The Sound Board

Mike Greene wrote: ↑May 05, 2025 1:54 pmit will be interesting to see what sort of support he gets.

Guy Rowland wrote: ↑May 05, 2025 2:01 pm Hollywood are as horrified as everyone else.

Mike Greene wrote: ↑May 05, 2025 4:05 pm

Guy Rowland wrote: ↑May 05, 2025 2:01 pm Hollywood are as horrified as everyone else.

Not the Hollywood I live in. I wouldn't be surprised if the studio execs are opposed to this, mind you, since they only care about the bottom line. But SAG-AFTRA just announced they're open to discussing it.

Again, I don't know the specifics. (And I doubt Trump does, either.) And I'm not saying it's a good idea. I really don't know. But I guarantee you the majority of people in this town who work in "the industry" are at least open to the idea.

Is it more expensive to film in Los Angeles? Sure. People who work here get paid higher wages, and they have health benefits and all that other commie stuff that productions abroad don't have. A violinist who played on John Williams scores that were recorded in Los Angeles can probably retire comfortably. The violinist who played on the scores recorded in London probably can't. And a violinist recording in Budapest definitely can't. (I'm over-generalizing, but you get the idea.)

In that same vein, when I was doing Barbie commercials, we would sometimes go to Vancouver (Canada) to record the vocals, thus avoiding having to pay union residuals. That meant a flat payment of $1,500 for the Canadian, versus $10k or more for the American. Now, $10k obviously sounds like a lot, but note that a Barbie spot is a plum gig, and you don't get many of those in a year. (Same goes for me, regarding my fee, by the way.) Consequently, the Canadian singer probably had to waitress or whatever to pay the bills, while the American could do this full time. And retire comfortably. Me personally, I vote that singers and musicians be able to do their craft full time, and I hated that we would sometimes go to Canada, stabbing my local singers in the back.

Unlike sneaker or iPhone manufacturing, film production isn't something that America can no longer do. And "But oh my God, the budget! The budget!!!" is a little overblown, given that most of the costs in a $100m film go to other things, not local talent and city permits.

Production goes overseas simply because of race-to-the-bottom pricing. With additional tax incentives in most cases. When production goes overseas, it's 100% greed, not necessity.

Tanuj Tiku wrote: ↑May 05, 2025 4:30 pm I totally see your point of view Mike but it may not be so cut and dry especially since we don’t know the details.

Tanuj Tiku wrote: ↑May 05, 2025 4:30 pmI did read that some states inside the US also offer better deals than California where the cost of living is not as high.

Mike Greene wrote: ↑May 05, 2025 1:54 pm It's funny that my L.A.-centric self clicked on this thread, thinking it was going to be, "Finally! At least something Trump's doing might actually help us!" I totally forgot this is a very international forum.

I don't know enough about this one yet to have an opinion. (I'm only posting because I thought my naiveté was amusing.) Los Angeles is definitely hurting from productions going out of state and overseas, though, especially with so many tax incentives bringing them there, so it will be interesting to see what sort of support he gets.

Daryl wrote: ↑May 06, 2025 4:52 am It only helps as long as other countries agree to show those movies. Otherwise you're making for the US market only. The US public doesn't watch enough movies from other countries, so in Trump's word that would mean you're taking advantage. So I think a tariff of 60billion percent on US made movies should suffice.