News   Sep 06, 2024
Emerald City Skyline
 156     0 
News   Sep 05, 2024
Kitchener Rental Tower Proposed to Rise Along ION Corridor
 832     0 
News   Sep 05, 2024
Alba Rises Above Grade in Central Mississauga
 774     0 

Toronto #15 best city in the world, and how films are funded

W. K. Lis

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
24,069
Reaction score
14,774
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
In a report by Mercer Consulting, Swiss and German cities dominate ranking of best cities in the world.

Zurich, Vienna and Geneva are the best cities in the world as far as quality of live is concerned, says Mercer Consulting in a survey published in June 2008. Vancouver (Canada) and Auckland (New Zealand) are placed fourth and fifth respectively, followed by three German cities: Düsseldorf, Munich and Frankfurt. Tokyo, London and Madrid are all outside the top 25. Overall, Baghdad is, not surprisingly, the lowest ranking city in the survey.

Canadian cities dominate the rankings in the Americas. Vancouver (4) has the best quality of living followed by Toronto (15), Ottawa (19) and Montreal (22). In the US, after Honolulu (28) comes San Francisco (29), Boston (37) and Chicago (44). Washington, DC, ranks 44, above New York (49).

Mercer’s study is based on detailed assessments and evaluations of 39 key quality-of-living determinants, grouped in the following categories:
• Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc)
• Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services, etc)
• Socio-cultural environment (censorship, limitations on personal freedom, etc)
• Health and sanitation (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc)
• Schools and education (standard and availability of international schools, etc)
• Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transport, traffic congestion, etc)
• Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc)
• Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc)
• Housing (housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services, etc)
• Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters)
 
Hydrogen said:
One can only wonder why Baghdad scored so low.
Click to expand...

• Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc)
• Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services, etc)
• Socio-cultural environment (censorship, limitations on personal freedom, etc)
• Health and sanitation (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc)
• Schools and education (standard and availability of international schools, etc)
• Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transport, traffic congestion, etc)
• Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc)
• Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc)
• Housing (housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services, etc)
• Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters)
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
...
• Socio-cultural environment (censorship, limitations on personal freedom, etc)
...
Click to expand...

With the federal government's move to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other offensive content, all of the Canadian cities may go down a notch or two, if it happens.
 
Wow. Vancouver is 2.2% better than Toronto.

First place Zurich is 2.6% better than Toronto.
 
W. K. Lis said:
With the federal government's move to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other offensive content, all of the Canadian cities may go down a notch or two, if it happens.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between censorship and denying tax credis. Quite a substantial one.
 
Earlscourt_Lad said:
There's a difference between censorship and denying tax credis. Quite a substantial one.
Click to expand...

When it takes tax credits to get any film made in this country, denying them on the basis of content equals censorship, so no, there is no difference whatsoever.

42
 
That's impressive, actually. 15th out of all the cities in the world, I'll take it. Maybe we could send that to everyone who always whines about how bad Toronto is. I mean, we beat Brussels, Tokyo, Stockholm, etc..
 
Apparently, rival consulting firm McKiernsey & Co. has come out with a new and totally objective way to rate global cities. Here are the criteria:

1. Accessibility to delicious and efficient Dim Sum
2. Availability of Creemore on tap
3. Affordability of all you can eat Sushi prices
4. Selection of pirated DVDs
5. Proliferation of indie rock acts on any given night
6. Ease of getting into a free screening of obscure film festival because you know the organizer
7. Rate at which new affordable Thai restaurants get opened
8. Effortlessness of introducing partner of different ethnicity to your parents

Surprisingly, Toronto came in first in this ranking, well ahead of Geneva, Stockholm or that Scandinavian city where they have a great transit system but the newspapers keep on drawing pictures of the prophet Mohammed to offend their minorities.
 
Earlscourt_Lad said:
So you cannot fund a film privately?

If there was a chance it might be successful, I'm sure someone would back the film financially.
Click to expand...

Films typically get funding from many, many sources, and few are made anywhere with funding from only one source (not all films can be made by Marvel). Few people are willing to bet the moon on a film because they are nearly never a sure thing, so most investors throw a little here, a little there, and hope to come out on top occasionally. Tax credits are provided by provinces, states, and countries to lure projects away from Hollywood and to allow less blockbuster-y type films to get made period. The typical European film these days (and many Canadian ones too) are multi-national productions that draw funding from many national film agencies so that the government agencies don't get burned by putting all of their eggs in one basket either. Usually public funding comes with a string attached, such as stars from that country must be cast, or certain locations must be used for filming.

The Conservatives are proposing legislation that would allow them not only to deny tax credits to films whose story lines might not fit with their idea of public morality, but would also allow them to retract promised tax credits later in the process. It is just a way to say "clean up your film or you lose you money" in a way that could scuttle projects that have already had substantial amounts of money spent on them. In most cases the only way other investors in the film could recoup what they had already spent would be to finish the film the way to Government was demanding. That is the very definition of censorship. Do you want the Conservatives telling you what Canadian stories you'll be allowed to see?

42
 
interchange42 said:
Films typically get funding from many, many sources, and few are made anywhere with funding from only one source (not all films can be made by Marvel). Few people are willing to bet the moon on a film because they are nearly never a sure thing, so most investors throw a little here, a little there, and hope to come out on top occasionally. Tax credits are provided by provinces, states, and countries to lure projects away from Hollywood and to allow less blockbuster-y type films to get made period. The typical European film these days (and many Canadian ones too) are multi-national productions that draw funding from many national film agencies so that the government agencies don't get burned by putting all of their eggs in one basket either. Usually public funding comes with a string attached, such as stars from that country must be cast, or certain locations must be used for filming.

The Conservatives are proposing legislation that would allow them not only to deny tax credits to films whose story lines might not fit with their idea of public morality, but would also allow them to retract promised tax credits later in the process. It is just a way to say "clean up your film or you lose you money" in a way that could scuttle projects that have already had substantial amounts of money spent on them. In most cases the only way other investors in the film could recoup what they had already spent would be to finish the film the way to Government was demanding. That is the very definition of censorship. Do you want the Conservatives telling you what Canadian stories you'll be allowed to see?

42
Click to expand...
Liberal senators are proposing amendments to the bill that should make it more reasonable:
http://www.thestar.com/article/445325
 
Fox said that even though the last two are already covered by the Criminal Code, spelling it out means Liberals won't have to explain to voters why they supported such films if the government falls over the issue.
Click to expand...

LOL. I can just imagine what British tabloids will say if the Liberals kill the government.

"Canada Government Falls Over Porn Flicks"
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top