Welcome to Television
This community is for discussion of anything related to television or streaming.
Other Communities
Other Television Communities
A community for discussion of anything related to Television via broadcast or streaming.
Rules:
Be respectful and courteous to all members.
Avoid offensive or discriminatory remarks.
Avoid spamming or promoting unrelated products/services.
Avoid personal attacks or engaging in heated arguments.
Do not engage in any form of illegal activity or promote illegal content.
Please mask any and all spoilers with spoiler tags. ****
This article is just, "making a TV show is expensive and a lot of it goes to the place you made the show" ?
Why is it being framed as some huge charity case/economy boost? It's a TV show and they filmed it in one of the most expensive places available.
I suppose it could have all been sets and greenscreen and it would have been cheaper, and it was an intentional choice to spend more money in the city, but I didn't the why mentioned in the article at all.
It’s a trade paper, not a fan site. It’s relevant information to the industry it reports on.
Sets are also covered in the local spend figures.
Article made zero mention of how much the actors got paid from that 143 million
Because the lead actors aren’t part of local spend.
Even if they are local actors? And if that aren't, how much more could be spent in that area if they were
And okay, l gets say you are right, they barely mentioned where 40 million went, where did the bulk of that money go?
If you didn't pick up on it, what I'm suggesting is that the break down in the article was extremely light on where about 100 million dollars was spent where the article claims cause it and like that's a lot of bidding information
Edit/addendum
They attributed only 27.45 million of 146 million dollars that supposedly went into the economy.
If 100 million of that went to like 4 people, then claiming it supported the recovery is extremely disingenuous and misleading
Lead actors would be contracted centrally from LA, while day players and local recurring roles would be NY actors.
They’re basically talking about monies paid to NY contractors for construction, stages, crew, locations, catering, accommodation, equipment rental and materials.
When you are accepted into the production credit scheme you must keep an accounting of monies spent in that jurisdiction. That’s where this figure comes from, it doesn’t represent the total budget of the production which will spend elsewhere in LA and other places for post production- some of which is covered by other credit schemes in other locations, similarly accounted for.
Thanks
Also doesn’t mention how big the tax credit was. I mean, if it was a $20 million tax credit but the $143 million was actually spent on local goods, services, and employees, then that’s still great.
“Zero Day” also participated in New York’s film and TV tax credit program,”
Good pants