MovieChat Forums > DC 9/11: Time of Crisis (2003) Discussion > Anybody care that they shot this in Cana...

Anybody care that they shot this in Canada?

posted 21 years ago by ADWoman
124 replies | jump to latest

Watching this film, it was pretty clear that they had a lot of White House support, since Bush came off looking like such a hero. Reading the blurb on the Showtime website, they said that the writer actually got an hour long interview with Bush in addition to help from many other members of his staff in addition to archive assistance from networks. Seems like such a shame that he did all of this research, and took all of this care to write a story of what is such a purely American experience, only to film it entirely in Canada. Personally I am offended that the filmmakers would do such a thing. Sure, the actors and the director can cross the border to work, but the rest of the crew were all Canadians. Canadians told the story of our American experience. Whether or not you agree with Bush, or his policies, and whether or not you liked this film, you must agree, in principle, that this is an American film. Seems a shame that they betrayed the trust of everyone who entrusted them to tell their story. It also seems a shame that they just paid attention to the sound bites and did not listen to the WHOLE speech that they ended the film with. When Bush addressed the joint session of Congress, he made a very poignant statement. "I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch it's source. America is successful because of the hard work, and creativity, and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11, and they are our strengths today." I am enraged that these filmmakers intentionally went against this wish to support the American economy by supporting the Canadian economy.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

thats a very interesting point

although many films are being shot in canada, why should this one be different?

i did not like the film, it was too simplistic for me. The story and plot were too formulaic for my tastes.

But, now that you mention it, it did seem strange that the film makers would over look such an important aspect of the film, since it was (allegedly) about something americans experienced
and, if you are correct about the speech, could have ended with an optimistic tone (which apparently the speech ended in...)

it is interesting that it was left out
and that the work in making the film were sent outside the country
hmm...

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

I do realize that many films are being shot in Canada, and other places around the globe, which I feel is a crime, but I feel strongly that this one in particular should have stayed home. It could be a wake up call for the studios that they need to rethink their budgeting concerns, and start keeping those jobs here at home.

I found the quote from the transcript of the actual speech. You are right that it was meant as an optimistic point towards the end of a long speech. The filmmakers carefully picked and chose what would get the biggest emotional response. They also, obvoiusly, left out what would catch them going against the intention of what the speech was actually trying to say. If you read the transcript, you'll see that they just used the intro and then jumped to the very end when he held up the officer's badge. Kind of convenient...

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

i am glad to see that you didnt take anything i posted as some kind of attack on you
its good to discuss things without having to defend
spelling and punctuation
and miscellaneous fictitious assaults

i hope others can add some insight to your subject
it is an important point
and is something that can easily be forgotten
but more people should keep in mind in these discussions

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

I don't take any of it personally at all. I am also new to this internet chat thing, so I am used to using regular spelling and punctuation, sorry.

I would love to hear other folks insights. I get so depressed when I read the credits of movies and it seems like every single film says filmed entirely in Canada. Only one of the movies nominated for best picture last year was shot partially in the US. I am a big movie lover, I can't help it, and I know a lot of people who work in the movie and TV biz who are losing work because their jobs are going out of the country. I know there was a big hoo-haa when they were going to shoot the movie about Rudy Giuliani in Canada last year, and I thought that the studios would have woken up, but I guess not. It just seems that maybe someone, somewhere would have a sense of patriotism over capitalism. Oh well, I am an idealist, can't help it.

And just to go on record, this wasn't my favorite film either. I respect the filmmakers right to make it and give it the slant that they did, but I agree that it was too simplistic and they went for the emotional response over the intellectual one. I did see a special on the Learning Channel with interviews with the real people, and I do have to give it to the writer though. He really did his homework and stuck to the truth from his subjects (from their point of view, at least). The movie was really a true dramatization of those interviews, you do have to give that to him.

[–] whminter 21 years ago

I hate to tell you this, but filmmaking ceased to be an art decades ago. It is a business, and studio heads have to answer to stockholders. If a film is an artistic triumph that fails in the box office, it is a failure. If it is an artistic disaster that does well, the studio will film sequels. Filmmaking is a purely a business. It’s all bottom line.

It’s a sad fact that it’s cheaper to film in Canada than in the US. Canada has a national film board supporting their film industry. It’s just too expensive to film in the US.

There are many reasons for this – the assorted trade unions essentially conspire to support each other. There are rules requiring a certain number of employees of specific trades to be on the set during filming. “You’ve got to have x number of electricians, y number of grips, z number of carpenters...” and so forth. And if you don’t have enough people on the set, you’ll be subject to a walkout or some other such labor action, shutting down production. I can understand the union’s perspective to a point – this prevents some poor soul somewhere from being slave-driven into doing the work of ten men – after all, this is why unions were formed, but the Hollywood trade unions began featherbedding on a grand scale.

The simple short-term solution was to move production to those states in the US that had legislation on the books that reducing the power of labor unions – so-called “right-to-work” states. Director Hal Needham (Smokey & the Bandit, Cannonball Run, & others) once stated that he could find locations in the state of Georgia to match virtually anywhere in the world and therefore wouldn’t have to film in Hollywood. (Now I’m a Georgia boy myself, but I think Needham may have been stretching it a bit.) The long-term solution was to move production outside the US, just as many US companies have moved their manufacturing facilities outside the US to take advantage of lower labor costs.

Another reason – once upon a time a studio could film just about everything on their back lot and it was believable to the audience. However, when we Americans became more cosmopolitan and we knew what Hawaii looked like, what Africa looked like, what the Alps looked like, we became harder to fool.

Still another reason – know where the biggest sound stages in the world are? Shepperton Studios England. I forget the actual name of the company owning the stages, but they’re big enough to hold three nearly life-sized mockups of nuclear submarines. They’re called “The 007 Sound Stages” because a major segment of the James Bond movie “The Spy Who Loved Me” was filmed there – that’s where the three nuclear subs came from. “Aliens” was filmed in England, as was most of “Alien 3”. ”Full Metal Jacket”, with the exception of a small part filmed at the US Marine Corps boot camp at Parris Island, was filmed in England and in the Philippines. Even parts of the boot camp sequence were filmed in England. You go to where the facilities are.

Of course, there are directors like Stanley Kubrick who, although an American, resided and worked in England. It seems that early in his career he had some kind of falling out with the powers-that-be in Hollywood, and left for England, never to return.

Do I care? Hell yes, but very few motion pictures are filmed in the US nowadays. It’s tragic, but that’s the way it works and neither one of us can change it.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

They filmed it in Canada because it's cheaper to film there. Moviemaking is as much of a for-profit business as the next industry.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

i think you missed her point...

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

What, that you gops are so whiny about this whole thing that any external (and consequently bad) influence will sully the memories and strip away all the fun feelings of victimhood you enjoy having over it? I'm surprised that none of you haven't issued a fatwah of death on the actor playing Bush because he first portrayed him in That's My Bush!, a satirical comedy that poked as much fun at the administration as it did the sitcom genre. "One of these days, Laura, I'm gonna punch you in the face!" Bite the bullet and get on with your life.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

woah, calm down dude

just slow down and re-read the original post
or
have someone read it to you

also
That's My Bush

wasnt a satire or even a parody
it made fun of no one and nothing.

it was just a bad show
based on a semi-interesting idea
but it couldnt meet whatever expectations people had for it
or for the creators...

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

What she is doing is complaining about how the gang at Showtime made a business decision to do this flick in Canada, shrieking that production should've been domestic due to the subject matter. Gee, let's all just bankrupt ourselves out of political correctness, huh? Too bad a 5'8" Canadian woman is playing Jessica Lynch, because those mean, bad, evil American actresses who actually fit the physical profile like Sarah Michelle Gellar and Hilary Duff were too busy thinking about their careers and their big, fat, evil bank accounts and how being associated with that NBC tax shelter will torpedo those faster than the Lusitania and they'd actually have to find real jobs, eh? Maybe we should ship them to Iraq where we can finally learn their rich liberal hides some patriotism.
Unfortunately for your little world view, there are people who don't want to have every single digital clock on the continent reprogrammed so they display --:-- whenever 9:11 rolls around, who don't feel the need to get an FDNY patch tattooed on their right buttock. Eventually the parents themselves will die, the spouses and fiancees and love interests will move on with their lives and start dating again, the siblings and children will still remember but they'll have already made enough trips to the memorial.
Incidentally, That's My Bush! satirized both sitcoms and Bush himself. DEAL WITH IT!

Scratch a conservative and you'll find someone who prefers the past over any possible future.
--God-Emperor of Dune by Frank Herbert

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

lolol
i take it you dont know what
"calm down" means...

you are presumptuous in that dennis miller desperate-to-distract with non-sequitor(sp)-addled sound bite/slogan/bumperstickers
kind of way

show that satirize sitcoms
seinfeld

show that does not
thats my bush

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

That's My Bush! did satirize the sitcom genre because it featured all of the cliches, like the idiot husband (Bush), the knowledgable yet suffering wife (Laura), the wacky neighbor (Larry), the ditzy hottie (Princess), and plots like two people who dislike each other getting locked in a confined space and working out their problems.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

that is not a satire
that is just using the same old tired formula that tired old sitcoms use.

TRY AGAIN

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

Exactly: they were mocking the formulas and the cliches and everything else. Didn't you ever see Scary Movie or Hot Shots! or Not Another Teen Movie, or were you too busy gratifying yourself to a Jessica Lynch photo?

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

Whoa, I agree, calm down!!!

You really did miss my point entirely. Yes, I was very disappointed that they made the business decision to shoot in Canada because it was about more than business, and if you had been less reactionary, you would have realized that. And to set the record straight, shooting in the US would have hardly bankrupted the company.

I don't see shooting this here at home as political correctness. I see it as being true to the theme of the film. The filmmakers were obviously strong supporters of this administration, since they went to such pains to show them in the best possible light and also to show their points of view so strictly. It was just so hypocritical for them to go to Canada when Bush expressly asked the nation to support the AMERICAN economy in the speech that they ended the film with. As for the talent, you'll notice that I mentioned that the actors aren't the ones that were hurt by the film shooting out of the country. Actors and directors, who make the most money and are the highest profile, can cross any border to work and can shoot anywhere. The ones that are being hurt are the people that don't get the recognition-the grips, electricians, assistant directors, drivers, makeup and hair people, caterers, office staff, and production assistants, just to name a few. Those folks are the ones that make their union's scale wages (or less in the case of PAs), and they are the ones getting screwed. The actors aren't the ones being hurt, those people are!

I am not one of those people who want to tattoo FDNY on my buttocks, and I don't stop my clocks at 00:00 on September 11. It is rather condescending of you to assume that I do, just because I feel that this is a story that should be made here. Patriotism is about more than just waving a flag. I may not agree with Bush most of the time, but his heart was in the right place when he said that our hard work and strength would see us through. Film is a very powerful medium, and I think that the filmmakers had a responsibility to be true to their subjects. If Bush said to support the American economy, don't be a hypocrite and shoot in Canada!!! It is as simple as that!!

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

Don't tell me about getting screwed on the production end: I was a nukebait Super Bowl 37 spectator in The Sum of All Fears. I didn't even make the final cut after spending 20 hours in one of Parc Olympique's cramped seats clapping my hands red, cheering myself hoarse, and doing The Wave in four directions, and received two T-shirts for my troubles and six-hour drive to and from Montreal. And I don't care what anyone tells you, a simulated tactical nuke burns.
Maybe you should tell the international currency exchanges to start buying Canadian dollars at a higher price in order to relatively devalue the US dollar and make it more cost-effective to film domestically...oh wait, that would do a number on the alread-fragile economy, which Bush--his heart ever so in the right place--was so stupid to mention on live television that another al-Qaeda stunt would shatter into subatomic dust. In high school, one of our guidance counselors told us not to enter the command sofa\9 into the college-search computer because that would get us into the portion of the school database where our grades resided. Guess what thoughts crossed our minds?
You have two choices on this: bite the bullet and move on with your life, or continue with your five daily prayers towards World Trade Plaza.

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

Well sir, you've revealed why your views are slightly skewed. I am so sorry that you are so bitter that your one time experience as an extra in a movie shot in Canada got cut from the film. One day on a set is hardly indicative of what the film experience is, however. Try having an intelligent conversation with someone who earns a living in the profession.

Sir, I wish you a happy life in your sheltered world, and a lifetime supply of Valium. I had been trying to start a intelligent debate on the subject. I am sorry that you misconstrued my intentions.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

you can still have an intelligent conversaton
may i try to join you?

today in the paper,
there was a story about how levi strauss,
the venerable "american" jeans-making corporation
has closed the last of its manufacturing plants on american soil.

what happens,
as you well know,
is that the "corporate fathers" keep their salaries and perks
at the expense of the 2000 newly unemployed workers.

also, i read in the same paper (09/26/03 LA Times) that
NEW applications for unemployment benefits
were at a LOW.
they suspect, however,
that some of those people
may have been prevented from doing so by Hurricane isabel.

i mention this, because the numbers may be skewed as a result.
(when does the last quarter of the year begin? and what will those numbers reflect?)

so levi's joins nestle's
as they take their investment in american security overseas
with the taxes they wont be paying, and the salaries they wont be paying.

brilliant.

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

I also heard the disappointing news about Levi's. I will try to track down that LA Times article to read it. I am also not surprised that the hurricane stopped people from filing for unemployment. I have family on the East Coast and they did not get their power back until Wednesday, and there were still people in their area without.

I did catch something interesting yesterday. I caught about half of the Democratic candidates debate on MSNBC. Channel surfing can turn up surprises. I happen to tune in while they were talking about trade. It was encouraging to hear that some of them have ideas about bringing some of those businesses back, or at least trying to stop the flow of business out of the country. I need to do some more research on these folks, I admit. I don't know a lot about their platforms, but they all seemed to acknowledge how devastating the outflow has been.

Seems encouraging.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

i found links to some interesting articles from recent publications

Levi Leaves America
LA times september 26, 2003
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fi-levi26sep26001450,1,3543587.story

the economics of child labor
scientific american October 2003
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0001B0A5-BC76-1F5C-905980A84189EEDF

Middle, Lower Classes Feel Pinch
LA times, september 28, 2003
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-income27sep27,1,3341529.story?coll=la-home-headlines

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

I also found something interesting relating to the original topic of runaway production going to Canada. The Canadian Government has been actively pursuing film companies to shoot there. They have been giving NAFTA exempted production incentives including tax rebates, and they also have lower production costs (probably in part due to the exchange rate). Another interesting fact is that the Canadian gov. mandates that many of the "below the line" jobs must be filled by Canadian citizens. Back in 2001, there were resolutions introduced in the House and Senate (HR3131/S1278) that give federal income tax credits to companies to encourage production in the US and the employment of US workers to try and curb the flow of these jobs out of the country. These wage credits would offset federal tax liability. The hope was to help make us more competative with Canada since our economy has lost billions of dollars in lost revenue ($10.3 billion in 1998 alone according to one report). The measures got stalled and didn't pass. Thankfully, just a couple of weeks ago, a slightly revised version of this was reintroduced in the Senate (S1613). The hope is that it will have a better chance this time since is was introduced along with some tax legislation. The part that I find most ironic relating to this film that sparked our debate is that this measure was sent to the Senate Finance Committee on September 11...fitting don't you think...

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

Gotta hate them CEOs, thinking more about the bottom line rather than their nation's concerns, eh? Guess we gotta nationalize Levi Strauss in order to keep the jobs over here.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

dude, in case i didnt mention it
levis didnt just open their business in america,
they devoloped it here too

what does that mean?

they created almost every innovation their corporation
has benefited from for the last 150 or so years
by being HERE in the united states

4 out of every 5 patents issued in the U.S. is for a corporation.
(the other 1 of every 5 is issued to invididuals)
also, most coporations can claim inventions made by their employees
(a corporation cannot think for itself)
what kinds of innovations can a corporation claim?

marketing
by developing new styles, stitching/sewing/manufacturing of their products
(the jeans themselves, button-fly, rivets or zippers, acid-wash, using denim in jackets, purses, etc)
materials innovations
(creating denim, using it in clothing, care of denim, coloring the material, etc)

Now, did levis come up with all these innovations?
or did they come up with the inclusion of them in their product?
Doesnt matter, they developed the ideas for them here, in the united states.
so,after 150 years, they get their corporation to the point where it is making money,
trying and testing new ways to make their product, sell their product, etc.
they become the leader of their industry
to the point where people call any article of clothing made from denim
"levis"

all of these things happens as a direct result of the innovations developed here, in the united states.
and where is the corporation taking all that money they made from those innovations?
are they investing/re-investing it in the communities where those innovations were devoloped?

or are they claiming "du bottom line" as an excuse for a lack of innovation?
and running to a place where only the top "corporate fathers" can make a living wage?

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

Apparently you were too busy listening to Darryl Worley songs to pay attention to this proclamation when it was first issued, so I'll replay it for you:

The Department of Commerce of the United States of America is not responsible for the willingness of the citizens of other nations to work twenty-hour days seven days a week for chump change.

So unless you've somehow figured out how to get Americans to work long hours gratis, you're sierra-oscar-lima with your bizzare Libarbarian marketing department delusions.

HAVE A DILBERT DAY

[–] whminter 20 years ago

today in the paper,
there was a story about how levi strauss,
the venerable "american" jeans-making corporation
has closed the last of its manufacturing plants on american soil.

That's tough, but that's business. They're one of the last clothing companies to leave the US. Many years ago, in the days of my youth (late 60's, early 70's) I worked for the Singer Company (yes, the sewing machine company) in the industrial products division. Our normal orders normally weren't very big, from single units to maybe 15-20 machines at a time. We dreaded hearing "Levi Strauss", because their orders were always gigantic. 150 or more machines at a time. We dreaded this because the industrial machines weigh a ton, and we just weren't geared for big orders. And Singer sewing machines were being built ovrseas back when I was working for them.

I checked Levi's web site, and it would appear that they aren't strictly an American company any more. You have:
Levi Strauss, the Americas (LSA),
Levi Strauss Japan K.K.,
Levi Strauss Europe, Middle East and Africa (LSEMA), and
Asia Pacific Division (APD)
Levi Strauss & co. is a privately held company, but that just means their stock isn't publicly traded. It doesn't mean they don't have stockholders.

what happens,
as you well know,
is that the "corporate fathers" keep their salaries and perks
at the expense of the 2000 newly unemployed workers.

I hate to say it, but that's business. The "corporate fathers" have two choices - either 2000 workers out of a job, or corporate fathers and 2000 workers out of a job. The 2000 workers were doomed either way you cut it. If the corporate fathers don't cut costs adequately, the stockholders fire them, and hire someone who will cut costs. Those doomed 2000 were doomed not by Levi Strauss, but by Levi's competitors who moved out of the US decades ago. We can only hope that Levi does what Lionel (the toy train people) did after moving their manufacturing to Mexico - become dissatisfied with the Mexican quality, and move it back.

Let me ask you this; would you pay a premium price for Levi's jeans, even though there are other, less expensive jeans that are just as good? For the record, I support American companies and American manufacturers over foreign companies. I even quit buying Smith & Wesson guns when they became an English company. On multiple occasions I declared publicly that only Levi jeans would cover my butt. But economic reality won out - Levi jeans were priced anywhere from 1 1/2 to twice what I'd pay for other jeans.

For a while, I'd continue to buy Levis, but at discount stores specializing in selling "seconds". Now I was paying the same as I'd pay for firsts from other manufacturers, and I was getting defective jeans with the "Levi Strauss" nametags crudely and raggedly removed. It's tough, but that's business.

Let me ask you one more question; what should the "corporate fathers" have done? Keep in mind that the Chairman of the Board is a great-great-grandnephew of Levi Strauss. Seems he would have a vested interest in keeping the company in business. Only healthy companies hire people. When is the last time you got a job from a poor man or a bankrupt company? This is the real world, not a Utopian paradise.

[–] srchprtnrs 20 years ago

If the Unions hadn't completely screwed things up in this country, perhaps products could be made at a cost that the American consumer could afford!

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

It was two days, and the people in fan makeup had to stay longer. I was even in touch with one of the cheerleaders, who thinks she can see herself in it but isn't sure because she was in the green outfit and they focused on the ones in blue. I actually value the experience in some manners, as I'm now part of the Tom Clancy legacy and worked with Morgan Freeman.
And your "intelligence debate" on the subject is simply standard-issue pseduopatriotic whining. "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! They didn't film this in the US! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! They went up to Canada! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mean, evil, greedy, evil, evil Showtime made a business decision, thinking with their wallets and going against our Viceroy of God--oops, I mean President's wishes! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hate the entertainment industry! I hate capitalism! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" My old rifle team coach used to say that if you botch a shot, you can't recall it or even dwell upon it, but have to move forward, so suck it up. The sun's still gonna rise tomorrow.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

wow
you really dont have any idea how movies are made,
i hope you dont get a job in the industry
but i do hope you are employed somewhere in spite of the economy
so you dont have to fend for yourself (with those wits) on the street

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

Weell, when my own screenplay sells, I'll be sure to remember to use you as a character in future works. You mind being fired upon with a fully-automatic kitchen table-launching device simply for being a gop?

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

blackJAC;

since you spent so much time on the set as an extra,
were you able to watch the filmmaking process at all?
did you learn anything?
make any contacts?
or did you sit around all day wasting your time complaining ?

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

blackJAC,

May I also add that in addition to your 2 t-shirts and long drive, you probably also got a catered meal and a paycheck...or at least you would have if you had been filming in the US.

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

If by "catered" you mean "provided food tickets in the programs to be redeemed for free chow at the Parc Olympique snack bar," then yes. As for paycheck, that implies I'm SAG and went to a casting call, which I didn't. I blew off work for 3.5 days just for the bragging rights based on something I read at Dark Horizons. I wasn't even eligible for door prizes due to not being a Canadian citizen.

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

If you knew what filming in the US was like, you'd know that there is always a catered meal provided to everyone, or an hour long break provided for everyone to get their own meal. Also, you would know that non-union extras are paid, in addition to SAG extras. The only difference is the pay scale. The non-union folks are also covered by all workmen's comp rules if anything happens to them, and they are compensated for their time. Soooo sorry if the Canadians didn't pay you...

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

Try being one of the writers: you have to completely rewrite your stuff over and over until everybody's little ideas about it get worked in, you only get two tickets to the premiere, and they don't even let you on the set to see your ideas that you sweated blood over for months come to life.

HAVE A REALISTIC DAY.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

wow you really are pessimistic...
moviemaking is about collaboration

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

http://us.st5.yimg.com/store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1759_5084820

Are you a marketeer? You sound like a marketeer. The writer is the core of the damned film. Without the writer, it's all improvisational mime. The producer may get the money, the actor may be the most visible person, the cameraman may capture it all on film, the director may orchestrate it all, but it's the writer who came up with it all to begin with. There was even a plan for the WGA contract renegotiation that the whole A Joe Sixpack Film refer to the writer and not the director.

HAVE A MARKETEER-FREE DAY

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

Yes, the writer is a very key player in the filmmaking team. Writers are very often on set working hand in hand with directors. It all depends on the relationship that they develop with the directors. He or she does create the source material, without which there would be no film, but i disagree the the writer should get the "film by credit." Each film that is made is that director's interpretation of the source material. Get a different director, and you would have a different film, which is why it is that director's signature. Look at Shakespeare as the prime example, the ultimate playwright. His work is so universal that 400 years later is can still be comtemporary. It can be done as a modern piece, or it can be done as a full period piece. Each director that takes on one of those plays gives it his or her own unique interpretation. That is why they should get the film by credit.

Also, FYI, it is not contractually determined that director's automatically get the film by credit now. Anyone can try to negotiate for that credit, but it is customary for the director to receive the credit for the reasons that I stated above. A good example: cast your memory back a few years to the version of Frankenstein that Robert DeNiro did. It was credited as a Kenneth Brannagh film, but the title of the film was actually Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, in deference to the author.

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

Did I neglect to mention that the writer isn't even allowed on the set during production, except for some emergency rewrite? That was something else the WGA wanted to change.

Miss Nicola Anders, supermodel with a SAG card, has it written in her contract that all cherry Mike & Ikes be removed from her candy dish, along with strict instructions that any room she walks into must have seven packs of cigarettes waiting for her--three of them open--that there be a personal Jacuzzi within eighty paces of her dressing room, and that any time she travels, her nanny must fly with her first-class....she doesn't have children.
--Viktor Taranski, S1m0ne

HAVE A WHINY, OVERSENSITIVE GOP-FREE DAY

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

How many sets have you actually been on?

I have been on many. The writer is very often there, sitting at the monitor, with his own chair, working alongside the director.

It is true that it does not always happen, but you'd be surprised how often it does. In television, the writers are not on the set since they are too busy writing the next episode, but they often come down to the set to watch sometimes too.

I actually speak from experience.

By the way, what on earth does Miss Nicola Anders contract rider particulars have to do with anything?

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

Are you confusing the person who actually wrote the original work with the script supervisor, or are you a recent hire to the industry? The WGA made it part of the 2001 MBA renegotiation that writers get to visit, but it's still subject to the director's approval.

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

No, I am not confusing the original writer with the script supervisor (or the screenwriter), and no, I am not a recent hire to the industry. I earn my living working in the industry. I have been on many sets where the writer is there almost every day. No, it does not happen on every set, but it does happen on many sets. (Obviously the script supervisor has to be there, or the film couldn't be shot. You need someone to keep the notes for the editors, and to keep track of blocking and continuity.)

The reason that I used the Frankenstein example is because that is one instance where the writer might actually inspire an audience to see the film. Another example would be John Grisham's The Rainmaker, a Francis Ford Coppola film. Both major names were credited, because they thought that both names would inspire audiences to see the film. As you so often pointed out, it is about the money. Obviously, the folks who determine the credits think that the director would bring in more people to the seats than the writer. It's all about the money - they will use anything and everything to fill the seats.

[–] whminter 21 years ago

Collaboration as long as it's profitable. I know writers who were barred from the set, and some who, if they weren't on the set, filming was suspended while somebody went and got him. That isn't dependent upon the writer, that's just the way some directors worked.

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

It is a very sad reality that the writers are sometimes barred. I am thankful that that has never happened on any set that I have worked on. I have been fortunate to witness some very collaborative relationships between writers and directors. The relationships just vary so widely, mainly because the personalities involved vary so widely. You have to have creative personalities that can mesh in order for it to work.

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

I was up in the stands, vapebait. It wasn't like I could go down onto the field and ask the crew style questions because they were too busy setting up for another take of the same play from a different angle.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

im sorry that the world is so confusing and frightening for you

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

Are you on drugs or something? Report for the full battery of testing by close of business. Not only was there no access to the field from the stands, it was a hot set and the crew had more important things to do than answer questions about the business from some joker whom they never knew existed until that morning.
Gops.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

Here's some photos I took when I was there: http://www.geocities.com/blackjac_1998/superbowl37.html. You tell me if I can be observant from that distance or ask the other people who blew off work for a couple of days for bragging rights if they have any idea of what to do.

HAVE A REALISTIC DAY

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

What part of they're primarily Montreal residents who blew off work for two days just for bragging rights don't you understand? They very likely knew less about the business than you. Are you on drugs? You sound like you're on drugs.

HAVE A DRUG-FREE, MARKETEER-FREE DAY

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

so you are also from Montreal?
and you knew this because you talked to some of them?

i have a few friends who are extras, and they have no problem finding work, and making contacts, and consequently getting more work from that.

one of them is even able to
BE OBSERVANT
and watch how the movies are made.

just remember, tomorrow is another day,
and you have another opportunity

to go to another shoot
and talk to other extras
and observe other films being made

i would tell you my secret about what i do with my written work
but you have such a bad attitude.

too bad for you

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

BlackJAC,

If I may add, if you were working as an extra, you probably came in contact with other crew members, like the ADs who gave you direction. They are very valuable resources that you can learn from.

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

I'm going to explain this again. Pay very close attention, as there will be a closed-book test at the end that counts for 95% of your final grade.

Once upon a time there was a man named Tom Clancy. He wrote a novel called The Sum of All Fears, which Paramount Pictures decided to adapt into a movie. The major plot point to the novel was terrorists nuking the Super Bowl in order to set the US and Russia against each other and start World War Three. This necessitated simulating the Super Bowl, and since they were filming in the spring of 2001, it was highly likely that no American stadium would be available for the shoot due to NFL spring training. Since the Canadian Football League wasn't due to start for another month, and since the US dollar goes a lot farther in Canada, the decision was made to turn Montreal's Parc Olympique (which the residents of Montreal despise and were disappointed to hear a real nuke wasn't going to be used on it) into the fictional Baltimore Forum, while hiring the Montreal Alouettes and Toronto Argonauts to portray the fictional NFL teams the Chicago Rockets and Alabama Gators respectively. Although CGI visual effects technology has progressed to the point where we don't need human beings in the background, to fill a sports stadium with CGI spectators would peg the needle on what Industrial Light & Magic calls "Stephen Sommers Scale" (the high end, called What Steve Sommers Wants, is one notch above Oh God, The Computer's About To Crash!), so word was put out: anybody who was in Montreal on May 9 to May 10, 2001 and wanted to be in a major motion picture should show up at Parc Olympique. This would be easier, as they could just copy the existing crowd and paste it into the empty stands. The call would eventually draw more people than the average attendance at a Montreal Expos game, or so cast member James Cromwell joked on the day of filming.
The call filtered across the Pacific Ocean to an Australian-based Internet movie news site called Dark Horizons. This site is regularly visited by me, a resident of the Massachusetts North Shore. Seeing this as something cool to brag about, I booked a room at a moderately-priced Montreal hotel for May 8 to May 11, scheduled some time off from the consulting job I was currently working, and went straight from work at 2 PM on May 8 up to Montreal. Filming for the volunteer crowd took 9 hours on May 9 and 11 hours on May 10, involving cheering the game, cheering and booing Cromwell, doing The Wave in four directions, and looking confused when Cromwell was hustled out of the stadium when the nuke threat was called in. Given the scale of the location, it was easier to use the massive light board on the scoreboard to give stage directions, so the director and ADs didn't have to actually interact with the townies, only the principal actors who actually had to go through wardrobe and makeup and got screen time.

Now, if you believe that any of the workaday people also looking for bragging rights had any idea of who to talk to or what was going on in the production process under these circumstances, you should go out onto the field at the next pro sports game you attend and try talking to the players. Keep a stopwatch running to see how long it takes for the cops to nail you.

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

Let me also explain again what it is like to work on a set.

I am so pleased for you that you get to have bragging rights for being one of thousands in the crowd in the film. I genuinely hope that you had a good time (if that is possible for you).

Having a huge crowd scene like that is not a typical day on a set. On a typical day, you have a much smaller call for background. In that case, the extras all are paid, they are directed by the ADs, and they often interact with the principal actors. In that case, it is very easy to watch and learn from the crew, and talk to the other extras. I also have friends who do background work who have gotten to be friends with the actors on their shows. One of my friends, who is a regular extra on a TV show, has even gotten acting coaching from one of the actors. She takes advantage of the situation that she is in. She watches, listens, and learns from everyone she works with. She does not do extra work for bragging rights, but does it as a job to make money and get her insurance and keep working with actors while she auditions and takes classes.

Now, if you had any appreciation , or at least understanding, for the professionals that work in the film business (and I am not talking about the actors), you'd understand why we are a bit protective of our jobs. While you were in the stands doing the wave in four directions, did you watch the crew at all to appreciate how talented those people are?

I hope that the view from the infield is enlightening.

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

Clearly you did not study for the test. You fail the course and will have to repeat a year. As I was portraying Nukebait Super Bowl Spectator #437, I didn't have time to watch the crew because I was too busy pretending to cheer the Rockets on to victory. If you would only pay attention to your studies, you might actually graduate instead of having to settle for a GED.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

with all those opportunities you were not able to talk with one other person?
are you trying to say you are one of those inflatable extras?
a cardboard extra?
i apologize for assuming you were an actual person able to have a conversation...

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

I recently purchased the Double Secret Probation DVD of Animal House. There's a gag feature where John Landis pretends that the film was a documentary and was catching up with principal characters, all played by the original actors. Talking with you about this is like the Dean Wormer sequence:

Wormer: Larry!
Landis: Uh, no sir. It's John Landis. I made an appointment to speak with you.
Wormer: Larry Landis!
Landis: John Landis!
Wormer: The proctologist!
Landis: The DIRECTOR!
Wormer: Why would a proctologist be directing?

Let's go over this One More Fracking Time:
* Everyone surrounding me in the stands was a workaday schlub who called in sick from work
* Nobody surrounding me in the stands was a professional actor
* Nobody surrounding me in the stands was at all versed in what the hell was going on. I even had to explain to a woman sitting next to me that Montreal, Quebec, Dominion of Canada had ended at the door and we were currently in Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America for the purposes of the film.
* Anyone remotely resembling a crewmember was a good fifty yards away from where I was sitting, down on the field
* Access to the field from the stands is difficult to nearly impossible at most baseball and football stadiums
* As far as the crew was concerned, I was just another workaday schlub nobody who didn't deserve so much as the time of day. If I had made issue of it, I would've been branded a stalker and forcibly removed from Parc Olympique

Now, does this finally make sense to you, or are you home-schooled and the whole concept of physics was left out of your "education" because it had too much liberal bias?

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

your desperate attempts to cover for your inability to speak to others is sad
i am embarassed for you

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

Your desperate attempts to cover up your inability to accept the fact that you are not a navigation reference is pathetic. I have long since accepted that I am not a navigation reference. In fact, I was too jonesed up on the idea that I might actually get some screen time to try and start an impromptu film school on a picture with a $68 millon budget and thematic material that would become politically incorrect in four months. You should drink antifreeze.

Home-schooling: For When The Rest Of The World Justifiably Laughs At You For Being A Member Of The Flat Earth Society

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

so your claims about me somehow excuse or distract from
what you do?

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

Gee, if I wanted to learn about filmmaking, I could
* talk to my cousin Ronny, the Emmy winner
* talk to the Ciota brothers, as their parents are old friends of my maternal grandparents
* lay down anywhere from $3500 to $12,500 to attend a film school such as the New York Film Academy (http://www.nyfa.com) and spend 1.5-9 months in total hands-on immersion of the subject
instead of pestering some strangers when they're trying to get some work done, but that would just accomplish the job, wouldn't it? In true gop fashion, it's better to be knowledgable rather than accredited, huh?

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

why do you assume that when you speak to people that
they would automatically regard your comments as bothersome?
experience?

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

James Cameron threatened to fire any True Lies crewmember who took a bathroom break. These people have a job to do on schedule, on budget, and of sufficient quality that it will turn a profit for the studio upon theatrical release. As such, they don't have the time or the wherewithal to give an impromptu Career Day lecture to a wannabe. Just because they're in the entertainment industry doesn't mean they forfeited their right to be human beings.
Do you go up into the cockpit to ask the pilot how to fly the plane during the flight? How 'bout to the ground crew on the tarmac about balancing out the luggage load or maintaining the bird while they're turning the airliner around for the next run? You'd be on the deck within thirty seconds of making the attempt, a Sky Marshal or airport cop standing on your back leveling a Glock .40 at your head begging you to give him an excuse while another books you a room at Camp X-Ray. It's a little something called "professional courtesy," and your magnetic personality needs a severe degaussing if you honestly believe someone will just drop everything to answer inane little questions about their job when they're trying to actually do it.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

why do you automatically assume when you ask questions of people
they will be bothered?
has it happened before?

are you unable to figure out when it is acceptable to approach people
and
when it is best to observe?

the title of this sub-thread is
"Talk with other extras"
not "bother the crew"
or even
"name drop, then exaggerate"

if you did talk to other people,
what do you think you could learn from them?
do you already know they have nothing to share with you?
so you dont even consider it worth your time to speak to them?

imagine what knowledge or insight other people could offer you...
just try

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

You read, but you do not see. You hear, but you do not listen. Have you never screened phone calls before? How 'bout taking your phone off the hook when you don't want to be pestered when you're too busy or exhausted to want to have to deal with callers? Are you the kind of person who, when you have a deadline to accomplish a task, still takes time out to help others with their projects even if it costs you your own job because you failed to deliver on your existing responsibilities?
If I'm going too fast for you or using words that are too big, please tell me so I can dumb it down.
Have you ever read a motion picture trade magazine before? I did some consulting for Avid Technologies a few months ago and leafed through a copy of International Cinematographers Guild Magazine they had sitting around because it had an article on Daredevil. It's loaded with technical jargon and concepts that only an insider would know--I'd never heard of the concept of bleach bypass until reading it. Ever watch the end credits and wonder what the hell a grip or a gaffer or a swing gang was? Kinda sounds like a jazz band, don't it? "Coming to Harborlights on Saturday, August 19: Roomfull of Blues, with special guest the Swing Gang!" Would it not stand to reason, then, that a crewmember answering my unaimed and basically ignorant questions about the business while he's setting up for the next shot would be like trying to explain theoretical astrophysics to a cat while plotting a cargo loading strategy for a container ship?
As I said before: the best way for me to learn is to shell out up to $13K for film school and spend anywhere from one to nine months immersing myself in the craft, learning it all by actually doing it rather than distant observation.

HAVE A DRUG-FREE, MARKETEER-FREE, CONSERVATIVE-FREE EXISTENCE

[–] whminter 21 years ago

why do you automatically assume when you ask questions of people
they will be bothered?

Because they're busy?

has it happened before?

I've worked on four productions, and it's happened on all four.

are you unable to figure out when it is acceptable to approach people
and
when it is best to observe?

The best time is the thirty-second interval between the director wrapping for the day and everybody has gotten too drunk at the hotel bar to be coherent.

the title of this sub-thread is
"Talk with other extras"
not "bother the crew"
or even
"name drop, then exaggerate"

Productions I worked on, bothering the crew would get you escorted off the set. Name dropping would get you thrown off the set. Do you think you've suggested something that hasn't been tried five thousand times before? Let me clue you in on something - they don't want you there, they really don't. For one, having the fans behind a barrier tape limits their selection of camera angles. They want to work in a sterile environment. Fans scare them. A sound guy once told me of filming an exterior scene in "The Man with Two Brains". The crowd was really weird. Steve Martin finally said to one of the crew members, "I wonder which one has the gun?"

if you did talk to other people,
what do you think you could learn from them?
do you already know they have nothing to share with you?
so you dont even consider it worth your time to speak to them?

I'd discover that they were as clueless as the rest of us. For instance, I stated that I've worked on four productions. I've been an extra, grip, on-set security (I'm an ex-cop, and this was back when I was still P.O.S.T. certified), and utility stunts. The production I stunted on, I STILL don't know what the name of the movie was, or whether it was ever released in the US. I've looked up the star here in the IMDB and can find one possible match. In the security department, it was my job to keep people like you (and BlacJAC) away from people who actually worked for a living.

imagine what knowledge or insight other people could offer you...

I still think the hotel bar is your best bet. I've gotten hammered with some of the best Hollywood has to offer that way. And I'm still astonished at one particular young starlet whom I didn't even think was old enough to drink who drank all 250 lbs of me under the table.

just try

I'll buy that - try. Just don't be surprised if ten seconds later someone really big and official has you in an armlock.

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

Have a Rush Limbaugh day.

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

Finally somebody who actually understands! Hopefully he can understand basic English this time.

[–] BlackJAC 21 years ago

No, I'm from the Greater Boston area. I'm betting that your extra buddies weren't high up in the stands of a football stadium a good thirty yards from the cameras. No principal cast or crew ever came in close proximity to the crowd except to thank everyone for doing this.
And I can sum up your "secret" in a single hyphenated word: self-publication.

http://us.st5.yimg.com/store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1759_4336267

Save the world: incinerate a conservative

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

my friends go on many shoots
i guess they might be up in the stands or standing next to the principles
whatever they can get work on
whatever their contacts can get them

and as far as your guess about my secret, not, that wasnt what i was thinking of
but that sounds like a great way for a budding writer to start

i bet if you thought about it more
you could come up with a bunch of other ways too!

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] Archduke_Chocula 21 years ago

"Watching this film, it was pretty clear that they had a lot of White House support, since Bush came off looking like such a hero. Reading the blurb on the Showtime website, they said that the writer actually got an hour long interview with Bush in addition to help from many other members of his staff in addition to archive assistance from networks. Seems like such a shame that he did all of this research, and took all of this care to write a story of what is such a purely American experience, only to film it entirely in Canada. Personally I am offended that the filmmakers would do such a thing. Sure, the actors and the director can cross the border to work, but the rest of the crew were all Canadians. Canadians told the story of our American experience. Whether or not you agree with Bush, or his policies, and whether or not you liked this film, you must agree, in principle, that this is an American film. Seems a shame that they betrayed the trust of everyone who entrusted them to tell their story. It also seems a shame that they just paid attention to the sound bites and did not listen to the WHOLE speech that they ended the film with. When Bush addressed the joint session of Congress, he made a very poignant statement. "I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch it's source. America is successful because of the hard work, and creativity, and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11, and they are our strengths today." I am enraged that these filmmakers intentionally went against this wish to support the American economy by supporting the Canadian economy. "

Get over it.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

you know
"get over it" is an interesting sentiment.

as the economy is whittled away by degrees
i too will "get over it" by degrees

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] Endless_Mike 21 years ago

Montreal guy, I pity, you. I did study for the test and am sorry that you've had to deal with this, now lets all be big boys and girls and end this.

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

AMEN!!!

When I started this, I tried to start an intelligent discussion. I am concerned about too much runaway production going to Canada, and this seemed like the perfect example of a film that just shouldn't have left the country. So much of our problem in the industry is a problem of perception. Too many people, like our dear friend, think that the money grubbing producers and actors should just stop whining, and take the movies wherever they want, but it is a larger problem than that. As long as the public only see the box office numbers every weekend, and see the salaries that the actors are making, the film community in the US is doomed.

When a production leaves the country, there are not just those 100-300 direct jobs that are lost. There are countless others that are affected. The film community supports the local economy in so many ways. When that show leaves, there are hundreds of extras that won't be hired, dry cleaning that won't be done, locations that won't be rented, police officers and fire safety officers that won't work at locations, not to mention the florists, caterers, car rentals agencys, prop houses, and numerous other local businesses that won't profit from our use. It is a tricle-down effect that will cost the local economy billions of dollars.

If you talk to folks in Southern California, the effect is catastrophic. The teamsters have three lists that they work off of. People of their third list often don't get to work, because there just isn't enough work to go around. Within the DGA, Assistant Directors and Unit Productions Managers often are only at 25% employment at any time (that's not unemployment - that's employment folks), and who knows how many actors are out of work at any time. Make up artists, grips, electricians, PAs, in addition to those drivers, ADs and actors are all having a hard time making the rent as the business dries up. The public needs to stop seeing the million dollar actors as the face of the business, and see those people as the face of the business.

It will be interesting to see if anything changes now that an actor has been elected as the new governor of California.

evilevildoer, I think that this relates a lot to what you were saying about Levi's. There is such a public perception that leaving the country to save money is OK, after the American worker was the backbone of founding the company. I don't know what the answer to changing that perception is, but it is truly our responsibility to try to do something, if we have any hope of preventing major economic trouble in the future. I also sense that you know the film industry ( I missed your fireworks this week, I was working and didn't have time to go online. It would be interesting to talk more.)

My hope that anyone that reads this just stops to give it a bit of thought.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

it is only alleged that The Austrian Puppet is an actor
the ones who say he is are the ones acting

the first order of business now that pete wilson is back in the calif
gov's mansion is to de-regulate electricity AGAIN

in spite of enron's invented energy "crisis"
The Austrian Puppet will do what Pete Wilson and oilboy tell him to do
no matter how much californian's disagree

i just find it curious that 2 major strikes to effect socal are brewing
just hours after pete wilson's Austrian Puppet was given diebold's seal of approval (MTA and grocery store employees)
and dont forget that the actors/writers are always threatening to strike

p.s.
barbara, how did you know i would start fireworks?
::batting eyelashes::

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

Ok, so I was being generous when I called him an actor. At least that's what he calls himself sometimes. In my feeble, half-full way of looking at the world, I hope that he'll actually try to help the California film community.

And yes, we are under the influence of Pete Wilson again, but it is still a Democratic State House, so I don't know how much damage he can really do. Maybe I am being a half-full kind of gal again. It will certainly be an interesting several months we are heading into. It may actually serve California right for being so stupid by electing him in the first place. We can now actually say that we have...dramatic music please...THE GOVERNATOR. (OK, I love that, we were calling him that all day at work on Wednesday) And it certainly is ironic that the grocery clerks are on strike and I wouldn't be surprised if the MTA mechanics go out once their cooling off period ends. Let's see if Ahnold will be able to step in and do something about it when negotiations don't work and the strikes drag on. It certainly sounds like the grocery strike won't be short.

Oh, interesting tidbit about the actors. They have done some pre-negotiating on their next contract, so I don't think that there will be another strike like the last one two years ago. Don't know about the writers.

It was also great reading your fireworks with blackJACK. It is wonderful knowing there is someone out there with a brain and a clue when he just really seemed to not get it. You were so feisty, it was great (nudge, nudge)

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

tell me what your thoughts are regarding the 2 on-going strikes
and the possibility of pete's austrian puppet busting the unions?
(grocery store unions and bus unions)

do you think pete already has several "executive orders" written up and waiting for his austrian puppet to sign?

do you think one of these "executive orders" includes "solving" the strikes by dissolving the unions?

also, i dont think pete's austrian puppet will do a thing to help any union,
much less actor unions

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

It is very sad that these strikes have happened because the companies have tried to cut the employees health benefits. The fact that they want to cut the grocery employees benefits 50% over the course of the contract that they were trying to negotiate is just apalling. I think that that one will be a long one, and I hope that the public honors the picket lines. The MTA strike is harder to call. I always have sympathy for workers when their benefits are in jeopardy. There are just so many other people who are affected by that one. I hope that it can be resolved quickly.

Now, with transportation, I know that federally the government can step in, if the airlines or railways have labor disputes. I don't think that is the case locally, but I am sure that there will be pressure on the governator to do something if this drags on to try to mediate. I am sure that Davis is just wiping his hands and saying " more power to you." I think that for the MTA and the mechanics the greatest amount of pressure will come from the riders union and the public.

In so many ways, I am fearful of what the governator will do. There is no way in hell that he can dissolve the unions. He has no power to even attempt that. Unfortunately, other than saying that he is going to open the books, and do an audit, and "bring people together," he really hasn't said a damn thing about what he really plans to do. It does not bode well that he has so many of Wilson's folks surrounding him, but as I mentioned before, there is still a Democratic State House. I am trying to be optimistic (it's really hard sometimes, but I try). He is just such an unknown commodity. I also have to get this out of my system - the timing sucked, but the whole groping thing was in incredibly bad taste on his part. I totally believe that he groped those women, and they did not feel comfortable coming forward at the time (trust me - I understand why they would feel that way, believe me). It is a load of crap that he was just on a "rowdy movie set" and that excused his behavior. I am sorry, that just does not fly (just had to get that out).

It is hard for me to judge what Pete Wilson's influence over the governator will be. I didn't know California politics when he was in office, so I don't know what his term was like.

Back to the strikes. I think that Arnold will eventually try to step in to make a grand gesture, but it won't make a difference in the long run. My predictions-pressure from the riders will force negotiations in the MTA strike and the grocery clerks will outlast management in their strike as long as the public honors their picket lines. (I am so glad the teamsters are honoring the lines!)

What do you think will happen?

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

I am not optimistic at all
during times like these, i often listen to my inner-conspiracy nut

i fear the strikes will last long enough to be very frustrating for people
during which time...
i fear that the reich wing controlled mass media will turn the public against the unions

i fear that the reich wing controlled mass media will dredge up bogus empty comparisons between what the unions members are fighting for and some unrelated urban legend that gets started by fox and spread thru drudge and repeated ad naseum thru emails
until everyone forgets what the unions are fighting for

the reich wing controlled mass media will never have a news story
about health benefits or CEO compensation
or consequences of reducing benefits to any worker, union or not

i fear what the criminal bush klan admin and pete's austrian puppet will do to distract from their erosion of democracy
by allowing the strike to continue
1. because people will talk about whatever is on the news (the strike will stay in the news)
2. their negligence of issues that effect real americans (they dont care that people are demanding fair treatment)

sadly, i suspect people will forget the strike, and the reasons for the strike once the holidays come around

suddenly the "news" will be filled with happy-talk
(just like after pete's puppet was given gray davis' office)

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

Been out of touch since Tuesday, no news or internet, working long days...
Just caught a couple of snippets on the radio. Heard that the folks in the transit strike have started negotiating. Didn't sound optimistic though.

I also heard a rumor from co-workers. You have any idea if this is true...the parent companies in the supermarket strikes all had huge profits over the last several quarters in the stock market, in which case their claims of poverty that they can't afford to pay for their employees benefits are completely bogus. It seems criminal that they think paying people a livable wage with benefits will bankrupt a company.

The truly unfortunate thing about the governator is that we are stuck with him. People can really be lemmings sometimes. Why the public thought this was a good idea I'll never know. He has had way too much influence from Wilson, but something has been floating thru my mind the last few days. He is an "actor," and a big money one, which means that he has a HUGE ego. I don't know that he will let anyone run him, even if he has no clue what he is doing.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

welcome back
re: store strike
i heard that the union workers agreed to return about $200 million a few years ago in exchange for the health care program they have now

also, the plan was to strike only one store: Safeway/Vons
they chose this store because the CEO had an obscene amount in stocks for the year something in the range of $11 million.

The lock out by Ralph's and Alberston's is illegal.
These stores were supposed to give 60 days notice if a mass layoff was expected.
The union members took them to court for wages, benefits, etc which are expected to be lost during the lock-out.
of course the courts now say they have 30 days to answer.

re: Pete's puppet
big money "actors" may be egomanicas, but in every one of their "films"
unless they are also a producer, they must answer to the director...

pete's puppet knows when to listen to his director and when he can screw up
problem is, as a public official he wont be able to easily say do over and call for another take...

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] whminter 20 years ago

re: Pete's puppet
big money "actors" may be egomanicas, but in every one of their "films"
unless they are also a producer, they must answer to the director...

Not always. Marlon Brando is famous for his "prima donna" fits. There is always someone whom Brando absolutely positively cannot abide, cannot be on the set. In Apocalypse Now, it was Dennis Hopper. In The Godfather, he didn't do it, as that was a pre-condition to him getting the role. In The Score, it was director Frank Oz. Oz had to direct Brando's scenes from another room, on the phone to Robert De Niro, who relayed Oz's direction as, I guess the term would be, "director by proxy". Why anyone would cast Brando nowadays is beyond me. He carries way too much baggage.

[–] evilevildoer 20 years ago

since pete's puppet has no experience or any idea how to run california
it is obvious he will have to take direction from someone
and since pete wilson has
picked his staff
written his executive orders
designed his "policies"

all his puppet has to do is read his lines

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] evilevildoer 20 years ago

instead of
"all his puppet has to do is read his lines"
it should read
"all his puppet has to do is move his lips"

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] anthonybortolussi 21 years ago

Canada has way higher Production Value than any place in the states. We have 7 out of 9 possible earth locations minus rolling dunes, and flat arctic ice. Our sun is lower than L.A. so that you get better light and the whole frame isn't bleeched out. However, if you wish to not care about anything but AMERICAN shoots like a typical AMERICAN, then to shoot in a studio in L.A. there is an 18 month + waiting time......think about that too. Arnold will not be able to do anything, it is out of his control; the best he will be able to do is lower tax/ null tax on film shoots.

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

pete wilson's austrian puppet will do what he is told to do
he has no plan of his own

nor any ability to implement anyone else's plans

pete wilson has already made many decisions for his austrian puppet:
pete has picked the staff
pete has written the "executive orders"
pete has the energy plan already set
pete will use the employment "solution" from rapist ronnie...

all the austrian puppet has to do is
just follow orders

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] ADWoman 21 years ago

I respectfully disagree that Canada has higher production values than the US, but seeing that I am an American filmmaker, and you are obviously a Canadian, we will probably always disagree. I have heard wonderful things about Canadian crews, but our crews are top notch also. It is interesting that you should mention the tax issue. If you read one of my posts above, I addressed this very issue. The Canadian government have been acitvely trying to take away production from the United States for years by using tax incentives, a lovely NAFTA byproduct, and taking advantage of the exchange rate. We actually need to do the same thing to turn the tables and compete. That way we can take some of that production back. Production hasn't left because of higher production value, it has left because of the tax incentives and cost saving measures, I am sorry to say. Unfortunately, it is all about the money. If Arnold actually even addresses runaway production and attempts to pass some tax legislation to help, it would be fantastic!

I am also curious about what you mean by the 18 month + waiting time? I've never worked on a shoot that had to wait that long to get space...

[–] Heterodyne 20 years ago

Barbara:

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

[–] anthonybortolussi 16 years ago

18 month waiting time.

Sorry it took me 5 years to get back to your post, I just read it now. Weird eh?

I guess there really isn't an 18 month waiting time for productions to get studio space.

Cheers

Anthony Bortolussi

[–] Jep_Gambardella 20 years ago

I would estimate that American films account for more than 95% of the box office in English Canada, and at least 70% in Quebec.
I am sure that in the home video market the figures are similar.
Blockbuster (an American company) is the leader in the home video rental market in Canada.
As for the home video/DVD stores, what are the biggest players? Best Buy (American), Future Shop (formerly Canadian-owned, now American), Wal Mart (American), Amazon.ca (American).

It seems to me the USA still comes out far ahead.

Dying ain't much of a living, boy!

[–] ADWoman 20 years ago

I have been woefully neglegent for last couple of weeks. My apologies...
evilevildoer...you still out there...

Yes, indeed, those are American companies, and they pull in big numbers at the box office every weekend. That is the perception problem in a nutshell. The public sees those numbers, and thinks that there is no problem with the US film industry. They see the grotesque salaries that the actors make (like the new CA governor-ha ha) and that is also the problem. These are not the people who are suffering. If you read the credits of these films that are being released, you'll see that more than half of them are being filmed in Canada. (Only one of the films nominated for best picture last year was PARTIALLY shot in the US, and that was in Florida, by the way) The studios make money, but the filmmakers are losing their jobs and houses. The studios make even more money by shooting in Canada, since they get the tax incentives and benefits from the exchange rates. Unfortunately, since perceptions like yours are there, that there is nothing wrong with doing things this way, and taking advantage of these incentives is OK, nothing will change. The US government needs to catch up and make some tax incentives of our own to keep the billions of dollars generated when the films are shot, not just when the films are released, in the country. The USA does not come out far ahead when you look at a report released that studied this, that concluded that in 1998 alone over $10 billion was lost from the California economy due to runaway production.

Gives you something to think about...

[–] Jep_Gambardella 20 years ago

I think it wasn't clear in my message that I am Canadian. I don't deny that runaway production is a problem for the US and for California especially. My point was: we also have a problem! I would love nothing more than to have these tax incentives used to promote Canadian culture, not American culture, which DOES NOT need protection or incentives. Until that happens, I am glad that we get back at least part of the money we spend watching/renting/buying American films from American companies.

Dying ain't much of a living, boy!

[–] ADWoman 20 years ago

Seems like from your standpoint, the best option would be for there to be Canadian studios. Then the Canadian studios could shoot at home, and maybe American studios would shoot at home also. Several years ago, your government began an active campaign to bring our film companies over the border to shoot in your country, to benefit from the incentives and the good exchange rates. It was a conscious choice to woo the film business to your country. That is why the American film industry is trying so hard to attempt to get some of those incentives here so that we can compete with you. There has been a radical shift in the California economy since this exodus began. In so many ways, the Canadian economy has benefitted from this. Yes, if there were a Universal Canada, for example, more of the profits would stay in your country, but you are receiving the benefits of the shooting companies, and the millions of dollars that they generate. We are feeling those losses. I earn my living in the industry, and it would be nice to actually know that I would have a job in 6 months, or 12 months, things are that tenuous. More than half of my friends are out of work because there is no work to be had. Many are considering leaving the business because things are getting so bad. There has to be a way to keep the talented people in both of our countries working, without exploiting anyone, or taking advantage. But then again, I am an optimist.

[–] evilevildoer 20 years ago

im still here
i was gone for a while too

i agree that there is a perception problem
i is too easy and simplistic for the problem to be portrayed the way it is by the media (ironic, huh?)

i just wonder if anyone can see the connection between the loss of production (any production) on the prosperity of an area (southern california for instance)

take the auto industry for instance and how mismanagement has increased poverty in an area.

the movie industry does not need more multi-million dollar employees above the line, insuring the below the line people stay at walmart levels...

it seems americans tolerate monarchies only when their heroes' status is maintained by exploited and lower paid workers

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] ADWoman 20 years ago

You raise an interesting point. What first started this train of thought for me was an article in Newsweek about California in crisis, even before the recall mess. In the article, they were talking about all of the problems in the state, and made the brief and off-hand comment that Southern California would be fine because as long as people continue to go to the movies, the industry, and therefore the LA economy would be fine. It seemed so superficial and way too generalized.

I agree that the auto industry is a good example of how industry can destroy a community. Did you see "Roger and Me"? It was so sad to see the decline of Flint, Michigan. If I remember correctly, it was General Motors that moved out and basically killed that city. You want to see another doozy, you should see what happened to the steel towns in Pennsylvania when the companies closed down those mills.

In many ways it goes back to your point about Levi's. The companies move overseas to save money, or for tax shelters (or to Canada for tax incentives), and the share holders applaud the CEOs for getting them bigger profits, no matter what the human cost.

Something is definately wrong here...

[–] evilevildoer 20 years ago

what is so sad is that the whore-porations (ha, ha, i just made that up!)
use the old "divide and conquer" every single time
and still no one can see it

of course everyone is so poor and desperate to be concerned with tactics
but i digress...

yes i did see "Roger and Me"
and I am familiar with what happened to the Penn steel towns (i think springsteen even wrote a song about it, too...)

there are far too many examples of what the whore-porations are doing to the american workers for people not to know

and yet, people willingly deny what has been and continues to happen.

it is sad and frustrating.
to be able to see what is going on, and then trying to get everyone else to see it too
only to be dismissed...

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] ADWoman 20 years ago

Aaahhh, a Springsteen fan...knew you were a good man...

No wonder our economy is going down the drain. Next few months should be interesting. Bush tries to keep everyone's attention on the war, and away from the economy, It will be interesting to see how the Democratic field shapes up, and how they will respond to these issues. I bet that they will really try to focus the debates on economics. I really hope that they can come up with some good ideas to help these companies keep these jobs at home. Seems like some of them do. Maybe it will help focus some more public attention on this, so the denial might stop. Should be very interesting.

[–] evilevildoer 20 years ago

well, i say if they want to leave, good riddance
there are more than enough good hard-working immigrants willing and able to take their place.
hell, some american-born buisness people would be delighted to be given the opportunity to operate a business in a climate without the whore-porations and their unfair practices!

if they want to leave, i say let 'em.
they can be replaced.

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] Bishonen 20 years ago

I think this is a far more important issue than many people realize...I've raised this on a couple of other boards (on "The Forgotten" and the Steven Spielberg boards) and mostly I've heard the same rhetoric (it's "cheaper" in Canada---of course its cheaper!!! You know, it would be almost as cheap here in the U.S. if OUR government threw $$$ at the studios to get them to stay here for their shoots and to hire their crews here). Living in Los Angeles, I see the impact runaway production has had on my friends who are involved in the film/tv industry. just about every other major production has gone up to Canada and the current is not turning around. We still have mid-range projects now and then but it's getting worse with each year.

Anyway, I don't want to repeat myself as I've already said my piece elsewhere...my points are covered in the other posts. Not sure what the solution is, but it makes me sad to see to see my industry compatriots struggling for reasons that have nothing to do with their talent, ability or experience.

[–] ADWoman 20 years ago

You are so right that it is more important that people realize. A producer that I know did a movie in Toronto earlier this year and said that there were literally 40 American film companies there at the same time shooting. He couldn't go out to dinner without running into an actor that he knew (couldn't run into any other production folks, since no one else but directors are allowed to work there). I just hope that more people within the industry start speaking up publicly. Maybe educating the public and the lawmakers about what is really going on will make a difference.

Let's all keep our fingers crossed that the measures in Congress now actually pass so that we can get some similar tax incentives (see above post). I will definately check out the other boards for your other posts.

[–] Bishonen 20 years ago

Hi BarbaraLontkowski...I just went on another rant about this matter on the "The Forgotten" board...anyway...

What is your opinion of the FTAC? I admire their objectives but some of my industry friends find them a bit too radical. Personally I agree with their objective of investigating trade abuses by the Canadian gvt. with respect to all these generous tax breaks they keep waving at producers, but I don't necessarily know that it's the best solution. OK, they somehow succeed in holding the Canadians accountable for these practices---it could backfire on American producers who would their product shunned in the Canadian market, and the retaliation could be very real. Also, dealing with the 2-Ton Canadian Bear is one thing, what is the answer to Australia, The Czech Republic, New Zealand and THEIR respective tax breaks? Those countries don't answer to any NAFTA rules, and look at the amount of production which is surging in the Czech Republic and Down Under...

[–] ADWoman 20 years ago

Don't know if you're still out there. I have been out of town and out of touch. I actually agree with you about FTAC. It may seem like a strange analogy, but in some ways they reminded me of Act Up and a lot of the AIDS activist organizations sometimes. They really worked hard to bring light to the issue, but i don't think that they were always effective in spreading the word in a way that would gain public sympathy to the cause, which is unfortunate. At least they tried, which is a lot more than most people can say. There is a definate problem with complacency.

And just to add my personal rant about your other issue, I am very irritated that they shot Cold Mountain in, Romania I think it was. Like they couldn't find proper places to shoot a film about the Civil War in, oh say, North Carolina or Virginia? Those darn budget restraints forced them out of the country. I really hope that Hollywood wakes up soon.

[–] evilevildoer 20 years ago

hey, hey long time no hear/read!

i did hear that they shot COLD MOUNTAIN in another country
but perhaps that had to do with the PRESTINE COUNTRY-SIDE
in addition to the cheap labor force

i hear there are places in Europe that have been untouched by both world wars
and there are some places in Czechoslavokia (sp) that look exactly as they had in the middle ages!
and i also heard that in Europe they dont need billboards everywhere
so their landscapes are more natural looking...
i realize that all of that stuff can be taken out in post (remember the old westerns that had to be careful not to get any airplane in their shots, becasue they had no way to remove them?)
but taking it out in post may have cost them more money...

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] Bishonen 20 years ago

"Cold Mountain"'s Romanian locations may have been ideal, but the agument that you can't get those locations in the U.S. doesn't wash with me. Have you ever seen the West Virginian mountains? Absolutely breathtaking, and criminally underused for filmmaking. Similar locations in the Carolinas as well, and those states have infrastructures for production which do not exist in Romania. So the REAL reason? Pennies-on-the-dollar labor! Romanian workers charge a tiny fraction of what it would cost to hire American (or Canadian, for that matter!) workers.

This was a Miramax production and they are a company notorious for runaway production---they shot "Chicago" and "54" in Toronto, "Shall we Dance" in Ottawa, as well as the production we are discussing. Filmmakers under their label have complained of being pressured by Miramax execs into using Canadian locations at every turn, primarily when their films' settings are American. Sort of ironic, when you consider that Miramax originated out of NYC and engaged in all manner of post-9/11 boosterism in response NYC economic woes, and then they take every opportunity to take productions out of the country. Only a handful of Miramax directors have had the clout to insist on American locations---Quentin Tarantino will shoot in L.A. when the setting IS L.A., and Kevin Smith (after much pressure from Harvey Weinstein to shoot in Toronto) shot "Jersey Girl" domestically when his producers were able to work out tax breaks with some American cities. For the most part, Miramax has been unapologetically shooting as much as they can using Canadian locations and crews.

God love HBO!!!!!! They shoot almost all their shows domestically---"Sex and the City" and "The Sopranos" on the east coast, and "Six Feet Under" and "Carnivale" here out west. This is in stark contrast to Showtime which has almost NEVER shot a production outside of Canada (and I believe this really hurt the authenticity of the "Tales of the City" segments they did---come on, MONTREAL WILL NEVER LOOK LIKE SAN FRANCISO!").

I digress...back on topic...

The American film industry (by this I mean the crews and other below-the-line folks) MUST get some help with tax credits from the Federal and State gvts' in response to the problem of runaway production. That is the primary reason producers have abandoned American film crews and locations in favor of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries offering these financial incentives. In less polite circles, we could call them Bribes; but that is the economic reality of movie production in 2004, and we must stay competitive with other countries which are throwing money at American producers to use their countries. Joel Silver, Harvey Weinstein, et al probably don't care in the least where their movies are shot, as long as they save money and increase their profit margins in that respect. It's the American workers who need help from their government which has dragged its feet on this issue for way too long. Government subsidized industries always have an edge---it's a simple economic rule proven by the farming and logging industries---and it's what is needed in the American film/tv industry.

[–] Bishonen 20 years ago

On a similar note...there are discussions on this topic over in the "Paycheck" and "Cold Mountain" boards, if you want to check them out.

[–] ADWoman 20 years ago

Cold Mountain continues to make me ever so sad. It should be criminal that Miramax forced them to shoot out of the country. If they were able to find beautiful, untouched locations for Last of the Mohicans, which was shot in North Carolina (even though that was many years ago), I am sure that they could have found the locations this time around.

Interesting tidbit...I have a friend who lives in North Carolina, who does not work in the industry, but keeps himself informed, let me know some news over the holidays. Apparently the film community there is not real happy about losing that film, and may finally be waking up to the problem. Seems like they may now be trying to take steps to actively recruit productions again. They have realized, in vivid technicolor, what they are losing and are going to take steps to remedy the situation. I say more power to them. Anything to keep the work in the country!!! Looking at production lists it is pretty scary how few features are being shot in the country anymore. Los Angeles filming is now all about television. Makes me sad! You shouldn't listen to anymore movie commentaries like the one with Rob Marshall on Chicago where he goes on about how he had to shoot in Canada because of economics. I repeat...it makes me sad.

[–] Bishonen 20 years ago

Hey BL, great to have you back!

First off, regarding "Cold Mountain"...as frustrating as that situation was, it wasn't so surprising considering that it was a Miramax production. From what I can see they've pretty much shot every production outside of the US (as you'd mentioned, "Chicago" is one primary example) except for their "star" directors like Tarantino and Kevin Smith who are allowed (grudgingly, perhaps) to shoot in America. There was a long piece in the North Carolina press about the whole sad affair---that Minghella and co. were courted by the N. Carolina film commission for months and they seemed agreeable to bringing the show to the state's locations and the Wilmington sound stages, then the whole deal was lost to Romania---but what really gets me is how the director and stars went around giving interviews about how they chose Romania because of the "unspoilt" beauty and grand locations there, etc. I'm sure it's true, but you can't tell me that there aren't equivalent locations in NC...or for that matter, the mountains in West Virginia!!! The truth is that Romania was chosen because there are no labor laws requiring a minimum wage for film workers and you can get away with paying the crew $25 a head per day (and they're overjoyed to get it). With star salaries going into the stratosphere, I'm sure that factor made Romania even more attractive...anyway, contrary to what the Miramax PR machine told people, it was a labor decision, pure and simple.

I think you're right about the NC film office wising up---they aggressively went after "One Tree Hill", a show originally intended for Vancouver, and they got it! Ditto with the Louisiana and New Mexico film commissions---they have the most aggressive and generous tax incentives in the country, and it is definitly paying off for them.

I hear what you're saying about Los Angeles---yes, it's mostly now television. Still, i have to give props to HBO for avoiding runaway production altogether---they've pretty much shot every show in the USA unlike Showtime which seems hell-bent on keeping each and every show in Canada; I almost choked when I saw that "Out of Order", their show set in the L.A. film biz, was shot in Vancouver! Ditto for "The L Word", set in West Hollywood and shot...guess where... Movies do shoot in-town here in L.A.---a friend told me that he's working nearby the "Constantine" shoot, which was a nice surprise; a big-budget horror/fantasy film which didn't go to Vancouver was getting to be a rarity. It makes incredible sad to see that "Superman" is going to Australia! Can you think of a more "American" icon, and all the labor going into the making of the huge show is going overseas?

Even Canada's highly touted "cheaper" production industry isn't invulnerable to the vagaries of world economics. A big hit to them this year was the rapid rise of the Canadian dollar---apparently it sent a good number of shows scurrying out of Canada as the dollar got so high that the savings and tax breaks couldn't narrow the gap as much. Every article I've read said that Canada's film/tv industry had a bad year, with their unions considering wage cuts to attract business again. On top of that, labor is so dirt-cheap in Eastern Europe that more and more film shoots are going there and bypassing North America altogether.

The reality is that thanks in large part to the Canadian tax breaks, producers are now running around the globe in search of more and more generous tax incentives, cheaper labor, and better exchange rates...what American film workers MUST do in order to stay competitive is lobby harder than ever for federal intervention with tax incentives of our own, in order to stay competitive with the world market. I don't think we'll ever be able to outdo the Romanians or Czechs for cheap labor, but more generous tax breaks and more efficient local film commissions will at least make us players in this increasingly tight market. Of course it's not right---we're basically asking our government to act like the Canadians and bribe producers into keeping work on our shores---but it's too late for complaints. The deer-in-headlights approach isn't getting American workers any jobs, so it's time to fight dirty with a little federal $$$$...

[–] ADWoman 20 years ago

Hey there...nice to be back!!!

I know that it is not just TV that is being shot in Los Angeles, it just seems that way sometimes. I have worked on several features over the last few years, so I know that they are out there, they are just becoming fewer and further between. Just check Variety and the Hollywood Reporter when they do production listings...scary. On the bright side, I did a feature last year that was supposed to shoot in Canada. Apparently the UPM did some reworking on the budget and was able to finesse the numbers and keep the show in the country!! It is nice to hear that there are still people out there who care enough to make the effort!!

I also think that we all need to keep our fingers crossed that the tax measures before Congress now actually pass this time. Last I checked, they were still in committee. I need to look into it again. Hopefully Schwarzenegger will actually do something for California directly too. He was able to keep Terminator 3 in LA, when it was supposed to shoot in Canada. Granted, I think that he did it so that he didn't have to go to Canada himself, but the end result was that a lot of jobs stayed here. If only more directors spoke up like that, maybe there would be a dent in the outflow of work. Unfortunately not all actors and directors have that kind of clout and power, but the "the studio made me do it" excuse gets really old.

If it is all about the money in the end, please let Congress come through for us!!!

[–] Bishonen 20 years ago

It is sort of fascinating to look at how the dynamics of the business work---for all the concern about having to save millions on a movie by relocating to a country with tax breaks, sometimes it just takes one big star to say "no" to going to Canada or wherever and the show stays in town. I just watched "T3", and although I'm not a huge fan of action films (more into horror and crime dramas) the production made GREAT use of LA locations. And I couldn't help thinking how refreshing it was to see Los Angeles in a big action film again---it had been some time!!! Along those lines, I just watched the "Alien Quadrilogy" DVD set, and the "Resurrection" making-of doc talks about how that installment shot in LA, because Sigourney Weaver wanted it so. Julianne Moore, a New York resident, lobbied for her new horror film "The Forgotten" to shoot in NYC because the ambience of NYC was important to the film. The clout of a big star is sometimes enough to stem the flow of a production outside the country.

Production is picking up in NY/LA, as well as other states, because after five disastrous years (the period of 98-03 was one of the worst for runaway production) American states and cities are wising up to the fact that they have to be pro-active in getting producers to use their cities again, in light of so much financial competition from other countries. It's hard to say how much Gv.Arnold can do in the immediate future in CA's fiscal crunch, so a lot of it will depend on federal assistance and other states picking up on the tax-incentive momentum and setting examples for other states to follow. Louisiana recently "stole" a show from Montreal, a Lion's Gate film now set in New Orleans because the Louisiana incentives made it so attractive to shoot there. May I ask, what film did you work on that stayed "local"?

[–] ADWoman 20 years ago

Hey, encouraging news that I just learned tonight. Apparently, the measures in Congress have been restructured. Rather then being a wage tax credit (like Canada), it is now credit for production costs (immediate or deferred, depending on the size of the budget). The measure was passed in the Senate and is under consideration as part of a bill in the House. It is a part of the American Job Creation Act. We need to hope that it survives any pruning that the bill undergoes before it passes. Also, some states have passed measures to bring filming back. Illinios has passed a wage tax credit that has directly affected them. A film called "The Weatherman" apparently will be filming there directly because of the new credit. Yeah Illinois!!!! Also glad to hear about that show in Louisiana. That is another state that is working on legislation to help.

Interesting tidbit about Canada, too. Apparently their production has experienced a dip also. Production is down in both Toronto and Vancouver, and with the value of the Canadian dollar rising, that trend will probably increase. I read a blurb from a Toronto paper from October that said that they are afraid of Arnold Schwarzenegger. They are afraid that he'll use his clout to do just what we are hoping he'll do. I am glad to hear that more actors are speaking up. Maybe it will be a trend!!!

I'll get back to you about my movie's title. I am not sure if it was common knowledge that we saved it or not. Gotta check...

[–] Bishonen 20 years ago

I totally understand if you need to be discreet about the project you'd worked on---runaway production is a volatile issue, especially here in L.A.

Glad to here that the JOBS bill is making some progress. There seems to be some positive action happening on a state-by-state basis, as well. The Canadian tax "incentives" (I'm tempted always to say "bribes") have an uncertain future, as well---I doubt they'll be elminated but there's a chance they won't be as generous in the coming years, as their biggest proponent, former Canada PM Jean Chretien, is no longer in office and his replacement doesn't seem as bullish about increasing them.

I'm all for American states making themselves as competitive as Canada and other countries for film shoots. However, I still think that fundamentally this "Tax Incentive" situation is wrong and the Canadian government has fostered, on an international level, an anti-labor atmosphere more conducive to the greed of moguls and studio executives. In effect what they've done is create an international bidding war for the privilege of hosting film shoots and getting the jobs those shoots create, waving $$$ under the noses of producers to get them to shoot in their province. Yes, I know the Australians, New Zealanders and some European countries do the same thing but the Canadians set the precedent and have been the most aggressive at trying to grab American production to shoot in their cities; internationally, it sets worker against worker, and eventually it will lead to producers setting their shows in increasingly underpaying and unsafe work venues (it was "cheaper" to shoot "Cold Mountain" in Romania because the labor regulations regarding wages and work conditions are rather looser than in the U.S. or Canada). When your livelihood is at the mercy of governments engaged in tax-incentive p*ssing contests, I think the frustration and resentment on our side of the border is completely justified. What's even more egregious is that when you bring up this issue, a good number of people blame the workers (saying that they can't get work because they are "overpaid"---when they often have the same salary rate as their Canadian counterparts) or think it "doesn't affect them" so they don't care (and I hear this in LOS ANGELES!!!!).

Sorry, had to vent. I don't even work in the industry but as a laborer this issue has a lot of relevance, and I wish that people who are in similar situations who only see the entertainment industry in terms of Oscars and limos would realize that it's mostly made up of WORKERS just like them, who make an hourly wage.

[–] ADWoman 20 years ago

If you are a Los Angeles resident, did you happen to catch the Daily News Thursday, Feb. 5? On the front page of the business section there was an article about an increase in off-lot production shooting days for feature films over this same period last year. Huzzah...something positive in LA for a change!!!! I would imagine that you could find it on their website, dailynews.com. I just hope that the references that they made to studios starting to stockpile product in case of strike, since the WGA and SAG have negotiations soon, does not happen again like it did in 2001.

I had an interesting discussion with some industry folks a couple of days ago. There are a lot of people that want to be more proactive about this. Perception is obviously one of the big problems. We get reminded of that, especially this time of year with all of the award shows every weekend. If beautiful actors and big box offices are what people see, your average Joe isn't going to care a lot. One idea was to create a PSA campaign, similar to the anti-piracy one running in theatres now. Rather than having famous folks address the issue in the ads, have a grip or a teamster or an AD or PA shown on the set doing the work and explaining why they are the ones being hurt by the work leaving the country, not the actors and producers. Kind of like having a stunt guy explaining why he is hurt when the movies are pirated. Give the message a more common touch that the average person can relate to. I mean, how many industries actually have job security anymore, let alone having active campaigns to move their jobs out of the country. Film is in the same boat as a lot of manufacturing. Putting something on film like that would also give lawmakers something visual to go along with the hard work that the lobbyists are doing. Let them see what it is that we do and why is should be protected. An interesting idea. I am sure that there have to be plenty of people in town that would be interested to shooting something like that.

I would also like to agree with you about being upset about people blaming workers for driving the projects out of town. I have a relative who teaches Economics, and I have had more than one heated discussion with him about this same topic. You are not venting at all!! It is like blaming the folks in the mill towns for not working for $1/hour that some worker in a third world country will do, and actually wanting to have safe working conditions, therefore they must be driving the mill out of the country. It is preposterous. I get a little riled up myself.

Now, we can hope that the the production measures make it into the final version of the Job Creation Act. It is not ideal, but it is the best that we can do to compete. Unfortunately, the global environment is not likely to change anytime soon, so we all will need to adapt to it to keep up. Also unfortunately, entertainment is not one of the covered industries in the World Trade Organization negotiations, so we need to become as creative as Canada, and Romania, and South Africa. Did you know that they have replicated part of the California coast in South Africa for filming? They also made it look like Chicago in order to shoot Home Alone 4 there. Scary...

[–] Bishonen 20 years ago

The PSA idea is interesting...I remember watching that "anti-piracy" trailer that the studios put out, and my friends who were also in attendance (who are also workers in the industry) couldn't help but laugh bitterly when they saw that--- saying that piracy is to blame for jobs leaving the American film business is a big joke! Just a lot of propaganda put out by the MPAA (the voicebox of the big studios) which doesn't address that fact that for the past ten years, the primary reason for jobs leaving the U.S. is the executives and producers sending so much of the work overseas! Anyway, the ad idea is good, but where would they show it? It would be great, and a bit ironic, to show it before a Miramax film shot in Toronto, but I wonder if the studios would raise a ruckus about such a piece showing in theaters before their movies are shown when half their products are now shot in Canada or Europe. So, something like that might find a place as a TV spot?

I DID catch that article in the Daily News---like you, I hope it does not mean a repeat of 2001 (although 9/11 was a contributing factor to things going to Heck that year---almost all my friends were out of work and things did not really pick up until late 2002). I work in downtown L.A. and I've definitely seen a lot more activity here the last six months or so, with a lot more films shooting than years previous. Hopefully, more high-profile projects will stay in town---a big show like "X-Men" or "Catwoman" means a ton of crew positions, but those kinds of films have for the most part gone to Vancouver. Again, I'm sad that we've lost "Superman"---the most American of icons, about to generate tons of work for hundreds of Australian film workers.

The noise over "Cold Mountain" has grown slowly but surely since its release; the Cinematographers Union refused to host a screening of it recently, and a active email campaign/boycott has started over the studio's decision to make it Romania. Perhaps that's a good approach---the whole Runaway Production thing is such a big, complex problem that it's too big to tackle as a whole and too hard to explain to those not connected to the industry. An industry friend said that this is the perfect way to do it, by making an example of a specific high-profile movie, and using it as a test case to explain the problem and draw attention to a specific incident as a reflection of a greater issue. It's an even greater insult that the producers and filmmakers went around saying that American locations like the Carolinas were artistically inappropriate for making this movie and that's why they went to Romania---is it inappropriate when they disguise Toronto or Vancouver to look like New York or New Orleans or Pittsburgh or San Francisco or Seattle??!?!

Anyway, here's a good piece on the whole "Cold Mountain" issue...

http://www.azcentral.com/ent/movies/articles/0206coldmtn06.html

[–] ADWoman 20 years ago

Hey Bishonen, so the movie that we saved was Starship Troopers 2. It was even worse than I thought. I thought that it was supposed to go to Canada, but I just found out that it was actually supposed to go to Romania. At least in Canada there are more guidelines in place to protect the workers. I love my UPM and producer!!! I also found out that another movie, Sonny (Nicholas Cage movie), was supposed to go to Canada and was saved and shot here. It is great to know that there are people trying to save our jobs!!!

[–] Bishonen 20 years ago

There is the tax-break issue posed by countries like Canada and Australia, but to me, the problem presented by countries like Romania and South Africa is more ominous---at least in Canada the workers are protected by labor regulations, wage minimums and safety laws. The cheap labor in these developing countries may be great for producers trying to save $$, but in principle it's not so different from Walmart exploiting impoverished workers so they can pass the savings on to their American stores. The wages in those situations are constantly being underbid by increasingly under-paying contractors who couldn't care less about their workers and only see them as a means to an end. I don't think it's any different when Miramax goes to Romania to shoot their epic with cheap workers and extras---of course it makes sense economically, but should we condone it, and in effect support an increasingly stratified industry where the labor force is increasingly squeezed so the above-the-line participants can make their millions? Yes, this will still happen on a different scale even if the show is made in the U.S., but to accomplish it by taking to a country with bottom-of-the-barrel wages and few labor laws is unconscionable. I fully support a boycott of "Cold Mountain", even if the effect is only symbolic (although the industry-level boycott may have hurt its chances at more Oscars, as Mr.Weinstein has complained).

[–] Matt_Bassett 20 years ago

Hi,
I am a Media student at University in the UK and am looking to do my dissertation on the programme "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis", unfortunately i cannot get hold of a copy as it was not broadcast over here.
I was wondering if anyone involved in this conversation would be able to get hold of a copy, VHS would be fine, or would know of anyone who could. Postal expences would be paid. If you can help me with this matter please e-mail me at: [email protected]

Any help would be appreciated.

Many Thanks

Matthew Bassett

[–] evilevildoer 20 years ago

Showtime has been replaying it on cable.

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

[–] hillbilly1980 20 years ago

Its funny to me how many americans don't like capitalism. When you cross the border north of yourselves the people don't sudden turn to mutants. The human cost you speak of is canadians working for their rent, canadians feeding their families, canadians making a living.

The moving of jobs aways from the expensive labour market of the south is a mere market correction, granted its a big one because the US has spent so many years protecting its citezens by handicapping every other market out there. But now your part the WTO, NAFTA, and every other multinational organization and countries are using those tools to finally get a fair shake for their citizens.

At the end of the day you will see american unemployement levels rise to levels comparable with the rest of the worlds, Canada ( 7.9%). But as more jobs are shipped overseas more countries can pull themselves out of poverty, more consumers classes are created and more american goods can be sold. If you guys remain competive that is.

Or you have the alternative, you can start isolating yourselves economically and fall behind the rest of the world. Its not so much the US is given jobs away its the rest of the world is taking them. The world economy has become such that the rest of use can now efficiently work around the US, the policy leaders of the american government generally realize this and in order for them to play in the new world economy they need to start playing fair, aka the consumer ( corporations in this case) purchases the best product at the lowest price, (just like walmart).

[–] Heterodyne 20 years ago

Barbara:

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

[–] Boomwallah 20 years ago

I worked on this film.

Many of us(those who worked on it) wished that it stayed in America as well. The piece was so blatantly propaganda it felt very odd, as a Canadian, to be a part of it. We questioned why it was being filmed up here as most of you have done in this forum.But I did work on it as I work in the film industry and in a year where SARS nearly eliminated my livelihood, beggars couldn't be choosers.

The script was so one sided that it smelled so badly of being rubber stamped by Bush et al. Sure makes me scratch my head trying to figure out why it was filmed up here.

All seriousness aside, my favourite thing about working on this movie was to work with George Takei.

Mark

[–] Heterodyne 19 years ago

Oh my!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]