Slog
News & ArtsMonday, February 7, 2011
Film / Olympia "Our vampires should stay in Washington State."
Posted by Eli Sanders on Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:27 PM
- Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles: Defending the Washington vampire.
Today's hearing on a bill "concerning Washington's motion picture competitiveness" was pretty great entertainment, at least by senate hearing standards.
Taking a break from talk about "fringe benefit provisions of bargaining agreements with the University of Washington" (zzzzzzzzz) and "regulating tobacco products" (because, shocker, big tobacco is now making nicotine products that taste like candy!) the Senate Committee on Labor, Commerce, and Consumer Protection took up the question of why Washington State has been losing out to places like Vancouver, B.C. and Portland when it comes to raking in money from filmmakers and television series producers.
Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Magnolia), the prime sponsor of the bill, cited vampire-based humiliation as one reason our state should invest more money in tax breaks for film and television creators who shoot their work here. As Kohl-Welles told the hearing room:
The irony to Twilight is that most of the filming was done in Oregon, and the new film is being shot in British Columbia... I find this intolerable... Our vampires should stay in Washington State.”
Legislators on the committee seemed generally supportive of the idea, even though additional tax breaks would cost the state $16 million over the next biennium at a time when the state is facing a $4.6 billion shortfall.
One Republican senator complained: "How did the Battle in Seattle get filmed in British Columbia?" Another, searching for some way that Washington had bested Oregon in the motion picture department, crowed that Bridgestone's Super Bowl ad—starring a helpful beaver and four very wet tires—was filmed here in Washington State. “We outfoxed the Oregon beaver on that one, didn’t we?” he said.
Guess so. Go Washington beavers! And stay tuned for more as this bill moves forward.
1
On the other hand, our werewolves should roam free.
There is a history of cannibalism and slavery amongst NW Native tribes, especially those in the Eastern mountain regions. So if we ever decide to film those themes, like for a prequel to Steampunk Zombies, we've got the whole state to work with.
(ducks as people who didn't follow native folklore of the region deny the reality of the original native tales)
There is a history of cannibalism and slavery amongst NW Native tribes, especially those in the Eastern mountain regions. So if we ever decide to film those themes, like for a prequel to Steampunk Zombies, we've got the whole state to work with.
(ducks as people who didn't follow native folklore of the region deny the reality of the original native tales)
2
Help me out here. How do they justify claiming how much these tax breaks will "cost" us? Because of the taxes, NONE of these films are being shot in Washington, therefore the state is NOT >>LOSING<< money by encouraging production by reducing or removing these taxes. They ARE losing all of the residual and secondary income these projects bring in through tourism.
Back in the late 80's/early 90's, we did enjoy significant tax breaks for film and tv production. You might remember some of the shows that were produced here during that time, notably Twin Peaks and Northern Exposure - two shows that continue to bring tourist dollars to our region 20 years later. Several films which still encourage tourist views from duck boats, horse carriage rides, or walking tours were produced here. Since that era, what have we had? The Ring? What else?
Back in the late 80's/early 90's, we did enjoy significant tax breaks for film and tv production. You might remember some of the shows that were produced here during that time, notably Twin Peaks and Northern Exposure - two shows that continue to bring tourist dollars to our region 20 years later. Several films which still encourage tourist views from duck boats, horse carriage rides, or walking tours were produced here. Since that era, what have we had? The Ring? What else?
4
One of the Steve Prefontaine movies (the Jared Leto, I think) was filmed in Seattle.
Even though Husky Stadium is way bigger than Heyward Field.
Even though Husky Stadium is way bigger than Heyward Field.
5
@2: The "costs" consist of movie productions that would have filmed here anyway. They'll receive the benefit of tax breaks that they would have paid if this doesn't pass.
At least that's all I can figure...
otherwise you're right; there is no cost if the tax breaks go to people who wouldn't have come to WA without the tax breaks.
At least that's all I can figure...
otherwise you're right; there is no cost if the tax breaks go to people who wouldn't have come to WA without the tax breaks.
6
@2,
It was my understanding that Twin Peaks' pilot was filmed in Washington, but the series was not, as evidenced by the outdoor locations in the series which look nothing like the Pacific NW. (The ground is too dry. The light too yellow. The trees too massive.)
It was my understanding that Twin Peaks' pilot was filmed in Washington, but the series was not, as evidenced by the outdoor locations in the series which look nothing like the Pacific NW. (The ground is too dry. The light too yellow. The trees too massive.)
7
@6 kind of a combo, actually. BC for a lot of the river and forest scenes, it depended on what the script called for.
8
Hey Eli, and some commenters here: You're coming from the same place as most of these legislators, which is completely uninformed about what the film incentive is, what it does, and how it puts the State on competative ground with other states.
Of course you're going to get the "oooh, my daughter loves Twilight!" and "but what does this do for tourism?" comments from uninformed legislators, just like the ones you're flaunting to get comments and a rise out of people during tough times. That is part of the task facing the people pushing for the incentive program's renewal. This is not a glamor bill geared to attract stars, Hollywood, and tourists to Washington. Film making is a business, film crews make films for a living, not for fun. The incentive program creates jobs - the best kind of jobs: creative class. The end goal here is not how many tourists a movie attracts, it's how many jobs you can create and how many creative people you can keep in Washington State.
In 2011, 44 out of the 50 states have an film incentive program. In the good old days of the late 80s and early 90s, @2 diggum, there were NO TAX INCENTIVES - filming locations were the determining factor on where films were made, not what areas gave tax breaks. Twin Peaks and Northern Exposure are great examples, they came to Washington put hundreds of local film crew people to work for years. I know, I was one of them.
Oregon is increasing it's film incentive fund from $7 million to $17 million THIS YEAR. Vancouver's film incentive is as strong as ever with a government that has understood the value of film dollars for over two decades. If the Washington film incentive goes away, Washington will no longer be competative on any level of filmmaking, and film productions will re-write scripts to set their show in Portland, Detroit, or New Mexico, or they'll film it in downtown Vancouver and call it Seattle. When they choose somewhere else to film, they'll take their millions and millions of dollars out of Washington with them.
Just as importantly, without a film crew base in Seattle, there is no mechanism to foster young filmmakers in the region. The Lynn Sheltons, Rob Devors, David Russos, and their crews will move out of state in droves. A basic knowledge of the loss of crew base during the incentiveless 90s and 00s proves that.
I am a filmmaker, I want to raise my kids here in Washington where I was born and raised. If the incentive program does not get renewed, I won't be able to do that. Eli and others, please get informed about what the incentive program is really about, and cut it out with the glamor pushback.
More...
Of course you're going to get the "oooh, my daughter loves Twilight!" and "but what does this do for tourism?" comments from uninformed legislators, just like the ones you're flaunting to get comments and a rise out of people during tough times. That is part of the task facing the people pushing for the incentive program's renewal. This is not a glamor bill geared to attract stars, Hollywood, and tourists to Washington. Film making is a business, film crews make films for a living, not for fun. The incentive program creates jobs - the best kind of jobs: creative class. The end goal here is not how many tourists a movie attracts, it's how many jobs you can create and how many creative people you can keep in Washington State.
In 2011, 44 out of the 50 states have an film incentive program. In the good old days of the late 80s and early 90s, @2 diggum, there were NO TAX INCENTIVES - filming locations were the determining factor on where films were made, not what areas gave tax breaks. Twin Peaks and Northern Exposure are great examples, they came to Washington put hundreds of local film crew people to work for years. I know, I was one of them.
Oregon is increasing it's film incentive fund from $7 million to $17 million THIS YEAR. Vancouver's film incentive is as strong as ever with a government that has understood the value of film dollars for over two decades. If the Washington film incentive goes away, Washington will no longer be competative on any level of filmmaking, and film productions will re-write scripts to set their show in Portland, Detroit, or New Mexico, or they'll film it in downtown Vancouver and call it Seattle. When they choose somewhere else to film, they'll take their millions and millions of dollars out of Washington with them.
Just as importantly, without a film crew base in Seattle, there is no mechanism to foster young filmmakers in the region. The Lynn Sheltons, Rob Devors, David Russos, and their crews will move out of state in droves. A basic knowledge of the loss of crew base during the incentiveless 90s and 00s proves that.
I am a filmmaker, I want to raise my kids here in Washington where I was born and raised. If the incentive program does not get renewed, I won't be able to do that. Eli and others, please get informed about what the incentive program is really about, and cut it out with the glamor pushback.
9
@8 - Do the incentive programs actually pay filmmakers to film in that state, or do they just give tax breaks? I'm asking because if it's just tax breaks, I don't understand where these dollar figures (like $17 million) come from.
10
@9:
It's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, because of the way OR & WA (and other states) deal with their respective incentives programs.
For example: OR can offer direct tax breaks to production companies, whereas WA cannot. Hence the creation of WA FilmWorks, which administers and distributes funds contributed by local industry businesses. Qualifying producers can then apply for funding from that pool to help defray some of their costs, in exchange for which they agree to certain conditions and terms (details here). They don't receive direct rebates from the State, but the in-state contributors do get a break on some of their B&O taxes in exchange for their investment.
It's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, because of the way OR & WA (and other states) deal with their respective incentives programs.
For example: OR can offer direct tax breaks to production companies, whereas WA cannot. Hence the creation of WA FilmWorks, which administers and distributes funds contributed by local industry businesses. Qualifying producers can then apply for funding from that pool to help defray some of their costs, in exchange for which they agree to certain conditions and terms (details here). They don't receive direct rebates from the State, but the in-state contributors do get a break on some of their B&O taxes in exchange for their investment.
11
Tax breaks are only part of the story. The unions in BC bent over backwards to get business out of LA and BC has built a significant production infrastructure over the past 20 years.
Now WA wouldn't just be competing with neighboring states and Canada, but also countries like Romania where they can shoot 100% non-union.
Now WA wouldn't just be competing with neighboring states and Canada, but also countries like Romania where they can shoot 100% non-union.
12
@5
Well, no....the point is that production ISN'T occurring here because we aren't making production companies welcome.
One real example of this is the TV show LEVERAGE, whose show runners make a big point of how local and state government made them welcome in the area. And when you're spending $2 million an episode (16 episode season), a lot of that is spent locally.
Well, no....the point is that production ISN'T occurring here because we aren't making production companies welcome.
One real example of this is the TV show LEVERAGE, whose show runners make a big point of how local and state government made them welcome in the area. And when you're spending $2 million an episode (16 episode season), a lot of that is spent locally.
13
Hm. Here's an example. TV show LEVERAGE. Films in Portland. Show runner Jon Rogers constantly says it's because the local and state government made them welcome. The show's budget is $1.5 to $2 million per epsisode, 16 episodes. Not all of that is spent in Portland, but a major portion is (as in, housing for cast in crew, etc.). And because LEVERAGE is shooting there, other projects will, as well.
Do the math.
Do the math.
14
I'm an actor. Have lived here since 1994. I would like to be employed more frequently in the craft that I have spent 25 years of my life, training and working on. This program benefits actors, crew, filmmakers on a local level and the more production the state is able to attract, the more revenue flows into our local economy. It's a good thing. Please support renewal and expansion of our film incentive.
15
Bringing more film and TV projects to WA state would be a huge boost to the economy in so many ways. In a time when so much of our manufacturing has gone overseas, film & TV productions are one of the few remaining native industries. The state needs to support that; not doing so is very ignorant and short-sighted.
16
@11
The draw to Canada for filming was almost completely due to tax incentives and the very favorable exchange rate. When films first headed North the rate was .75 US to the $1 Canadian. A producer that I use to work for at the time told me he was producing TV-Movies, that would be budgeted at 4 Million in the US, for 3 mil.
The draw to Canada for filming was almost completely due to tax incentives and the very favorable exchange rate. When films first headed North the rate was .75 US to the $1 Canadian. A producer that I use to work for at the time told me he was producing TV-Movies, that would be budgeted at 4 Million in the US, for 3 mil.
17
As for the comment about Twin Peaks. You really must get out and see the rest of the state. Apparently you've never been to Eastern Washington.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (17) RSS