Re: But there is a difference (Format corrected)


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

Posted by Dave on October 25, 1999 at 15:15:30:

In Reply to: Re: But there is a difference (Format corrected) posted by Bob on October 24, 1999 at 10:59:16:

:
: Hello, friends:

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

A fine blue they are as well.

:
: 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.
:

The entire point was "do they contribute to Americas PBS". Answer. No. It's hard to be weak when all you have is fact.


This is what I said, in full: "Actually, the British did/do contribute -- not to PBS, but to the BBC.
:

Who cares at all if they pay into the BBC.This is about American Tax payer money of which I am one.


: 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.

It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever who produces it. None. Do we pay for it. YES! Our PBS money to British producers.

: Point Three: "Most of PBS has been dominated in part by BBC British series work…" Which is it, Dave? "Most of" or "in part"?

:

"Most of PBS" meaning the majority of PBS stations around the country dominated "in part by British series ". Hope that clears it up.


: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.


:


Trusting you that you are correct since I have no viewers guide for that PBS station. 23 hours in one month for just that station is a fair bit of money that could have been spent on American film makers. Do you not think ?


: 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.

Broadcasting rights or producing it the money is still American and could have been paid to American film makers. Period. End .

:
: 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.

:


So what ! Do we pay , yes or no ?!?! The answer is yes ! Whether it is production cost or broadcast rights it is not American nor does it help produce any American films. Are you trying to say that there is NO AMERICAN PROGRAMMING TO FILL THESE SLOTS ? Are you trying to tell us that we cannot pay for the broadcasting rights to American films on PBS ? Explain to me how this is " more acceptable" and don't go on about how they pay the BBC through taxes because they are not American and none of the money goes to the US. Period.


:The British make TV shows primarily for themselves. We're just an ancillary market.

So what ?!?!? Do we pay money to BBC or not ?!


: Point Two: The BBC buys our shows. British taxpayers pay for the rights to air American shows. Savvy?

:
Oh yes, I savvy. Now you savvy. I've lived in the UK and you are distorting the actual truth. BBC is a FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION and runs commercials. They are not a solely taxpayer supported organization at all and are more like CBC than PBS . They buy commercial US films. In other words they are NOT a public station but a publicly owned station FOR PROFIT. It is NOT PBS.

ALL COUNTRIES BUY US PROGRAMMING!
Canada, England , France. What makes you think these are any different. The point is that if you stop buying from them they stop buying from you. Just like Canada.

:
: 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

:

Totally relevant since the only interest here is getting it back to have a US company ship it to the rim. In all cases the only money made is by the company and not the labor. You have no leg to stand on.

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

The fact you dont know the cost but makes this statement proves my point. You have no idea what the comparative costs are and yet you insist there is a difference. Basing it on nothing but assumption.

:
: :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.
:

Answer. You do not know. Thanks.


Now if you want specifics and you're truly interested, you do the research. The Internet is at your disposal.

:


You were the one stating there was a difference and you have yet to prove it by actual fact.


:
: 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.

:
You have yet to prove that. Any funding whether it was for short films or a series is still money going to outsiders. Period. Now tell us how much the 23 hours (just one months worth in your area) of British programs costs for broadcast rights vs funding a film to be sent to the rim through Canada that has no rebroadcast costs. Now from what I understand EVERY PBS STATION has an individual budget and so pays based on programs they chose to air. So we will multiply your areas PBS cost to air that British series by every single PBS station in the US to get final US broadcast costs. Savvy ?


: 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.

:

That is pretty twisted thinking. Paying money out to BBC means you aren't paying any US company to create programming. Sorry, you are off here.

:
: 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.

:

SO DO CANADIANS! SO DO CANADIAN PBS STATIONS !!!! Double standard.

: 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.
:

You just got through "Britian buys our programming" and you just cannot deal with the fact that Canada does as well. It is obvious you are willing to ignore even your own logic . You are trapped.

: Are you suggesting they should dictate how another country spends its money?
: \

Silly. You are so trapped here.

:
: 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.
:

Makes no difference. Still payed to Americans.


:
: 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.
:

Go to Korea and get it back.

:
: 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.
:

No it has to do with attacking any Canadian company that gets work from the US. It has top do with Free Trade and economic shifts to economically devastated countries with devalued currency. I've already proved there is no difference between sending production money to to Canada or paying the British to air their programs. It is ALL taxpayers money and none of it goes to Americans (or Canadian labor in this case).


:
: 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.
:

Tch tch. Try hard not to be insulting Bob.


>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.
:


That is the point isn't it. Are you telling me you are willing to animate it here Bob ? Go ahead, commit. You are willing to do it here for the same price as the Koreans ? Are you committing to that ? Because if you aren't then everything you have said is a waste. All you jockying for position is all baloney. If it were able to be done here it would have been. They sent it overseas because YOU will not do it for the same price. Now for you I will explain this. THERE ARE NO ARTISTS LEFT AT NELVANA, EVERYTHING IS OVERSEAS INCLUDING POSING FOR LAYOUTS. There IS NO CANADIAN LABOUR. Savvy ? Unless you are truly willing to animate it here than all this is bull. PBS only can make it clear why.


:
: 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.
:


I definately do. Clearly.

: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.
:

It is clearly beyond that. You popped in all those Canadian government https just by accident eh ? No you just had them ready right ? You are pretty obvious. Examining the situation there is NO Canadian labour involved only Rim and whether you like it or not the idea that giving a job to a Canadian company to send overseas somehow takes something away from American workers is just silly.

:
: 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,
:

Canadian television is at least 85 % American. Explain that first. CRTC set up rules (that no one follows) for Canadian networks to run a minimum of Canadian programming so that Canadians could have something that looks like a culture. Absolute and total domination by US stations and programming. It doesn't fund at all but sets guidelines for CANADIAN networks. You do realize that American stations totally dominate Canada. Like you care.


Telefilm Canada
:

Didn't read it did you Bob.

"But in making the jump from the small screen to the big screen, Canadian filmmakers find themselves in a cinema market which has always been dominated by the United States. Barely one movie in 20 shown on Canadian screens is a Canadian movie."

Thanks. You made ny point. Trouble is it is 1 movie in 80 in reality .


, the Canada Council for the Arts,
:

And you don't have arts programs ? There is no funding for American programs here. Sorry.

:the 1995 Film and Video Tax Credit Program,the Cultural Industries Development Fund, the Canada Television and Cable Production Fund, and
:


Outside of the tax credit program(which I have yet to see any statisics on ANYONE who got money top produce in Canada)(by the way , why is this from 95, 5 years ago?) the rest have to do with Canadian films. Of which as we know only one in 20 on Canadian screens. Even more we both know that is a lie. It is more like one in every 80.

Now make a list of 10 Canadian films that made over 15 millions in the last ten years. Go ahead Bob.

:the National Film Board of Canada.
:

Now you are into bullshit.

: Hypothetically,
:

Crap. Numbers. Proof. No more bullshit.


:
: 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.
:

Nor do you. Funny huh ?

:Politically-astute people know there are more effective means of persuasion.

:

Well tell me when you meet them.

:
: 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.
:

Apparently not.

;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.
:

I am more than interested to see this proved.You left out Startoons in Chicago which seems to be the only studio ever to be able to run with Korea. Of the studios mentioned I know none care to do low budget work. Most are looking for feature.


:
: 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?
:

That is baloney of course. I could care less if work goes to the rim nor do I care if it goes to Canada to be shipped to the rim. Either way it goes to the rim. If someone wants to ship it from here YAHOO!!!! Unless there is an American company that is willing to do it for the same cost this entire discussion can lead to nothing. Now the proof. Go to PBS and demand to put in a bid. Stop the process. Do it. I am willing to wait. If it can be done here do it should.


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


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