The Bad Economy Seems To Be Effecting Entertainment

Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC

Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC

I've been talking with other vendors who were at the NY Comic Con and the general trend is fans are looking and taking pictures, but few fans are buying. That goes for comic books, DVDs, toys, and movie posters and photos.

Before this year, movies was the one thing people were still spending money on.

Is anyone else seeing this decline? :huh:
 
NickClapper said:
Well our 'government' just abolished the UK Film Council, so I can tell you Yanks that you're certainly not alone... :(
Click to expand...

I was absolutely gutted when I first heard about that, and I still am a bit, but the more I read the more it seems to be not such a bad thing. Idea of supporting British filmmaking is great in principle, but the UKFC seemed to be more concerned with persuading American productions to shoot on British soil (so they could class them as a British production) and funding their friends' films. I liked the purpose of the UKFC and oppose most of the Tories' cuts on principle, but it seems like they might have got this one right even if for the wrong reasons.
 
The restaurant business took an immediate hit, a long time ago. Less expensive places, where your typical plate is $10 or less seemed unfazed, as far as I could tell. But the slightly higher-dollar restaurants, with typical plates between $20-30 took an immediate and marked dive, when the stock market first started tumbling. It seems to be recovering, though.
 
chilipie said:
I was absolutely gutted when I first heard about that, and I still am a bit, but the more I read the more it seems to be not such a bad thing. Idea of supporting British filmmaking is great in principle, but the UKFC seemed to be more concerned with persuading American productions to shoot on British soil (so they could class them as a British production) and funding their friends' films. I liked the purpose of the UKFC and oppose most of the Tories' cuts on principle, but it seems like they might have got this one right even if for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...

I think there are a lot of things at fault with the UK Film Council and the reality is that not that much money is getting poured down to grass roots level filmmaking. But they're also responsible for providing money to get films made that would otherwise not have been made like Vera Drake, This Is England, Fish Tank and Bend It Like Beckham. All in all it's something like 700 films in ten years that they've provided funding for.

But the most annoying thing is how tiny the budget was anyway. When Osbourne and Liam Fox are scrapping about defence cuts in the billions, these savage cuts to the arts are such a drop in the ocean of the deficit that it seems almost cruel to inflict them. 20 billion pounds on nuclear missiles, or 17 million pounds for the UK Film Council?
 
I'm not British and not sure how the UKFC worked, but just to throw a question out:

Is government sponsored "art" or "entertainment' a good thing?

Personally, I see how some of the state film commissions here offer tax cuts and what not to encourage people to bring a production to their area and spend money can be good for the economy, but if a government actually pitches in to get a project finished? Not so sure...
 
The result of the dismissal of the UKFC may well just be a positive induction into our entertainment funding scheme. It could very well lead to the rise of new private investors.

The scheme at UKFC, the opportunity, was minimal for the majority of home-grown film-makers. I was at first, extremely saddened. I even threaded about it at the announcement of the cut.

But now, it seems we're in the same boat as "small time film-makers", as we've been in all along. Perhaps this could be a good change.
 
PaulGriffith said:
Is government sponsored "art" or "entertainment' a good thing?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Why don't you ask Jackson Polluck?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Art_Project

or Orson Welles?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Theatre_Project

or John Steinbeck or Studs Terkel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Writers'_Project

Or the hundreds and thousands of people who got free education and entertainment to get through hard times?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Music_Project
 
I think it's very unlikely that it will lead to an increase in private investment. Film making in the UK is not very cheap at the best of times. The thing that the UKFC did well was not investing in short films or regional projects by first time filmmakers. It was ensuring that the best UK directors like Mike Leigh, Ken Loach and Shane Meadows got to make their films the way that they wanted to. Those directors would have struggled to drum up private investments for their projects and there's no way that they could have been made as effectively in Britain without that support.

@PaulGriffith It's not actually a government department. In the UK (and I assume it's something similar in the US) we have an independent civil service. The point of the UKFC was to allocate about 15 million pounds worth of funds to low budget British filmmakers working in Britain. There are also tax benefits available to encourage production, but the UKFC was designed in order to distribute money to worthwhile projects. It's not the government pitching in, it's the taxpayer.
 
Well, here in the States, according to CNN, the banks have set a record year for the most mortgage foreclosures ever this year alone.

Unemployment is up.

According to the Huffington Post:

Big business is hording money -- an estimated $1.7 Trillion instead of hiring new help.

On many news channels, people are holding onto their money because they worry about their futures.
 
I'm in the movie distribution business (middle man between studios and retailers). We've had a terrible year. Without all the Avatar money it would have ben dismal. Quality of the titles has a huge effect, and not many great titles this year (outside of Avatar, Iron Man2, and a couple others).
 
My (not film-related) company is actually starting to turn back around, which is good 'cos I am really really broke. :lol:

Sales are still 25% of 2007's, but the past few months have seen significant turnaround. The big difference is that the new buyers are multiple smaller retailers, and not the fewer larger ones. I haven't put any real research into this, but my impression is that the large retailers have either gone under or are getting out of my product line - leaving the area wide open for newer independents to effectively get in on the ground floor... which I rather the idea of, tbh.

At any rate - I'm seeing the signs of recovery in action. Maybe I'll give myself a paycheck, in another 8 weeks if this keeps up. :)
 
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
I'm in the movie distribution business (middle man between studios and retailers). We've had a terrible year. Without all the Avatar money it would have ben dismal. Quality of the titles has a huge effect, and not many great titles this year (outside of Avatar, Iron Man2, and a couple others).
Click to expand...

Three cheers for "Avatar"! Hip-hip-hooray! Hip-hip-hooray! Hip-hip-hooray!
 
Im noticing an interesting trend here. Iv met several "transient" families.. these are families that due to new unemployment status are living in tow behind trailers \ campers and RV's looking for new work\location. Whats interesting is that the trailers and tow behinds are all new(ish) and in great working order, these folks had these as "toys" before the hard times hit them. All are from California by the way, most seem to be living of savings and what part time work they can find\barter.
 
PaulGriffith said:
I'm not British and not sure how the UKFC worked, but just to throw a question out:

Is government sponsored "art" or "entertainment' a good thing?

Personally, I see how some of the state film commissions here offer tax cuts and what not to encourage people to bring a production to their area and spend money can be good for the economy, but if a government actually pitches in to get a project finished? Not so sure...
Click to expand...

What pops into my mind when I read this is the "Piss CHrist" piece by Andres Serrano. To sum it up, the art is a

plactic crucifix in a glass of the artist's urine. Serrano received $15k for the work, part of which was paid for by

the National Endowment for the Arts. So, to get to the point, it would be okay for government to subsidise art if

everyone could agree on what is art. Reason being we are all(hopefully) good tax payers. So we all have an

interest in where that money goes. In the above situation, you can imagine what the Christians had to say about

this art. Me personaly I have no opinion on the art, but I do have one on Gov funding art. Goverments are too

good at wasting money to give them another avenue for waste. So let artists practise for arts sake. Thats why

we do it in the first place right?? And if money is the motivating factor, find a patron, start a different business to

fund your art, or whatever. Just my opinion, and to be more on topic. Where I work we never really slowed

down. However a large part of thte business is involved in the tobacco industry soooo. :)
 
I have seen a nose dive. I have attended 4 conventions...and lost my ass on every one of them.

I sold: 3 copies at my first con, 2 at my 2nd, 1 at my third, and 1 at my 4th and LAST.

So, out of approx 1500.00 of expenses for those 4 cons, I sold 70.00 worth of merch. Once people get their 20 dollar autograph, it's over.

No more conventions for me.
 
Well, NYC helps indie producers with free permits to shoot in public places, free police protection, and insurance waivers for budget under $3,000 for the shoot at a specific location. I saved over $3,000 on insurance costs alone last year with that pro indie policy.
 
aceofspades70, I feel for you. I spent a good $4,000 for NY Comic Con and only sold 12 DVDs. My actresses got smart on Sunday afternoon and came up with a new policy that people had to buy over DVDs before a fan could take their picture and we sold 8 DVDs in about 3 hours. Man, if only we thought of that a couple of days before. . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top