Please move if this would fit better in another forum

I've been seeing the Made in Georgia logo a lot recently at the end of several TV shows.

http://i.imgur.com/o8hgBXQ.jpg?1

Apparently Georgia has made an effort to get more TV shows to locate and film there. That has to be quite a boon to their economy. I know such things have been discussed for OKC in the past but none of it has ever come to fruition (that I know of). How could OKC do something like this? Is it possible for OKC? Does anyone here know how Georgia went about doing this?

Does anyone here know how Georgia went about doing this?

Being Ted Turner's home state was probably a good start.

And the primary filming location of the Walking Dead.

I first saw it on Adult Swim shows. At least since 2004 or 2005, maybe a little earlier.

North Carolina has a significant amount of film-making that occurs there as well.

I know incentives play a big part. Does Oklahoma currently offer any incentives for film-making here?

North Carolina has a significant amount of film-making that occurs there as well.

I know incentives play a big part. Does Oklahoma currently offer any incentives for film-making here?

Yes.

http://www.ok.gov/oklahomafilm/INCENTIVES/37_PERCENT_REBATE/index.html

When you look at the how long it has taken Atlanta to get where it is today - and still be a distant third to LA and NY, I wouldn't count on OKC ever making a ripple in that ocean. Ted Turner definitely played a big role in getting it stated but it didn't pick up momentum until after he left. TBS started a superstation and then he created CNN. Now there are at least 12 cable channels based out of Atlanta plus all the movies and TV series. Another big help was the Savannah College of Art and Design (campus in mid-town) which has turned out alumni who are trained in the industry - from animation to production to acting to special effects. In the end - they grew their industry from the ground up over 50 years and they are now reaping the rewards for that effort.

IMDB credits Atlanta with 2,338 movies and TV shows.
IMDb: Most Popular Titles With Location Matching "Atlanta, Georgia, USA" (http://www.imdb.com/search/title?locations=Atlanta,+Georgia,+USA&ref_=ttloc_loc_2)

But lets say someone did want to start that here in OKC. It would take a few things. First, someone would need to create (or purchase) a cable TV station. Someone else would need to create a SCAD type school in downtown OKC (sorry - similar programs at OU/OSU/etc... aren't going to cut it for a whole host of reasons), and someone else would need to invest in production facilities. To get any kind of permanent industry you need people who can make movies/TV shows, people who can act, and a place to film them. Our effort so far, tax credits for on-location scenes (big freakin' whoop).

Our best hope is to invest in and connect to this program:

Oklahoma Film Institute (http://www.occc.edu/ofi/)

Which is overseen by this guy:

Gray Frederickson - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0292875/)

The other thing we need to do is protect and expand the state incentive tax credits, which are always under threat by the legislature.

The other thing we need to do is protect and expand the state incentive tax credits, which are always under threat by the legislature.

Unless there was some real effort to establish a permanent industry I would just as soon tax them at the fullest extent possible. If they choose to go elsewhere then so be it. We can't keep giving tax breaks to everyone that promises a temporary job.

The LOCALS have to build the industry. The jobs in that industry will always be temporary. We only need for them to be consistent. Chasing those "temporary" jobs has paid off pretty well for places like Austin, Vancouver and New Mexico. THOSE are the places we should be modeling ourselves after.

If you "tax to the fullest extent" jobs that won't come here if you do so, you've gained nothing. Literally. In that case, congratulations on your hollow moral victory.

When you look at the how long it has taken Atlanta to get where it is today - and still be a distant third to LA and NY, I wouldn't count on OKC ever making a ripple in that ocean. Ted Turner definitely played a big role in getting it stated but it didn't pick up momentum until after he left. TBS started a superstation and then he created CNN. Now there are at least 12 cable channels based out of Atlanta plus all the movies and TV series. Another big help was the Savannah College of Art and Design (campus in mid-town) which has turned out alumni who are trained in the industry - from animation to production to acting to special effects. In the end - they grew their industry from the ground up over 50 years and they are now reaping the rewards for that effort.

IMDB credits Atlanta with 2,338 movies and TV shows.
IMDb: Most Popular Titles With Location Matching "Atlanta, Georgia, USA" (http://www.imdb.com/search/title?locations=Atlanta,+Georgia,+USA&ref_=ttloc_loc_2)

But lets say someone did want to start that here in OKC. It would take a few things. First, someone would need to create (or purchase) a cable TV station. Someone else would need to create a SCAD type school in downtown OKC (sorry - similar programs at OU/OSU/etc... aren't going to cut it for a whole host of reasons), and someone else would need to invest in production facilities. To get any kind of permanent industry you need people who can make movies/TV shows, people who can act, and a place to film them. Our effort so far, tax credits for on-location scenes (big freakin' whoop).
How much was Turner involved in this effort? To what extent?

I don't think that a state needs to have a cable channel in order to establish a film industry there. Would it help? It might. It couldn't hurt. But it's certainly not something that has to happen in order for a state to start a film industry. I would have to think that Turner's money had more to do with a film industry being established in Georgia than having cable stations. For one thing, a production is a much different undertaking than running a TV station. It's a totally different kind of technical expertise. Even when a cable station says that they have produced an original series, that means that they have put up the money for it. It's still the production company that casts the show, writes the scripts, films it, directs it, and edits the show. The station just purchases the show.

I really don't believe that TBS and film industry in Georgia have as much to do with one another as you think. And sure, it may be a distant third (or further down the list) from NY and LA, but if Oklahoma were to establish a film industry, it doesn't need to compete with NY and LA to be successful. It doesn't have to be the new Hollywood. Georgia's film industry has certainly helped their economy without being in direct competition with NY and LA.

New Mexico has recently been able to establish a film industry there without any major cable stations there. It started with Breaking Bad and has continued with Better Call Saul which looks to be filming in NM for around five seasons or so.

Manhattan films there as well. And I know it seems like that's a no brainer that Manhattan would film in NM because that's where the events took place but it's not a foregone conclusion that just because a show takes place in a certain state that they will actually film there. I remember when the movie Far and Away didn't film any scenes in Oklahoma because they said "It doesn't look enough like Oklahoma." That was truly their reason for not filming the Oklahoma land run in Oklahoma. They thought Oklahoma didn't look enough like Oklahoma.

Breaking Bad was originally supposed to film in Riverside, California. But NM offered them favorable financial conditions. NM has since parlayed that into a film industry. I've read a few articles on what Breaking Bad has done for the economy in NM and how they are currently working with several productions to locate there. It took one good production to give NM the leverage to lure other productions there. If they play it right, they can have a nice little industry that will help their economy for quite some time. Again, they don't have to compete with LA and NY for it to be beneficial to them.

But to say that Oklahoma will never be able to establish a successful film industry is just selling Oklahoma short. At one time people would've laughed at the suggestion of there ever being a successful film industry in place like Georgia and New Mexico. But look where they are now. So why should we even try? Why did we even try to get a professional sports team when people said we'd never have one in Oklahoma?

Unless there was some real effort to establish a permanent industry I would just as soon tax them at the fullest extent possible. If they choose to go elsewhere then so be it. We can't keep giving tax breaks to everyone that promises a temporary job.
I think I slightly misread this post yesterday, but my point is still the same; the entire POINT of the tax credits (plus Grey Fredrickson's efforts and the efforts of others at OCCC) is to build the type of industry that you are suggesting. When graduates of that program or OU's film program (or a relevant field of study at another school) have "Rudderless" or "August, Osage County" or "The Killer Inside Me" in their credits, it makes it easier for Holloywood producers to justify coming here and taking advantage not only of the credits but of lower production costs, all while utilizing qualified, experienced crew. In turn, if those crew have regular employment options they can elect to stay here instead of moving to Austin or California, like Bradley Beesley (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0064022/) and others have had to do. Ask him if he would still be in Oklahoma if we had a scene like Austin's. I suspect he would still say yes, as he's said in the past.

And speaking of Austin, ask Robert Rodriguez (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001675/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1), last year's Best Actor Oscar winner Matthew McConaughey, or the director of Best Picture Oscar nominee "Boyhood", Richard Linklater (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000500/?ref_=tt_ov_dr) if they think the efforts by Texas and Austin have been worth it. Or better yet, ask the other people who live in Austin.

Did that film industry just appear magically, overnight? Of course not. It took hard work (including by those individuals), plus some vision and financial support and incentive from the State of Texas.

That's kinda also the point with Turner, if he contributed nothing else, there is a huge experienced workforce that's been in place for decades in Georgia working in media production, distribution and management. The most recent figure I can find for Turner was before layoffs late last year and it was 6700 employees in Atlanta. No telling how much industry has spun off into support or related businesses in the area. You asked "Does anyone here know how Georgia went about doing this? "

Doesn't mean other places can't do it.

Best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. Next best time is now. Chinese Proverb

In Ted Turners case, it wasn't 20 years ago, it was 40+.

Our best hope is to invest in and connect to this program:

Oklahoma Film Institute (http://www.occc.edu/ofi/)

Which is overseen by this guy:

Gray Frederickson - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0292875/)

The other thing we need to do is protect and expand the state incentive tax credits, which are always under threat by the legislature.

Actually took his Intro class for fun without even knowing who he was. Guy is brilliant and has some great stories!

Tax incentives will help us get a few one-off films here and there, but drawing direct comparison from Georgia (specifically Atlanta), Oklahoma is probably still another 10 years from being able to take a shot at the film industry for these reasons:

1) Probably the biggest advantage Georgia has is logistics. Flying to and from OKC just sucks. If you don't think so, then you probably don't travel for a living. I remember even NBA writers tweeting they have a love/hate relationship with covering the Thunder during playoffs because travel is so brutal. Sure, your 5-10 stars/directors will just fly private, but the other 100-200 people working on the film are flying commercial and are on short term contracts and then need to fly out to their next job. To me, this is the biggest obstacle mostly because air travel is so strongly regulated. Hartsfield isn't anyone's favorite airport, but it does fly direct to every major city in America. Plus they have public transit and (I think) the biggest car rental fleet in America.

2) For the record I love OKC and the development that's happening, but when it comes to films, I don't think Oklahoma has much to offer as far as backdrop or terrain. I'm no videographer, but I feel like the fact that all of OKC's districts are only one block long would require a lot of Hollywood magic for continuity of an entire film or TV show.

There are other reasons, but like it has been mentioned, Georgia made investments a long long time ago, and they're finally reaping the benefits now. They're emerging in the movie industry now, but they've been a hotbed for music, media, and technology for decades now. OKC's art/media community has some really talented people, but there isn't quite the volume or availability as in Atlanta or Austin.

Like the rumor about the NFL looking at OKC, it's not impossible, but there are a lot of uncontrollable factors in play.

I have very conflicting views on pushing OK as a film destination. I think it would be great but in doing so you are going to have to spend A LOT of money. Mostly in tax incentives. I am not terribly familiar with the situation in GA, but I do know LA. In terms of film GA is small potatoes compared to Louisiana. But it comes at a cost...about $250 million in incentives alone. Just an example: every Duck Dynasty episode that is produced in state gets about $70K in tax breaks.

Ironically both states that are lauded as having vibrant film industries have above average unemployment and are experiencing budgetary issues (LA is about $1.6 billion in the hole). A small factor in that is a lot of higher paid staff on these films are actually imported from LA and NYC, and while they may spend money in hotels and on caterers, they promptly go back to Manhattan or Beverly Hills once production has wrapped.

You can argue that all incentives are de facto subsidies to the rich (and you'd be largely correct), but film incentives as they currently are in most states seem especially egregious and provide little economic benefit.

^^Very interesting. Perhaps it's not something we need to pursue fervently.

Actually Oklahoma's terrain is one of its (few) current strengths as a film making destination. It is one of the most eco-diverse states in the union, has ample opportunities for city shoots between OKC and Tulsa, has the largest contiguous historic district in the country (Guthrie), featuring big swaths of intact Victorian architecture, and plenty of other worthwhile features. Read more about the eco-diversity here: Oklahoma's Diverse Ecoregions | TravelOK.com - Oklahoma's Official Travel & Tourism Site (http://www.travelok.com/article_page/oklahomasdiverseecoregions)

Besides, even in LA they repurpose the same locations over, and over, and over, using different angles and set dressings. Since staying in the downtown Millennium Biltmore (formerly Regal Biltmore) 15 years ago I have recognized its exteriors, lobby, hallways, elevator vestibule and other elements in DOZENS of movies, TV shows and commercials. Dozens.

For every person/industry that gets a tax cut/break the burden to the rest of us is increased. This city has by far the worst roads of any city I have ever been in (and I've been to Mexico). I have a hard time wondering why the state is giving ANYONE a tax credit. Oklahoma has been playing this carrot and stick game for decades- it isn't working. If we have this awesome biodiversity and urban settings that movie producers love then why are we giving it to them for free?

I would rather one movie be filmed here and taxed, then 20 movies get filmed here with no taxes. This State needs the money.

For every person/industry that gets a tax cut/break the burden to the rest of us is increased. This city has by far the worst roads of any city I have ever been in (and I've been to Mexico). I have a hard time wondering why the state is giving ANYONE a tax credit. Oklahoma has been playing this carrot and stick game for decades- it isn't working. If we have this awesome biodiversity and urban settings that movie producers love then why are we giving it to them for free?

I would rather one movie be filmed here and taxed, then 20 movies get filmed here with no taxes. This State needs the money.

A little dramatic. Detroit's roads are much worse than OKC's, as well as many other cities with heavy snowfall. But I do agree that OKC has very little to gain by luring the film industry here. We would be giving up a lot with a very low and slow ROI. There are better industries for the money.

Always at the end of Archer on FX after the credits.

Always at the end of Archer on FX after the credits.

Yeah, I've noticed on there and several other small cable shows.

OT - I really like Georgia's peach logo. Does OK have a logo?

http://www.normanarts.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ok-film-music.png

I'd suggest that anyone pro or con to this issue check out this website to learn more about Oklahoma's efforts in this area: Oklahoma Film & Music Office - Home (http://www.ok.gov/oklahomafilm/)