thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on May 22, 2019 14:39:57 GMT -5
If they have been scouting locations, and still are, they (a) dont look at any places in GA and (b) put the scenes they already picked a GA location for back on the list and start over. So, it may cause more work, or change their schedule and it may be that they are "pulling out" from a location in GA. Are you now saying that refusing to consider GA as an option isn't really a boycott because they didn't already have a contract there? Yes, I assumed they had something lined up to film there (even just looking at what the movie is, seemed like a fit for GA). I just wasn't positive it was backing out of something already planned, or just backing out of considering something among other options. Either way it's certainly more of a commitment to a boycott than all the people saying "we'll film there now, but later we won't". I think a lot of production decisions are made, including where most of the work will take place before they begin scouting locations. Maybe they were negotiating with support companies, or cancelling contracts. Locations are just a piece of the pie. I'm not sure this conversation is fruitful. You are dismissing everyone's actions as not having an economic impact on GA. If a movie is getting the green light today and they dont even consider GA, GA has lost potential revenue. If in the next 5 years, GA's film industry is cut in half because new movies are less likely to go there, it will hurt GA a lot, even if none of the movies have any current business in the state. If voters are nervous about their jobs, they may vote differently and demand the new legislators change the law. You can think it wasn't due to companies announcing they will pull out, and maybe you are right. It is hard to say.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 22, 2019 14:59:30 GMT -5
Yes, I assumed they had something lined up to film there (even just looking at what the movie is, seemed like a fit for GA). I just wasn't positive it was backing out of something already planned, or just backing out of considering something among other options. Either way it's certainly more of a commitment to a boycott than all the people saying "we'll film there now, but later we won't". I think a lot of production decisions are made, including where most of the work will take place before they begin scouting locations. Maybe they were negotiating with support companies, or cancelling contracts. Locations are just a piece of the pie. I'm not sure this conversation is fruitful. You are dismissing everyone's actions as not having an economic impact on GA. If a movie is getting the green light today and they dont even consider GA, GA has lost potential revenue. If in the next 5 years, GA's film industry is cut in half because new movies are less likely to go there, it will hurt GA a lot, even if none of the movies have any current business in the state. If voters are nervous about their jobs, they may vote differently and demand the new legislators change the law. You can think it wasn't due to companies announcing they will pull out, and maybe you are right. It is hard to say. Actually, I'm saying it's impossible to quantify any particular "boycott" in that regard as having a direct impact. You can easily quantify "we were set to shoot here, we backed out". You can't easily quantify "we were never set to shoot here, we didn't consider it, but maybe we would and maybe we wouldn't have shot there". You can certainly measure the impact of the industry after the fact. GA loses "potential revenue" every time anyone doesn't consider shooting there, boycott or not. But that's really my point. Boycotting something is much different than talking about boycotting something, or threatening to boycott but not actually doing it. And from a practical perspective, it's a lot more effective to lose something now to put pressure on people than the threat of losing something later down the road. There's a difference between "has an economic impact on GA" and "may have an economic impact on GA".
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on May 22, 2019 15:09:25 GMT -5
I saw that today, I was a little confused with the "has pulled out of filming in the state in light of its "heartbeat bill."" language, followed much later by "is still in pre-production and in the location planning stages.". So I'm not sure if they were set to actually film in GA and "pulled out", or if they were still in the location planning stages which would mean they didn't really pull out of filming there if they hadn't decided yet (but have removed GA from consideration), or if they're in the location planning stages now specifically because they backed out of where they planned to film and are back to the drawing board. If they have been scouting locations, and still are, they (a) dont look at any places in GA and (b) put the scenes they already picked a GA location for back on the list and start over. So, it may cause more work, or change their schedule and it may be that they are "pulling out" from a location in GA. Are you now saying that refusing to consider GA as an option isn't really a boycott because they didn't already have a contract there? Yeah, it's getting more and more convoluted. The purpose of a boycott is to financially impact the boycott target, not your self or your own economic interests. It's not effective to boycott McDonald's by throwing away half a burger and buying another meal.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 22, 2019 15:19:48 GMT -5
If they have been scouting locations, and still are, they (a) dont look at any places in GA and (b) put the scenes they already picked a GA location for back on the list and start over. So, it may cause more work, or change their schedule and it may be that they are "pulling out" from a location in GA. Are you now saying that refusing to consider GA as an option isn't really a boycott because they didn't already have a contract there? Yeah, it's getting more and more convoluted. The purpose of a boycott is to financially impact the boycott target, not your self or your own economic interests. It's not effective to boycott McDonald's by throwing away half a burger and buying another meal. It's also not effective to be standing outside McDonald's, calling for a boycott, then walking in and eating your dinner there. And if you're already ordered your meal, it's actually FAR more effective to throw your meal out and go get another meal elsewhere rather than telling people to boycott McDonald's while you're currently eating the meal you just bought like a hypocrite. At least sneak the McDonald's in secret. And in terms of the Wiig stuff, it's definitely more impactful in a boycott to be able to say "look, here are hard dollars I'd already decided to spend with you, now I will not spend them with you" over "hypothetically I might have given you some money but I hadn't really decided, but now I won't". Either case is much better than the Howard/Grazer model of "I'm still going to give you the hard dollars I planned to give you, but future hypothetical dollars I might not". A boycott isn't really a boycott if you still give the target all the money you were going to give them, and only take away dollars they weren't going to get in the first place. That's a PR song-and-dance, not a boycott.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on May 22, 2019 15:30:07 GMT -5
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on May 22, 2019 15:37:27 GMT -5
Yeah, it's getting more and more convoluted. The purpose of a boycott is to financially impact the boycott target, not your self or your own economic interests. It's not effective to boycott McDonald's by throwing away half a burger and buying another meal. It's also not effective to be standing outside McDonald's, calling for a boycott, then walking in and eating your dinner there. And if you're already ordered your meal, it's actually FAR more effective to throw your meal out and go get another meal elsewhere rather than telling people to boycott McDonald's while you're currently eating the meal you just bought like a hypocrite. At least sneak the McDonald's in secret. And in terms of the Wiig stuff, it's definitely more impactful in a boycott to be able to say "look, here are hard dollars I'd already decided to spend with you, now I will not spend them with you" over "hypothetically I might have given you some money but I hadn't really decided, but now I won't". Either case is much better than the Howard/Grazer model of "I'm still going to give you the hard dollars I planned to give you, but future hypothetical dollars I might not". A boycott isn't really a boycott if you still give the target all the money you were going to give them, and only take away dollars they weren't going to get in the first place. That's a PR song-and-dance, not a boycott. No- you already bought the burger, just like the existing film projects in Georgia have already invested heavily. It means nothing to McDonald's if you throw that burger in the garbage, you already paid for it. It's moving forward that makes the economic impact. It's like you think rosa parks should have gotten off the bus and walked home. Yeah, that would have been real effective compared to the actual boycott.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 22, 2019 15:42:35 GMT -5
It's also not effective to be standing outside McDonald's, calling for a boycott, then walking in and eating your dinner there. And if you're already ordered your meal, it's actually FAR more effective to throw your meal out and go get another meal elsewhere rather than telling people to boycott McDonald's while you're currently eating the meal you just bought like a hypocrite. At least sneak the McDonald's in secret. And in terms of the Wiig stuff, it's definitely more impactful in a boycott to be able to say "look, here are hard dollars I'd already decided to spend with you, now I will not spend them with you" over "hypothetically I might have given you some money but I hadn't really decided, but now I won't". Either case is much better than the Howard/Grazer model of "I'm still going to give you the hard dollars I planned to give you, but future hypothetical dollars I might not". A boycott isn't really a boycott if you still give the target all the money you were going to give them, and only take away dollars they weren't going to get in the first place. That's a PR song-and-dance, not a boycott. No- you already bought the burger, just like the existing film projects in Georgia have already invested heavily. It means nothing to McDonald's if you throw that burger in the garbage, you already paid for it. It's moving forward that makes the economic impact. It's like you think rosa parks should have gotten off the bus and walked home. Yeah, that would have been real effective compared to the actual boycott. Moving forward, starting today, are Howard and Grazer going to spend any money in the state of Georgia?
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on May 22, 2019 16:08:20 GMT -5
Gee..sorry if everyone isn't aware of your stringent and sainthood-level requirements for "real boycotting".
Also sorry to tell you they don't care about your criteria either.
The boycott is only just getting started on a conceptual basis, and the immediate logistics are complicated.
Everyone seems to get that but you.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 22, 2019 16:19:05 GMT -5
Gee..sorry if everyone isn't aware of your stringent and sainthood-level requirements for "real boycotting". Also sorry to tell you they don't care about your criteria either. The boycott is only just getting started on a conceptual basis, and the immediate logistics are complicated. Everyone seems to get that but you. My standards are VERY strict, real boycotting should involve...boycotting...rather than continuing to spend money with the target. I have such crazy ideas. I realize in today's social media world, a lot of people are fine with "boycott" meaning "I'll say I'm boycotting, then continue spending money as normal with the boycott target...what I say is important, what I do is not". Everyone else (or at least many, I don't think EVERYONE else is as stupid as you claim) does seem easily fooled by thinly veiled hypocrites in the media...I can't really help that I'm smarter than that. So since your definition of boycotting Georgia is "giving Georgia money"...does that mean people should or shouldn't boycott Georgia if they disagree with them? Or is all of that irrelevant as long as they post "boycotting Georgia" on some form of social media?
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 22, 2019 16:24:37 GMT -5
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on May 22, 2019 16:31:31 GMT -5
Gee..sorry if everyone isn't aware of your stringent and sainthood-level requirements for "real boycotting". Also sorry to tell you they don't care about your criteria either. The boycott is only just getting started on a conceptual basis, and the immediate logistics are complicated. Everyone seems to get that but you. My standards are VERY strict, real boycotting should involve...boycotting...rather than continuing to spend money with the target. I have such crazy ideas. I realize in today's social media world, a lot of people are fine with "boycott" meaning "I'll say I'm boycotting, then continue spending money as normal with the boycott target...what I say is important, what I do is not". Everyone else (or at least many, I don't think EVERYONE else is as stupid as you claim) does seem easily fooled by thinly veiled hypocrites in the media...I can't really help that I'm smarter than that. So since your definition of boycotting Georgia is "giving Georgia money"...does that mean people should or shouldn't boycott Georgia if they disagree with them? Or is all of that irrelevant as long as they post "boycotting Georgia" on some form of social media? Wait, now it's about money? Where is the sacrifice, even if it's just a subjective "feeling" of deprivation? We would need to interview Howard and assess his emotional reaction at this point to determine how much of a boycott this really is.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on May 22, 2019 16:47:37 GMT -5
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on May 22, 2019 18:28:03 GMT -5
When AZ didn't pass the MLK holiday, the NFL said they would not put a superbowl here until they did. They didn't cancel one, just said that in the future they wouldn't bring the dollars here. We passed an MLK day. The NFL was a huge talking point and was credited for making it urgent enough to get it done.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 23, 2019 7:38:39 GMT -5
My standards are VERY strict, real boycotting should involve...boycotting...rather than continuing to spend money with the target. I have such crazy ideas. I realize in today's social media world, a lot of people are fine with "boycott" meaning "I'll say I'm boycotting, then continue spending money as normal with the boycott target...what I say is important, what I do is not". Everyone else (or at least many, I don't think EVERYONE else is as stupid as you claim) does seem easily fooled by thinly veiled hypocrites in the media...I can't really help that I'm smarter than that. So since your definition of boycotting Georgia is "giving Georgia money"...does that mean people should or shouldn't boycott Georgia if they disagree with them? Or is all of that irrelevant as long as they post "boycotting Georgia" on some form of social media? Wait, now it's about money? Where is the sacrifice, even if it's just a subjective "feeling" of deprivation? We would need to interview Howard and assess his emotional reaction at this point to determine how much of a boycott this really is. You wanted to make it about money, so I pointed out how you're objectively wrong there too. You're wrong on so many fronts I'm more than happy to show you objectively wrong on whatever ones you like.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 23, 2019 7:44:35 GMT -5
This is one of the things where he's actually right, but he shouldn't say it. If only because it then shifts focus onto higher profile celebrities and takes people who would have just not said anything and basically forces them to come out against him. I also wouldn't be surprised to find out that a LOT of the things filmed in GA feature C-list celebrities. GA isn't Hollywood. If you go down the list of the things people have slated to film in Georgia that they've publicly come out and said they'll film there still because it is scheduled...it's not a bunch of things that sound like blockbusters, and none of them have included any A-listers. It's tough to take digs at C-list celebrities if you're essentially catering the film economy TO the C-list celebrities (i.e. he's right about them mostly being c-listers, but he shouldn't dismiss anything c-listers say since that's his target market).
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 23, 2019 7:51:04 GMT -5
When AZ didn't pass the MLK holiday, the NFL said they would not put a superbowl here until they did. They didn't cancel one, just said that in the future they wouldn't bring the dollars here. We passed an MLK day. The NFL was a huge talking point and was credited for making it urgent enough to get it done. Actually, they had a Super Bowl scheduled there for 1993, and they pulled it off the slate when AZ didn't pass the law initially. They moved it from Arizona to LA. They brought it back in 1996 after Arizona passed the law.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 23, 2019 7:56:21 GMT -5
Holy fuck. Have you not read one article we’ve posted about Georgia as a production center?
Baby Driver, The Walking Dead, Marvel's Top Superhero Franchises: Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America, Ant-Man, Spider-Man, The Hunger Games, Stranger Things, The Vampire Diaries, Jumaniji 2 ... I could go on for days.
Georgia has passed NY and CA for most feature films in recent years and is the 10th most popular filming venue in the WORLD.
Seriously. Why do I bother answering you when it’s obvious you take no effort to even understand basic terminology or actual circumstances.... even when directly linked and pointed out...
Hillbilly Elegy stars Amy Adams and Glen Close.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 23, 2019 8:10:38 GMT -5
Holy fuck. Have you not read one article we’ve posted about Georgia as a production center? Baby Driver, The Walking Dead, Marvel's Top Superhero Franchises: Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America, Ant-Man, Spider-Man, The Hunger Games, Stranger Things, The Vampire Diaries, Jumaniji 2 ... I could go on for days. Georgia has passed NY and CA for most feature films in recent years and is the 10th most popular filming venue in the WORLD. Seriously. Why do I bother answering you when it’s obvious you take no effort to even understand basic terminology or actual circumstances.... even when directly linked and pointed out... Hillbilly Elegy stars Amy Adams and Glen Close.I haven't seen either of them come out and say anything though (and they certainly aren't A-listers). And "Georgia has passed NY and CA for most feature films in recent years" is exactly the point. MOST films aren't featuring A-listers. Most films are featuring something more akin to C-listers, which is why the governor shouldn't be downtalking his bread and butter. I'm not sure why you bother answering me, since your answers have nothing to do with what I've said. Perhaps the reason is that like many children, you can't help but throw a public tantrum when you don't get your way.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 23, 2019 8:12:34 GMT -5
Lol.
I seriously can’t stop giggling when I think of this. The lack of awareness and projection is making my day...
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 23, 2019 11:43:26 GMT -5
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 23, 2019 12:29:56 GMT -5
Lol. I seriously can’t stop giggling when I think of this. The lack of awareness and projection is making my day... Giggling is a pretty common reaction when people are out of their depth intellectually. It's a defense mechanism.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 23, 2019 12:30:30 GMT -5
Snort.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 23, 2019 12:32:15 GMT -5
Now THAT reaction actually does seem to be right in your wheelhouse.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 23, 2019 12:37:03 GMT -5
Oh no! You have exceeded my intellectual depth! How shall I ever recover....
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 28, 2019 16:55:47 GMT -5
“ Netflix: “We have many women working on productions in Georgia, whose rights, along with millions of others, will be severely restricted by this law,” Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s chief content officer, said in an exclusive statement. “It’s why we will work with the ACLU and others to fight it in court. Given the legislation has not yet been implemented, we’ll continue to film there, while also supporting partners and artists who choose not to. Should it ever come into effect, we’d rethink our entire investment in Georgia.” CBS referred Variety to comments made by its entertainment president Kelly Kahl, who said at the network’s recent upfront presentation that he would monitor the bill’s progress toward becoming law. variety.com/2019/film/features/abortion-laws-hollywood-studios-netflix-1203225843/
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 29, 2019 22:24:04 GMT -5
“Asked if Disney would keep filming in Georgia, Iger said it would be "very difficult to do so" if the abortion law is implemented. "I rather doubt we will," Iger said in an interview ahead of the dedication for a new "Star Wars" section at Disneyland. "I think many people who work for us will not want to work there, and we will have to heed their wishes in that regard. Right now we are watching it very carefully." If the law takes effect, "I don't see how it's practical for us to continue to shoot there," he added.” www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/disney-ceo-says-it-will-be-difficult-film-georgia-if-n1011741?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on May 30, 2019 9:43:47 GMT -5
Speaking about Disney and Netflix's threats to pull out of Georgia entirely, British location manager Steve Mortimore told the BBC: "I'd be surprised if they went ahead and pulled out unless they had a plan B or C. "Those big Marvel films, they need huge spaces, 100,000 to 150,000 sq ft sound stages with all the facilities and they are limited. I know that Europe is absolutely fully booked up, there isn't anywhere else".
In 2014, the British-based Pinewood studios opened Pinewood Atlanta, spanning 700 acres and providing 18 sound stages. It has declined to comment on the news reports, but Mortimore said it could be be "very painful for them".
He claimed that London has now displaced Hollywood as the film industry's new capital, adding "the space just isn't available, people are queuing to film [in the UK] for the next three or four years".
"It's an opportunity for somewhere else," he said. "Maybe LA can step in. They have huge TV productions but its a chance to stick their flag in the sand and say they are a major hub for movies again, which they lost to London."
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 30, 2019 10:48:58 GMT -5
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on May 30, 2019 17:35:46 GMT -5
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on May 30, 2019 20:58:23 GMT -5
Employees have a lot of power now.
|
|