Runaway production

Runaway production is a term used by the American film industry to describe filmmaking and television productions that are “intended for initial release / exhibition or television broadcast in the US, but are actually filmed in another country.” [1] [2] [3]

In a 2005 production report by the Center for Entertainment Industry and Data Data Research (CEIDR), the trend of runaway productions are more frequently linked to American movies and television being lured away from US rentals to out-of-country locations. A broader reason for leaving thesis productions are foreign subsidies offert to American companies Ultimately Reducing the cost of making the film. According to the CEIDR report, “The analysis reveals that, while there are certainly general economic factors at play, such as relative labor and exchange rates, the data over the past several years of proliferation of production subsidies around the globe has been one of the most significant factors affecting the production of production for a significant volume of production. ”

The report further states that “the connection between the advent of Canadian production subsidies in late 1998 and the dramatic increase in production appears in the following year (as reported by the 144% increase in the volume of the 2000 release year films) appears unassailable as there were no appreciable changes in exchange rates, or the other. [5]


Los Angeles, California has traditionally played a wide role in the history of the film industry, both in the US and at an international level. The first American film production companies emerged in New Jersey and New York. However, the relatively poor quality of early film and lighting systems meant that movies had to be shot in the sun. In turn, the weather typical of the northeast states frequently hampered production. Eventually, a trend developed towards the west and midwest.

Los Angeles, California during the early 1910s was an advantageous location for filmmakers. In addition, Southern California offered a variety of landscapes, including ocean, desert, mountain, forest, and hillside ” [6]

Creative and economic runaways

A report commissioned by the Directors Guild of America (DGA) defined two classes of runaway productions. [1] “Creative runaways” are film and television projects that are produced, in part, from outside the United States. Alternatively, “economic runaways” are produced in other countries to “reduce costs.” This kind of output Typically Involves Movies That are set (written to be shot) in the United States aim qui INSTEAD-have-been outsourced to other countries Such as Canada, Australia, Fiji, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, gold the United Kingdom. [5]

Since economic runaways can be caused by a variety of factors, more recent scholarly research has further refined the definition. Artificial economic runaways, (2) natural economic runaways, and (3) artistic runaways: or legislatively created, incentives designed to lure productions. Natural economic runaways are movies that shoot in a location to take advantage of natural economic phenomena. Artistic runaways are movies that shoot abroad to artistically service the story-a movie about Paris that shoots in Paris. [7]

According to CEIDR, Canada receives 90% of US runaway productions, and offers the bulk of the government subsidies. [5] A subsidy is defined as financial contributions or kickbacks where “government returned That Is Otherwise due is foregone or not the file Managed”, selon GATT – the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade . [8]

Canada’s subsidies and the effect on American workers

According to a 2001 US Department of Commerce report by Secretary of Commerce, Norman Mineta , “Runaway film production” has affected thousands of (US) workers in manufacturing of computers to build workers and caterers. vital american industry. ” [9]

The US film industry has a history of this outsourcing trend that began in the mid-late 1990s, and which coincided with the Canadian government subsidy programs. [5] [10]

A DGA-funded study confirmed that the Canadian government is committed to a comprehensive and aggressive, long-term strategic campaign to the US productions to Canada. [11] The report estimates that runaway productions cost the United States over 50,000 jobs and at least US $ 10 billion in production monies annually. [11]

At least $ 13 trillion annually in corporate taxes and benefits , according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), a conservative tax watchdog. The CTF released a report that from 1982 to 1997, the Canadian federal government handed $ 11 billion in 32,969 grants and loans to the provinces. [12]

Conflicting employment data on the US motion picture industry

In 1992, the MPAA claimed 164,000 Californians were directly employed in entertainment production, rising to 226,000 in 1996. Furthermore, in 1996, the estimated number of California jobs was generated by the entertainment industry ranged from 233,000 to 253,100, which brought the industry’s total employment to well over 450,000. ” [13]The MPAA claimed that entertainment production in California during 1996 generated $ 27.5 billion in economic activity for the state. The astonishing economic growth from 1992 to 1996, according to the MPAA, explored for two reasons: (1) the growth of multiplex theaters and cable television rose, it is a higher general demand for more entertainment media productions; and (2) “the possibility that this new production activity would occur outside California, or in other countries, did not materialize.” [13]

In 2004, the MPAA reported employment figures for the whole United States. The employment numbers were broken into three categories: production and services (P & S), theaters and video tape rental, and other. In 1995, the total number of Americans employed in the industry was 283,700 (135,200 in P & S); in 1997, total employment was 323,000 (159,600 P & S); in 2000, total employment was 351,600 (182,100 P & S) and; in 2004, total employment was 367,900 (198,300 P & S). [13]Hence, in 1997, according to the MPAA 2004 report, the total US motion picture employment of 323,000 represents a huge discrepancy of the MPAA’s claim, which in 1996, the industry employed over 450,000 workers in California alone. Adding to the confusion, The Commerce Report-which used the same BLS data reported by the MPAA-claimed 236,152 workers were employed nationwide in motion picture production and allied services in 1997. [13]

In August 2005, the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) released a report commissioned by the California Film Commission on the economic impact of runaway productions. The report from the MPAA and the United States Census for the same year, 2002. The data from the MPAA and the Census of the United States; (2) the amount of motion picture employment in California-how much California captures the total US figure. In 2002, the Census reported that 153,000 people worked in the United States and 88,500 worked in California. [13]The MPAA data for 2002 reported 353,076 workers in the United States, with 245,900 of those jobs in California. [13]

The MPAA, in 1996, claimed that the film industry employed 750,000 Americans, a number that remained on the MPAA’s Web Site in 2008. [13]

Competing subsidies

“Who is representing the interests of taxpayers here?” asked CTF Saskatchewan director David MacLean. “The film industry is playing the Saskatchewan government like a worn-out movie script, drawing them into the bidding war with other provinces.” [14]

Ron Haney, executive director of the Directors Guild of Canada , says, “Everybody can compete with tax credits … It’s absolutely frightening.” [15]

According to a study by the Canadian government, productions are beginning to “run away” from Canada as well. [10] Productions are now going to countries that have introduced competing and / or counter-incentives and / or subsidies. [10] Many productions are starting to return to the United States of America to counteract runaway production.

While film and television employment has been increased in recent years, the state film incentives have been reduced to US enacting US jurisdiction. [16]

Several Canadian companies are also pulling their support for the Canadian Television Fund (CTF) because, “(It) was never intended as a permanent source of funding” to subsidize broadcasters and programmers. One Canadian company stated that, “Our understanding was that after the initial five-year period, the fund would be self-sustaining and self-financing from a return on investment in successful productions.” [17]

“The Vancouver Sun’s Michael McCullough points out that California does not have the world’s highest production costs.” “How do they do it?” That’s the question BC’s film industry should be asking for, rather than looking at taxpayers to buck up. .. The price of the tax credit is one of the loser, the taxpayer., Louisiana offers a straight 20% subsidy for production costs, is that the next industry demand? It is not the job of the government to keep up with incentives and the industry’s role to remain competitive. ” [18]

Other US attempts to end runaway production

Non-profit training in the US industry groups, such as the Film and Television Action Committee (FTAC) and the Directors Guild of America (DGA), the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and others, who have been lobbying state and federal governments to introduce American legislation and counter-incentive programs. American film industry workers and companies at an extreme disadvantage.

FTAC believes that it is one of the following: (a) the use of these technologies is prohibited by the provisions of the Canadian Film Industry Act. [5] On September 4, 2007, the FTAC filed a Section 301 complaint with the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In the petition, the FTAC issued by Canada to the production and filming of US-produced television shows and motion pictures were inconsistent with Canada’s obligations under the WTO. Six weeks later, October 19, 2007, the USTR rejected FTAC’s petition. In a press release, the USTR’s office stated:

“As provided under USTR regulations, the petition is reviewed by an inter-committee of trade and economic experts. USTR not accepting the petition because of a dispute over the information and arguments in the petition would not be effective in the Canadian subsidies. [19]

Countervailing efforts in the United States

In recent years, some members of the United States have had a counter-incentive situation. [20]

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 contains provisions for $ 15 million ($ 20 million if shot in a low-income neighborhood) to immediately write off their costs in a single year (if 75% of their principal costs are incurred by shooting in the US) [5] It also helps producers to be taxed at a capital gains rate of 15% (rather than at the higher 35% personal income tax rate). Previously producers had to depreciate those costs over several years. [5]

Local and state governments which? ] have also implemented counter-incentive programs in an effort to encourage domestic film production to remain in the United States, and the federal government has attempted to rein in outsourcing with legislation to prevent it. quote needed ]

See also

  • Branch plant economy
  • Cinema of Canada
  • Cinema of the United States
  • List of movie-related topics
  • Movie Production Incentives in the United States
  • offshoring


  1. ^ Jump up to:b Monitor Company (1999). “US Runaway Film and Television Study Report” (PDF) . Director’s Guild of America / Screen Actors Guild. p. 29 . Retrieved 2007-01-25 .
  2. Jump up^ Herd, Nick (2004). Chasing the Runaways: Foreign Film Production and Film Studio Development in Australia 1988-2002 . Strawberry Hills: Currency Press. ISBN  0-9581213-3-8 .
  3. Jump up^ Felstead, Debra (July 6, 2003). “Toronto TV production is fading to black” . Media Monitor Digest . Retrieved 2007-01-27 .
  4. Jump up^ The Center for Industry Data Entertainment and Research – Year 2005 Production Report, p 1.
  5. ^ Jump up to:g The Center for Entertainment Industry Data and Research – Year 2005 Production Report
  6. Jump up^ Thompson, Bordwell
  7. Jump up^ Adrian McDonald, Down the Rabbit Hole: The Madness of State Film Incentives as a “Solution” to Runaway Production, 14 U. PA. J. BUS. L. 85, 86 (2011).
  8. Jump up^ [1]Gatt definition of subsidy
  9. Jump up^ “Impact of the Migration of US Film and Television Production” . United States Department of Commerce. 2001 . Retrieved 2007-01-25 .
  10. ^ Jump up to:c “The Decline of Foreign Leasing Production in Canada” . Government of Canada. 2005-05-24 . Retrieved 2007-01-25 .
  11. ^ Jump up to:b “Total Economic Impact Of US Economic Runaway Production” . Directors Guild of America. 2000 . Retrieved 2007-01-25 .
  12. Jump up^ Eye Weekly – 11/11/99 – “The Great Canadian Pig-Out: Some of Canada’s biggest and most profitable corporations”
  13. ^ Jump up to:g Reprinted in University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor and Employment Law: “Through the Looking Glass: Runaway Production and Economics Hollywood” by Adrian McDonald
  14. Jump up^ Canadian Taxpayers Federation “Corporate welfare too much for Saskatchewan taxpayers” – November 03, 2005
  15. Jump up^ Verrier, Richard (October 23, 2005). “Canada rolls credits on a slump”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on May 23, 2006 . Retrieved 2007-01-25 .
  16. Jump up^ [2]
  17. Jump up^ “Shaw could kill TV fund” by Antonia Zerbisias Jan 23, 2007
  18. Jump up^ “Movie Credit Follies” January 18, 2005
  19. Jump up^ October 19, 2007
  20. Jump up^ Berman, Howard (February 12, 2003). “Bipartisan Bill Aims to Keep Movie and TV Production Jobs in the USA” . US House of Representatives. Archived from the original on 2007-01-07 . Retrieved 2007-01-27 .