Re: But there is a difference (Format corrected)

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Animation Nation Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Bob on October 24, 1999 at 10:59:16:

In Reply to: Re: But there is a difference posted by Dave on October 20, 1999 at 15:17:23:

Hello, friends:

My comments to Dave's post are rendered in blue:

Posted by Dave on October 20, 1999 at 15:17:23:

In Reply to: But there is a difference posted by Bob on October 19, 1999 at 21:30:12:

: : Thanks for posting this Sam.

: : : concerning the PBS thing, as you've been discussing with 'mako' whom i know very well
: : : is that, yes! u.s. studios can send things overseas. PBS does tell their patrons
: : : that 'their money' is working for them. that becomes more of a PBS accountability issue than
: : : one directed toward canadians.

: : And should be. Most of PBS has been dominated in part by BBC British series work and I doubt the British contribute a dime.

Actually, the British did/do contribute

Not to the American PBS . Not a dime. Dont even try it.

Point One: Your position must be awfully weak for you to resort to taking my statements out of context and deleting the relevant text. This is what I said, in full: "Actually, the British did/do contribute -- not to PBS, but to the BBC. They pay a TV users tax that funds the production of their programming. PBS does not pay for their production costs. They pay for broadcasting rights. There is a difference.

Point Two: In other words, the British don't need to contribute to PBS; they've already paid for their own programming. The British pay the production costs for BBC programming, not Americans. Conversely, PBS pays for its production costs, not the British.

Point Three: "Most of PBS has been dominated in part by BBC British series work…" Which is it, Dave? "Most of" or "in part"? For the week of October 24, KERA 13-Dallas/Ft. Worth airs 23 hours of British programming. Its sister station KDTN 2 airs 5-1/2 hours' worth. Hardly "most of" or domination by the BBC.

Shows like DOCTOR WHO and MASTERPIECE THEATER were paid for before they were shown in America.

: Like that makes any difference.

Yes it does. I explained it to you but you chose to delete my explanation. Here it is again: PBS does not pay for British production costs. They pay for broadcasting rights. There is a difference.

: It is still US taxpayers dollars paying for other countries programming.

Point One: Paying for the rights to air the programming, not the program's production costs. A BBC show is budgeted on receipts from British TV licensing fee, not from U.S. dollars. The British make TV shows primarily for themselves. We're just an ancillary market.
Point Two: The BBC buys our shows. British taxpayers pay for the rights to air American shows. Savvy?

In fact even twice as insulting because the lousy contract awarded to Nelvana isn't even under their control. It is an American run service job. Tell me which you would chose. To create your own programming or do other peoples service jobs. You are right. There is a difference.

Irrelevant. The agreement PBS made with Nelvana still amounts to U.S. taxpayers funding non-U.S. labor, be it Canadians or Pacific Rimmers.

In the case of the Nelvana deal, PBS is paying production costs, which are a whole lot more than paying for reruns.

:Quote the costs vs since you seem to think you know them.

The following three sentences you make indicate that it doesn't matter to you. Now if you want specifics and you're truly interested, you do the research. The Internet is at your disposal.

So it is ok to you that you pay for a British series rather than fund American film makers or buy an American series. Nice double standard.

Rubbish. Paying for the rights to air a pre-existing British series - or a pre-existing American-made show for that matter - is not the same as funding original programming, which is a higher expense.

Paying for the rights to air a BBC show isn't going to put Americans out of work any more than a PBS rerun of The Lawrence Welk Show.

Taxpayers money is money reguardless of the source of the programming.

Yes it is. And we get our money back since the BBC buys American programming.

The question remains: Why should Americans subsidize foreign labor at the expense of their own jobs?

Good point. We should also examine the Canadian PBS TV Ontario.

Why? They are not American taxpayers. Are you suggesting they should dictate how another country spends its money?

From what I remember Seasame Street was funded in part by
them as well. Series like Nova. 90% of Canadian PBS was American programming

… already paid for by American money. Canadian taxpayers do not pay for production costs of PBS programming. What TV Ontario buys is broadcasting rights for a pre-existing production.

it seems interesting that when a crap contract gets awarded to a Canadian company the flags go up.

The only "crap" about the contract is that it's a misuse of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

Economic giant vs puny beaten up Canada, who because of the free trade totally lost
it's industrial sector to the upper states (who offered NON UNION LABOR , tax incentives and free land) and whos currency is worth half an American dollar.

And what does that have to do with U.S. taxpayer dollars funding non-U.S. labor? Absolutely nothing.

It is time for you to rally now to get back your chance to ship work overseas. Sheesh.

Hello, Dave? How did you draw that conclusion from my post? I haven't advocated that at all. Read these words again. Slowly if you have to. Say them out loud and repeat them: Why should Americans subsidize foreign labor at the expense of their own jobs? You should have no trouble in comprehending that concept.

Since Canada does nothing BUT pay for American programming, products, services, tech , cars , I'm pretty surprised at you feeling this way Bob. Really surprised.

Of course you're surprised. You're misrepresenting my statements again. You obviously don't know how I feel. You are reading a meaning in my statements that exists only in your imagination. I was addressing ONLY the use of American taxpayer dollars in funding production, and the difference between production costs and broadcast fees. It is unnecessary for you to infer anything beyond what I've said at face value.

The idea of economic isolationism is so 40's that to hear it now seems really silent film.

Therefore, you should address the Canadian content policies of the Canadian Radio & Television Commission, Telefilm Canada, the Canada Council for the Arts, the 1995 Film and Video Tax Credit Program, the Cultural Industries Development Fund, the Canada Television and Cable Production Fund, and the National Film Board of Canada.

Hypothetically, if the National Film Board of Canada gave U.S.$40 million to an American studio to make shorts, I would imagine Canadian taxpayers would be up in arms, and I wouldn't blame them.

Please, picket PBS and get the damn funds back.

Your suggestion seems to imply there's little we can do about the situation, in which case you have no reason to be upset. Politically-astute people know there are more effective means of persuasion.

Either way you can just ship it in bags to Korea.

Nonsense. There are U.S. studios who are just as capable as producing animation at competitive rates. Little Wolf Films in Texas. Perennial Films in Indiana. Character Builders in Ohio. Cornerstone in Alta Dena, California. Foundation Imaging in Valencia, California. Netter Digital Entertainment in North Hollywood. Union studios can do it too by following the suggestions advocated by Charles at this website.

Like it matters. There is no Canadian crew at Nelvana to benifit from any "windfall". Why is it to me, this all seems so pathetic.

That's a good question. You object to American studios outsourcing to the Pacific Rim but not to American outsourcing to Canada? Now who is employing a double standard?

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Animation Nation Message Board ] [ FAQ ]