Well done tories for this cut... Watch

Haychee
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#101
Report 8 years ago
#101
(Original post by AidanLunn)
The whole of life doesn't revolve around making money you know.

What a selfish and ill though-out comment to make!

Piss off.

If someone's hard earned money is being squandered on a failing industry they have every right to ask for it to be closed down.
0
quote
reply
J1812
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#102
Report 8 years ago
#102
(Original post by Samrout)
The financial and otherwise help given from the film council to the producers of films (assuming they profit, think Hot Fuzz :p: ) would lead to, as the conservatives argue (which I am sceptical about) a large revenue at the producers' disposal to spend on goods and services, which supposedly (but obviously not solely responsibly) leads to economic growth.
Investing in something, and having it work (i.e. making it back and profiting) is seen as healthy and productive economic growth.

Most government programs far from make a profit, if they don't work by coercion or a monopoly. But if this really makes a 500% return then that's a brilliant program. I believe thats more then google or any other company I've heard of.

So I'm simply very suspicious about the UKFC statistic.
0
quote
reply
AidanLunn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#103
Report 8 years ago
#103
(Original post by Haychee)
Piss off.

If someone's hard earned money is being squandered on a failing industry they have every right to ask for it to be closed down.
What about those who are working in that failing industry? Why should we be made redundant just because the bosses don't think there's any money to be made in that field? I'm not going to have my career choice dictated to me.

What about those who like films that would never get made by a Hollywood company or shown by a mainstream cinema chain? Who would fund them if the production companies can't afford to make them on their own?

Anyway, no-one asked for it to be closed down.

Not everything has to revolve around profit.

Plus, the basis of a free market economy is to open up as many choices for people as possible, including choices for niche audiences like the films funded by the UKFC. Close the UKFC = less funding for niche audience films = less choice. Either privatising it (I know it doesn't make a profit, but someone would buy it) or slowly cutting down the budgets to the UKFC then closing it would have been better. The government aren't doing their job properly - cutting - when they can fund setting up a new education system that won't work.

Oh, and using childish words like "piss off" is hardly the kind of language used by someone with intellect.

You must have no good reply if you have to resort to using swear words. There are far better ways of making a point, like thinking and then talking in a reasonable way in a civilised debate rather than storming onto a thread all guns blazing, mindlessly swearing.
0
quote
reply
Kolya
Badges: 14
#104
Report 8 years ago
#104
(Original post by cambo211)
So you'd rather the cuts were made from health or education i presume?
I'd rather the cuts were made from the parts of the licence fee that churn out lowest-common-denominator crap that is easily (and often already) replicated by commercial stations.
quote
reply
adam_zed
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#105
Report 8 years ago
#105
(Original post by Redreynard)
you don't need a handout. if you have a good proposition, the money men will fall over themselves wanting to back it.
You are thinking of Hollywood. Very few investors back British cinema because it wont make as much money.
0
quote
reply
YoullFindMeFilming
Badges: 0
#106
Report 8 years ago
#106
(Original post by Haychee)
Yes Taxpayers have an interest in film. They don't appear to have an interest in British made films churned out by the UKFC.
Once again, I am having to repeat myself. Last year in the UK, independent British films took their largest market share in a decade. What does that tell you?
0
quote
reply
Haychee
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#107
Report 8 years ago
#107
(Original post by YoullFindMeFilming)
Once again, I am having to repeat myself. Last year in the UK, independent British films took their largest market share in a decade. What does that tell you?

http://worldbbnews.com/2010/07/scrap...niel-trilling/
0
quote
reply
StarOfGerrad
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#108
Report 8 years ago
#108
(Original post by Made in the USA)
What would you like to see cut instead? Healthcare? Education? Or do you want to just keep spending and racking up debt until your country becomes the next Greece?
*cough* Trident *cough*
0
quote
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#109
Report 8 years ago
#109
(Original post by Wozzie)
*cough* Trident *cough*
No good. I want you to have a strong military so you can bail our asses out when we get in trouble.
0
quote
reply
Hegemony
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#110
Report 8 years ago
#110
(Original post by AidanLunn)
What about those who are working in that failing industry? Why should we be made redundant just because the bosses don't think there's any money to be made in that field?
To improve the efficiency of the allocation of resources within our economy, obviously. Something which is necessary to maintain and improve standards of living for everyone in the UK.

(Original post by AidanLunn)
I'm not going to have my career choice dictated to me.
Ironically, market forces already dictate your career choice(s) far more than you can begin to imagine.
0
quote
reply
Hegemony
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#111
Report 8 years ago
#111
(Original post by YoullFindMeFilming)
Once again, I am having to repeat myself. Last year in the UK, independent British films took their largest market share in a decade. What does that tell you?
That either; independent films aren't dependent on subsidies and could recieve adequate investment in a free market system, or independent films are being over-subsidised resulting in a bloated market share that wouldn't naturally exist (most likely the latter).

Going on holiday in two hours, if you reply, you'll have to wait a few weeks for my response.
0
quote
reply
the_educated1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#112
Report 8 years ago
#112


These cuts were necessary, as others have accurately depicted - American blockbuster films can sustain themselves without direct support from the American tax payer. Britain adopts a 'Socialist' model to film-making, where the collective pays for every aspect of film creation.

Enough is enough, 13 years of a Labour government has had its toll on Britain.
0
quote
reply
ish90an
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#113
Report 8 years ago
#113
I am sorry, but with Britain under huge financial pressure and a lot of debt on its books, people are complaining about a FILM industry's cuts? Do these people also classify themselves as poor then go on to buy iPads on their credit card? If an industry as unnecessary as film(you are hardly going to starve or die of disease if Nolan didn't make Inception) is not making a profit and thus not paying back to the taxpayer the choice of whether or not it should face cuts is so obvious anyone with more than a pea for a brain could have called it.
0
quote
reply
AidanLunn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#114
Report 8 years ago
#114
(Original post by Hegemony)
To improve the efficiency of the allocation of resources within our economy, obviously. Something which is necessary to maintain and improve standards of living for everyone in the UK.

Ironically, market forces already dictate your career choice(s) far more than you can begin to imagine.
I know that market forces already dictate my career choices, which is why I am already considering changing my career anyway.

Just that I'd prefer to not have it dictated.

Secondly, I don't understand your first point though. How can it improve the living standards of everyone, when many people would get made redundant if an industry is affected as badly as the UK film and indie TV industry will be over the next few years?

Those people would probably just get chucked to the bottom of the career ladder again. The brainier ones would probably change to a related career, such as IT technician or electronic engineer, which is what I want to change to, but what about those who don't have the intelligence or experience?

Obviously they'll change career, but to something probably far less skilled.

There's enough camera operators or directors or writers trying to break into this market as it is!
0
quote
reply
AidanLunn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#115
Report 8 years ago
#115
(Original post by ish90an)
I am sorry, but with Britain under huge financial pressure and a lot of debt on its books, people are complaining about a FILM industry's cuts? Do these people also classify themselves as poor then go on to buy iPads on their credit card? If an industry as unnecessary as film(you are hardly going to starve or die of disease if Nolan didn't make Inception) is not making a profit and thus not paying back to the taxpayer the choice of whether or not it should face cuts is so obvious anyone with more than a pea for a brain could have called it.
Well I half agree with you.

Education* and health are much more important than the film-making industry. Though I don't see why it was scrapped suddenly. Either privatising it or slowly cutting the budgets year-on-year would have worked better, but hey, the government has a deep deficit it needs to pay off, and we have to make sacrifices, so the latter suggestion probably wouldn't have worked.

Many of us who are devoted to our industry prefer to spend our money on equipment for our career rather than fancy toys such as iPads. I'm not interested in such things (my S-E phone is 6 years old!), and am still struggling to find a decent video camera and editing software for my PC on my tiny budget. You only see the fools who struggle to see that as soon as they finish their media studies degree, they will struggle to find work because of so little experience and understanding of how the industry works. They're the ones who buy the expensive toys and yet starve when they struggle to find a job in their chosen career.

Those who have both professional moviemaking equipment and an iPad are the successful ones.

*Though how the government can find the money to spend on an education system which is proven to work in theory, not in practice, during a time when they are supposed to be paying off Labour's deficit, is beyond me :rolleyes:
0
quote
reply
StarOfGerrad
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#116
Report 8 years ago
#116
(Original post by the_educated1)


These cuts were necessary, as others have accurately depicted - American blockbuster films can sustain themselves without direct support from the American tax payer. Britain adopts a 'Socialist' model to film-making, where the collective pays for every aspect of film creation.

Enough is enough, 13 years of a Labour government has had its toll on Britain.
Since when can Hollywood make British movies?

Why would Hollywood make films like Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll, Harry Brown, Fish Tank, In the Loop, Franklyn, Intermission, Sunshine, Last King of Scotland and This is England?

Art like most things is subjective so they obviously funded a fair portion of **** as well (for example anything with "ting" in the title) but good or bad it was British.

Civilisations are judged by their culture, are we to not have one?

Its not 13 years of Labour that dumped us in this mess, it was a the collapse of the American housing market which made the house of cards fall down. It was just free market capitalism doing what it does, the reason we have the debt is because everyone was too scared to let these banks fail.

I'm not saying it was right or wrong but to say its all Labours fault is just a crock of ****, however its one that never fails to make me laugh especially as the people who blame all this on Labour are usually self professed conservatives who prattle on about the merits of the free market and personal responsibility where the answer to everything is privatisation.

Lets get real here.

The fact is the British film industry accounts for roughly 0.07% of the public purse. The UKFC specifically gets roughly £15 million a year funding, that's £150 million over 10 years. The films its funded over those 10 years have returned roughly £750 million.

The £15 million a year funding the UKFC receives is mostly made up from the national lottery.

I don't really see why anyone would be cheering from the rafters for this one, we could have funded the UKFC for 500 years with what we've spent on the Olympics.

Saying that i think i read something a few months ago about us spending over £100 million a year on benefits for dead people.

There is so much waste in our society this "cut" is quite frankly ridiculous. Its so minuscule its has no bearing on anything, in fact any potential "savings" for this year will be wiped out by the popes visit.

This was done for no other reason than public grandstanding, it saves nothing, it benefits nothing and as such is completely unnecessary.
0
quote
reply
Llamageddon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#117
Report 8 years ago
#117
(Original post by adam_zed)
Not really?

You may enjoy only being able to select from the crap churned out of Hollywood (ie the remake of Karate Kid) but I rather enjoy British cinema and I presume this will effect it somewhat?
A lot of middle class arts types do...

and the rest of us are fed up of subsidising this self-indulgence.
0
quote
reply
StarOfGerrad
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#118
Report 8 years ago
#118
(Original post by Llamageddon)
A lot of middle class arts types do...

and the rest of us are fed up of subsidising this self-indulgence.
The point is that unless you play the lottery you're really not subsidising **** and if you are playing the lottery i don't see why you would complain about spending less than 2% of the fund 28p of your ticket contributes to on supporting British film.

Also a lot of people on this forum seem to have the idea that the UKFC funds films outright, they really don't.

When Danny Boyle was working his way through a £20 million production budget for Sunshine that wasn't £20 million of taxpayers money. I don't know how much money would have been put into Sunshine but considering they had 30 major productions in 2007 including St Trinians and 28 Weeks Later it couldn't have been a great deal.

The main problem with the UK film council is they have a mandate (which is something i really hated about everything that Labour implements from housing to employment) to support the work of ethnic minorities which isn't the way the creative industries work.

This has led to a lot of good material being passed over so they can make a **** film about pitta bread in the name of diversity.

This is why i'm not really sad to see the UKFC go, i just hope its replaced by something better.
0
quote
reply
adam_zed
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#119
Report 8 years ago
#119
(Original post by Llamageddon)
A lot of middle class arts types do...

and the rest of us are fed up of subsidising this self-indulgence.
Generalising on such an ignorant and unbased level is both silly and puts me off even replying
0
quote
reply
Llamageddon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#120
Report 8 years ago
#120
(Original post by adam_zed)
Generalising on such an ignorant and unbased level is both silly and puts me off even replying
I rarely see the working class trot off to FACT here in Liverpool.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (233)
27.48%
No (615)
72.52%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed