Even in booming China, independent filmmakers struggle for funding and attention

Last month, we posted about the iffy state of film and television production credits in the United States. You might assume that the recent boom of China’s film industry has created a new market for incentives overseas, but evidently, the purse strings are tight there as well. Although major Hollywood “co-productions” like Iron Man 3 … Continue reading “Even in booming China, independent filmmakers struggle for funding and attention”

Last month, we posted about the iffy state of film and television production credits in the United States. You might assume that the recent boom of China’s film industry has created a new market for incentives overseas, but evidently, the purse strings are tight there as well.

Although major Hollywood “co-productions” like Iron Man 3 and the most recent Transformers movie receiving full support, The New York Times reports that young aspiring filmmakers in China have trouble finding funding and support for their work. Many of the Times‘s interviewees attest that there is a large market for films by and for younger audiences, but few distributors and festival organizers seem interested in tapping that vein. Films by first-time directors are less commercially enticing than Transformers, and the filmmakers responsible often don’t have the professional experience necessary to make their case for funding.

The article also dives into the interesting generational structure used to describe Chinese film history, and that’s certainly at play in young Chinese filmmakers’ struggles for attention and success.

China may be on track to become the world’s largest film market by 2018, but their independent filmmakers still face the same challenges as our SOC grads.

State film tax credits on the chopping block

Tax incentives are often the saving grace of film productions. If a local film board gives you incentive to film your upcoming production on-site, you’d be silly not to at least consider its possible budget alleviation. That’s why House of Cards films many of its scenes in Baltimore. It brings commerce and attention to states … Continue reading “State film tax credits on the chopping block”

Tax incentives are often the saving grace of film productions. If a local film board gives you incentive to film your upcoming production on-site, you’d be silly not to at least consider its possible budget alleviation. That’s why House of Cards films many of its scenes in Baltimore. It brings commerce and attention to states and helps filmmakers stay afloat, but many argue that like the Olympics, these productions cost more in goodwill and hassle than they bring in.

Perhaps those criticisms have become the consensus, as multiple states are now considering cutting their film credits. MinnPost reports that Minnesota legislators are now considering rescinding the state’s $10 million film incentives. The state has apparently struggled with its budget in recent years, and with competing incentives from Canada attracting productions like Fargo, lawmakers don’t easily notice the return investment of luring film crews. (Minnesota’s film board says $4.6 million of credits brought nearly $30 million into the state.)

A similar conflict is underway in Massachusetts, where Governor Charlie Baker wants to put those credits into income tax rebates rather than supporting out-of-state businesses. As with Minnesota, this is a difficult argument to suss out, as the impacts of film production (positive or negative) are challenging to determine.

The shuttering of some local credits may not have a noticeable impact on the quality of films and television shows; those will still get made somewhere. But California and New York’s unquestioned dominance of the production industry would have a negative ripple effect throughout the business. Local film board and production houses would struggle to stay afloat, and we’d have to get used to seeing more palm trees and New York skylines in all of our media.

How much does television cost? Millions – if you’re a period drama

Movie studios are often hesitant to confirm the budgets of their biggest movies, but we can generally ballpark something like The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in the $250 million range. Television shows, however, prove a little harder to guess. We know that many networks love reality shows because of their seemingly non-existent cost, but it’s unclear … Continue reading “How much does television cost? Millions – if you’re a period drama”

Movie studios are often hesitant to confirm the budgets of their biggest movies, but we can generally ballpark something like The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in the $250 million range. Television shows, however, prove a little harder to guess. We know that many networks love reality shows because of their seemingly non-existent cost, but it’s unclear how much they’re saving over scripted television shows.

If a new (albeit outsourced) report from Uproxx can be believed, it can cost a few million for an hour of quality television. Unsurprisingly, fantasy shows and period dramas cost the most to make. An average episode of Game of Thrones can cost $6 million, while each episode of the miniseries The Pacific cost a startling $20 million. Smaller shows like Friends and ER often ran into the $10 million range, though only in later seasons when their casts had name recognition and could get away with asking for more. That still places each season of these shows far below the cost of the average blockbuster movie.

These numbers certainly provide a little perspective about why a network might be hesitant to renew a series that can cost around $70 million per season. It also reveals how cost-effective television shows can be when they limit their special effects budgets. Would you be comfortable trading Maleficent ($180 million) for thirty episodes of Game of Thrones?

Luckily for our patrons, the most expensive TV shows of all time are free to borrow from our collection!

Deadwood – HU DVD 7101 – 7129
Boardwalk Empire – HU DVD 9421 – 9423
Game of Thrones – HU DVD 10021 – 10023
Friends – HU DVD 14038 -14047
Rome – HU DVD 14072 – 14073
Band of Brothers – HU DVD 14080
The Pacific – HU DVD 14081

Is the special effects business in trouble?

Common sense dictates that special effects sell movie tickets. If you look at a list of the most successful movies in the world, 18 of the 20 highest-grossing live-action films are notable for their high-quality CGI. Big, splashy effects drive people to seats, get them to buy DVDs, and frequently win critical acclaim. One recent … Continue reading “Is the special effects business in trouble?”

Common sense dictates that special effects sell movie tickets. If you look at a list of the most successful movies in the world, 18 of the 20 highest-grossing live-action films are notable for their high-quality CGI. Big, splashy effects drive people to seats, get them to buy DVDs, and frequently win critical acclaim. One recent example of Life of Pi, a Best Picture nominee that uses extensive 3D effects.

But outsourcing and competition from other studios are driving major special effects companies into financial ruin. This week, Rhythm & Hues, the company responsible for Life of Pi‘s effects, filed for bankruptcy, even while it has three other major projects on its docket.

The Chicago Tribune reports a number of reasons why this could be happening. Visual effects are expensive, and even though big-budget spectacle ropes in audiences, studios will always opt for the least expensive work. Tax credits and lower international wages are forcing American VFX companies to stretch themselves thin, leading to even the most profitable studios facing financial strain. It affects the creative process too; Yahoo! News quoted an R&H employee saying that “People can’t be creative if they’re constantly worried about their jobs.”

Labor issues are a recurring problem in the film industry, but until now, visual effects studios have seemed to escape unscathed. But soon the industry might need to rethink a key component of its business model.

What co-productions mean for creativity in film

The increasing economic cooperation between the Chinese and U.S is no tightly held secret, but its impact on the film industry is just now becoming apparent. China is notoriously strict about which Western films it shows, reportedly refusing to screen The Departed for implying that Beijing has military connections. That tide is turning. Large movie … Continue reading “What co-productions mean for creativity in film”

The increasing economic cooperation between the Chinese and U.S is no tightly held secret, but its impact on the film industry is just now becoming apparent. China is notoriously strict about which Western films it shows, reportedly refusing to screen The Departed for implying that Beijing has military connections.

That tide is turning. Large movie studios are beginning to enter lucrative “co-productions” with partners in China, utilizing the resources of both countries to create international hits. This, of course, has business implications, such as Dreamworks opening a new studio in China.

But more relevantly, this is affecting the creative process too. Major co-produced blockbusters yet to be released this year, including Looper and Cloud Atlas, prominently feature Chinese characters and settings. Even Stan Lee, the creator of Spider-Man and other big superheroes, has entered a co-production to create a Chinese superhero movie with global appeal. Creative freedom has always been bounded by business constraints, but this is a surprising new form of synergy.

Who knows if this will become a lasting trend like product placement, but for the near future, it’s good to take heed of the business decisions behind new creative directions in film.