Toldja So

It took long enough, but the company that said you can only make profits from CGI animated movies has been losing money:

NEW YORK -- It's a typical story this earnings season: DreamWorks Animation saw profits and revenue dip last quarter.

Major problem was a tough comparison with the same period the year before when blockbuster DVD "Shrek the Third" bowed, the company said, plus higher costs from new businesses including the Virtual Studio, TV projects and Broadway.

Net income fell 45% to $52 million and revenue dropped 31% to about $200 million. But box office was booming and DWA's homevideo sales were robust, execs said, making 2008 "the most successful non-Shrek year in our history," according to chief financial officer Lew Coleman.

Perhaps they’ll reconsider? I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Earmockery

Obama's new stimulus package was purported to have $50 million donated to the arts. In response to this, an artist has summed up my feelings better than I even could:

Voxbox, I'll wager that you'll return from your lofty exile to read this reply to your post. You make some good points, but this isn't an argument about bullet points. It's an argument about principle. The federal government's role was relegated principally to foreign affairs, whereas internal commerce, including the arts, would be the realm of states and interstate commerce - free of the shackles of a large, central government. James Madison, "the father of the Constitution," said, "The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."; and WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government." (Taken from http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%2...) The issue is not that FDR took millions of dollars of taxpayer money to fund a wagonload of murals; the issue is that he never should have in the first place. The principle of the matter is that the federal gov't is too large for its own and our own good, and it has overstepped its bounds time and time again. This "stimulus" package is a crock of garbage. Obama talked about change - here it is. What a change, indeed. INCREASE taxes FOREVER. Gee, thanks. INCREASE the scope of federal government FOREVER. Thanks again. INCREASE the peering eye of big brother, INCREASE funding, and therefore CONTROL over the arts. Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Chavez all knew/know this principle: control over the arts and media outlets means an extra measure of control over the "useful idiots" they claim to serve. If we accept federal monies for work, we are beholden to the federal government for the use of those dollars and the work they produce. We become accountable to a corrupt bureaucracy's agenda and slaves to the machinery of oppression, censorship, and even death. I join my voice to Simon9's and jbortiz99's - keep the federal government where it belongs - out of our studios and wallets and back to the very few realms it was designed to care for - war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. Obama can take his trillion-dollar rape of our posterity and flush it.

The Hollywood Bailout

Now that the political filmmakers in Hollywood know that Barack Obama is president and they’re all suddenly happy to be Americans again, they can all go back to making mostly apolitical movies. But first, they’re going to need the money:

With even Hollywood facing an economic slump, the Senate Finance Committee's $275 billion tax title of the economic stimulus package would lend a hand to movie studios that have seen outside financing dry up.

Well perhaps they could cut some losses by, yunno, making better films for less. It’s already been announced that this provision has been stripped from the bailout. Oh sorry, I meant “stimulus package.” Who was supporting this anyway?

The Senate bill includes a tax break worth up to $246 million over 11 years for investors in bigger-budget movie projects that don't necessarily qualify for incentives currently. The provision is backed by firms like the Walt Disney Co., and the industry trade group the Motion Picture Association of America, according to aides and lobbyists.

The Walt Disney Company? The happiest place on Earth wants a piece of the pie? Sorry boys, I love you, but before you even consider asking for not-so-free money, you might want to consider apologizing for “The Shaggy Dog” remake.

Broadly speaking, the Senate bill includes a one-year extension through 2009 of a provision enabling companies to write off 50 percent of the cost of equipment placed in service during that year, same as in the House Ways and Means version. But the Senate bill amends the definition of "qualified property" to include "certain motion picture film or videotape," bringing the cost of the Senate provision to $5.32 billion, up from the House's $5.07 billion version.

Companies that use the tax break would then forfeit the right to use the existing incentive, which allows companies to deduct 100 percent of production costs up to $15 million. That provision is backed by groups such as the Directors Guild of America and is aimed at keeping smaller productions from relocating to foreign countries; it was extended as part of the $700 billion financial rescue plan in October.

But a problem arises for pictures that cost $30 million or more, which the option to instead use bonus depreciation attempts to resolve.

It probably wouldn't benefit blockbusters that take years to produce, a lobbyist said, given that, to benefit, a firm's asset must be placed in service -- hitting the theaters or video market -- during that time.

Oh, the agony. Look, I know that life must be hard producing movies for the price that most small companies don’t earn in a year, but you can do well for much less. I’ve been talking with my friends lately and we make movies on our own money. I’ve worked on movies that turned out better than some that get into theaters and what are they planning on? A live-action “Tom and Jerry” movie, which will no doubt cost Warner Bros at least $70 million to make.

My friends and I have better ideas for feature films and we know we can make them for a fraction of the price. If Hollywood wants to make it through this economic slump, they’re going to have to make movies at a more affordable price. They can cut down on star actor’s payrolls that take up 50% of the movie’s budget if that helps and the directors as well. AND they can make their movies better. Why not go back to making more “safe movies?” I’ve got a few ideas myself that could fly. Wanna hear’em, Hollywood? Hook me up and we’ll talk business.