Read the following article related to the new Batman vs. Superman movie:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pat-garofalo/articles/2016-03-24/batman-v-superman-v-taxpayer-subsidies
After reading it, answer the following questions related to the article:
1. How did Michigan get the production studio making the movie to film in its state?
2. How big of a budget did the film have? Why is this such a danger for the film studio?
3. The film is privately funded by a production company. How in the world would taxpayers be at a loss because of the movie?
4. What was the cost of the film per job created?
5. How does the author claim that the film industry holds states hostage?
6. Do you believe that states should try to subsidize the film industry? Why or why not?
Rachel Walker
ReplyDelete1. Michigan paid 35 million dollars to have the movie filmed in their state.
2. The movie had a 400 million dollar budget. The budget is a danger to the studio because if the movie doesn't get enough profit then they would have to find enough money to make up for how much was spent.
3. Money would have to go into the program because of the temporary jobs from making the film and incomes.
4. $193,333,
5. The show or movie being filmed would move locations and no economic development would have been left behind.
6. I do think the states should support the industry but to a certain extent that doesn't effect people that are not involved.
Lacey Martin
ReplyDelete1. it paid 35 million dollars
2. 400 million dollar budget, Warner Bros. wants the movie to kickstart a DC Comics franchise and even if its successful, it could tank and lose a lot of money.
3. the state uses taxpayer money to subsidize the film, rarely does the program earn back the money spent, and most jobs associated are given to people out of town and are very expensive.
4. up to $193,333
5. the film industry will threaten to leave the state if they dont give up more money.
6. I think states shouldn't subsidize the film industry unless given real incentive to do so, they are losing a lot of money which is unnecessary strain on that state's economy, increasing taxes when the state usually receives no benefit. Movies aren't a bad thing, but if all they cause is waste and higher taxes, then maybe they need to get their money somewhere where it is more beneficial to those involved.
Baylie Smithson
ReplyDelete1.Michigan paid $35 million to incentivize the film’s production in their state.
2. $400 Million. All of the money is rarely earned back.
3. Their money is going to fund a movie not on more important things such as education, health, and other public goods the gov. is responsible for.
4. $193,333
5. They constantly threaten to leave if lawmakers don't give them more money.
6. They're putting money into movies instead of things that could help their state.
1. Gave them money towards the budget
ReplyDelete2. 35 Million; they never make enough to payback or cover the cost
3. If the movie didn't do good, the state would be in debt and raise taxes
4. $193,333
5.Blackmail by saying it will move locations if not enough money is coughed up
6.Yes, because taxpayers pay tax for the gov., to make their life better, towards vital things like fixing roads and stuff, not film industries.
Jon Oue
ReplyDelete1. Michigan paid $35 million to get to film there.
2. Their budget was $400 million budget. Their problem was that it would tank.
3. The jobs that it would create would be temporary, and they rarely recoup the taxpayers money.
4. $193,333.
5. They threaten to leave if lawmakers do not cough up bigger subsidiaries.
6. No, I do not think that states should try to subsidize films. It takes away money that could go to help the people that are in need like the homeless and the orphans. They states are worried more about fame than justice and they are wrong in doing that. They need to take care of it's people first and then if they have some left over, give it to the movie companies.
Elaine Doyle
ReplyDelete1 paying for it
2 400 million dollars
3 because the government is using tax money to pay for movie stuff instead of helpful things
4 193333
5 by threatening to leave if they don't get more money
6 No, terrible idea. Its expensive and doesn't create full time jobs. There must be better ways to use the money.
Kelsi Hobson
ReplyDelete1. They paid $35 million to incentivize the film’s production.
2. The film had a $400 million bugdet. If the movie does not do good, they lose their money.
3. They rarely recoup money they spent on them and jobs are temporary and often go to people out-of-town.
4. The cost per job created was $193,333.
5. They threaten to leave if they do not get a bigger subsidy package.
6. No, because there is no guarenteed return on their money.
Elle Turner
ReplyDelete1.Michigan paid 35 million dollars to make sure it was filmed in Michigan.
2. 400 million dollar budget. Its a big risk because the film could make a lot of money and still be in debt.
3.States pay for films to be produced in that state and Every dollar that went into the program was one less dollar dedicated to education, public health, libraries or any of the myriad other public goods for which government is responsible.
4. 193,333 dollars
5. Film producers constantly threatening to leave a state unless they get a bigger incentive package.
6. Yes I think they should, but only to a certain point. States should not be spending more money trying to subsidize the film industry rather than spending money on new schools, parks, or roads. The most they should spend is 10 million dollars...
Tyra Dunn
ReplyDelete1: They paid $35 million
2: $400 million
3: They are spending millions of dollars.
4:$193,333
5:they are blackmailed
6: Yes because they still need money for things that are more important, and not spend it all on a film.
Chris Perkins
ReplyDelete1. Pay the creators 35 million dollars
2. 400 million, it could make a ton of money and still not make a profit
3. the money comes out of things that help the public, like education, libraries, and public health
4. $193,333
5.They keep demanding money, and if they don't get the ever-rising total they say they need, then they threaten to leave the state.
6. No, they take away things from the public and generate profit so rarely, that any movie can be a risk of losing money. They shouldn't try to do a bunch, but when a movie needs a place, then fund one, with a set amount.
Marley Hobbs-
ReplyDelete1. They paid them off
2. 400 million dollars
3. They are Spending the tax payers money
4. 193,333
5. He believes they are economically blackmailed
6. I believe it is okay to subsidize them if they want to because why shouldn’t two people be able to “team up” to make more money.
Alex George
ReplyDelete1) They paid $35 million to incentivize the film’s production.
2) The movie had a $400 million budget and it is such a danger because it could make a lot of money and still tank.
3) A lot of states pay large amounts of money to have the films done in their state which all comes out of the taxpayer’s wallet.
4) $193,333
5) The movies claim to bring lots of jobs with them but when they don’t get the money they want and leave all the new jobs disappear.
6) I don’t think that states should try to subsidize the film industry because all the money that they use is the taxpayer’s money that could be used on more important things such as education or new roads.
Jesslyin Edwards
ReplyDelete1. By paying them $35 million dollars.
2. $400 million dollars, and it could fail financially and still make a lot of money where the studio will have a lot of explaining to do to why they still made a lot of money when their finances failed.
3. The tax paying citizens would spend their money on the film instead of taxes.
4.$193,333
5. They threaten to leave if they don't let them film, and the film is bringing in a lot of money for the states that they film in which taking a film out would mean less money.
6. Yes, I think they should because that way it would really be a win win situation on both sides saving money along with gaining money that they put in it. It will save money especially for the film industry, and as long as the film industry pays them some type of money for filming then they would be ok.
Christian Taylor
ReplyDelete5th
1.By paying 35 million dollars
2.400 million dollars;even if the film made a lot of money or didnt, the film studio COULD go down.
3.They are spending there money on a movie could not do well
4.193,333
5.By taxes going to these movies
6.No, i do not believe the states should subsidize the film industry. Because the state itself has a lot of more important things to worry about, and finacially supporting the film industry is not going to help it.
Tyler Frederick
ReplyDelete1. They paid $35 million
2. $400 million; because it could make a lot of money and still tank
3. The programs rarely recoup the money pent on them, never mind generating an actual return.
4. $193,333
5. They are constantly threatening to leave if lawmakers didn't cough up more and bigger subsidy packages.
6. I do not believe states should subsidize the film industry because the money could go to things more important like education.
Jared Snyder
ReplyDelete1. They paid 35 Million
2. 400 Million, if they don't make the money back
3. Movies hardly ever make the money back for what they spent on it
4. 193,333
5. They open states to be economically blackmailed
6. Yes, If companys received support think of how much better the movie could be. In addition if the movie succeeded than they would make the money back. Win, Win
Grace Gibson
ReplyDelete1) Michigan paid 35 million dollars.
2) Half a billion dollars. This is a danger for the film studio because if they go over budget it can cause serious issues.
3) Taxpayers will probably consider themselves at loss if they don't like the movie or if they don't even go see it. This would cause tax payers to think their money is being wasted.
4) Up to $193,333
5) The Author states that the states are being blackmailed.
6) Yes because movies are not a necessity and do not really benefit our nation when we could spend the tax money on other things such as better schools, making more jobs, and improving the roads.
Ben Hall
ReplyDelete1. By paying $35 Million dollars
2. $400 Million. Because the film could make a lot of money and still lose more than they gained.
3. Because their money is being spent for things that aren't necessary, and they don't create many permanent jobs.
4. $193,333 Dollars.
5. By threatening to leave the state if they didn't continue to surrender more and more money.
6. I think that it should be based on the states wealth. If the state has enough money to subsidize a film and it would prove beneficial, then I say yes.
Reagan Ray
ReplyDelete1. He paid them 35 million dollars.
2. They have a 400 million dollar budget and the movie could still do poorly.
3. The taxpayer's money would help pay for a movie production house and it's profits.
4. The cost of the film per job was $193,333.
5. For some films, if the state does not give the production studio more money then they will leave and not give the money back, and the money used is not helping the state.
6. Yes, I think it is okay for a state to pay for the movie to be filmed in their state, but the state should not pay for what the movie company needs in addition to just a place to film.
Abbey Ray,
ReplyDelete1. Michigan paid them $35 million to get the production studio to film in its state.
2. The film had a $400 million budget. This budget is dangerous because even if the movie is successful in making a lot of money, it then could still tank.
3. Taxpayers will be at a loss because their money is being spent to financially support the movie production and the billion dollar costs.
4. The cost of the film per job created was $193,333.
5. The states can be “economically blackmailed”, and all the money spent on the production was money not spent on public goods.
6. Yes, but only if the state has enough money to do so. States shouldn’t subsidize the film industry if it’s going to hurt the taxpayers.
Burton Drawhorn
ReplyDelete1. They paid the corporation 35 million dollars to base it in their state.
2. 400 million dollars
3. It takes away money from state programs.
4. $193,333
5. By threatening to leave the state and go somewhere else if the state doesn't give them bigger subsidy packages.
6. It would be up to the states, things like this are a gamble on whether you make a profit or not. So it would be up to the states, in my opinion.
Caitlyn Lewis
ReplyDelete1. They paid 35 million dollars
2. 400 million. If it tanks that a lot of money to lose.
3. I don't know for sure but maybe because the funders will be paying for the movie and not on the state?
4.$193,333
5. full time jobs
6. Yes, because when a popular movie is filmed in a specific place people flock there because they love the movie so much.
1. They paid the studio 35 million dollars.
ReplyDelete2. 400 million dollars, They may not be able to make enough money to profit from film.
3. Tax dollars are spent to get the movie filmed in the state to produce jobs and boost the economy, Usually though, the money is never made back that is spent.
4. $193,333
5. They threaten to leave the state if the state doesnt provide bigger subsidy packages.
6. No, it is a waste of money because they never make the money back, and the jobs created are usually temporary so the economy does not improve.
Sam Webb
ReplyDelete1. It paid the production people 35 million dollars.
2. 400 million. They can still make a lot of money and not get enough.
3. The taxpayers are basically paying for the money because that is where the state's are getting their money from.
4. 193,333 dollars
5. The film industry makes the state pay more money or they will leave.
6. No. The states lose money when they pay the film industry.
Avery Thomas
ReplyDelete1. They paid $35 million to get it to be filmed in Michigan.
2. $400 million; They are counting on this movie to kickstart their dc comic series.
3. Their taxes were used to get the movie to be filmed in Michigan.
4. $193,333
5. They threaten to leave if lawmakers don't pay them more. (Them leaving means lessons jobs, supposivly.
6. No, the films do not bring in many jobs, or much profit to the state, so why should the state have to pay? The film's should have to pay the location.
1.By paying them 35 million dollars
ReplyDelete2.The movies budget was as big as 400 million dollars, but none of it never comes back for the people who pay for the movie.
3.If no money goes back to the state, then money that the taxpayers use could diminish and they will receive and give less.
4.193,333 dollars
5.They threaten to leave their state, therefore always leaving with their profits.
6.They should in order to keep the money flow stable and fair for both the film crew and the people paying for the movies.
1. They paid them $35 million.
ReplyDelete2. $400 million. If it doesn’t go well with the public and it “tanks”, the studio will lose a LOT of money, and their attempt to compete with Disney’s Marvel franchise will fail right away.
3. Michigan offered and paid millions of dollars to host the movie in a production house in their state and the money for that comes out of the paycheck of the taxpayer.
4. $193,333
5. The film or production team threatens to leave the state if the state doesn’t give them even more money to fund the production.
6. No, I don’t think so. As the author said, I feel as if that money could actually be used for something that will continually affect the lives of the people in the states, such as education, health, etc. instead of a movie production that the taxpayers might not be interested in. If the taxpayers actually want to INDIVIDUALLY help support the movie with funds, they should do so because they want to, not because they have to.
Amy Ingle
ReplyDelete1.) they paid thirty-five dollars
2.) 400 million dollars
3.) They don't always get the money back they spend and end up having to use tax payers money
4.) $193,333
5.) they spend to much money
6.) I think if they are confident in the success the movie will have it is fine but if they have any doubts they should not tak ethe risk and throw around money.
Joy Chou
ReplyDelete1. They paid $35 million.
2. $400 million. If the movie doesn’t make enough money, the studio producing it would lose a lot of money and employees.
3. The large amount of money used by Michigan to host the movie production is from the taxpayers.
4. $193,333
5. They demand more money from lawmakers and threaten to leave if they aren’t provided with bigger subsidy packages.
6. No. While subsidizing a television or movie production creates jobs, many of them are usually temporary and cost a large amount of money per position. Overall, the costs outweigh the benefits.
Liam Andrus
ReplyDelete1. Michigan paid $35 MiLlIoN
2. They have a $400 MiLlIoN budget. It could be a danger because if they didn't do too well then they would lose A LOT of money and possibly the chance of creating a DC franchise as successful as Disney's
3. Because the tax payers aren't really getting any money directly even though they paid $35 million for the movie to be filmed in their state.
4. $193,333
5. They threaten the states, and like in Maryland’s case, are asked cough up more and bigger subsidy packages.
6. I think it’s kind of a waste of money if the states aren't benefiting from the movie, in means of jobs and money. The money would be well more spent for actual import things like education and stuff.
Katherine Pham
ReplyDelete1.Paid 35 million dollars
2.400 million dollars; because programs are usually temporary
3.193,333 dollars and because of no economic impact
5. no permanent economic development behind and every dollar that went into the program was one less dollar dedicated to any public goods for which government is responsible
6. no because support films could cost a lot of money that could used for other good things
Samantha Hayes
ReplyDelete1. They used the taxpayers money to fund the movie.
2. $400 million dollars, if it wasn't any good then they'd have a lot of explaining to do.
3. The jobs created are usually temporary, go to out-of-towners, and cost a fortune for a position.
4. Up to $193,333.
5. When the film industry threatens to leave if the state doesn't give them more money.
6. No, it doesn't benefit the people of the state.
Elle Allen
ReplyDelete1. They Paid 35 Million Dollars
2. " If it tanks – and with a $400 million budget, it could make a lot of money and still tank – the studio will have some serious explaining to do."
3. Because people pay taxes and the state paid 35 million to be able to have the movie filmed in it's state...
4. $193,333
5. Mentioned that the film industry said that they would leave Maryland if they didn't give them more money.
6. I guess so, because if they don't, who will? Although I think that the amount of money spent on actors/productions is insane when there are people making an actual difference in the world and hardly making any money, it still needs to be paid by someone.
Jake Hammonds
ReplyDelete1. They payed Warner Bros. $35 million
2. $400 million; Because they had invested a lot in this DC movie and if it tanks then they lose a lot of money.
3. The state pays to have the movie companies shoot in their state.
4. $193,333
5. It takes their money and hardly generates any jobs
6. No, because it wastes good money that could go to our military, help us get out of debt, and many other more important things other than movies.
Luke "Superman" Hinton
ReplyDelete1.they paid 35 million dollors
2.400 million$ budget, if people didnt like it, the money of tickets sold wouldnt meet the requrements to upcoming DC movies therefore slashing the budget on oher films
3.spending their money
4.193,333$
5.their spending money to be shot on film and theres nothing they can do about it
6.yes, so they dont spend millions of dollars out of their pockets
Abby Kate holmes
ReplyDelete1. michigan paid the production studio 35,000.
2. 400 million, because they will have to make a lot off the movie to have it be sucessful and to not lose money.
3. because they are spending taxpayers money.
4. $193,333 depending on how you count
5. with their money.
6. no, i think it is ridiculous that movies are even causing this big of a deal. The money that was used for that movie could be used for so many other world problems. why would we waste it on a movie with really bad reviews when we could be paying for someone to eat and not go thirsty or hungry.
1.)Michigan spends ( has spent ) < 1/2 $1,000,000,000 on productions to produce the film in the state.
ReplyDelete2.)$400,000,000 budget, and such a large budget would hurt the programs since it wouldn't be likely to get a fair amount of money ( gain back the money spent )
3.) The production of the film isn't entirely
4.) $193,333
5.) They give an example with HBOs "House of Cards"&"Veep" & how they ,"constantly threatening to leave if lawmakers didn't cough up more and bigger subsidy packages".
6.) No, mainly because I don't want to go back to read the passage, but also because of how it states the negative outcomes, like 400 million dollars and not being able to recover, and how that loss affected the whole state of Michigan.
Yahya M Abusaad
yahyamabusaad@gmail.com
Kenna Eldridge
ReplyDelete1. Paid 35 million dollars
2. $400 million, if the moving is not successful the company will be in a lot of debt
3. Every dollar that went into the program was one less dollar dedicated to education, public health, libraries or any of the myriad other public goods for which government is responsible.any money given to the production would never be returned.
4. up to $193,333
5. they were constantly threatening to leave if lawmakers didn't cough up more and bigger subsidy packages. if they didnt give it to them they would leave
6. No. it is way to much money to spend on one movie and if the movie isnt successful then the state is screwed. Economically it is not a smart decision to subsidize a movie.
India Kasteler
ReplyDelete1. They paid $35 million to incentivize the films production.
2. $400 million budget; if it tanks they will be in serious trouble.
3. States are paying lots of money to have the movie showed there and movies rarely recoup the money they spent on them.
4. They cost an "outrageous" amount per position.
5. Because the states spend a lot of money to have the movies played in their state, but they don't end up getting all the money back.
6. I think the states should help out the film industry because people in the states want to see the movies, but the film industry shouldn't be so demanding of the states.
holly mcdonough
ReplyDelete1 they paid 35 million
2 400 million, the film studio might not make any money
3 if the state funds the movie
4 193,333
5 they threaten to leave if they don't keep getting paid more and more
6 no, because the citizens are the ones paying for it and they might not even like the movie they shouldn't be the ones funding it
Zoie Pritchett
ReplyDelete1. They paid 35 million dollars
2. 400 million dollars; since its such a big budget, people are expecting it to be an amazing movie, so when theyre disapointed its really bad for the film
3. Because the state has to subsidize the film so money is going to the film, not more important things.
4. $193,333
5. He basically said that a lot of the money wasnt going to more important things like education and that they blackmail a lot of the states.
6. I don't see a problem with it if the film is being made in that state, but I dont think they shoud have to pay too much amount of money. It's the films job to be able to make a great movie and to pay for the necessities, not the states.
Jessica Elwood
ReplyDelete1. Michigan paid $35 million to incentivize the film’s production in the Wolverine State
2. 400 million. Because if it doesn't tank then the money is wasted.
3. The money could've been spent on something more important. MAryland for example.
4. $193,333
5. Kinda but kinda not. You see the film industry has been around for awhile i think it should stop expanding and just be under to three companies with just coworking filmmakers with that company and it all be under the same company.
Payton Brown
ReplyDelete1. They paid them 35 million.
2. 400 million because it could tank.
3. Less money goes towards public service programs (which benefit taxpayers) when you're paying lots of money for tax subsidies.
4. 193,333 dollars.
5. When these programs are funded, tons of revenue is lost.
6. I do not because it shouldn't affect taxpayers in a positive way.
Hallie Grace Hamner
ReplyDelete1. They paid them $35 million.
2. $400 million, and because it could tank.
3. Because when you’re paying lots of money for tax subsidies, then less goes towards public service programs such as schools and libraries, which are things that would benefit taxpayers more.
6. $193,333
5. Because when these programs are funded, lots of revenue is lost.
6. No, because it doesn’t affect taxpayers in a positive way. When states subsidize the film industry, they take away funding for programs that taxpayers need, therefore it should not be a program in place.
Cameron Wyatt
ReplyDelete1.Paid 35 million dollar
2.400 million dollars, spending to much money
3.IF people did not view the movie
4.
5.
6.
Brianna Ashcraft
ReplyDelete1.) $35 million dollars
2.) It had a $400 million dollar budget, but it could still tank and not be able to recoup the money
3.) They would use the tax payers money to help pay for it
4.) $193,333
5.) He says that the money leaks out of the state and sometimes they never get it back
6.) I think states could subsidize the film industry, to a certain extent. If the state will be loosing lots of money and end up having to raise taxes then no they should not. But, if it does not affect them and they have some money they can afford to help, then yes go for it!
Maxine Ball
ReplyDelete1. They paid them 35 million dollars.
2. $400 million
3. Because the taxpayers don’t get any from it because it not refunded.
4. $193,333
5. Every dollar that went into the program was one less dollar dedicated to education, public health, libraries or any of the myriad other public goods for which government is responsible.
1. By paying them $35 million to produce them in their state.
ReplyDelete2. $400,000 and they spent a lot of money on the movie and if it was a flop they would have lost it.
3. The taxpayer money goes to a source of entertainment instead of a social service such as education, security, and medical services.
4. $193,333
5. They can be blackmailed by the film leaving the state producing no economic development which means the state wasted money on a film.
6. No, it isn't up to a couple of states to provide entertainment to the world that is the film industry's job to provide people with a source of entertainment. They can also be held hostage for tons of money.
-Will Yarbrough-
Destini Erwin
ReplyDelete1. They paid them 35 million $
2. 400 million
3. They don't get any profit
4. 193,333
5. Every dollar that went into the program was one less dollar dedicated to education, public health, libraries or any of the myriad other public goods for which government is responsible.
6. I say they do what they want
Arianna Taylor 5th Period
ReplyDelete1. Michigan paid $35 million.
2.$400 million budget. This is a danger because they could spend a lot of money making a film and it will "tank".
3. The taxpayers are paying money to support the movie coming to their state.
4. $193,333
5. People are being required to pay taxes on movie production.
6. I think that it shouldn't be required to pay subsidize the film industry because not everyone can afford to pay taxes on movies.
Jack Smalley
ReplyDelete1. Paid 35 million
2. 400 million/ The film could be negative even if it is good.
3. States film incentive program.
4.$193,333
5.Zero full time jobs.
6. No, because these films are making money out of the roof so they do not need help.
Joshua Giles
ReplyDelete1. They paid 35 million dollars
2.400 million dollars/ With it having such a big budget, if it tanks them the payer lose some of their tax money
3. Their money would be taken
4. $193,333
5.It holds them hostage by taking their money
6. No, because if anybody is losing their hard earned money then it is wrong.
Natalie Neubert 5th
ReplyDelete1. They paid them $35 million dollars
2. $400 million it could still tank and not be able to recoup the money.
3. They would use taxpayers money to pay for it.
4. $193,333
5. The money leaks out of the state and sometimes they never get it back.
6. I think they should but only to a certain amount they shouldn't let the state lose money.
Madeline King
ReplyDelete1.) They were paid
2.)$400 million dollars
3.) They used the tax payers money
4.)About half a million
5.)the money is sometimes wasted and the states run out and never get it back
6.) I think they should but there should be a limit of money lost
Chris Thomas
ReplyDelete1)They paid 35 million dollars
2)400 million. It is a risk because the movie could flop and not make any money
3)They might not make up the money and all those jobs are temporary.
4)$193,333
5)The company will just leave if the state doesn't hand over more money leaving stagnation.
6)No not until there is Federal legislation because this film studios will just suck the money out of people's pockets