How much money has California lost due to movie-making being done in other states?

I heard a story on the radio this morning; something about 18% of revenue that Hollywood gets by filming has been lost due to production companies (and overpaid celebrity "actors") going to other states to do filming?

That's really got to hurt revenue, in the state that - last I checked and correct me on this - has the highest population in the USA?

A list of states was mentioned as well, including Tennessee...

But I digress. Would that loss of revenue be considerable, in terms of the $24 billion shortfall?

which is maybe $10 billion, if that, the amount of taxes collected off $1.8 billion in activity is minor compared to their deficit.

Thx for responding, BTW! :)

are missing out on for the state budget. I'll even give that activity some generous economic multipliers and say they are down $400 million for budget purposes. Not a huge deal.

The large set for "Titanic" was built in Mexico. Much of the exterior shots for the "Lord of the Rings" films were shot in New Zealand.

It's nothing new though. The major studios have been doing this sort of thing for years.

BTW, it isn't really up to the "overpaid celebrity actors" as much as it is up to the production company, whoever that might be.

It's more frequent than it used to be for sure, but I see nothing wrong with it.

One company I know of that churns out cheap crappy movies for the SciFi channel does a lot of them in Bulgaria.

Also some "American" TV shows are made in other countries like New Zealand to keep costs down ("Legend of the Seeker" comes to mind.)

I have a family member that just started working doing set construction, he is currently working on a movie that has Bruce Willis and some other flick with a major star as well.

The studios produce so many film outside the US to "save money" and then have the balls to whine about piracy "costing American jobs." Bastards. :mad:

I have acquaintences that have worked with the Chicago film office...a city department that is constantly luring movies to film here and have been doing so for over 30 years. With the rise of Producer/Directors in the 70's and 80's, Hollywood began doing more and more shooting on location. Some of it was economic...cheaper to hire local union groups than the ones in LA. Also the studios get nice incentives for coming here to film...the city will do everything short of shut the downtown down during rush hour for a movie shoot. It's a win-win for the city who gets exposure on the screen and the filmmakers who get more realism in movies and save a couple bucks in the process.

Once those movies are down...the money doesn't go to those cities...it goes directly to the studios. My bets are plenty is kicked back to the state, but there's surely not 24 billion to be milked from that cow.

get a script, director, a couple American B actors, hire all the rest in Sophia for peanuts, and further reduce production costs by filming everything in 2 weeks

dub over the Bulgarian actors' voices in post production

When we are talking about American workers building Nissans or Hondas THEN it matters where the profits go, and not one bit where the work is actually done. If we are talking about American movie companies filming in Bulgaria (or software companies hiring in India) it doesn't matter where the profits go and only where the work is done is important!

Just remember the simple rules for DU discussions: Americans always lose out in any global business decision, and the largest entity is always wrong.

Cheap labor, nice climate.