[jtgverde]

I have friends who work in film and have heard about the way the productions play fast and loose with "local hires" that then get reported as jobs created.

But setting aside all of that research shows little to no impact https://www.nber.org/papers/w25963 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3155407

The prestige of films being made in their state keep the subsidies rolling in but there are many great "bang for your buck" subsidies states could be making that just aren't sexy.

[mschuster91]

These studies seem to focus primarily on the direct economic impact of moviemaking, but seem to not deal at all with tourism effects - and these can be significant, from benign tourism like with Star Wars [1] to outright madness like with the Breaking Bad house [2].

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/star-wars-destination...

[2] https://ew.com/tv/2017/10/13/breaking-bad-house-pizza-throwi...

[jtgverde]

Yea that's fair, but I would imagine the tourism effect, although real, happens for a tiny % of overall productions.

Much like incentives for NFL stadiums, it just doesn't seem like the public gets the benefit they are promised in all the glossy announcement spreads

And to be clear I support the government subsidizing the arts like film and I miss when my state had a subsidy and a lot of famous shows/movies were filmed in places I knew. I just haven't seen the data to back up the "impact" claimed.

[riotnrrd]

Having worked in film in the US, I developed a deep hatred of film tax breaks because they work. "Work" in the sense that studios will chase them, and they make it harder for companies outside a tax-advantaged location to compete and make money.