On the other hand, our werewolves should roam free.

There is a history of cannibalism and slavery amongst NW Native tribes, especially those in the Eastern mountain regions. So if we ever decide to film those themes, like for a prequel to Steampunk Zombies, we've got the whole state to work with.

(ducks as people who didn't follow native folklore of the region deny the reality of the original native tales)

Help me out here. How do they justify claiming how much these tax breaks will "cost" us? Because of the taxes, NONE of these films are being shot in Washington, therefore the state is NOT >>LOSING<< money by encouraging production by reducing or removing these taxes. They ARE losing all of the residual and secondary income these projects bring in through tourism.

Back in the late 80's/early 90's, we did enjoy significant tax breaks for film and tv production. You might remember some of the shows that were produced here during that time, notably Twin Peaks and Northern Exposure - two shows that continue to bring tourist dollars to our region 20 years later. Several films which still encourage tourist views from duck boats, horse carriage rides, or walking tours were produced here. Since that era, what have we had? The Ring? What else?

The Ring was filmed here?

Not in Japan?

@2,

It was my understanding that Twin Peaks' pilot was filmed in Washington, but the series was not, as evidenced by the outdoor locations in the series which look nothing like the Pacific NW. (The ground is too dry. The light too yellow. The trees too massive.)

@6 kind of a combo, actually. BC for a lot of the river and forest scenes, it depended on what the script called for.

Hey Eli, and some commenters here: You're coming from the same place as most of these legislators, which is completely uninformed about what the film incentive is, what it does, and how it puts the State on competative ground with other states.

Of course you're going to get the "oooh, my daughter loves Twilight!" and "but what does this do for tourism?" comments from uninformed legislators, just like the ones you're flaunting to get comments and a rise out of people during tough times. That is part of the task facing the people pushing for the incentive program's renewal. This is not a glamor bill geared to attract stars, Hollywood, and tourists to Washington. Film making is a business, film crews make films for a living, not for fun. The incentive program creates jobs - the best kind of jobs: creative class. The end goal here is not how many tourists a movie attracts, it's how many jobs you can create and how many creative people you can keep in Washington State.

In 2011, 44 out of the 50 states have an film incentive program. In the good old days of the late 80s and early 90s, @2 diggum, there were NO TAX INCENTIVES - filming locations were the determining factor on where films were made, not what areas gave tax breaks. Twin Peaks and Northern Exposure are great examples, they came to Washington put hundreds of local film crew people to work for years. I know, I was one of them.

Oregon is increasing it's film incentive fund from $7 million to $17 million THIS YEAR. Vancouver's film incentive is as strong as ever with a government that has understood the value of film dollars for over two decades. If the Washington film incentive goes away, Washington will no longer be competative on any level of filmmaking, and film productions will re-write scripts to set their show in Portland, Detroit, or New Mexico, or they'll film it in downtown Vancouver and call it Seattle. When they choose somewhere else to film, they'll take their millions and millions of dollars out of Washington with them.

Just as importantly, without a film crew base in Seattle, there is no mechanism to foster young filmmakers in the region. The Lynn Sheltons, Rob Devors, David Russos, and their crews will move out of state in droves. A basic knowledge of the loss of crew base during the incentiveless 90s and 00s proves that.

I am a filmmaker, I want to raise my kids here in Washington where I was born and raised. If the incentive program does not get renewed, I won't be able to do that. Eli and others, please get informed about what the incentive program is really about, and cut it out with the glamor pushback.

@8 - Do the incentive programs actually pay filmmakers to film in that state, or do they just give tax breaks? I'm asking because if it's just tax breaks, I don't understand where these dollar figures (like $17 million) come from.

@9:

It's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, because of the way OR & WA (and other states) deal with their respective incentives programs.

For example: OR can offer direct tax breaks to production companies, whereas WA cannot. Hence the creation of WA FilmWorks, which administers and distributes funds contributed by local industry businesses. Qualifying producers can then apply for funding from that pool to help defray some of their costs, in exchange for which they agree to certain conditions and terms (details here). They don't receive direct rebates from the State, but the in-state contributors do get a break on some of their B&O taxes in exchange for their investment.

Tax breaks are only part of the story. The unions in BC bent over backwards to get business out of LA and BC has built a significant production infrastructure over the past 20 years.

Now WA wouldn't just be competing with neighboring states and Canada, but also countries like Romania where they can shoot 100% non-union.

@5

Well, no....the point is that production ISN'T occurring here because we aren't making production companies welcome.

One real example of this is the TV show LEVERAGE, whose show runners make a big point of how local and state government made them welcome in the area. And when you're spending $2 million an episode (16 episode season), a lot of that is spent locally.

Hm. Here's an example. TV show LEVERAGE. Films in Portland. Show runner Jon Rogers constantly says it's because the local and state government made them welcome. The show's budget is $1.5 to $2 million per epsisode, 16 episodes. Not all of that is spent in Portland, but a major portion is (as in, housing for cast in crew, etc.). And because LEVERAGE is shooting there, other projects will, as well.

Do the math.

I'm an actor. Have lived here since 1994. I would like to be employed more frequently in the craft that I have spent 25 years of my life, training and working on. This program benefits actors, crew, filmmakers on a local level and the more production the state is able to attract, the more revenue flows into our local economy. It's a good thing. Please support renewal and expansion of our film incentive.

@11
The draw to Canada for filming was almost completely due to tax incentives and the very favorable exchange rate. When films first headed North the rate was .75 US to the $1 Canadian. A producer that I use to work for at the time told me he was producing TV-Movies, that would be budgeted at 4 Million in the US, for 3 mil.