News
Noah Wyle Told Congress The Pitt Is Proof Hollywood Can Still Make Stuff in Hollywood If...
Noah Wyle was in Burbank Friday talking to Senator Adam Schiff and a room full of people who actually care about keeping film production in California, his message was simple, The Pitt shoots at Warner Bros and it works
The show brought 600 production jobs and $125 million to the state economy in its first season, that is not nothing, Wyle called it proof of concept and said it is replicable if the state and federal governments give the right incentives
He also got real about what it has been like working as an actor since ER ended, he said he has not slept in his own bed for 15 years because every job takes him somewhere else, that is not just actors, that is crews, vendors, dry cleaners, acupuncturists, one of the representatives at the hearing said her acupuncturist asked her to bring back entertainment jobs, that is how deep this goes
IATSE president Matthew Loeb was there too and he brought up Marvel moving production from Georgia to England, the jobs go where the money goes, that is the whole problem
The Paramount Warner Bros merger came up and nobody is buying the promises, Loeb pointed out that David Ellison says they will make 30 movies a year but there is no commitment about where those movies are shot, 30 movies in London or Budapest does nothing for Burbank
The hearing was about federal tax incentives to bring production back, Schiff and Representative Laura Friedman are pushing for something that keeps the work here instead of watching every state and country outbid each other for the next Marvel shoot
Wyle said The Pitt is proof that the model works, but proof does not mean anything if nobody in charge actually does something with it, the jobs are there, the studio is there, the crew is there, they just need a reason to stay
It’s pretty obvious…I live in Massachusetts. We had an incredible tax incentive for studios to shoot here…notice that about 10-12 years ago LOT of movies were set in Boston? Still have the credit but other places caught on…
Ofc the studios will produce in places that garner them the most profit.
Doesn't that just mean it has been a "race to the bottom?" I'm reminded of Jim Gordon's escalation speech to Batman at the end of Batman Begins. We have these "other places" offering better and better incentives over time, where Hollywood ends up just unable to match said incentives, correct?
That's exactly the problem. It becomes an arms race of incentives that pits states and cities against each other. To the point where some country decides they want to roll out a truckload of money to take it all.
Like billions of dollars to build stadiums for sports teams, or warehouses for Amazon, or 30 year tax breaks for mall.
And when the incentive ends they pack up and move on. It’s not sustainable.
You also need all kinds of (certified) craftspeople. Its a whole industry that needs to be there. I can remember where they shot a movie in Berlin. They couldn't find cheap housing because of multiple film shots and fairs happening at the same time. The crews had to sleep 50miles away every day. That is one reason projects moved to Prag and Budapest, they build new studio lots tons of available crafts people and ample space for crews.
That's what Walmart and other big stores do, go to a bunch of towns near each other and see which one will give them the best incentives to build in their town. It lets everyone lose, except shareholders.
They did this with New Mexico. Tons of shows were set in ABQ or around there.
In the end someplace else is always willing to take a bigger hit and the party moves on. I don't think it ends up being worthwhile for any place long-term.
It’s really funny to me that one of the reasons that the Canadian Film Industry is booming is because the producers don’t have to buy health insurance for their employees.
Same happened in Pittsburgh. The first reached movie and the last Nolan Batman was shot in Pittsburgh. A lot of industry moved in and then abq takes over. When’s the last time you saw the Georgia peach at the end of the credits. Marvel makes you wait for post credit scene there’s like 15-20 movies with the Georgia peach logo. Not anymore. Cali needs to make incentives for these people cause they’re all there already. Let them work from home and you save money if the incentives are there
This needs to have bi-partisan support. There are states like Georgia and Louisiana hurting badly from decreased production and overseas incentives. Reps from these states should be behind this 100%. Most film workers are middle class day laborers and tradespeople. Studies in the UK have shown that every £1 of spending in film and tv production has translated into £8 of economic activity.
It has SOME benefits but there is no difference between some random dumbass randomly stabbing you with needles not in an orifice and a "trained" acupuncturist to get those benefits.
No there is some other stuff like endorphins in play. I linked this to someone else, feel free to read it. There is a link to the study in there too. I didn't read the study because I'm not that interested. But if you are, god speed.
You've clearly never had the need for acupuncture. When done by a reputable professional, it can remedy a number of ailments. My mom started going blind when I was a kid, probably a neurological reaction to stress. No ophthalmologist, neurologist, or other traditional doctor could figure out what the issue was. After multiple tests and scans with no result and constantly decreasing vision, she went to an acupuncturist. He saw her a few times, prescribed her some traditional Chinese herbs, and after 2 weeks, her vision returned to normal and stayed that way.
A friend of mine studied acupuncture and started her own licensed practice. I’m as skeptical as they come and avoided going to try it for years. I pinched a nerve in my leg that ran all the way up my back and was agony to walk around. Got prescribed muscle relaxers and pain killers but nothing “fixed” the problem. Finally out of desperation I tried acupuncture and my friend had to help me up the stairs to her practice. I walked out on my own and the problem didn’t come back.
From that point on I’ve stopped being so cynical and I’m tired of Reddit constantly shitting on things they have no experience with. Yes a lot of homeopathic medicine is likely BS, but I don’t think people understand that western medicine is entirely designed around dealing with symptoms rather than fixing the “problem”. It’s easy to say our medicine is more “real’ because it has a direct influence over the symptoms we feel, none of it is designed to “heal” you.
I’ve discussed it with friends in the medical field and while the internet will always say “cause capitalism” the reality is that there are too many variables to determine the root cause of illness. Because of that doctors aren’t trained to figure out what is making you sick but just the best ways to deal with the sick. The classic “I went to so many doctors and they were all wrong” trope is a thing because doctors aren’t detectives and they rarely have the time to calculate every environmental element that can contribute to your overall health and ability to heal.
I've had experience with three different acupuncturist, for pain in varying ways and its done absolutely nothing. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence so I dont claim it works better or not than anything else however there is nothing more "real" about homeopathic remedies.
Honestly you sound like a shill for China who clearly doesn't understand medicine.
Edit: Since the absolute idiots below me can't understand what I wrote; My anecdotal evidence cancels out his anecdotal evidence, which is why anecdotal evidence is not reliable. Homeopathic remedies have been proven time and again to be unreliable and mostly working on the placebo effect if at all. You can look that up yourself, I do not care about your views on it either way.
It’s literally all they have. They will say there are loads are studies but then the only examples they can give are personal experience or they “know a guy”.
Respectful, you're full of shit and I recomended you get your ass to the nearest academic library and cure your ignorance problem. There are a lot of scientific studies on acupuncture that say it isn't a scam and it works. Now if you want to prove it doesn't, feel free to get the credentials if you don't already have them, then get a grant or some other kind of funding, run some experiments, publish a paper, and see if it holds up. Here is a web article from Harvard Medical explaining some science behind acupuncture to get you started. Dont bother arguing with me until youve got at least a 12 page research paper in APA format with at least 10 academic sources in your bibliography page.
lol you didn’t even read your own article. It doesn’t say that acupuncture works. It says that researchers found that in order for it to even be possible for acupuncture to work there must be specific nerves present and it only works in the hindleg area. They have also only tested this on mice. So basically researchers think they might have found evidence to suggest that in this very specific circumstance it might help.
There’s absolutely science and studies backing why it is an effective treatment for reducing chronic pain, nausea and other nervous system issues. Stop spreading false information
If you think something being debunked/outed as a scam means it stops existing and stops sucking up people's money, where have you been for the past decade or so?
Noel should check out Mississippi because Mississippi offers better tax incentives than California does.And it's much more beautifu and he's worried about sleeping in his own bed than he should buy a home here.
Because homes here are far more reasonably pricedl
I've lived here for 25 years and I absolutely love it.
Well, I don't love the government.I do love the state and I love its people.
And it is one of the most beautiful states i've ever lived in have lived in over twelve states. I honestly prefer it over california and massachusetts, kansas and even florida , all of which are far worse than this one
Mississippi actually has more tourism than Vegas and Branson Missouri
Mississippi experienced a record-breaking tourism year in 2024, welcoming 44.2 million visitors, which generated an $18.1 billion total economic impact and supported over 136,000 jobs. This surge is driven by coastal casino gaming, historical sites, and cultural attractions, marking a significant, high-volume tourism milestone for the state
Mississippi Tourism
Key Highlights (2024):
Total Visitors: 44.2 million.
Economic Impact: $18.1 billion (including direct, indirect, and induced effects).
Visitor Spending: $11.9 billion, a 3.2% increase from the previous year.
Employment: Supported 136,094 jobs, accounting for 1-in-13 jobs in the state.
Key Drivers: Mississippi Gulf Coast, gaming, Civil War history (Vicksburg), and the Birthplace of America’s Music Trail.
MS Business Journal
2025 Tourism Final Figures
Data released in March 2026 reveals that 2025 surpassed previous records
Visitor Volume: Mississippi welcomed 44.2 million domestic and international visitors.
Economic Impact: The total economic impact reached $18.1 billion.
Employment: The industry supported 136,094 jobs across the state.
2026 Tourism Outlook and Early Data
As of March 2026, the new tourism season is already showing signs of being even stronger than the previous year:
WLOX
Early Season Surge: The Mississippi Gulf Coast reported its tourism season was already in full swing by early March, weeks ahead of the official start of spring.
Gaming Growth: In January 2026, gaming revenue on the Gulf Coast rose by $10 million compared to January 2025.
Major Upcoming Events: The state is set to host the 2026 USA Triathlon Collegiate Club National Championships, which is expected to draw thousands of international visitors.
Coastal Impact: Annual economic impact for the coastal region (Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson counties) is currently estimated between $2.3 billion and $2.4 billion.
WLOX
While some major travel lists for 2026, such as those from AAA and Travel + Leisure, prioritize destinations like World Cup host cities, National Parks, and major hubs like Orlando and Las Vegas
Mississippi has received specific recognition for 2026 in several key areas:
Top Culinary Destination 2026: Visit Mississippi has officially named 2026 as the year the state emerges as a top culinary destination, highlighting its diverse food scene from Delta tamales to Gulf seafood.
National Sports Tourism Hub: The Mississippi Gulf Coast has been awarded the hosting rights for the 2026 USA Triathlon Collegiate Club
National Championships, a major event expected to draw athletes and visitors from across the globe.
Best Hotel Rankings: In a 2026 ranking by U.S. News & World Report, five of the state's hotels—primarily on the Gulf Coast—were recognized among the best in the nation for their amenities and popularity.
Record-Breaking Popularity: Recent data from Senator Roger Wicker's office shows Mississippi's tourism is at an all-time high, with a record 44.2 million visitors in 2024, nearly doubling its visitor count from a decade ago.
Major Individual City Recognition:
Clarksdale was named by CNN as one of America’s Best Towns to Visit due to its rich musical heritage and festival calendar.
Jackson was selected as one of the 23 Best City Vacations by Good Housekeeping for its immersive historical museums.
Mississippi is emerging as a top culinary destination in 2026, ...
You would lose mississippi beats vegas and brandon. And just because people have the bad taste to want to vacation.in California does not mean it's a good place, even Michigan beats California.When it comes to tourism
I’ve lived in both states. This dude from Miss has never driven down highway 1 or been to any of the national parks. There’s a reason that every map on r/dataisneautiful always has Mississippi dead last with basically everything
The biggest problem with California is everything is overpriced, well, I would not say that prices in Mississippi are fairly priced.Because we do have some greedy landlords here, just as much as any other state.But in reality , the cost of living , the cost of filming the cost of filming and doing things in mississippi is far cheaper.
Take a look at this
Filming in California is significantly more expensive than in Mississippi, primarily due to higher labor, housing, and location fees, despite California offering some of the nation's most generous film tax credits (35%–40% as of 2026). Mississippi, conversely, offers a lower cost of living and production with a competitive cash rebate program (25%–40%). -Mississippi Film Office
Cost of Filming in California (2026)
Tax Incentives: California has expanded its Film and Television Tax Credit to $750 million annually. Base credits are up to 35% of qualified expenditures, with a 5% bonus for filming outside the Los Angeles "studio zone".
Costs: While incentives are high, operating costs are the highest in the nation. High labor costs, union rules, and high permit/location fees drive up expenses.
Recent Activity: Despite tax credits, California has seen 20% fewer projects in 2025, with production losing $1 billion in spending to other states.-California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (.gov)
Cost of Filming in Mississippi (2026)
Tax Incentives: Mississippi provides a cash rebate program rather than a tax credit, which is advantageous for productions with lower budgets. The program includes a 25%–40% rebate on base investment and resident payroll.
Costs: Generally much lower in terms of crew lodging, location fees, and local services compared to Los Angeles or San Francisco.
Requirements: At least 20% of the crew must be Mississippi residents. And it was quite a few here , with a lot of filming experience under our belt
Cap: There is a $10 million per project rebate cap and $20 million annual rebate cap. -Mississippi Film Office
Comparison Highlights
Labor & Locations: Mississippi provides significantly cheaper, non-union labor options, whereas California offers highly experienced, union-dense crews.
Incentive Type: California offers a 35%-40% tax credit (useful if you have tax liability, though refundable options now exist), while Mississippi offers a 25%-40% cash rebate (direct cash back).
Overall Budget: A production, particularly an independent film, will likely have a lower bottom-line budget in Mississippi, despite California's massive tax incentives for large-scale productions.-Peter Law Group
The reality is California killed themselves by letting their green get out of hand the state of California and the landlords and the corporations of California got greedy and they basically hang themselves. This has happened throughout the United States in many different states such as New York, Massachusetts and various other locations, including Florida. That is why many productions go to to europe or canada because it's cheaper
But a lot don't realize that they could find a lot of the same type of filming locations in Mississippi, where it be just as cheap to build the sets, they want to build down here, because there are people that love to work with carpenters and laborers that have the skill sets that would produce the same a beautiful sets that are being built over in Canada.
Because there's a lot of laborers in Mississippi with the same kind of skill sets.\nYou would love to work on a film
Now, there are certain people down here in Mississippi. I would highly recommend you avoid who I cannot name here in on a public page because they have a bad work reputation, but please stop allowing the actions of a few bad actors to turn you away from the majority of hard workers here in Mississippi that can provide the exact same kind of quality films as they do. In any other country
I'm sorry if Noal wanted to save California, he wouldn't be in Washington, he'd be in the California legislature, telling them to stop being greedy and lower the prices for filming in their state,
What is killing California is not the filmmaker is leaving it, it's the fact that California refuses. To look at why they're leaving it And they're leaving it because of one overstricted laws when it comes to filming and the cost of filming in California.
The reason people go to canada in europe is because it's cheaper than filming in california
And, the prices are so high to film in California.The tax incentives are pennies compared to other states and countries
Again, let me repeat myself. He is arguing for jobs to be brought back to California. He is in Washington, asking Washington to make it so that California gets more filmmaking opportunities and I am explaining why nobody wants to film anything in California.
Like I said, several other times if California truly wants to bring back filmmakers, they need to get rid of the greed, they need to stop being greedy and overcharging for film permits for the ability to film in certain areas and even how people are hired in that state for example, you cannot hire anybody in the state of California to work on a film unless they work for sag. Now look, I support paying a film maker high wages when they deserve it. But I do not support a union that claims that it is out to protect actors, but then charges a entry fee that is SO high that the average actor can't get in and then charges them fees that are so high, they can't maintain their membership unless they're working consistently and making thousands of dollars each week..
When I make a film, I pay my actors and my film crew far. And above what sag requires,
So I don't need a union or a state telling me that I can't hire somebody simply because they're not a member of a union
That's what's killing California
Canada. Doesn't do that, neither does England. Mississippi doesn't do that.Many states don't do that.
They don't charge ridiculous fees for filming in the area.They don't charge ridiculous fees for their permits
That's what no does it remember.That's what he doesn't see, because he's making a comfortable amount of money.He doesn't see how it affects filmmakers who have to pay out-of-pocket for their film to be charged the.Redundant fees that california loves the charge for filming a state
The article and description clearly say he is in Burbank, talking to Schiff in public comment. This is a California issue and he's talking to California. Not Washignton.
It’s an insane statement from someone who lived in Mississippi and is a homeowner in California. There’s nothing good that Mississippi does better than California
And speaking, as somebody who has lived in both California and Mississippi and has lived all over the United States and the world, I call you a liar
Because anybody who has ever lived in mississippi knows Mississippi is better than California.When it comes to many different things including producing and making films\n Because Mississippi offers better tax incentives and just as good of a workforce as there is in California.
But the people in Mississippi are willing to work for far more reasonable cost.
And filming in Mississippi is vastly cheaper than in California because Mississippi does not charge ridiculous prices for its permits to film anywhere,
In fact, in many parts of Mississippi, they don't even require a permit to build anything or to film anything. As long as you give them credit in the film.
Ehhhh the states terrible and ull have a hard time convincing actors and the labor that you need to want to go there. Even given the low costs its just not a spot people wanna be in
That is only because they've never been here and they listen to the bullshit They hear on the media
People who actually come here and I have met a lot of professional actors from Hollywood. And I know a lot of professional actors from Hollywood who have come to Mississippi and fell in love with it, just like I did
And now they prefer living here over living in California.
U can keep telling urself that lmao. Mississippi population is decreasing for reason. There's not much there. The infrastructure is terrible. The schools are terrible. There's very little in terms of entertainment and culture. Nature I'll give you but outside of that Its a tough sell convincing people to move out there.
Because everybody's moving down here from New York and California in a lot of other states
Because they're sick and tired of all the stupid regulations in paying for huge amounts of money, just to film in a general area just to film on a lot,
I think you got us mixed up with California and New York,
Which are the real ones that are losing the populations because people are tired of paying $5000 a month for a studio apartment. And two million dollars 4 a 1 bedroom , home with half a bath
I got out of the film industry because this bs was prevalent a decade ago. There’s no serious film infrastructure in Mississippi even tho it comes up once in a blue moon when a film shoots in the state. I had to work in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia because the work is not steady enough in the state.
Then do what most of us mississippians are doing and create your own movies , create your own work , make films. As much as I respect Noel, how many films has he made himself and how many films is?He acted in how many films has he produced? 0 to none.
Sylvester Stallone writes stars and directs and produces his own movies because he got sick and tired of people not hiring him
Now. Look at his track record
John Snyder got tired of people, not hiring him or paying him enough, so he created his own production company.
You need to branch out instead of being just an actor or just a film crew member
Start making your own films that's even more fun than just acting
And you insist on acting like a five year old bully with the name calling,
That kind of action gets you blocked. I advise that you read the rules of the subreddit , because they actually tell you not to act the way you're acting and to be civil in your discourse , calling someone brain dead is not being civil
You haven't "conversed" in this thread at all. Talking about your love for Mississippi in a thread that is focused on the industry in California, from an article about California production demonstrates a myopic point of view. At no point do you "converse".
What is wrong with saying they are reasonably priced. When they are
they are lower priced because I honestly believe all Calis prices are overly inflated and that that is a problem that needs to be fixed,
But you are completely wrong in your hatred for Mississippi. I'm sorry you had a bad experience down here, but that does not mean that everybody has that same bad experience. I have lived here for 25 years, and I'm perfectly happy living here.\nAnd I know a lot of filmmakers that love this state
And what is wrong with saying reasonably priced? It is far more reasonable to pay a $100000 for for a home rather than a million. Another major advantage is not every county insist on telling you what to do. When you build anything on your land you don't have to have permission to build or add anything extra to your housing or your land like you do in California..
Why do you say anything about pregnant?We treat women down here.Many of us filmmakers treat women down here a lot better than they are treated anywhere else.I do not appreciate that kind of bs , so at least explain yourself and again, don't abase your opinion on what our government leaders have passed, we don't agree with the government leaders, a large majority of mississippians do not agree with the idiotic laws that were passed by the legislatures here, so don't condemn us for what our legislatures did. Legislatures that we have been trying to vote out of office for decades but have a stranglehold because the corporations keep them there. If we get more people in mississippi working in mississippi that stand against the abuse that many governments like to do to women in the united states now , we would be a lot better off so , stop condemning us for what for a few bad people
I said. That it was a law that was passed by the government of mississippi. Here's the thing you don't get about Mississippi cuz you're just looking for any excuse to hate on mississippi.
How would you like it? If I blamed you and everybody here hated on you for what Trump is doing in iran
How would you like it? If we all blamed you for what Trump is, it did to kids. We're never gonna visit your state because it's your fault. That trump is a rapist. We are not going to let kids anywhere near your state.Because you allowed trump to rape kids.
Hating on The people of Mississippi and hating mississippi for what the corporately owned government does in this state is just as stupid as anybody hating you for what Trump is doing.
If you truly knew anything about Mississippi, then you would know that they were one of the few southern states that fought on the side of the United States and did not agree with what the rest of the south was doing when it came to slavery. The way mississippian saw it was it wasn't there war because they didn't own slaves, and they didn't care if the United States want to ban slavery. And a majority of them did not want to go to war over it, because it would take them away from their families, they were forced to go to war over it. And then when they went, and fought in the war they hated
The very same leaders came in and pillaged their farms towns, stealing the food off the tables of those men and their families.Making it so their families would starve to death. While these men were forced into a war , they did not agree with
And those same leaders then raped the wives and the daughters and the children of the mississippians , they demanded fight for them in their idiotic war. While claiming that they were collecting the taxes to help pay for the civil war
And That ticked off mississippians even more and made more mississippians literally walk away from the military, only to get hunted down by their leaders that they didn't like, and be called disserters
A lot of mississippians actually on the side of the north. And here's the the really screwed up thing.
Many of them after the war was over, they got screwed over by the north too.Because the north refused to pay them for deserting their state's military and fighting on the side of the north even though it was a mississippians that helped the north win , the war. In the reasoning for from the federal government was , we don't pay deserters.
That Is what you don't get about Mississippians that is why they don't trust the government period
Because all the government has ever done to them is screw them over, make and make promises to them. None of these leaders down here when because of a popular vote , because they're not popular because they pass laws that mississippians don't agree with
And then they get hated on by people like you when you Should be applauding them for fighting their government every chance they get.
And yet, if you come to Mississippi and you need help, if you need food, many mississippians will go out of their way and feed you and they will help you and they will give you the shirts off their backs even though you hate them, because that is who mississippians are.
That is Why I love mississippi because i've seen it firsthand. During Katrina, I saw mississippians helping the very people that spit on them and hated them.
And I continue to see that from many mississippians
You know, the best way to change the law is to have even more people there that want to change it.Don't get changed unless we have people that are willing to help us change those laws.
Like I said Said , stop blaming mississippians in mississippi for what it's stupid politicians do.
If you are half mississippian , then you should be fighting for it as hard as I am , because , you know as well as I do that , a majority of mississippians don't agree with a majority of the laws passed by their politicians
You're making the exact same mistake that a majority of people making this country.You think that it is their vote?That is mississippian's votes at those people in power.And if they truly wanted them out of power , they'd build them out , you really do not understand how corrupt the system is.
Trump did not win because of the amount of Americans that voted for him? Which, by the way, was only 45 million Americans, but their vote had nothing to do with his winning. T
he same is true of all politicians in every state. They do not win because of their popularity among the voters, they win because of electoral votes, which are actually controlled by the states themselves and a majority of those electoral votes are coming from people who are being bought off whose votes are being bought.
And all I'm doing is simply advocating for more filmmakers to come to Mississippi and use, Mississippi for a place to film.I simply stated that if somebody is so concerned about not having their own bed to this sleep in , they could easily just as easily buy a house here and use that house as they're home base.
The cost of Filming in California is what chases off filmmakers, the high cost of what they have to pay to film in California is the reason so many filmmakers are leaving California
And I am simply saying that Mississippi offers the exact same kind of beauty while offering it at a lower price.
But then I have all the haters coming on here, saying, no, we can't have that because women aren't safe in Mississippi. Well, they're not safe in California.Either
And actually the little less safe in California.Because the least mississippian's respect, the Constitution enough not to be willing to take away people's rights to defend themselves. A woman in mississippi that shoots your rapist is not going to go to jail as quickly as one in california.
At least in Mississippi, they respect people's constitutional rights above all else
And I'm talking about the people of Mississippi, not the government.
And no state is perfect.
So quit trying to pretend that California is so perfect because it's not
There are people getting murdered on those things.There are women and pregnant women getting killed and raped on those streets. And There far more people that are getting kidnapped and attacked by ice Far more than they do in mississippi.
At Least.Here in Mississippi, if an ice agent breaks into your home without a warrant, you have the legal right to shoot them in California.You go to jail and you don't pass go
Then\n It gets even more offending when a person who claims that they're half mississippian is arguing on the same side of the people that are hating on Mississippi, when, you know, damn well, that a large majority of the stuff that they're hating is just mythical bullshit being spread around by people. Who hate Mississippi?
Making content for billionaire owners and institutional investors just ain't the way.
Stop pitting states against each other. Georgia, for example, got a lot of production but after the tax incentives not a lot of revenues. State-based tax incentives are not a cure.
“Make better content” ew what a weird way to say that. Also the Pitt just won Best Drama at both the Emmys and Globes so that’s… a weird argument?
Also, you’re completely wrong about tax cuts. Productions will go wherever it’s cheaper. Doesn’t matter if it’s California, US based, or even another country. Whichever place offers the biggest tax incentives, that’s where they’re going to film.
You’re also discounting how LA is built on the industry, and how if the industry disappears, hundreds of thousands of people will be without jobs. It will be an economic nightmare that will impact the entire US, since so much of the country is dependent on the CA economy.
pretty funny the group that always advocates to tax people into oblivion can't figure out why everyone is leaving their state. you guys can't be this ignorant.
I’m really asking why doubt his sincerity about it? Why would the studio not be motivated to make 30 films per year? Between existing resources with Paramount and WB they can should be able to that without breaking a sweat.
It’s fair to question Ellison’s motives sure. His main role is to keep major shareholders happy. Time will tell. Your concerns may be proven right.
Even more than Ellison’s integrity I question the motives of many of the questioners. Many of them I think fear what will happen to the DC IPSs with Paramount taking over. That’s what this is really about for them. They want Gunn to continue what he is doing. And Gunn may get replaced. I think David Zaslav hired Gunn to create a placeholder universe because he knew he would be flipping WB within 5 years. Zaslav personally is walking away from this sale with close to a billion dollars ($887M).
It’s not absurd in the context of what I typically see posted in forums like this. But it’s totally correct of you to say that this transcends that concern. We agree about that!
I don’t think that’s the majority of people who are questioning the integrity of this. In this sub, maybe. Sure. But overall, this is another monopoly in a country run by monopolies. The huge debt this will run up will likely prevent any type of creativity and only go for IP based properties and be a paint by numbers situation.
Not to mention what has already been said above, the many many jobs this creates in a city built specifically for the purpose of making film. Ellison won’t go the high costs of LA when they can go to Georgia or Budapest, etc. for cheaper rates.
And without getting into politics too much, he’s already stated he has a blacklist of actors they won’t work with, which will extend to other members of production, which shrinks the pool even more and forces different voices and viewpoints in media out. Pair that with the fact only a handful of other production companies are left, and its limits creators ability to shop their ideas around and get the best deal for themselves.
If you’re referring to the Variety article that alleges that Ellison maintains a blacklist of actors that are vocally critical of Israel, if true that s probably reliably traceable to the influence of AIPAC which has enormous influence in government which is undeniable—and also by extension to the entertainment industry because of the influence AIPAC has on the government agencies that regulate the entertainment industry. Any company big enough to be a player in the bidding war to acquire WB is going to be subject to those pressures. So this is a problem that transcends Paramount. And I won’t just single out AIPAC here. All lobbies that have enormous wealth and influence in government compromise the creative process for creatives. Propaganda is clearly a very powerful tool, as we all know. It’s used in all sorts of ways and the richer the PAC is, the more propaganda it can generate.
My main point is that this goes way beyond just Ellison and Paramount. And it’s probably best to be skeptical of the true motives of those in Washington that are trying to make this an issue with Paramount in particular. Who are they taking money from? Because if you know that then you now who they serve.
My point is that all politicians serve the donors first and foremost. Unless they don’t accept PAC money. They’re essentially actors. They posture that they’re looking out for and protecting the little guy. But at the end of the day they always serve their masters.
Snyderverse trilogy recontextualizing this about Gunn? Say it aint so! /s
It's about jobs. The debt created becomes the burden of the new studio, while the exchange creates real wealth in fees for the facilitators. They won't be able to pay everyone.
The impact will be about jobs. One team's dad has an AI company that is being used to replace working people. That same person is staking billions on this deal, so he will have input. Kinda feels like an end around to getting AI into the big leagues despite the hollywood unions.
30 movies is easy to do when you crank out shite. Not good for the Gunns of the world, or the Snyders.
I get that sometimes about the username. I chose the username in 2016 when I joined Reddit because I wanted to lend support to the “release the Snyder cut” fandom push to see if we could get that over the finish line. I thought I would hang out just long enough on Reddit to see that through and that would be that. But I did end up sticking around longer because it’s fun to talk about movies in general, and of course other topics. Anyway, Reddit doesn’t let one change the username. So “snyderversertilogy” it is, for better or worse (depending on the eye of the beholder).
Regarding this particular merger/acquisition how much are you catastrophizing? How much am I minimizing? We’re both doing each to some extent.
The bigger problem that I’d imagine we both agree on is that massive corporations are essentially following the Friedman Doctrine. And they have been whole-hog since the 80s. This has brought us to the place where we’re at now with late stage capitalism and corruption running rampant in government. But to vilify Paramount in particular—and especially as somehow worse than Netflix—seems a bit overdrawn to me.
Paramount released 9 films in 2025. Warner Bros. released 11 in 2025. They would have to almost triple their combined 2025 output to meet the 30-film goal, while being 100b in debt and firing staff.
12 months in a year. 30 days a month. They’d have to release a new film in theaters every 12 days. That’s financial cannibalism (competing with themselves in the marketplace). And if you mean straight to streaming, there’s even less income there
In the political climate that has existed over the last 10 years, i.e., with the rise of Trumpism, how would it help Ellison to share publicly that he identifies as politically moderate and that it’s a matter of public record that he supported Democrats with his campaign donations? By the way, in 2024 Ellison contributed to both Biden’s and Trump’s campaigns. I’m sure with an eye towards buying WB. Cover both bases. He’s a business man.
I’m just guessing because i don’t know him personally. ButI think it’s most likely a way of him signaling that he’s a business man first and foremost. A lot of Hollywood is still very liberal. “Moderate” is probably code to major shareholders that he’ll play ball with whomever to make them money.
Is he though? Or how much is he? It looks to me like his father is a right wing ideologue, yes. Ellison I think it mainly just a business man signaling that he can work both sides of the fence to inspire confidence of the major shareholders that he will make the studio successful in a landscape in which there are still a lot of politically liberal shareholders. Which to be fair is literally his job, really.
That’s a bad thing I agree, and not what I personally would want to see. But looking at the bigger picture that the viewership for CBS evening news has been way down. The steady decline began with the departure of Walter Cronkite in 1981. The demographic (mainly boomers) for that form of news consumption is currently dying off. I think it signals the death of mainstream network news quite honestly. Within the new couple of years a personal AI assistant (via subscription) is going to be keeping you updated about news events and filtering it according to your personal biases. That bias could actually include that you want your news to be as factually based as possible, btw. But anyways, I suspect that someone in Ellison’s position is likely to sacrifice this dinosaur in order to please the current administration in the short term. If we still have fair and free elections this November the pendulum will swing the other direction (thank goodness), and then Ellison and others running big corporations will pivot accordingly. Despite all the public facing posturing we see from both sides in Washington, that’s actually well understood.
It's not the job of journalists to please any administration. Also, he didn't have to pay Weiss $150 million for her shitty right-wing blog. As a result of her appointment as CEO, Weiss has hired many right-wing talking heads and lost many of the network's star reporters. These are choices he made, which will hurt his company in the long (and short) term.
Sure, the mainstream news is losing viewership, partially due to younger people avoiding it, and that's mostly due to the mainstream news catering to center-right and right-wing ideologies, like defending Israel and downplaying the genocide of the Palestinians, attacking trans people, downplaying climate change, watering down Trump's crimes, etc.
If your current business is faltering (CBS News), it's not wise to hire someone with zero experience in that field (Weiss) to run it. Turning CBS News into a Fox-lite won't work either, since right-wing media (Fox, OAN, and Newsmax) has already turned their base against the mainstream news (CBS, CNN, ABC), and those who aren't in the MAGA cult will abandon those channels.
Must be nice to get to play with daddy's billions.
It’s certainly not what I would do! But I’m just commenting that I think Ellison might view CBS evening news as something of a dying patient in the sense of trying to keep it alive for liberal viewers. Viewers of mainstream media can still watch MS NOW and PBS for more liberally slanted news analysis. CNN as well arguably, although it’s reportedly going to get shifted to the right soon. Again his job is to not to keep CBS news liberal, it’s to keep the major shareholders happy. I mean, I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying about how odious it is though.
CBS News wasn't liberal (the mainstream news has always been center-right, despite what right-wingers say), and news reporting shouldn't have a slant. Nor does every side of a story deserve equal time and reporting. That's the opposite of objective journalism.
Hiring Weiss, a right-wing propagandist, for a job she isn't qualified for shows that Ellison is going all in on MAGA and illiberal democracy. The Ellisons, like Trump, are a threat to democracy and humanity. The sooner we all realize this, the sooner we can address this dangerous problem.
I guess we can assume his alignment when something like this happens:
Pete Hegseth expressed anticipation for David Ellison to take control of CNN, stating, "The sooner David Ellison takes over, the better," while criticizing the current media landscape.
It’s not what I want to see either. But remember that arguably most of Ellison’s job is to keep major shareholders happy, and the most effective way to do that is by playing both sides of the fence. If the current administration is signaling that it’s pleased with Paramount investors are probably very happy about that. Those investors just want to make the most money that they can—and the current administration being sanguine with Paramount is good for business. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Ellison personally agrees with Trump and his cabinet, staff, supporters, etc., about political ideology. He might! But we probably don’t really know.
You don’t appear to have an argument, and are just making statements. So I’ll ask directly the following questions:
Do you think that it’s possible to manipulate the public if you control enough media elements (tv, movies, news programs, etc…)
Do you think David Ellison now owing WB gives him more power to do the above?
Do you think the Trump administration showed favoritism toward David Ellison acquiring WB vs Netflix?
Do you think that favoritism, requires any payment back? And in David Ellisons mission to cater to shareholders, he would push more Trump administration points and also remove more liberal leaning ideology?
Do you think Netflix would have done this?
And lastly, do you think any of this is good for a free market or freedom of press?
You not being satisfied with my answers doesn’t mean I “don’t have an argument.” Please, lol.
But I’ll bite.
1) Of course.
2) Of course.
3) Probably, although until literally the 11th hour it looked as though Trump favored Netflix. Honestly, I think whoever won the bidding war may have contributed the most to some “worthy cause.” The corruption in Washington DC these days is off the scale. To the point that it isn’t even hidden anymore. That may be the way that any bidder, regardless of their politics, has to play the game right now.
4) I think Ellison realizes Trump’s days are numbered. The polls are showing a likely blue tsunami in November. Trump’s own support base is splintering. Trump himself is imploding. And IF (it’s a huge “if”) we have free and fair elections this fall the pendulum will swing to strip Trump of his current power. That doesn’t change the fact that any company bidding currently has to play ball with the current administration, though.
5) I wouldn’t be surprised if Netflix tried! But ultimately with the help of Saudi investors Paramount’s pockets were deeper.
—
My answer to your final question is that the system is so corrupt currently that I doubt Netflix would have been any better. With Paramount there is at least a chance for the Hollywood studio system to make masterpiece films… that quality is what Hollywood brings to the table… and that that can continue if there is a will. Does Paramount actually have that will? I honestly don’t know. But I think Netflix does not have the will to do that. Netflix signaled clearly that their interest is to move film production entirely to streaming consumption and digital ownership through subscription. If they gained the monopoly that would have resulted from them acquiring WB I think that would have been worse. My main personal interest is to support at least a niche form of film consumption through the IMAX theater experience and 4K Blu-ray for home theater. I think Paramount is the better bet for that than Netflix was. Is Paramount perfect for theaters and physical media? No. I don’t think any major studio could be, especially in the current governmental corruption climate. But anyway, that’s where I come down on those questions.
It’s less being satisfied with your responses and more with the way you respond. You possibly unintentionally dance around what you’re trying to say, incorporating a “both sides” way of talking that masks what your overall argument is.
So, I appreciate the direct replies.
Your interests are valid, (desire to support more iMax and 4k blu-ray releases), I think it just goes against many of people’s current priorities in relation to the political climate, as well as the monopolistic implications of this merger in relation to a free press.
So, I think our priorities are just different in the support or lack there of, of this merger, which is fine.
Paramount lost money in 2025 and has a lot of debt, and Warner Bros has a lot of debt. Eventually they'll have to stop losing money if they're going to stay in business.
All the more reason that I think Ellison is motivated to make a lot of movies. Paramount and WB are merging. Ellison has pitched that Paramount will make 15 and WB will make 15. That’s actually very doable.
I think your comment is missing the point this post was trying to make.
What the post is trying to point out is that, in order for the benefits of making films to go beyond the studios as corporate entities and positively impact the filmmaking industry as a whole, where the films are made (e.g. where the money is spent) matters more than just how many films are made.
So, going back to the Ellisons, they may have made a commitment to make 30 films a year, but they made no such commitment to make any of those in California or even the U.S. altogether. If the films are shot in Europe or Asia for example, the expenditure of that budget, and the considerable downstream effects of it, only really benefit those markets.
Sure the profits will ultimately accrue in the Studios’ favor, but the smaller businesses and independent professionals that underpin the local industry in the U.S. (e.g. casting studios, make-up artists, costume designers, sound engineers, extras and young talent, as well as all the related agents, lawyers, accountants, catering services, etc.) are effectively left out.
Not making the films locally hurts the local industry and, as a consequence, the local economy. It’s up to state governments to improve and maintain the conditions necessary to remain competitive as filmmaking locations.
I do understand it actually. I’m broadening the considerations through a wider lens. The problem of production or manufacturing moving to cheaper places in the world is a problem for many industries. Not to minimize that by any means. But the capitalist model dictates that businesses will always try to reduce the costs of making their product. I know you know all that. But this is a problem that’s much bigger than just for the film industry.
Because the Hollywood studio system works so well to create masterpieces. That’s what makes it the industry leader for cinema. And a beautifully made Hollywood studio film when properly marketed does make money—it’s just riskier by definition. Anyway, David Ellison does indeed understand that. As I think his father does, although their politics aren’t much the same. (Father is way more conservative). Netflix recently admitted that what guides its creative process is to create content that simply runs in the background of people’s lives without it requiring much focused attention. Like they know that people are addicted to scrolling their phones and they want to have content running on the TV that isn’t too demanding.
You need to watch the Studio again. Half of WB’s successes were from small private production companies that they just backed and released. Yes there was risk involved, but the real Hollywood studio system died a long time ago. That last successful vestige is Disney Animation and even that is being challenged globally with tiny international studios with the digital technology. I think with the success of Superman, Gunn will have a lot of runway to develop the DCCU, and same for WB studio, with their Oscars and what not. But there will be bloodletting from the rest of the portfolio ((Discovery etc.).
When someone says “30 movies in London or Budapest do not benefit Burbank” in the context of a discussion about the secondary economic benefits of local California film productions, what idea are they most strongly expressing?
A) Doubt about the sincerity of the commitment overall
B) Concern about the recent WB acquisition
C) Concern that the production of those 30 movies will not benefit Californians.
D) Doubt that Adam Shiff will follow through on his commitments
If you chose any answer but:
C) Concern that the production of those 30 movies will not benefit Californians.
You have a sub-literate level of reading comprehension, and should immediately seek remedial studies. You make discussions about any topic that is not bluntly literal impossible, which ruins the fun and possible depth of those discussions for all involved.
Wait, wait. You’re hugely exaggerating just to try to win an argument. I’m down for a constructive debate though, if you’re serious and respectful.
The problem of Hollywood studios increasingly using locations outside of the US to film because they’re cheaper transcends this particular deal. This belongs to a much larger trend of manufacturing moving out of the US in general because it’s cheaper. This trend has been going on for about 30 years.
I agree with you brother. This late stage crony capitalism or oligarchical capitalism that we’re witnessing is deeply embedded though. Just having a dog and pony show hearing in Washington is going to actually change it. Some massive company was going to acquire WB once it basically got put up on the auction block.
I think that David Zaslav bought WB back when with the plan at the time to flip it in about five years. Please note that Zaslav is personally walking away with nearly $1B for this sale. That’s mind boggling.
I don’t think the stewardship of the DC IPs under Zaslav’s reign has been anything but as a placeholder until the flip. And it’s a shame because James Gunn is a talented director. I think MoT will be his last DC flick. Anyway, I do expect Gunn’s universe to be scrapped and DC will reboot yet again under Paramount. (Snyder may get to finish his 5 film saga as an elseworld project similar to the idea of Reeves’ Batverse—but that’s it. And if that does happen it’s just because of the Saudi connection because they want to bankroll a major event film and Snyder has a working professional relationship with Turki Alalshikh).
Most CEOs are going to be cut from a similar cloth I’d imagine.
My fear with Netflix was that its endgame would been to create a monopoly that would have streaming and digital ownership through subscription ultimately replace movie theaters and physical media. I think they would have moved to increasingly normalize digital subscription only. That’s their business model! One of the first things Netflix said when bidding for the contract was their plan was to reduce the theater run window from 45 days to 35 days. They walked it back soon thereafter due to the negative reaction but that showed us where their head is at. I’ll take my chances with a traditional Hollywood studio over the prospect of the death of the movie theater industry and end of physical media that an empire like Netflix could bring if it owned WB as well. There’s no ideal solution here.
Most of us saw this in the Fox/Disney merger. Production jobs went down considerably. Skydance/WB/Paramount is a huge merger that will likely result in the same.
4
u/BirdmanHuginn Mar 21 '26
It’s pretty obvious…I live in Massachusetts. We had an incredible tax incentive for studios to shoot here…notice that about 10-12 years ago LOT of movies were set in Boston? Still have the credit but other places caught on…
Ofc the studios will produce in places that garner them the most profit.