Bert Green on November 02, 2009, at 11:57PM – #1

Ironic that the "hardest to film locations," as Tom says, are filmed so often. But what do most of them otherwise have in common? They are empty of regular paying tenants. Who would want to rent space where it is close to impossible to do business due to the inconvenience of film shoots?

Sounds like a cynical ploy to get the city to give them a handout. Make it sound like it's the property owner's fault.

X on November 03, 2009, at 02:13PM – #2

Other similarities include:

1) The popularity of these locations for commercial productions because of their universal urban American look and feel.

2) Savvy property owners and neighboring businesses.

Josh on November 03, 2009, at 02:26PM – #3

if the property owners and residents don't like the inconvenience of filming, they can also tell location scouts "no, you can not film here".

but property owners usually get greedy for the money and then complain about the problems.

and that's why location filming has dropped 40% in Los Angeles this year.

and the wealthy property owner's just keep complaining.

Bert Green on November 03, 2009, at 05:55PM – #5

Josh, location filming is down because of the property owners? Really? The people I know in the film industry tell me it is due to tax incentives given by other countries and states. And that's what this is all about, getting the city to give them something for free.

That's the big problem here, when filming is hurting, its our fault (the residents and property owners). And if my business is hurt by filming impacts that's my fault too.

Sounds like corruption to me.

Insider on November 03, 2009, at 06:06PM – #6

Here is the real deal. Lawyers and bean counters have control over the film industry. They cut the budgets and the lawyers make changes to building owners contracts that would make anyone say no to filming

Josh on November 03, 2009, at 06:53PM – #7

Bert, I agree with you, filming has been slow for many reasons during the past year.

When a business or investor considers opening in downtown, they are not turned off by the filming. There are many other critical deterrents to operating downtown, most prospects mention the lack of parking, dirty sidewalks, traffic congestion, large homeless population, and pollution. Downtown is still considered 'scary' to most people. Knowing that a location attracts filming is generally consider a positive benefit to potential tenants (if properly managed, which it usually is not).

People like Gilmore keep getting paid and the rest of us keep complaining about it. Whether you blame the property owner, the tenants, or the filming, nothing seems to change.

It is well known corruption is rampant in Los Angeles, especially in politics, government, entertainment and every other big business. What can we do to stop it?

downtownlaguy47 on November 04, 2009, at 09:58AM – #8

whaa whaa, the film industry doesnt feel welcome. i am so tired of hearing this pathetic lobby group complain they dont get enough chances to interrupt the lives of downtown residents. The contribute NOTHING to this community. The city has to make a decision, do they want downtown residential growth, and the tax revenues that come with it or do they want downtown to continue to be the cheap backlot of hollywood, sold for a flat rate. If they choose the latter, i am gone (along with the money I spend on local business)

cj on November 04, 2009, at 11:34AM – #9

while i am a fairly new downtown resident, i have yet to see the negative effects of filming. i think it is the job of property managers and owners to set the rules for filming on their properties so as to minimize the intrusion on their residents/businesses. shoots occur regularly in and around my building, and i have never been bothered by the noise of late night filming or blocked entrances; only limited availability of street parking (which i guess would be more of an issue in areas such as the historic core/old bank). and even when other areas of downtown are impacted due to shoots, all the buses are rerouted so i'm rarely stuck in traffic or have to get off far from my regular stop. learn to take public transportation downtown, people. i'm not a fan of the production companies looking for freebies, but like any other business, it brings in tax revenue and creates local jobs. just like with homelessness and "urban noise," if you're going to live downtown, you should expect filming and what goes along with it to be part of the package.

Bert Green on November 04, 2009, at 12:13PM – #10

Recent residents experience reduced location filming impacts because of the Special Conditions which DLANC negotiated with the film industry in 2007, which are in voluntary effect by Film LA, until they are enacted by City Council. You can read them here:

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2009/09-1385_mot_6-9-09.pdf

The Conditions are expected to appear in the Jobs Committee soon, and then hopefully afterwards in Council. All downtowners are encouraged to read them, and show up to the hearings to provide your feedback. Alternately, you may express your opinions directly to your Council member: CD 9 (Jan Perry) and CD 14 (Jose Huizar) cover downtown. Their contact info is at lacity.org.

Some people (not all) in the industry is trying very hard to kill these Conditions, despite the fact that they were negotiated with film industry reps like the MPAA, Warner Bros, Sony, AICP, etc. They would prefer that the pesky residents do not interfere with their desire to shoot at any time, day or night, with any impact at all.

Please read the Conditions. What they do is set out a series of rights and responsibilities for all parties, and limit filming hours ONLY within 100 feet of residential buildings. Outside of that radius, there are NO restrictions. In addition, they require residential buildings and commercial businesses to provide contact information and posted hours for location managers to reach them. You'd think the industry would support that, it will SAVE them a lot of money.

FilmFan on November 04, 2009, at 12:36PM – #11

I think they meant more expensive. Downtown is changing rapidly and former "easy" to permit film locations are disappearing fast. What most people forget is that production people love downtown too. They were here when the buildings were crumbling and empty. 4th and Main was a scary place at night and the only lights in the buildings were run by movie generators. Studios have shrunk the budgets and ask why it costs 5 times more to film the same block 3 years later.

They are not trying to make noise and hurt business, we make money from it. Sometimes its a pain, but kinda worth it.

UPM on November 04, 2009, at 09:58PM – #12

As a UPM I'm never worried about anything above.. it’s all logistics and coordinating issues and a few perks /courtesy payments here and there.

WHAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE WORRIED ABOUT:

I will never shoot a film in Los Angeles AGAIN for the simple fact that the Unions are way too expensive including the Teamsters (the worst to rack up a budget) and the IATSE who at least have decent tier levels but I can still pay people in the IATSE much less per hour in the south. We get no tax credit/rebate in CA and god forbid I want to use extras (SAG) that are non-union in the 30 mile zone ($$$$).

CA is only good for one thing and that’s making business deals (the paperwork, agents, etc.) and post production. Other than that the South and Canada will get my production dollars, sorry but that’s the real deal!

Alvy Singer on November 05, 2009, at 11:00AM – #13

I'll tell you where it is not hard to film -- Los Feliz. Our street is blocked off every week. No film or commercial is too small. Want to film on a street cleaning day? No problem. We'll block off the opposite side, too, so our residents can park blocks away from their home. Need three or four days in a row? While not take a week. We don't care. Ahh, what a neighborhood.

X on November 05, 2009, at 01:03PM – #14

Location filming is not down because of greedy property owners who are killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Location filming is down because the goose is no longer laying golden eggs.

Feature films will always shoot where they get the best combination of product and cost.

Episodic television has diminished and by that I mean that now, not every show that is on in prime time is episodic as it once was. Reality programming, game shows, talent contests -- these all eat away at 'location filming'.

The bulk of most episodic television is shot on soundstage. So what is happening now in Los Angeles is exactly what happens in any the manufacturing of anything -- you go to where production costs the least without sacrificing the quality of your product.

nanorich on November 05, 2009, at 02:17PM – #15

UPM,

there are plenty of scab productions downtown (commercials and music videos)

but if you are going to whine because you can't afford to pay for established IA trade's people Los Angeles, maybe you can go back to your right to work states...and not pay a living wage and benefits.

This is Los Angeles. This is the major studio town.

UPM on November 06, 2009, at 02:01AM – #17

Nanorich, The only people that are whining are the thousands of union workers that can't seem to find jobs. All of my feature film productions are union even in Canada. I (and others) have just decided not to use IA/Teamster rates because they are INFLATED in CA. The proposed tax credit in 2011 for filming still doesn't really cut it with all the conditions.

A CA Teamster driver who drives a maxi van that shuttles actors just a few blocks away (base camp to set) makes approx $5,000 per week! Most of the time he/she is just sitting in the van waiting. I also have to pay this person meal money $60+ per day in addition to he/she eating the dinner provided. FILE THAT UNDER OVERPAID & COMPLETELY RIDICULAS!!!

Look, I love this state but it’s not worth shooting in any longer. To sum it up.. it’s not the location issues that we need to be discussing it’s how the unions and the lack of a descent rebate are killing the CA film industry.

nanorich on November 06, 2009, at 11:18AM – #18

Um, if you were working as Unit Production Manager in Los Angeles, you won't be complaining about how much you were paid. (well, actually you probably would, because wages are stagnant here)

And you might want to research the history of salaries for IA trades personnel before you demand they give back wages and benefits which have only reflected modest cost of living increases over the past two decades.

If you can't afford to work here, don't project your situation on to the professions who are worth every penny.

I understand people complain about how much housing costs in LA. So go some place where people don't want to live and work on the cheap:

but know when you do that, it shows. In your product, in your attitude, and lack of respect of people who know how to do their job.

I complain a lot of shooting downtown. But after thirty years in the motion picture and television industry, when some guy from out of town gets sticker shock over what it costs to play here, and claims that because he can't afford to pay the freight...and it will drive the industry out of business.....I just have to laugh.

Here is what will drive the industry out of business: more crappy movies and lousy TV shows. (below the line costs have never been the problem)

Check the budget for the average :30 second network spot before you claim to be a big shot, and threaten never to work in this town again.

X on November 06, 2009, at 11:26AM – #19

UPM:

Rule Number One of Production -- you cannot make a movie if you cannot get to the location with the people and equipment you need.

Additionally, you forgot to include how many hours that driver has to work to get that wage -- 80+. That's five days of working 16 hours or more a day.

What producers and UPMs don't seem to want to do is retreat to a reasonable work day or take active steps to control overtime. Those employees are there only because you hired them and are allowing to work the overtime.

There's nothing in the contracts forcing you to work them past 8 hours. In fact, there's nothing keeping a UPM from sending Crew A home at eight hours and starting Crew B to avoid overtime. That would actually spread more work out and reduce overtime costs.

Of course, if you don't have the workers in the area to do that (such as when you go to a Third Area), then you are stuck paying overtime rates as well as hotels, transportation and per diem to all the talent and crew you bring with you to the distant location. Don't forget their forced call pay too.

Joe on November 06, 2009, at 12:34PM – #20

Surprised that no one mentioned what seems obvious:

Shooting is down in the US, not just Los Angeles, because advertising is down.

Last year, VW release ONE new car. One. Toyota announced their first fiscal loss since the company started. Dwindling advertising means little need for shooting commercials.

And dammit. I wouldn't mind $ 5000 a week to sit in a van for 80 hours. Imagine the reading I would get done on someone else's dime.

UPM on November 06, 2009, at 07:26PM – #21

This is a great discussion and one I would certainly not express to my below the line crew members but often discussed with the producers.

I think we know by the posts who are the union members here, those who would have a heart attack over a 25 cent reduction per hour in pay. Just to be clear, I’m not talking about big studio pictures like Spider Man in the 100M range, I’m talking about motion pictures in the 5M – 25M range and even those in the 2M which have to shoot elsewhere even on a low budget agreement. You are correct about rule number one, when you can’t afford it then don’t shoot. That’s what I am getting at here, it’s too expensive to shoot in CA thus we are shooting elsewhere (legitimate productions with decent sized budgets). We are not housing the entire crew, we are picking up locals with lesser tier rates than those in CA. There are a lot of top notch professionals in Louisiana, NC/SC/GA, and Canada. It amazes me that people think that if you’re not from CA you must be under skilled, that’s such baloney.

I understand we can avoid overtime costs (unless you have a minimum guarantee for something negotiated) but who does that on the 8th hour for the entire crew? Yes, maybe we can send a key home and keep the 2nd to do the paperwork at the end of the night to save here and there. Even at 8hrs the RATES ARE WAY TOO HIGH! For every hour, I not only pay an outrageous rate but an ADDITIONAL $3+ per hour for Pension, Health and Welfare PLUS Payroll taxes (can’t avoid). Does that maxi van driver (just an example) really need to make 20+k per month for 2+ months, not to mention the prep days? You can’t spin it, no matter how much you want to try.

Solutions: 1. Major Hourly Rate Reductions (ON ALL TIERS!) 2. A Decent Tax Credit/Rebate similar to what is being offered in other states such as New Mexico, Michigan, and even Louisiana.

OR Not work at all in CA and make nothing at all, IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE!

X on November 06, 2009, at 09:36PM – #22

UPM:

"...but who does that on the 8th hour for the entire crew?"

The answer is every other industry that does any type of manufacturing or employs non-overtime exempt workers.

If your gripe is bloated contractual overtime, stop paying it by putting workers off after their straight eight.

It's really that simple.

Otherwise, the winters in Michigan and Canada are real mild I hear compared to Los Angeles. Go check them out and get back to us.

UPM on November 06, 2009, at 10:02PM – #23

X,

This is typical union behavior by deflecting the issue. I’m not talking about overtime or how cold it is in Canada. You have yet to commit on the tax credit or rebate issue thus I must have hit that union nerve. I was talking about the overall hourly union wages and the lack of a rebate in general. This is why we lost so much work during the union strike because of not wanting to bend a little! Louisiana as well as South Carolina are both suitable this time of year for production.

As a UPM (DGA) in CA with over 15 years experience this is where I see the down fall to be here in CA. If you want to pretend this is not TWO of the biggest issues then pretend to make movies with a Sony handy cam from BestBuy in your backyard. I have moved 12 motion pictures out of CA because of these reasons. That’s a lot of money that could have stayed in CA but unfortunately the Teamsters and IATSE made me do it plus the lack of a descent rebate.

I’m not the bad guy here just doing what I can to come in on budget. I do pay CA taxes as a resident so the state did see some money, I guess.

X on November 08, 2009, at 09:47PM – #24

UPM:

You haven't hit any nerve with me except for your unwillingness to make a simple change in how you run your set.

My understanding is that productions in Los Angeles already get a Sales and Use Tax exemption.

But ask yourself, under what logic should every location production should be shot in Los Angeles?

More to the point of your gripe, admit what you control, and it is the ability as the employer to send a crew home at the end of their straight eight.

The reality is that the nature of television and film entertainment is changing. It has to. There's been a saturation of films and television shows that only repeat or remake stories already told to an older generation.

And while that camera from Best Buy may not turn out the quality of a Hollywood studio, our society is rapidly approaching the point where a top-shelf Mac and some software can create HD product and visual effects that should scare the crap out of you. No concession from any union is going to change that.

Union are unlikely to dilute the strength of their contracts by making concessions to keep location work local when the bulk of their members work on stage because Los Angeles remains the world's capital for sound stages.

So report back on your adventures in South Carolina and Louisiana. You will still be renting your camera equipment, wardrobe, grip, lighting and talent from Los Angeles. Most likely all of your keys and the bulk of your production and location staff too.

In reality you are talking about 4-6 grips, electricians and drivers (total of 12-18) you will employ locally. Maybe a caterer from the East Coast and maybe some transportation equipment rental. Your background talent will be local too. But you will still do post-production in Los Angeles.

Essentially, it's a shift in where the workforce will be needed. And that is just the nature of today's economy. We're all in transition whether we realize it or not.

Protectionism is not the way to go though. Nor are the industry's constant cries of runaway production that now sound like a spoiled child. It gets old and too many people in too many other sectors are suffering right now to garner much sympathy.

UPM on November 10, 2009, at 02:14AM – #25

X,

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but the truth of the matter is that my budgets come in far less in other states (with rebates & reduced hourly) than Los Angeles and that's enough for the Producers to shoot elsewhere.

I would love to keep shooting here. Heck, just wake up from my own bed every morning and drive to set and see a local familiar crew that I go way back with. I have a lot of friends (BTL union Crew) that are on the edge of losing their homes and it bothers me a great deal that I can't just afford to hire them on a distant.

I also feel bad for the 1M films that would love to shoot and employ workers but cant because of the fear of getting pounded by union drivers and IA. Some of these productions are not even looking for a rebate and respect turn around times (etc..) even beinging non-union. They just want to shoot their small little film and employ workers locally... All these little films do start to add up over time.

CA film production will continue to fall and no FaceBook or Internet Blog is going to fix it unless EVERYONE bends a little to make it work!

FilmFan on November 10, 2009, at 10:15AM – #26

UPM,

Maybe we should start with DGA residuals, double days, and production fees.

Im not sure if those are reduced in the post 60's states but I know the IA's are.

Hmmmm.

Wasnt this discussion about filming in Downtown?

Maybe there are bigger issues we should be be thinking about.

james on November 11, 2009, at 02:39PM – #27

I've been downtown ten years and i know that the film crews have gotten friendlier and respectful of the residents. It takes time and patience to make this work. I like the film crews down here. It adds to the cities vibrancy and uniqueness. If this cituation wants to make you move, then you don't belong down here. I prefer a film crew on the corner then the drug dealers, anyday. Let's get rid of the drug dealers first.

imeanreally on November 11, 2009, at 04:00PM – #28

I can appreciate the desire to film downtown. I can't appreciate closed streets, limited parking spaces, closed sidewalks, people having the balls to ask me not to cross the street, traffic, and more noise. Downtown residents are already tasked with having to deal with enough BS. Filming just adds to it. If the city wants people to live, shop, and embrace downtown, then they should make it more convenient for those of us that live here. Not the opposite. Patience (mine at least) starts to wear thin after a while.