WWTBAM Bored

I don't usually post here, but this one has me puzzled from a logistical perspective. Today, Trump said he would impose a 100% tariff on films produced outside the United States. Leaving aside the politics of this, I'm curious how this tariff would work. What does he mean by "produced" in the United States? Is he talking about filming here? A lot of movies film some scenes in the US and some scenes overseas. Is he talking about post-production work (music, special effects, etc.) The new Mission Impossible movie was filmed entirely overseas but all the visual effects were handled by ILM and other companies in California, often subbing some of the work overseas as well.

Also, what is the value on which the tariff is calculated. It's easy to calculate the cost of imported goods. It's what the company in the US pays the company outside the country. But big budget films like Mission Impossible are financed by American studios, who pay the cast and crew. Are we talking about production costs? If that's the case no one will ever make a movie overseas again. Are we talking about the cost of the actual product that's imported into the United States. Almost all films today are produced on high-density DVDs that the studios send to movie theaters. Many of these discs are manufactured and pressed overseas, others in the US. I believe the cost to produce a theatre quality DVD is a few hundred dollars. Are we talking about individual ticket prices?

I have a feeling that someone is going to tell Trump how infeasible this suggestion is in practice and it will be soon be dropped.

Don't worry about it; he's just talking out of his ass again.

I was confused in that I thought the United States was the dominant film producing country anyway. That's only my perception; I haven't researched it.

But if it's true, then there doesn't seem to be a need to charge people to import product from elsewhere, if much of it comes from here already.

Plus, reducing the amount of product coming from other countries would diminish our learnig about the rest of the world.

I would think.

But again, no one asked me.

Now I see a TV site projecting that this would apply to television/streaming, which is a much bigger deal. Several shows film in Canada so save money, so maybe that was the point of the EO.

And I guess your Amazing Races and Survivors would be way more expensive, so they might go out of business.

I've watched all of one epsiode of either, so I don't mind, but again, I thought they were a fun way to learn about other places.

Ritterskoop wrote: ↑

Mon May 05, 2025 2:25 pm

I was confused in that I thought the United States was the dominant film producing country anyway. That's only my perception; I haven't researched it.

But if it's true, then there doesn't seem to be a need to charge people to import product from elsewhere, if much of it comes from here already.

Plus, reducing the amount of product coming from other countries would diminish our learning about the rest of the world.

I would think.

But again, no one asked me.

I'm glad you understand Trump's reasoning.

I'm now reading that quite a few folks in this film and TV industry are suffering lately, and would welcome a way to compete, with the caveat that most of the unions include Canadians, and they would not want any new policies that harm their siblings there.

You'll all be happy to know there won't be any tariffs on Vatican City since the Pope was made in America.