, I wonder if I wouldn't be in the same boat as I am now.

 

In short, would I be competing with other cameramen and/or DPs on an international market? I wonder.

[Brian Dzyak]

I normally don't say anything when debates get this heated, but you guys are kind of out there.

 

Stay competitive, and get what you can. One of the reasons I didn't become a DP was I didn't want spend my time lugging around an Ikegami or SONY Betacam at weddings or shooting corporate videos. In retrospect that was probably a bad move, but, based on this thread and others, I wonder if I wouldn't be in the same boat as I am now.

 

In short, would I be competing with other cameramen and/or DPs on an international market? I wonder.

 

To a certain extent, it's always been that way. When I first moved to "Hollywood," I was told that I had the perfect last name to get me to the top of the heap (Dzyak). Particularly at that time (the early 1990s), there seemed to be a preference for "foreign" DPs because somehow, the international guys had some kind of magical artistic touch that US-based DPs were incapable of. <_<

 

But also at that time, the doors weren't as open to encourage movies to troll the planet looking for the cheapest labor and locations like they are now. So even though non-US DPs were allowed to come to "Hollywood" to shoot, the rest of the crew members who had built lives and families in Southern California could still make a living and expect to keep doing that.

 

Then it all changed fairly suddenly in the mid-to late Nineties when Movies-of-the-Week ran away to Canada. Most Features followed suit as well as many other types of shows that either ran to other US States (like North Carolina) or to other countries. People who had built lives in the Los Angeles area suddenly were losing homes. Divorces became rampant. Lives fell apart. Health Insurance (through Motion Picture Health and Welfare) became difficult to qualify for (and they've since made it MORE difficult to qualify for).

 

So why did this all happen? This push for a Global Economy via fairly unfair trade policies, like NAFTA for instance, really got the ball rolling, though other deregulation was already paving the way. Things like undoing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Glass Steagal Act, and the Wagner Act really has created long-term damage to the economy that will take a LONG time to fix if we can ever shake off the Fascist influence over the US government.

 

 

But you're right about working hard and being competitive. No matter if the market is protected or if it's wide open, careers aren't just "given" and hopefully, those who are most talented will find success. Naturally, that isn't always the case. I know some people who for some reason continue to work even though they aren't that good at what they do. And I know more than a few people who are/were very good Cameramen who just never got that "break" that would let them move on to the next level. Ideally, I believe that most people would support a system that would allow the "best" to thrive no matter where they come from. So in that way, this idea of Globalization isn't a bad idea at all... HOWEVER, the current system doesn't allow people to move freely across borders the way that Corporations/Projects can so it is terribly unfair and not "free market" at all. A true unfettered Free Market would include NO walls put up by governments to keep people out AND it would include a common currency or fair exchange rates to account for the vast differences in cost-of-living in order to level the playing field.

 

But the Corporatists don't really want any of that to happen despite their claims to the contrary. It's in their best profit-motive interest to keep the playing field unlevel in order to drive wages DOWN even while their own profits go UP. A leveling of the playing field would mean that they would ultimately lose money in the manufacturing sector and that would cut into their profit statements.

[Brian Dzyak]

Global movie box office nears $30 billion in 2009

 

(Reuters) - Global movie ticket sales hit $29.9 billion last year, up 7.6 percent, with the most growth in the Asia Pacific region, the leading U.S. movie industry representative said on Wednesday.

 

The Motion Picture Association of America, which represents Hollywood’s major studios on government and industry issues, also said the number of digital 3-D screens worldwide tripled in 2009 to 8,989, which accounts for about 6 percent of all screens.

 

The $29.9 billion in global box office compares to $27.8 billion the year before.

 

The Asia Pacific box office increased 12.3 percent, mostly in Japan and China, generating $7.7 billion in ticket sales.

 

“While the motion picture industry continues to face tremendous challenges elsewhere in our business, we’re reminded again this year that the cinema is the heart and soul of our industry and it is thriving,” Bob Pisano, president and interim chief executive of the MPAA said in a statement.

 

Twenty films were released in 3-D last year, accounting for 4 percent of all films released in the United States and Canada. But 3-D screenings of those films accounted for an outsized 11 percent of the total box office, the MPAA said.

 

Theater owners can charge more for a film in 3-D, often adding around $3.50 in some locations, which increases overall revenue.

 

The number of films released by U.S. companies has declined over the past three years, and in 2009 it dropped 12 percent to 558 from 633 the year before.

 

The MPAA said the decline was due to the economic downturn and the 14-week strike two years ago by Hollywood writers.

 

It often takes a year or more for a movie to go from script to theatrical release, so a strike can have a delayed effect on the industry.

 

As had been previously reported, the U.S. and Canada box office generated $10.6 billion in ticket sales. That accounted for 36 percent of the global box office, a figure that has stayed constant in recent years, the MPAA said. The group also said the number of worldwide movie screens has remained constant the past five years at just under 150,000.

 

(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis: Editing by Bob Tourtellotte)

 

Hmmm..... making all that money but still looking for the best bribes ... er, um, "incentives" because it's just too darn expensive to shoot anymore. <_<

 

 

"But incentives HELP everyone, don't they?" you ask. Perhaps, but look at these articles before you leap to conclusions:

 

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/20...ion/7148675.txt

 

Tax breaks for the film industry actually cost the taxpayers money. In one reported example the state grated $94,000 in tax breaks and received $68,000 in return. That is a losing proposition. The film industry is also 100 percent exempt from the sales tax. The industry will be entitled to $150 million dollars in tax deductions this year, at a time when the state is having trouble paying its own bills and taxes have increased for everyone else.

 

 

or these:

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/film+...8265/story.html

 

"My big concern is that since 2007, we've seen the domestic industry shrink by nearly half, from $407 million down to $218 million," Spencer Herbert, NDP opposition critic for tourism, culture and the arts, said in an interview. "It seems to be a trend, a discouraging trend, and I'm concerned that it will get worse."

 

Herbert said Ontario is getting more domestic productions by offering better tax breaks than B.C.

 

"We don't think it's sustainable," he said of the Ontario provisions, introduced last July. "And we're already giving a larger credit than Ontario for labour."

 

 

http://articles.courant.com/2010-03-19/new...ter-rebate-idea

 

The state has issued $130.7 million in production tax credits since 2006, according to a report issued last month by the film division of the state's Department of Economic and Community Development.

 

The tax credit program has been criticized by groups including Connecticut Voices for Children, a New Haven nonprofit advocacy group that says the amount of money spent by the film industry does not justify the credit, one of the country's most generous. The group also says allowing film companies to transfer or sell credits to other corporations erodes the state's tax revenue.

 

 

or this one that puts the entire madness into perspective:

 

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/...ilm-tax-credits

 

These "tax credits" are not reductions in taxes that film producers would otherwise pay. They are instead a direct subsidy equal to 25 percent of film production spending in the Commonwealth. If a film crew spends $100 million, taxpayers in effect, cut them a check for $25 million.

 

The cost is scandalously high. According to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR), in 2008 Massachusetts' taxpayers spent $113 million on film industry subsidies. The resulting increased economic activity, both direct (film spending) and indirect (new activity in other sectors such as restaurants) brought in only $17.5 million in tax revenue to the state. Our net revenue loss was $95.5 million.

 

What did we get for all our millions? Again, according to the DOR, only 1,064 full-time equivalent jobs for residents of the Commonwealth. Workers hoping to make a living in the film industry must string together a series of temporary jobs (to create a full-time equivalent job, or FTE) as they move from project to project. Each of these FTE jobs cost taxpayers $89,755, but on average, paid only $67,775. In other words, each FTE job cost taxpayers $22,000 more than it actually paid Massachusetts workers.

 

But is gets worse. $89,755 is the cost not to create a permanent job, but the cost to maintain a single FTE job for just one year. These jobs persist only so long as the tax credits remain in place. In a sense, it is our rental fee.

 

Here is another way to put this madness into perspective. If we were to use this "economic development" model to achieve full employment, we would have to spend over $27 billion roughly equivalent to our entire state budget each and every year.

[Brian Dzyak]

Hey wow, this article appeared late last night.

 

Like I've said, it's getting to the point where seasoned professionals will have to keep track of where the biggest bribes incentives are and be willing to be nomadic on a regular basis. It's no longer about the economy being up or down and if the industry is experiencing a lull. It's about will the industry you've chosen to work in will pick up the tent stakes and move.

 

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/2010...8?p=2&tc=pg

 

Film fantasy

 

There's only so much we can do to lure film productions here

 

 

Incentive, or blackmail? The latter seems to better characterize film industry executives' comments to Gov. Beverly Perdue on her recent trip to Hollywood, where fantasy and reality are virtually indistinguishable. She and a state entourage flew to Los Angeles to tell the moguls they should be making movies in North Carolina.

 

Their reaction to the governor's pitch, which included information about our state's latest round of film incentives? "Sorry, not good enough. Lose the $7.5 million cap if you want our business."

 

Perdue told a group of local business leaders Thursday that the executives don't consider North Carolina competitive with states that offer bigger giveaways, such as Georgia and Louisiana. Georgia, you may recall, is the state that outbid us for the big-budget Miley Cyrus movie "The Last Song"; the announcement came just minutes before Perdue was scheduled to hold a news conference at EUE/Screen Gems Studios announcing that the movie, written by Nicholas Sparks and originally set in Wrightsville Beach, would be filmed here.

 

That doesn't sound like film execs didn't consider our state competitive, and that was before the N.C. General Assembly approved cash incentives of up to 25 percent of a production's costs, with caps on salary reimbursements and overall project cost. The producers couldn't get North Carolina to go $125,000 better, so the movie and up to 500 jobs went to Georgia.

 

There's the rub with incentives. They leave states between the proverbial rock and hard place. Smart incentives can help seal the deal when a new business is considering several locations. But businesses also have discovered that they can get more money by enticing states to engage in a game of one-upsmanship. And as long as states compete against one another, incentives will continue to be a necessary, if nausea-inducing tool for luring companies that will employ our state's residents.

 

A film production is unlike many other businesses in that its presence in any area will be temporary, meaning it pays to fish for the best offer. In the case of "The Last Song," Georgia gave the producers what they asked for.

 

Those temporary productions boost the local economy, providing jobs, sales tax revenue and help for local businesses. It's worth kicking in a little extra money to persuade filmmakers that the Cape Fear region is the best place to make their movie. Because of our long experience with the film industry, the area also boasts skilled production crews who don't need to travel from somewhere else.

 

Perdue has indicated she would be willing to propose lifting the cap to put North Carolina in a better position to elbow out Georgia and Louisiana. If the numbers show that our state would benefit economically and financially, then the Honorables should swallow hard, ignore the bitter taste in their mouths and put North Carolina in a better competitive mode.

 

Still, it would be nice if those Hollywood execs occasionally said, "Thank you." But that would be fantasy.

[Paul Bruening]

Assuming the "state actually loses revenue through incentives" formula is correct (that's info that I am not directly privy to) it seems peculiar that my state, which offers an uncompetitive and, therefore, useless 25% package, refuses to back local producers who might find success and employ local labor on a continuing basis. Understandably, we locals don't have automatic "instant success" as a selling point. But, damn, come on.

 

Our legislators are, in effect, so busy chasing traveling whores that they forget that they have wives at home ready to put out.

[Guest]

Our legislators are, in effect, so busy chasing traveling whores that they forget that they have wives at home ready to put out.

 

Hmmm, not sure if the female members of the forum will appreciate the analogy, but I get the point. :rolleyes:

 

R,

[Guest]

Like I've said, it's getting to the point where seasoned professionals will have to keep track of where the biggest bribes incentives are and be willing to be nomadic on a regular basis.

 

Well as I've said a 1000 times Brian Hollywood movies have been made all over the globe for decades now. So why you suddenly think every shoot should happen within walking distance of your LA address is a real mystery to me???????

 

Hollywood has been shooting outside of LA long before you where born, it's not a new thing invented just to cheese you off. :huh:

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Well as I've said a 1000 times Brian Hollywood movies have been made all over the globe for decades now. So why you suddenly think every shoot should happen within walking distance of your LA address is a real mystery to me???????

 

Hollywood has been shooting outside of LA long before you where born, it's not a new thing invented just to cheese you off. :huh:

 

R,

 

Not to this extent. Of course, location work, was almost always part of a movie production, but more often than not, most of the production was based out of just a couple of cities so the stage work finished there. This meant that real people could put down roots in a specific geographic area and have a reasonable expectation to build a life with family, friends, a home....

 

Ah, but those "Family Values" don't matter much when there's profit to be had. :rolleyes:

 

But there's more to the business than just movies, as described above. Movies of the Week tended to be the interim-work that those on Episodics could count on during hiatuses. Then MOWs up and left to places like Canada, leaving the experienced crews in LA and NY with less to do. Then Features followed, but because of the temporary nature of each production, and this race by state and national governments to see who will fully finance Corporation projects first, the working PEOPLE are the one's to suffer while those at the top rake in the ever-growing profits. Governments lose much-needed tax revenue that could have been used, at the very least, to bribe incentivize permanent businesses to their locations...

 

... and movie-crews worldwide have to wonder if they should build a life in a place knowing that it could all go away next week because some other state or nation decides to offer a bigger bribe just to get a couple movie made.... until the next place offers a bigger bribe....and another.... and another.... and another....

 

When does it stop?

[JD Hartman]

Like I've said, it's getting to the point where seasoned professionals will have to keep track of where the biggest bribes incentives are and be willing to be nomadic on a regular basis.

 

So have film crew members have become the "migrant fuit pickers" of the new millenium? With "runaway" production, it makes little sense for crew to join a union, nor does it make sense for talent to join SAG.

[Guest]

Ah, but those "Family Values" don't matter much when there's profit to be had. :rolleyes:

 

You expect way way too much. Name an industry where "family values" are put ahead of profit. If you want to work in an industry where you will never be uprooted then you need to run your own company and call your own shots, that's the only way.

 

Then MOWs up and left to places like Canada, leaving the experienced crews in LA and NY with less to do.

 

The crews in Toronto and Vancouver are every bit as good as the crews in LA or NYC. The post facilities are also every bit as good in Toronto and Vancouver as they are in LA or NYC as well.

 

R,

[Jim Hyslop]

Like I've said, it's getting to the point where seasoned professionals will have to keep track of where the biggest bribes incentives are and be willing to be nomadic on a regular basis.

I'm not so sure about that. From what I understand, it gets really complex at tax time if you work in several states. I have no direct experience on this, but I have heard stories from techs on touring stage productions. In addition to federal tax returns, you have to file tax returns in each state (and sometimes county) you've worked in. It may not be worth the hassle to become nomadic.

 

--

Jim

[Guest]

BTW Brian, I picked this up at the Raleigh studios when I was there last week on Melrose Ave. Looks like we are both screwed, the next big move is to Budapest. I'm guessing they have pretty weak unions there and labour that costs about $1.00 hr. This is most likely the future for movies that require giant sets to be built.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

You expect way way too much. Name an industry where "family values" are put ahead of profit. If you want to work in an industry where you will never be uprooted then you need to run your own company and call your own shots, that's the only way.

 

I'm merely saying that it didn't use to be this way and am describing the way it is now due to the "New World Order" brought about by Uncle Milty and Globalization. The "Family Values" issue is ironic in that the US political Party that pushes this state of things is also the one that claims to be the keepers of "Family Values." Irony, huh. ;)

 

 

 

The crews in Toronto and Vancouver are every bit as good as the crews in LA or NYC. The post facilities are also every bit as good in Toronto and Vancouver as they are in LA or NYC as well.

 

R,

 

I'm sure that they are .... now. I really don't know how "good" crews and facilities were in Canada (or other places around the world) prior to the mid-1990s when this push for Globalization and policies like NAFTA kicked into full gear. But we do know that prior to that time, an aspiring film "crew person" could move to either Los Angeles or NYC with the reasonable expectation that those were the locations where the majority of the work took place. And if the production didn't happen there, crews would be hired from those pools and transported wherever they needed to be on a temporary basis. This allowed for a sense of stability so that people could buy homes and raise families and earn enough money to be firmly Middle Class and practice those "Family Values" that are proclaimed by some here to be so important.

 

But the new state of things encourages governments to compromise their own budgets in order to attract these short-term jobs. So as crews get comfortable and more experienced, thinking that their city is the "new Hollywood," the Corporations/Producers are always seeking out new locations that are willing to hand over a bigger bribe incentive Then they move there where those crews think that they are the "new Hollywood." And on and on and on. In Canada, you've got provinces battling it out to hold onto whatever work winds up in that nation while the article I quoted above shows the extent that this entire system is nothing short of blackmail. And all it really means is that the costs are publicized while the profits are privatized. Unions are broken to ensure that wages are further suppressed and working conditions falter. Workers have less work overall and earn less doing it, while those above the line collect bigger paychecks due to the savings upfront and the growing profits on the backend.

 

I, of course, have my own personal opinions about whether this path the world is on is good or not, but the point of the thread is to merely express the importance of being aware of the big picture so that aspiring filmmakers/crews can have a better idea of how to create a successful sustainable career. It was always a volatile industry, but the new economic model that Conservatives have created over the past thirty years has made it even more so for those in the film industry. Knowledge is our friend. :)

[Paul Bruening]

.

[Brian Dzyak]

BTW Brian, I picked this up at the Raleigh studios when I was there last week on Melrose Ave. Looks like we are both screwed, the next big move is to Budapest. I'm guessing they have pretty weak unions there and labour that costs about $1.00 hr. This is most likely the future for movies that require giant sets to be built.

 

R,

 

"Hollywood" production has been there off and on for a few years now. Here are a couple of articles I've found regarding Hungary and Europe:

 

http://realfilmcareer.com/?p=3193

 

http://realfilmcareer.com/?p=1997

 

http://realfilmcareer.com/?p=568

 

http://realfilmcareer.com/?p=116

 

 

and this from the official site for Hungary:

 

http://www.hungarianfilm.com/eindex.ivy

Welcome to the Hungarian film industry website

As a result of the professional and legislative achievements of the past year, the Hungarian film industry has had access to unprecedented opportunities. The new film law and the tax benefits connected to it may provide a new impetus for local filmmaking and a boom in subcontract work and co-productions.

 

The editors of szakma.film.hu are attempting to catalyse this process with the services and information offered on this site free of charge.

We hope that both local and international film industry players will find our site useful.

[K Borowski]

Wow, a lab that can do SEVEN-PERF. format! That's great Richard!

 

 

BTW, I didn't know that new labs sprung up in Vancouver following the tax incentive program. I know there are other Canadian labs and just assumed that there wouldn't be anyone daring enough to try to start a new one.

 

 

I don't think Hawai'i has a film lab, even though "Lost" is/was shot there. Detroit has some labs, but I think a lot of them have closed. I was under the impression that the only "worthy" labs, at least in the eyes of Hollywood, were on the East- and West Coasts of the United States of America, film running expenses, plane tickets, and idiotic X-ray inspector damage risks aside, that's where the film HAS to go, Union rule ;-)

[K Borowski]

The crews in Toronto and Vancouver are every bit as good as the crews in LA or NYC. The post facilities are also every bit as good in Toronto and Vancouver as they are in LA or NYC as well.

 

I hear they are excessively polite, even to a fault though. Might not jive well with hot-tempered directors and actors like Christian Bale, and David O. Russell.

[Guest]

I hear they are excessively polite, even to a fault though. Might not jive well with hot-tempered directors and actors like Christian Bale, and David O. Russell.

 

Or hot tempered directors like me, I usually fire 3-4 of them per day. :D

 

R,

[Paul Bruening]

Or hot tempered directors like me, I usually fire 3-4 of them per day. :D

 

R,

 

That's only 120 or so in a month long shoot. Mighty sweet for your payroll master.

[Paul Bruening]

.

[Paul Bruening]

.

[Paul Bruening]

.

[Paul Bruening]

.