Jon Voight Has A Plan To Save Hollywood: Will Trump Or Anyone Else Care?

Jon Voight has been taking meetings around town with union reps and studio executives to understand the issues plaguing domestic production, Deadline has confirmed...

We understand that Trump’s other two ambassador picks, Sylvester Stallone and Mel Gibson, are not involved in Voight’s conversations...

The exact plan that Coming Home Oscar winner Voight, whose daughter is Angelina Jolie, has prepared for Trump is unclear, but sources with knowledge of his conversations with Hollywood insiders tell us they expect a federal tax incentive to be the main component.

As the lack of production in L.A. displays, the U.S. film and television industry has suffered greatly from a growing number of runaway productions over the years. International territories including the UK, Canada and Hungary have significantly beefed up their own financial incentives, tax credits and infrastructure during the past decade. Stateside, while individual states from the heavy hitters of New York and Georgia to smaller jurisdictions like New Mexico have done what they can to bolster their own local industries, union representatives have been raising the idea of a federal tax break to further incentivize domestic production for some time.

...Sources have pointed out that any major funding initiative using taxpayer dollars would contradict the administration’s rhetoric on trimming the fat from the federal budget and bringing down the national debt.

However, bolstering domestic film and television production is in line with Trump’s agenda to bring jobs back from overseas, more generally. In his Truth Social decree in January, Trump said he was appointing Voight, Stallone and Gibson with “the purpose of bringing Hollywood, which has lost much business over the last four years to Foreign Countries, BACK—BIGGER, BETTER, AND STRONGER THAN EVER BEFORE!”

I am generally opposed to corporate subsidies in principle, but international trade gets really complicated, really fast.

As with so many issues surrounding the film industry, I've come around to the view that the best way to approach X may be to forget about the film industry, at least initially, and frame the question as, "what would we do if this were happening in the widget business?"

Maybe trying to compete with them furriners by offering even bigger subsidies is attacking the wrong end of the problem.

Take widget manufacturing. Suppose the U.S. had become the global leviathan of widgets long ago for straightforward commercial reasons. Fine.

Now suppose that underlying technological and market shifts are rearranging the market dynamics, putting a world of hurt on long-dominant legacy firms structured to thrive in an environment that is rapidly changing. Can they adapt?

But suppose that in addition to underlying structural changes in technology and markets, foreign governments decided to get into the widget game. Maybe widgets are a national security priority. Maybe widgets have been culturally fetishized -- the way the performing arts became fetishized in the Golden Age of Hollywood -- and the pols get caught up in the glamour, the red carpets, and the lifestyles of the rich and famous ... and allow themselves to be seduced by the mystique. Whatever.

But suppose a growing number of foreign countries decide to get into the game. It can be a very slow process to do this organically, by developing a domestic market and then a domestic production base that matures to the point that some of its stuff is exportable. In the short run, they can't compete on purely qualitative terms, or in an unrigged market given the enormous sunk costs, infrastructure and concentrations of human capital built by the legacy U.S. giants over a century or more. So they cheat. They throw subsidies at U.S. companies -- perhaps in cash, perhaps preferential market access -- to bribe them to shift their operations abroad.

We would object to this if it were done in widgets, or automobiles, or airplane manufacture, or any other economic sector. And in fact, we have been objecting for a long time. This is where the WTO is supposed to set the rules. Trade distorting subsidies are forbidden. Theoretically.

At this point, things get incredibly complicated in the blink of an eye. Countries bent on cheating will look for non-tariff trade barriers. And WTO rules have to be enforced; the biggest problem with China, for example, is that we cut China a lot of slack on cheating for decades, for reasons rooted in the Cold War strategic calculus. But this went on too long, and China got used to cheating. Long after the point at which China had become a middle class country in global terms, and long after the point at which China needed to grow up and accept its obligations as a reliable, constructive trade partner, China remained piratical. That's what Trump is now trying to unwind, but that's another story.

The film industry is no different. Foreign subsidies that are outright bribes to U.S. companies to shift their operations abroad are no more defensible than similar subsidies in the widget game. The film industry provides more exciting photo ops and sexy starlets, but the economic calculus is something apart from that.

Perhaps instead of trying to out-bribe would-be foreign competitors, we should be attacking the other end of the problem. Assess the value of the production bribes for each Hollywood production that moves overseas, and impose a commensurate tariff or penalty. Level the playing field through enforcement of fair trade rules, not by outbribing the cheaters.

Yes, this would get complicated, and I don't know enough to fill in the blanks. But this would still probably be better than establishing a de facto Ministry of Culture to allocate bribes, aka "production incentives," to offset foreign bribery. The Ministry of Culture route will inevitably lead to a suffocating degree of conformity and adherence to a party line. This is exactly what the woke left has been trying to do anyhow through the DEI mafia and its myriad tentacles in the big studios, which are now largely owned by Big Tech companies subject to activist group and government pressure on myriad fronts. This has already proven to be absolute poison to the creative independence of filmmakers, as well as to their incentives to first and foremost serve the customers, with success measured in ticket sales, not box checking on ideological litmus tests.

That's a clumsy way of putting it, but the focus on competitive subsidies seems to me to be the wrong approach. What a number of foreign countries are doing with regard to the film industry is clearly predatory. How about treating it the way we would treat predatory pricing in widgets?

I know Jon. Had a great dinner with him a few years ago where, yes, he asked for script ideas about a screenplay about colleges.

Hollywood has several problems, many of them resistant to being fixed by just one or two well-meaning people.
*The woke is still strong there, despite a few studios acknowledging that it is killing their box office. Rather than remove woke, I’ve noticed this pattern: in streamers for the first 2-3 episodes-—or even the first season-—they will be plain old entertainment-driven with no woke. (Think “Mandalorean” season 1-2). Then, confident they have an audience no matter what, they begin to homo/transoid it up. (Season 3 was horrible). Other series still ignore the massive backlash and Lesbo up a series in the first 30 minutes (”Tracker”).
*A recent study found that nearly 80% (!!!) of all “new” movies are either spinoffs, remakes, or “universe” expansions. There is NOTHING original, even if you can get past the woke.
(Look at the success of “Minecraft,” based on a popular game, that has already grossed $850 million vs “Captain African American: Brave New World” which, last I looked, was around $415 million (or a $200-300 million LOSS).
*Length: every single movie now is over 2hrs, many close to 3. That’s not an afternoon or evening, that’s a near day long commitment if you have to drive.
*Villains: right now, there are only a couple of acceptable villains: Russkies or white American anti-climate men. This makes it really, really hard to tell a truly diverse story, let alone one that identifies the world’s worst satanic forces of China, Islam, and African chowdermissiles.
*Cost: making a first rate drama is pretty much going to cost at leat $30 million; an action flick with even moderat SF, at least $50 m. That means that to recoup investors’ money, a film needs to pull in at least $75m (more like $80) for the former and $160-170m for the latter. With movies like “Captain African American,” you’re looking at nearly $900 m to break even.
*Marketing is diffuse and watered down. There have been movies I would go to that I didn’t even know were out yet. In fact, I may go see “The Amateur” today. Breaking through the noise is extremely difficult.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.