Fox series to shoot in Wilmington
 

WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) -- As one TV series leaves Wilmington, another is moving in.

The Wilmington Regional Film Commission and the North Carolina Film Office announced today that 20th Century Fox Television is bringing the TV series "Sleepy Hollow" to the Port City. Production is expected to being in late July and run through December on an initial order of 12 episodes.

"We are certainly excited that once again Wilmington has been chosen as the home for another TV series," Wilmington Regional Film Commission Director Johnny Griffin said. "This series will continue Wilmington's long running success with television production."

"Sleepy Hollow," a modern-day retelling of Washington Irving's classic ghost story, stars Tom Mison and Orlando Jones. It shot its pilot in Salisbury earlier this year and has offices and soundstages at Screen Gems Studios. It is slated to air on Fox this fall.

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

yes, i agree there are a lot of local workers that live here and work in the film industry but just try to get your foot in the door. they pay very very well and most all of these folks have been doing it since the 1990's when the studio started. i'm not personally looking for work in the industry, and neither is my husband. we are both older retired folks. my husband struck up a conversation with two men working in transportation department for the film industry last week. they told him they had been doing it since the early 1990's. they also said most all these folks got the job either years ago or knew someone who got them in and they keep them because it pays way more than the local economy. i don't begrudge these guys, i'm glad they have good paying jobs.

Imagine that! Another state that sees the positive impact film production has to the economy. So much so that they are offering INCENTIVES to lure the jobs to them and away from NORTH CAROLINA, Georgia, and Louisiana!

www.backstage.com/news/texas-offering-95-million-tv-and-film-incentives/

Louisiana has capped their incentives and in Georgia there was serious discussion about limiting or reducing the incentive package.
Is Texas going to beat out NC?
Who knows? They have a lot of oil revenue to help them along in their race to the bottom.
We don't have the luxury in NC.
Let the natural beauty of NC lure filmmakers here - there is no need to pay them to do it.

Vog

why dont u know u not welcome here and in nc

they be more better at de reedin an rite-en dan u?

First - I hope the State is not paying for them to film here.

Second - who are stars Tom Milson and Orlando Jones???

Vog

Of course the State is not paying them to film here, we (tax payers) are paying them. It is crazy that tax payers are paying a, private, business to come here to do business which will " require" the closing of roads that we (tax payers) paid to build and maintain (a joke within itself, I know).

Wilmington Observer

In my opinion it is a small price to pay considering the amount the film industry will bring in revenue to the area such as: Tourists who come to see such things that they don't get to see in their home towns, which equals hotels, restaurants, and other businesses. Also, equipment rental compainies, lumber sales, metal products companies, electrical supply companies, rental property income for the actors, catering companies, travel industry such as vehical rentals and air transport etc. There is so much money spent here. They pay to rent locations to film, such as private and historical properties, commercial buildings. They pay the city to block of roads for shoots. The list goes on and on. You have to see the big picture. Never mind all of the local people who are employed by them. It's a very good thing !!

"You have to see the big picture."
Yep you do.
No matter what there are people employed by the film industry here and I say good for them. Movies and TV shows will be filmed here and I say good for us.
The problem is not with the the act of filing
It's with the state government subsidizing the business at the expense of all taxpayers.
Let's do this again: I'll give you two scenario's for the exact same film. The film SPENDS $100M for all the things you listed. All taxed at 6% sales tax. Included in this spending are wages which are taxed at 7% but I won't quibble over one percent
Scenario A - incentives allowed. Out of that $100M the state collects $6M in taxes from both sales taxes and wages. The money spent at home depot for framing lumber for the set goes towards costs associated with that business (HD has to pay their suppliers etc...). At the end if the filming the state awards them a 20% rebate, or $20M. It cost the state ($14M) to get that film here. The state LOST money.
Now same movie - no incentives. The state gets all $6M in tax revenues!! they make money......

Why does the film industry want incentives? It almost guarantees them profitability no matter haw badly the film perform at the box office. And those profits? Are not garnered here in NC. They go to the distributors of that film in Los Angeles or wherever - so NC loses out on that corporate tax as well.

Look, I'm NOT against filming here. They are clean jobs, they are good jobs.
But continuous incentives for EACH film or TV show?
That is a guaranteed money loser for the state.
If all states dropped incentives would filming stop? Of course not. They were here before incentives and they will be back without incentives.
This is nothing more than a shakedown of state government by the filming businesses.

Vog

You say it is a "small price to pay...."

I am the one paying that small price (taxes). I don't own a hotel, restaurant or other business that benefits in the manner in which you imply. I, also, don't own a rental equipment company, lumber or metal company. Nor do I own an electrical supply company, have rental property, work as an actor, own a catering business or have anything to do with the travel industry or anything else on your list that goes on and on. Therefore I get nothing in return for the "small price" that I pay so that all of these OTHER people can benefit. But, I also only pay a "small price" so that others can get free housing, transportation, medical care, job training, childcare, groceries, utilities, cellphone service, etc, etc, etc.

My point is, all of those "small prices" that I pay so that others can benefit add up to a LARGE chunk of my, monthly, bottom line and I am getting pretty sick and tired of paying those "small prices".

Oh...... Those roads that "they pay the city to block"....... I paid for those roads (another small price) and can't use them when "they" have them blocked.

Wilmington Observer

These comments reflect a basic misunderstanding about film in ILM. Production companies are coupon shoppers. They will go where it is most cost effective to film. They must first spend the money, then go through an auditing process to qualify for a rebate. Film=Jobs and economic growth. There are hundreds of full time film workers based in ILM that depend on this industry, myself included. It isn't about millionaires, just local good jobs that Georgia and SC would love to take from us.

When we talk about film incentives we are talking about corporate welfare and paying people to film here. Here is an interesting take on Iran Man 3 (IM3) and the economic impact of it:
http://www.carolinajournal.com/daily_journal/display.html?id=10149

This article highlights the failure of those supporting incentives to look at the economic numbers – especially the numbers used to show economic benefit of filming. Why? Because it’s in their best interest to pass along lies and make them sound good. Here’s an excerpt regarding the “multiplier” used by the MPAA to show how IM3 impacted the local area:
“The multiplier being used in the “Iron Man 3” study — while North Carolina’s film incentives are under scrutiny by legislators — is 8.99. The study proclaims “The film generates $8.99 in economic output for every dollar of tax credit received by the production.”
This is an outrageously generous number as the article illuminates. In fact, study after study indicates that the payoff is pennies on the dollar.
But keep the multiplier in perspective – 8.99. This was for a part time event filming a movie. The ball park folks? They used IMPLAN multipliers too. Their numbers were around 2.4 to 2.9. How can this be? The ballpark was here for 70 days – IM3 for less than that. So how can it be true that NC gets $8.99 for every dollar spent?
The plain fact is – they don’t. State after state, study after study show something different. The ONLY folks who say its profitable are the movie industry folks. Are we surprised? They have their hand out just like the ball park supporters did.
IMPLAN does not work on projects that last less than a year. For projects over a year, the multiplier numbers are still way to generous as well. This is why I don’t support incentives – especially incentives tied to some fairy tale economic impact numbers.
Now take an incentive and give it to Verizon, or GE. The people work here for YEARS they pay taxes for years. They seldom go on unemployment. Over a decade the economic impact is far, far greater. In property taxes alone GE and Verizon are outdoing the film industry that pays no property taxes as they are not permanent - with the exception of the studio. Between GE and Verizon there are thousands employed in this area, not hundreds.
So, as much as I dislike ALL incentives if we are to give them out my opinion is for permanent jobs, not temporary ones. And as much as I like the thought of the filming industry jobs being clean, neither GE nor Verizon are "huge" polluters either.
Corporate handouts are pathetic, but NC offers stunning vistas and a good work force. Ending the film incentives will not end filming here. If our work force and our states beauty does NOT attract more movies? Then perhaps the industry should take a good look at itself to see where they need to improve.

Vog

"They will go where it is most cost effective to film."
No they will go where they can extort the most money from governments. States like Louisiana and Illinois have seen the limited economic impact of films and have cut back or capped their incentive packages. If NO states offered incentives would filming stop? If you answered yes then don't respond but clearly filming requires certain scenes. If they are filmed here? Great. If not, oh well.

"Film=Jobs and economic growth. There are hundreds of full time film workers based in ILM that depend on this industry, myself included."
I'm glad you are employed by the industry. That said I do not support the state using my tax dollars to support YOUR job nor any job but if they have to incentivise a company and this governor supports incentives (too bad) then it should be for full time jobs not temp jobs.

"Film=Jobs and economic growth"
Heres a thought for you. The movie industry and film bureaus like to tout how the indirect spending gets spread throughout our economy. As stated below the multipliers are way WAY off - the question is - why? They use IMPLAN (like the ballpark supporters did). The problem with IMPLAN is that it doesn't work for temporary projects like filming. IMPLAN multipliers have been found to be way too generous for even permanent facilities. This generosity is even more pronounced for temp projects.

"just local good jobs that Georgia and SC would love to take from us."
Actually Georgia was debating a cap or reduction this year in film incentives but Georgia has built a large sound stage in the hopes of luring more business there but many legislators have called this a race to the bottom.
It is indeed, unfortunate that movie company's have resorted to this suckling on the government teat to get money from taxpayers. The jobs are clean, but temporary.

Here's something from someone in the business:
http://www.vulture.com/2011/10/runaway_film_production_tax_cr.html

"I'm against them because I’m a taxpayer. For a perfect (but, sadly, not unique) example of why these credits are bad policy, look at Michigan. In 2010, that state's incentive program cost $117 million, and in return it created 1,039 full-time jobs; that breaks down to Michigan paying an enormous $112,608 per job. And even taking into account the tax receipts generated by the productions, the program had a net loss of $60 million. A bipartisan State Senate study of the 2010 Michigan program reported that “film incentives represent lost revenue and do not generate sufficient private sector activity to offset their costs completely."

Of course don't believe me about the film comp[any's use of economic numbers:
"Michigan isn’t unique. Study after study (with the exception of those funded by the biased Motion Picture Association of America) shows that states generate a return of far less in tax collections than they put out in incentives. Louisiana, for example (which has become a major destination for such films as The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Expendables), did a study that showed only a 13- to 18-cent return on each dollar spent. Yet the program continues. It is difficult to kill a bad program, given the lobbying by the MPAA on behalf of the studios."

Funny how the industry itself is the only groups still suggesting this is good business.

Vog

Lets give you two scenarios:
First - no incentives. Filming takes place and the company spends $100,000. State reaps 6% sales tax or $6,000.

Second scenario - company qualifies for 20% incentive after spending $100,000 - state takes in 6% sales tax or $6,000.
20% pay out in incentives of $20,000
State takes in $6000 for a net loss of $14,000

Keep in mind that what the MOVIE industry claims is highly inflated:

Here's a little disagreement:

http://illinoispolicy.org/uploads/files/FilmTaxCredit_2.pdf

"A 2008 study of South Carolina’s film
incentives program found it “returned 19 cents
in taxes for each dollar paid out in rebates.”13
In Louisiana, the expected return for the state’s
film tax incentive was 16-18 cents for each
dollar paid out.14 Rhode Island fares a little
better with “a 28-cent return on every dollar
invested,” but Connecticut only gets eight
cents.15 A recent report found that in Michigan,
home of the country’s largest film tax credit,
“even under the most optimistic assumptions,
tax receipts driven by new economic activity
barely offset 10% of the cost of awarding
film tax credits.” 16

*******************************************
I have found NOTHING put out by the film industry that says anything LESS than $4 for every dollar spent - yet these guys profit from lying so much about the economic benefit.

it is clearly not worth it and both Gov Jindal in LS and the gov of Indiana have cut or capped film incentives.
I'm against all incentives but to give out incentives for temporary jobs is ludicrous. These folks go out and collect unemployment between jobs so that make the pay off for the state even less.

Vog