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

[k.w.l.]

That isn't a very apt comparison at all.

Look at it this way, I want to make a film and I determine it will cost x dollars when all is said and done. Now I look for ways to offset that amount, or ways that I can finance it. All the government has done is removed themselves from that situation. Therefore your cost remains x dollars, not an additional punitive amount, which is what you've offered up.

In theory you are correct, but unfortunately the reality in this country is that government subsidies are an incredibly vital component of funding for films (and television and music as well). Without it, many simply wouldn't be made. As such, the bill is equivalent to censorship.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Earlscourt Lad:

I understand you point of view quite well: you believe that because it is no longer as fiscally advantageous to make something it is now being censored (if not in name, in practice). I get that.

So yes, I suspect making things less financially "appetizing" provides some manner of discouragement for certain productions.

Thank you, you have answered my question.

So yes, I suspect making things less financially "appetizing" provides some manner of discouragement for certain productions. However, here's something for you to consider: if sex sells (and it indisputably does), why can't these films get financed elsewhere? I assert it's becuase the affected films are not very good, or very specialized/niche films. In which case, if a significant number of Canadians aren't going to see them due to quality or interest, why is the government involved at all? Why is the government involved in funding commercial ventures at all is another question for another day.

But like you've said, that's a completely different issue from the one we're talking about - the change in government policy isn't a debate on the merit of having a tax incentive, nor is the goal of the tax credit necessarily to create commerical blockbusters.

I still think calling it censorship is wrong. Censorship is a ban or a prohibition, full stop. Nothing has been banned or prohibited. I find it curious, that you assume I support the government's position.

I don't think it is "censorship" in a strict, legalistic sense, but I suspect the end results (if not the intent) are similiar. And if it walks like a duck...quacks like a duck...shouldn't one question, at the very least, whether it is related to the duck? And at the end of the day, shouldn't we be more interested in what the policy does than what the policy is called?

AoD

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

And if it walks like a duck...quacks like a duck...shouldn't one question, at the very least, whether it is related to the duck? And at the end of the day, shouldn't we be more interested in what the policy does than what the policy is called?

AoD

Yes and no. If the debate is framed in reasonable terms it will garner more atttention than screaming "censorship". I suspect most people would not view it as censorship for the reason I explained. While legalistic, it is true. If a way can be found to frame the debate in a rational sense, it will get a much more positive response.

 

[CDL.TO]

CDL.TO:

It isn't punitive becuse your cost of making the film stays the same. If I buy a hosue and it cost 100k, and my father promises me 25k for a down payment, but then walks away, does the cost of the house increase?

To you the price most certainly has changed. Before you had to raise 75k to buy the house, now you need to raise 100k. Is anyone here claiming that the Federal government is going to increase the price of labour and materials?

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

No it hasn't, it means I have to look elsewhere for the the remaining 25k. The total price is still 100k.

What you proposed was that if I bought house A for 100k (instead of house b for 100k), I would have to pay an additional 1k for choosing house A. Ergo the total becomes 101k, thereby penalizing my choice of house A and making the price 101k not 100k.

 

[CDL.TO]

No it hasn't, it means I have to look elsewhere for the the remaining 25k. The total price is still 100k.

What you proposed was that if I bought house A for 100k (instead of house b for 100k), I would have to pay an additional 1k for choosing house A. Ergo the total becomes 101k, thereby penalizing my choice of house A and making the price 101k not 100k.

I would love to be your employer. "I haven't cut your salary. I just implemented a bunch of new deductions off your paycheque. You just have to look elsewhere for that 10k that you previously took home with you."

Or a salesman dealing with you. "I know the sign says 50% off sale, but I don't feel like giving you that discount. The price of the item is still the same, it hasn't gone up."

Geez. What matters is cost to the individual and ability to pay, NOT pointless semantics!

 

[vancouverguy_76]

I personally think these ratings are useless to the general population. Choosing a city to live is like choosing a mate... you may visit several, and realize that they're "just not right". You might even try living in a few, or just take them for an extended test drive. But in the end, you go where you feel comfortable. Be it where your friends/family are, what weather and surroundings you like, what language you speak, and what sort of activities and work you do.

I tried NYC and it wasn't for me. But for a buddy of mine, he'd never live anywhere else. I have chosen Vancouver, at least for now... some things I like, some things I find frustrating. I miss Toronto's vibrant streets and interesting shops and neighbourhoods, for example. But Vancouver's weather is mild and the scenery is stunning. And then some people love Madrid... oh Madrid. So fun

Some people like architecture and well-decorated streets. Some don't care. Some people like outdoor activities, and some don't. Some like the arts, and others are into sporting events and activites. Some people like hot climates, others cooler climates. Some people like busy vibrant places, while others like the country...

So ya, take these reports with a grain of salt. Well ok maybe Bagdad's not the city for most of us. But I'm sure the top 50 or more are all excellent places to live, depending on what type of person you are. Subjectivity is HUGE when evaluating a city, in my opinion and experience.