4,730 jobs lost as Detroit 187 & other films leave state thanks to Rick

[Thames]

all that is completely irrelevant to this issue though. Love the bailouts.. or not.. it has nothing to do with this issue.

This comes down to this: Tax dollars being spent to make jobs to try to lift the state's economy. Is this a good place to be putting the money.

My two cents is Hell no-- 20k+ per 50k-a-year job is ridiculous. And to make matters worse, they are jobs that are transient, and disappear the second the state movie welfare dries up. Now what if we put those dollars into machine shops in Macomb County. Good paying, long term blue collar jobs that will be [[more or less) permenant. That would have a much more positive effect on our state's economy.

ColonelMack, with all due respect, your thinking is archaic.

The good paying machine shop jobs are long gone and they're not coming back. They are mostly $9-$12/hr. jobs now.

Today's young people aren't settling for that and they shouldn't. Would you?

The film industry brought almost endless possibilities for job growth and for our youth.

Electricians/carpenters to build/tear down sets. Transportation to move sets/talent around, hair & make up, production studios, catering, travel agents, props [[selling and creating), the list goes on.

People I know in the business [[only three, but still, they weren't collecting unemployment) were working steady last year. They'd work 90 hr weeks a lot [[at good pay) for a couple months, then have 2-3 weeks off, then get back on another film, working 90 hr weeks, repeat.

I think the incentives could be tweaked, but I don't understand why they want to all but eliminate them. IMO, they didn't give it enough time. Steady work was just starting to take hold.

It almost looked like a young person could have an actual future here. It almost looked like we'd be able to offer more than low paying, low skilled jobs.

Oh well. Guess we'll just start collecting unemployment again and wait for those "great" jobs you speak of. Or leave.

[ColonelMack]

Perhaps my illustrating the absurd with the absurd was lost on you. the "Machine Shop" was meant to be the polar opposite of the cool.. glamorous movie jobs. Fact is the better play with tax dollar would be to give 21% back to health care companies that would locate here. You would get the jobs, they would be long term, they would be solid, high paying, and companies would have fought to come here.. no one gives back a 21% rebate to businesses for what they spend. Yet to draw the films here we gave them back 42% on what they spent. We spent about 20k for every 50k-a-year job, per the film industry study.

It just doesnt make sense. It is ludicrous. We would be much better off bankrolling real, in demand job training. I know that would be a little less glamourous.. but it woudl make a heck of a lot more sense for our states ecomony. If you want to pursue a movie career God bless ya.. just dont take my tax dollars to do it.

[Gsgeorge]

Perhaps my illustrating the absurd with the absurd was lost on you. the "Machine Shop" was meant to be the polar opposite of the cool.. glamorous movie jobs. Fact is the better play with tax dollar would be to give 21% back to health care companies that would locate here. You would get the jobs, they would be long term, they would be solid, high paying, and companies would have fought to come here.. no one gives back a 21% rebate to businesses for what they spend. Yet to draw the films here we gave them back 42% on what they spent. We spent about 20k for every 50k-a-year job, per the film industry study.

So you're saying we should get rid of the film tax credit..... and replace it with a tax credit for a different industry, the medical industry. I'm not really following you. You must just have something against those of us who work in the film industry, otherwise you would just want to eliminate all tax credits across the board. Why not just lower the film tax credit to 21%? Film jobs are high-paying, solid jobs too. Just because we have a little time off here and there, that doesn't really make our jobs any less valuable, and it would be a moot point if the films keep coming here. And they will with a moderate tax credit. You're also forgetting that the film industry doesn't just employ cameramen and actors. It fills our hotels, supports local businesses and contractors, employs local unions, tradespeople, caterers, etc etc.

[iheartthed]

Actors union says 'Detroit 1-8-7' leaving city if renewed

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110427/...#ixzz1KjsfOGYE

[Gsgeorge]

Not to be 'that guy', but... Told You So!

[HistoryNotHisStory]

Screw absurd tax loopholes. Let's tax everyone fairly and not have any of these really weird tax-free industries.

I agree with you my friend tax everyone with a flat tax rate of 10% of income and eliminate property taxes.

If we tax everyone fairly, the federal and the state goverments will become solvent in 5 years.

[old guy]

If you eliminate property taxes, wouldn't you bring back the land barons. You could keep accumulating property with no additional cost once you owned it. Of course if you wanted to farm some land, you could become a sharecropper by renting some land from a land baron. There's a bright looking future.

[rjk]

Actors union says 'Detroit 1-8-7' leaving city if renewed

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110427/...#ixzz1KjsfOGYE

They're gone anyways. What little chance they had of being renewed went out the window with its replacement [[Body of Proof) doing so well in the ratings.

I watched Body of Proof one time and it was pretty good. The problem is that I'm not a fan of hour long dramas, I just don't have the patience to watch for that long. Dana Delaney is clearly the star of BOP, I think 187 would have done better if they gave Imperioli the same kind of staring role/face time. My problem with 187 is that there were too many cops/actors that I didn't find interesting or even very good actors.

[iheartthed]

They're gone anyways. What little chance they had of being renewed went out the window with its replacement [[Body of Proof) doing so well in the ratings.

I watched Body of Proof one time and it was pretty good. The problem is that I'm not a fan of hour long dramas, I just don't have the patience to watch for that long. Dana Delaney is clearly the star of BOP, I think 187 would have done better if they gave Imperioli the same kind of staring role/face time. My problem with 187 is that there were too many cops/actors that I didn't find interesting or even very good actors.

I think it's likely a goner too. But ABC had so many poorly performing shows this season that were already canceled, so if they decide to just carry over one as a test case then I think 187 would be first on the list. I could see it getting picked up for half a season, maybe as a mid-season replacement next winter.

ETA: The union is now backtracking on that statement about the show pulling out of Detroit. The producers have not made a decision on that and their application for film credits is still pending.

[MikeM]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/us...o-town.html?hp

Michigan Town Woos Hollywood, but Ends Up With a Bit Part

By LOUISE STORY
Published: December 3, 2012

When Mr. Taubman first visited the vacated General Motors site in Pontiac, he was brought to tears. “What happened to all the people?” he said, according to Mr. Nelson, who was at his side. “Where are the cars? What happened to their families?”

In early 2009, the four investors bought the property from G.M. for “virtually nothing,” said Mr. Rakolta. General Motors, which had just received a hefty federal bailout, “spent more on the carpet than we spent on this building,” he said.

meanwhile...

The studio had created only 200 positions by the summer of 2011, according to correspondence between the company and local officials. And when temporary construction workers were excluded from the tally, Pontiac’s records show, the studio reported only two employees in 2010 and 12 the next year. The studio’s chief financial officer said it had not been able to cash in on $110 million in tax credits that were contingent on creating jobs. But the studio did cash in on other credits, including $14 million for a “Film and Digital Media Infrastructure Investment Tax Credit,” he said.

[Bham1982]

I don't particularly like Snyder, but the movie industry incentives were a joke. They were only here because we paid them to be here.

It was never a sustainable industry, as if Hollywood were eventually going to move operations to a Pontiac auto factory. Michigan doesn't offer anything special for the film industry.

[rbdetsport]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/us...o-town.html?hp

Michigan Town Woos Hollywood, but Ends Up With a Bit Part

By LOUISE STORY
Published: December 3, 2012



meanwhile...

That is a load of shit. There were more than two jobs created at the site. A few of my friends had small roles in the filming of Oz. They were just kids from Macomb County. People forget to realize that people were given jobs on the films. While these weren't necessrily permanent, they were still a stimulant to the economy. My cousin was a staging manager for the filming of Grand Torino as well. He was just starting to move up in the industry when Snyder pulled the rug out from under it and him. I rarely disagree with Snyder, but this is one of those things that I still have a bad taste in my mouth about.

[Wesley Mouch]

I don't particularly like Snyder, but the movie industry incentives were a joke. They were only here because we paid them to be here.

It was never a sustainable industry, as if Hollywood were eventually going to move operations to a Pontiac auto factory. Michigan doesn't offer anything special for the film industry.

In general, incentives are a mistake. Tax Credits. Gifts to those we like. Subsidies to industries we like.

And I don't buy the Union argument that raises for us is what's best for you -- rising tide.

And I don't believe $6 return for $1 invested. If we pay a film company $25M, is there really $150M of new dollars coming from them into Michigan?

But I'd rather pay some incentives here than unemployment right now if the State's cashflow can support it.

[Packman41]

If the movie studio was such a good deal, then why didn’t Nelson, Rakolta, Emmanuel and Taubman put in their own money? If they did not want to risk it, then why should they ask for taxpayers or the state pension fund to risk it?

As they say in the article, “The situation is galling to even longtime government officials, who over the years have seen plenty of economic development deals fail. “Taubman could write the whole check for that himself,” said Doug Smith, an official at the state’s economic development agency. The state pension fund may “end up owning these studios,” he said.”

It is galling to the public. “In public, the investors extolled the studio as an altruistic effort on behalf of Pontiac. “I go into things to make money, but on this, I don’t really care,” Mr. Taubman told The Detroit Free Press. “I just want to help create jobs, and this can create 3,600 jobs.” Especially, since we are paying the tab.

By their own admission, “In early 2009, the four investors bought the property from G.M. for “virtually nothing,” said Mr. Rakolta. General Motors, which had just received a hefty federal bailout, “spent more on the carpet than we spent on this building,” he said.

Well, they actually paid $3.65 million for 17 acres of land and a nearly new 400,000 square foot office building that in 1998 cost $52 million to build. To these types of guys $3.65 million is “virtually nothing.”

Not only could they not run the studio properly [[last August, Raleigh Studios, the county’s largest impendent movie studio management company, suddenly resigned in a disagreement with the owners) they could not even run the office building portion of the site.

The 400,000 square foot office building pays little in real estate taxes to the city of Pontiac because it is in a Renaissance Zone. As Louis Schimmel, Pontiac’s third EFM, says in the article, “I’m just about the biggest critic of these programs, because giving away the taxes of the city is so detrimental,” he said. “The money is needed for police, fire and trash pickup.”

So even with nearly free taxes rates to pass onto any prospective office tenants the building is virtually empty. They can’t even lease out rent-subsidized office space.

So now the State Pension Fund is making, two $420,000 bond payments [[$840,000 annually) for the crony capitalists. Kicker is that the guarantee agreement the Pension Fund accepted from the studio owners is that they cannot foreclose on the movie studio for at least 7 years.

This studio deal was seen by every banker, lender, financial source for over a year and everyone walked away shaking their head. It's only done by the lender of last resort and they were pushed by a political agenda to do it and it failed.

[JVB]

As usual, the taxpayer is the one stuck subsidizing all the shitty deals, because we have politicians pretending to know something about business and jobs.

If no businessmen want to touch a deal, that should be our cue as taxpayers to bend over and lube up.

[casscorridor]

I don't particularly like Snyder, but the movie industry incentives were a joke. They were only here because we paid them to be here.

It was never a sustainable industry, as if Hollywood were eventually going to move operations to a Pontiac auto factory. Michigan doesn't offer anything special for the film industry.

Michigan does offer a plethora of locations to shoot, whether you need a small town, big city, rural, industrial, or even post-apocalyptic, we got it. Unless it is tropical, ocean or desert, we probably have a location.

We also have low costs and minimal disruption. You can film Downtown Detroit and close down entire streets and barely disrupt the usual order of things. You can find warehouses to convert to sound-stages on the cheap. And of course, labor is plentiful.

The main drawbacks are a) lack of skilled labor because the film industry is so small and new so there has been little time to develop skill b) lack of equipment and facilities for the same reason of our industry being in its infancy and biggest of all c) we are not located in California and that is where most actors, directors and producers live and work.

So without the film industry receiving at least a decades worth of incentives, I don't see industry roots taking hold here. We will still get a few films from time to time, but it will be films who specifically want a Detroit scene or look [[i think AMC's Walking Dead or NBC's Revolution would be perfect here).

[mallory]

^^^ Not gonna happen now, cass. Film production will go where it is cheap to film, and thanks to Snyder, it isn't so cheap to film here anymore. If Detroit 187 was still on the air, they could have moved production to Windsor and just laughed in our faces as it is cheaper to shoot in Canada than it is in the USA. Show the skyline, shoot in Windsor. If a produciton company wants a decidedly Detroit slant on their film, they'll spend 2-3 days shooting exteriors [[skylines, buildings and such), then move production to Pittsburgh [[the Temptations movie), Cleveland, or Toronto.

As someone else mentioned earlier, even though they might not be permanent jobs, a job is a job for someone who doesn't have one. Nope, this was one bad move by Snyder [[if I'm only allowed to mention just one).

[JVB]

Film production will go where it is cheap to film, and thanks to Snyder, it isn't so cheap to film here anymore.

But it wasn't cheap to film here - it's just that Michigan taxpayers were paying the money to subsidize it.

If you and I go to a 5-star restaurant and I order Chateaubriand and their best bottle of wine and you pick up the tab, does that mean dinner was cheap? Maybe for me, but not for you. Someone has to pay.