Anthony Hardwick Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Hi, Sorry, still not feeling fluffy about this. Allow me to list the films currently showing at the local multiplex: Big Fish Brother Bear Cheaper by the dozen Some "Looney Tunes" thing Lord of the Rings Lost in Translation Peter Pan Scary Movie 3 School of Rock Something's Gotta Give The Last Samurai Tooth I'm sure it's unnecessary for me to point out that every single one of those movies was US financed and poured cash back into the US industry, with the exception of "Tooth." The first IMDB comment for "Tooth" begins: "This kind of kids film should be left to Hollywood. They know how to do them properly, and are willing to cough up an adequate budget." The rest of the comment makes quite interesting reading, and no, I didn't write it. You people own the world, and you're griping about it. Phil At least three of the movies you listed were shot outside of the U.S., perhaps more, but three that I have seen and know about... and of those three, two are probably the highest budget projects on your list. Lord of the Rings (ALL THREE in the trilogy) - shot in New Zealand Lost in Translation - shot in Japan The Last Samurai - shot in New Zealand So how exactly do these films qualify as having "poured cash back into the U.S. Industry?" Good God mate, get your head out of your bloody arse for a change. Feeling fluffier Phil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Hardwick Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 I admit I'm going by etymology of names, but it looks like a lot of imports to me. Phil Since you're so keen on correcting the grammar, syntax and punctuation of others, I thought you would appreciate having your own errors "corrected." "Genealogy" is not a synonym for "etymology." If you had studied your etymology, you might have known that. Cheers mate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Rhodes Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Hi, > So how exactly do these films qualify as having "poured cash back into the U.S. Industry?" Same way anything does - financed, owned, and therefore providing profit to US companies. I'm sorry, is there some strange reason this isn't hopelessly obvious? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Michael Stumpf Posted February 8, 2004 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 **Here's in most part an LA times article as well. Like the McDonald's commercial tagline says, "I'm lovin it". L.A. TIMES MOVIES A 'Cold' war over foreign filming Frustrated by job losses, industry workers launch an Internet campaign against "Cold Mountain" for choosing Romania as its American stand-in. By John Horn Times Staff Writer February 4 2004 At first glance, "Cold Mountain" looks like a quintessential American story — a Civil War drama set in North Carolina filled with traditional U.S. mountain music. But the movie is being condemned in an Internet and e-mail campaign for hardly being American enough. A number of unheralded show business veterans are blasting the Miramax film in a widespread electronic campaign that very well could be hurting the film both at the box office and in the Academy Awards. "Cold Mountain," which received seven Oscar nominations last Tuesday, also has been targeted by the cinematographers' union, which refused to host a December screening of the film because it wasn't made in the U.S. Among "Cold Mountain's" e-mail critics is production designer Ann Champion, who worked steadily in Hollywood for 20 years until hundreds of movies and TV shows started saving money by relocating to Canada and other countries. Champion says she hasn't had health insurance for years and doesn't know how she'll pay her February mortgage. So when "Cold Mountain" fled its North Carolina setting to film in Romania, Champion finally had enough. "I want the industry back here in America," says Champion, whose credits include "Cagney & Lacey" and "Parker Lewis Can't Lose." Even though Champion wasn't up for a "Cold Mountain" job, she was raised near where the fictional story takes place. "So it really became a personal thing," she says. The debate over so-called runaway productions echoes the fray over numerous U.S. companies, from jeans maker Levi Strauss & Co. to air conditioner manufacturer Carrier Corp., moving operations to distant lands to boost profits. There is growing resentment within working class Hollywood over a production exodus that many estimates say is costing the local economy billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs. Legislation aimed at blocking foreign production subsidies and boosting domestic rebates have yet to bear fruit. "'Cold Mountain' is the culmination of a lot of frustration," says Gary Dunham, a camera assistant with 25 years experience who has forwarded an e-mail critical of the film to dozens of industry colleagues. "People are very, very angry. There really is no reason for [filming in Romania]. It's just greed." 'Economic losses' (an FTAC article) "You can send a message that these economic losses and artistic choices compromised in the name of saving money are not acceptable to Americans," "Do not contribute to 'Cold Mountain' profiting literally at your expense by buying a ticket, (or the DVD or renting the cassette when they become available)." A similar article denouncing "Cold Mountain," from the United States of America Coalition of Film and Television Workers, has circulated via e-mail. The coalition is aimed at members of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, which governs many production jobs. While it's impossible to quantify the impact the "Cold Mountain" campaign has had on the film's ticket sales or award chances, anecdotal evidence suggests the effort against the Nicole Kidman-Jude Law film has spread. Just before Christmas, Mark Levinson, "Cold Mountain's" dialogue replacement supervisor, was chatting with his Berkeley mail carrier. "And somebody else on his route told him he wasn't seeing 'Cold Mountain' and was telling people they shouldn't see it because it was filmed outside the U.S.," Levinson says. Levinson, who has collaborated with "Cold Mountain" writer-director Anthony Minghella on three other features, called the filmmaker to relay the news. "He was pretty much speechless," Levinson says of Minghella's reaction. Albert Berger, one of the film's producers, says he "really doesn't know" if the e-mail and the Internet movement has hurt the film or cost it a best picture Oscar nomination. "But it is upsetting to me," Berger says. "We want more than anything to make movies here," Berger says from the Northern California set of the Richard Gere movie "Bee Season." "The real focus should be on how can the government make moviemaking here more affordable. Miramax went out on a limb to make this movie. We tried everything we could, but the movie would not have been made had we not gone to Romania." Minghella and his production team scouted a number of locations both here and abroad before deciding to film much of the $80-million movie in Romania. Several factors prompted relocating overseas. First, Minghella felt modern American development threatened his need for natural, sweeping 19th century vistas. Second, the director needed four seasons of weather, which was more likely in southeastern Europe. Third, moving overseas would save Miramax millions just as its financial partner on the film, MGM, was dropping out of the production. Within a few weeks, Romania's Carpathian Mountains had replaced North Carolina's Blue Ridge mountain range. "Cold Mountain's" producers say they spent some $18 million during several weeks of filming in the United States. About half the film's actors are American, as are many of its crew members, Miramax says. 'We refused' It's still not enough for the film's critics, who say such a distinctly American movie should have remained at home. "The producers of that movie betrayed us, and they treated us like manure," says director of photography George Dibie, president of the International Cinematographers Guild. Dibie says a variety of union workers offered to cut their "Cold Mountain" fees by as much as 30% to keep the production from going to Romania. Miramax approached Dibie's ICG about a December "Cold Mountain" screening in which Oscar-winning cinematographer John Seale would answer questions from some 600 ICG members. Such screenings are common among many Hollywood unions in the weeks leading up to the Oscar nominations, and can help generate enthusiastic buzz and awards momentum. "They begged us to show it. We refused," says Dibie. Those criticizing "Cold Mountain" make clear they are not upset by movies that film in other countries for artistic, rather than economic reasons. Consequently, they are not complaining about "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," which was made in New Zealand, or "Lost in Translation," which was filmed in Japan. But FTAC says it is about to launch a letter-writing campaign against director Ron Howard's "Cinderella Man," a movie about American boxer Jim Braddock that will film in Toronto later this year. "This is intolerable," an FTAC letter to Howard says. "Instead of promoting the great American film industry, you are participating in its destruction. Have you so much money and fame that you can turn your back on the people and the industry that gave you the opportunity to succeed?" "Cinderella Man" producer Universal Pictures declined to comment. Miramax says the real problem is that the U.S. government does not offer the same kind of rich economic incentives, which range from tax refunds to sale-leaseback deals, that make filming overseas so financially attractive. "We take the runaway production issue seriously, and have been very active in lobbying for federal legislation to make us competitive for future productions," Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said. "The thing that is most disturbing is that this has nothing to do with the film," says dialogue replacement supervisor Levinson. "Awards are either about quality or they are not." As for Levinson's mail carrier, he eventually bought a "Cold Mountain" ticket. "He liked it," Levinson says. "Too bad he's not an awards voter." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members David Allen Grove Posted February 8, 2004 Author Premium Members Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 I think we should stage a MAJOR protest the next time a movie that was Runaway. Involve everyone that is directly and indirectly affected by it. We could protest at a movies premeire or several theaters playing the movie. We could also inform the media. I don't think the general public is aware of the problem and how it affects many people outside the industry. If there is a protest... I'll be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Rhodes Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Hi, > production designer Ann Champion....hasn't had health insurance for years and > doesn't know how she'll pay her February mortgage My heart bleeds. I have these problems without the advantage of a twenty-year career behind me, and if I have the unmitigated temerity to complain about them, I get jeered at. Double standards, anyone? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members David Allen Grove Posted February 8, 2004 Author Premium Members Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Poor Phil... no one has it worse than you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Hardwick Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Hi, > So how exactly do these films qualify as having "poured cash back into the U.S. Industry?" Same way anything does - financed, owned, and therefore providing profit to US companies. I'm sorry, is there some strange reason this isn't hopelessly obvious? Phil So by this logic, a company like Levi Strauss, which closed it's last one or two U.S. based factories within the last month or two, and will now be manufacturing all of their products in foreign lands primarily for the cheaper labor costs, qualifies in your opinion as "pouring cash back into the U.S. industry" because it's "financed, owned, and therefore providing profit to a U.S. company?" How about all of the laid off workers from those factories, and the secondary impact on the various businesses (restaurants, etc.) near those factories that have lost significant numbers of customers as a trickle down effect? Just look at Flint, Michigan before and after GM closed it's factory there years ago - the subject of Michael Moore's first documentary, "Roger and Me," to get a graphic example of what this does to whole communities. Yes, Phil, there is a reason your views are not regarded as "hopelessly obvious," but there's nothing strange at all about the reason why that is. I'd love to stay and chat, but I've got to go to work while I am VERY fortunate to still have a job in the U.S. film industry, on a film that is remarkably still being shot on location in the U.S. Being that it's a story that takes place in California, USA, I'm surprised that the producers didn't take this film to Romania too. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 > So how exactly do these films qualify as having "poured cash back into the U.S. Industry?" Same way anything does - financed, owned, and therefore providing profit to US companies. I'm sorry, is there some strange reason this isn't hopelessly obvious? And thereby completely missing the point. This is not a discussion about how the US film industry is bigger and more powerful than the English film industry or the French film industry or whatever. This is a discussion of runaway production, where products that may still benefit a certain global conglomerate company no longer benefit the local workers because the production is outsourced. This is similar to the jobs lost by American workers to cheaper labor in Mexico, the Far East and other places where there are lower standards of living and medical benefits and workers rights are either nonexistent or at least substantially lower than in the US. I'm sorry that the British film industry is a shell of its former self. The output of the UK up into the sixties was both prodigious and of great quality, and I can't claim to know the details of how and why that system shrank so dramatically. But here in the US we're simply trying to stop (or slow) it from happening to us. Why is this so hard to understand? Or are you one of those people who is all for Bangladeshi children laboring 15 hour days to make t-shirts at $.05 a unit as long as it keeps the prices down for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Brad Grimmett Posted February 8, 2004 Premium Members Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 I'm sorry that the British film industry is a shell of its former self. The output of the UK up into the sixties was both prodigious and of great quality, and I can't claim to know the details of how and why that system shrank so dramatically. Could it be that much of the work there started to shoot in cheaper locations, thereby causing the industry to shrink? Sounds vaguely familiar..... Of course, I'm not saying that this WAS the reason. I'm just asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Rhodes Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Hi, >So by this logic, a company like Levi Strauss, which closed it's last one or two U.S. based factories within the last month or two Miramax has not yet completely stopped producing films in the US. Sure, fine, outsourced production is far from ideal if you don't live where they're making films, but it's a damn sight better than no production at all if they ARE making stuff locally as well. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Rhodes Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Hi, > Could it be that much of the work there started to shoot in cheaper locations, > thereby causing the industry to shrink? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. Any rather old English people here care to comment? I'd hazard a guess that it's something to do with the politics of patriotism. At some point it begins to tell that American film is budgeted for an audience pool of 250million plus, whereas we've only about a fifth of the numbers; perhaps attitudes have changed enough that people don't sufficiently care anymore here, whereas they certainly do there. In the 60s the UK was beginning to climb out of the hideous post-world-war-2 financial and resource problems and there was much to be proud of. By 1980 most people had realised that it had all actually been a complete waste of time and there were much more glamorous and interesting things happening over the pond. A guess. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 The last three largest Miramax productions and where principle photography took place: Cold Mountain -- Romania Gangs of New York -- Italy Chicago -- Toronto That last one's so absurdist that I'd laugh if I didn't want to cry. I also get a real kick out of the argument for Cold Mountain that said it needed the undisturbed wilderness of Romania to recreate 1860s America. There are vast tracts of the Carolinas that would have worked wonderfully. Perhaps a day of helicopter photography in Romania would have sufficed. And how about Gangs of New York needing to go to Italy to recreate 1860s New York City? While I certainly understand that the location needed to be created from whole cloth, no one can tell me that the vast sets couldn't have been successfully built in North Carolina or any of a dozen possible US locations. I suspect that the vast CineCitta Studios complex offered a major sweetheart deal to Miramax to take over all that space and employ their workers for more than a year. And I'm sure that the Italian government bent over backwards as well. And how does an American production of an American story of Irish immigrants wind up shooting in Italy? I wonder if an Italian-American director could have anything to do with it? Meanwhile American craftspeople go unemployed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Hi, > Could it be that much of the work there started to shoot in cheaper locations, > thereby causing the industry to shrink? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. Any rather old English people here care to comment? I'd hazard a guess that it's something to do with the politics of patriotism. At some point it begins to tell that American film is budgeted for an audience pool of 250million plus, whereas we've only about a fifth of the numbers; perhaps attitudes have changed enough that people don't sufficiently care anymore here, whereas they certainly do there. In the 60s the UK was beginning to climb out of the hideous post-world-war-2 financial and resource problems and there was much to be proud of. By 1980 most people had realised that it had all actually been a complete waste of time and there were much more glamorous and interesting things happening over the pond. A guess. Phil That's some guess. Better not tell the French with their thriving film industry. Or the Italians. And whatever you do don't let India know that they've been fooling themselves all these years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guillermo nespolo Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 I think we should stage a MAJOR protest the next time a movie that was Runaway. Involve everyone that is directly and indirectly affected by it. We could protest at a movies premeire or several theaters playing the movie. We could also inform the media. I don't think the general public is aware of the problem and how it affects many people outside the industry. If there is a protest... I'll be there. what is next burning books and chasing people for his last name Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.