Posted on 07/19/2025 1:37:30 PM PDT by Angelino97
In many ways deep red Texas could not be further from the liberal movie sets of Hollywood.
But now a gaggle of A-listers and lawmakers believe the it is the perfect place to set up a film industry which could not only rival Tinseltown's, but topple it altogether...
They have recently helped secure a bill that will inject $300 million into the Texas film industry over the next two years and provide tax incentives for the next decade.
However the new law, which comes into effect on September 1, does contain some distinctly Texan stipulations when it comes to who can qualify for the cash.
Officials plan to be far more selective about who gets taxpayer money than their Californian counterparts, with Governor Gregg Abbott given veto powers under the new law...
Supporters of the new Texas law say they want to be as influential as Hollywood, but without the same liberal cultural values.
As a result, they have created a series of hoops filmmakers must jump through if they want to secure any state cash.
'We are not trying to make Texas the next Hollywood - we don’t like Hollywood. We want to export Texas values,' Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, one of the biggest proponents of the scheme, recently said in a campaign update...
For projects that spend at least $1.5 million in Texas, the new law offers tiered grants worth 25 percent of that in-state spending.
Films that are faith-based, shoot in historic sites or employ a percentage of crew who are Texas-based military veterans can get a grant as high as 31 percent...
If films are deemed to have content that is 'inappropriate,' has obscene content or portrays Texas negatively - they won't get a dime.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
It is.
I don’t think so. Its not like anyone is obligated to apply for the grants. They can voluntarily choose not to have a film that can apply, and are also welcome not to apply at all. No one has an absolute right to grant money. Other grant money requires stipulations. Badmouthing the grant giver pretty much in all cases would make the grant giver take back the grant, and make you ineligible for the money, no matter what it is for.
Both parties do it.
They can produce a film as they wish, but if they want Texas taxpayer dollars they need to do it in a way that pleases the law that Texas Representatives passed.
Private grant money can impose any standards.
Government grant money must abide by Constitutional standards.
I would be OK with going back to the center of film production before Hollywood ... Jacksonville, FL. A lot of silent movies made in Jacksonville, and hearing the dialog in most recent films, maybe they should go back to that!
https://www.visitjacksonville.com/blog/jacksonville-was-americas-first-hollywood/
I don’t like government subsidies for film making.
I’m hoping Trump negotiates such nonsense into the historical ledgers.
Will they ban self-shooting guns?
“Films that are faith-based”
Prophet Productions....
Thomas Edison opened his film studio in 1894.
A porn production company applies for Texas grant.
Should the receive it?
The state paying for stuff that is “fair based”? That’s not going to pass muster. I seriously doubt the “The Jihad Journey of Abdul” would get grants.
I am all about Tax incentives. But this stuff is kind of stupid. Bad movies employ as many people are good movies.
The First Amendment forbids content discrimination.
Film production tax incentives often have non-content requirements, such as amount money to be spent in the state, number of people employed, etc.
Porn producers generally don't meet these requirements, as porn is cheaply produced.
But if a producer were to spend several million on an XXX film, and he thus qualified for state incentives, the nature of his film's content could not disqualify him.
True.
I seriously doubt the “The Jihad Journey of Abdul” would get grants.
I was thinking the Constitution forbids subsidizing faith-based films.
But you raise another problem. If faith-based films qualified for grants, then the Constitution would required that all religions qualify for grants. Possibly even Satanism.
I don’t care for government manipulation of art and business.
I’d be happy if everyone quit arm twisting and virtue signaling in entertainment, government and commerce.
Seems unconstitutional to give film companies money to make movies. But content moderation is long and well established. Want to make a movie with US Military planes, bases or people... it has to cast America in a good light.
Otherwise, pay your own way.
It’s been that way for decades.
No it doesn’t. The US Government will let you use US equipment if your film casts the military in a good light. Otherwise the answer is no.
Nothing new. But the Hollywood sickos appreciate your rushing to their aid.
This is state grant money, not federal.
When states provide grants using only state funds, they may have more flexibility in setting eligibility criteria, which could potentially allow for discriminatory practices unless restricted by state or federal law.
So the “no money for badmouthing texas” one stands. Others may require tweaking. But states have more freedom setting criteria with their mkney than federal grants.
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.