Entertainment
Is California's film and TV tax credit in danger? Unions say so
SACRAMENTO —
Eager to negotiate a measure off the 2024 ballot that would make it harder to raise taxes, unions are alleging the initiative would end a California program that awards hundreds of millions of dollars annually in tax credits to television and film studios.
The claims are part of an effort by unions to increase pressure on business interests backing the measure to strike a deal to remove the proposal from the November ballot, which remains possible amid an intense negotiation period at the California state Capitol. If the concerns about the tax credits catch on, movie studio executives could be a powerful addition to the opposition campaign.
Losing film and television tax credits would be particularly damaging as the motion picture industry struggles to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, two major strikes and an ongoing industry contraction.
“This thing has the potential to devastate our industry and the jobs that support it, as well as those that are touched by this industry,” said Thom Davis, president of the California council for Hollywood crew members union IATSE.
So far, no movie studios have joined the opposition campaign led by the Service Employees International Union California, California Teachers Assn, Northern California Regional Council of Carpenters and the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California.
Warner Bros. Discovery and a lobbyist for the Motion Picture Assn. declined to comment. The Times reached out Tuesday to several other major studios, including Disney, NBCUniversal, Sony, Paramount and Netflix, for comment.
The California Business Roundtable, a proponent of the measure, pushed back on the union claims. The film credits are a tax deduction, not an increase, and would not be affected by the ballot initiative, the business organization said.
“We’ve been waiting for these kinds of scare and intimidation tactics for weeks,” said Rob Lapsley, president of the roundtable.
Removing the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act from the November ballot is a top political priority of labor unions and Democrats, who are afraid voters will support the proposal and tip the balance of power in Sacramento.
The proposal, pushed by Lapsley’s group and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., strips the state Legislature and the governor of the ability to increase taxes without statewide voter approval. The measure could limit state and local funding and make it more challenging for the governor and Legislature to generate funding for new programs, or respond to an economic crisis without sacrificing their own policy agenda.
The measure would have a “chilling effect on government’s ability to invest in services and infrastructure that the state of California and Californians need in order to grapple with all of the challenges ahead,” such as climate change, an aging population and the rise of artificial intelligence, said Keely Bosler, former director of the California Department of Finance who is working with the opposition campaign.
Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic state lawmakers petitioned the California Supreme Court last September to intervene, arguing that the change revises the California Constitution and should require a two-thirds vote in the Legislature to appear on the ballot. The high court heard oral arguments on the case in May and could offer a ruling to strike the measure from the November ballot.
Lawyers for the proponents and the opposition campaign disagree over whether the measure will impact film and TV tax credits.
The measure asks voters to require local governments to vote on all fee increases, which can now be approved administratively. The threshold to increase local special taxes would increase from a majority to a two-thirds vote of the people.
Fee increases at the state level, which are often approved by state agencies and boards, would need support from a majority of the state Legislature. The ballot measure also would expand the requirements necessary for a statewide tax increase, which currently can be done with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Under the measure, support from a majority of California voters also would be required.
The measure expands the definition of taxes and restricts the potential use of fees to only cover the cost of the service, potentially prohibiting government from redirecting revenue to other purposes.
Opponents say California’s film and TV tax credit program — which underwent a significant makeover in 2023 — could be in jeopardy due to a provision in the proposed ballot measure declaring that “any change in state law which results in a taxpayer paying a new or higher tax” must be passed by at least two thirds of the legislature and approved by a majority vote of the people.
A retroactive clause states that “any tax or exempt charge adopted after January 1, 2022, but prior to the effective date of this act” that was not implemented according to the above rules will be void one year after the measure is passed “unless the tax or exempt charge is reenacted in compliance with the requirements.”
Detractors have interpreted those excerpts to mean that Senate Bill 132 — a 2023 law extending California’s film and TV tax credit by five years and incorporating a new “refundable” feature permitting certain studios to qualify for direct payments from the state — would be overturned if the ballot measure passes in November. SB 132 isn’t scheduled to go into effect until 2025, so the opposition campaign is sounding the alarm about future funding to the tax credit program.
Unions began delivering the warnings in the final stretch of budget negotiations at the state Capitol. Newsom and Democrats are negotiating among themselves, unions and other interest groups about delaying an increase to the minimum wage for healthcare workers to $25 per hour and a pause on tax credits for businesses to close California’s $45-billion budget deficit.
Those talks are intertwined in conversations about the 2024 ballot measures. Under state law, proponents have the ability to withdraw their measures from the ballot before the June 27 qualifying deadline. Lapsley said he has been open to having talks about the provisions of his measure with opponents, but that hasn’t happened.
“We’ve been crystal clear that we would respect anyone who wants to sit down and have a discussion,” Lapsley said.
But Lapsley has also been adamant about the need for his proposal.
“The importance of [Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act] for the statewide business community as a long term check and balance against a permanent two-thirds super majority progressive Legislature far outweighs any individual elements that they may be talking about at this point,” Lapsley said. “So that is our perspective on this, and that is why we continue to just move forward.”
The potential effects of the measure on the film tax credit could be a compelling argument for unions.
California currently awards about $330 million annually to dozens of entertainment companies that film in state — a relatively low number compared to more attractive tax programs offered by production hubs in other states and countries that compete with Hollywood for business.
Industry insiders and experts have cited the weakness of California’s tax credit program as one of several reasons why film and TV production has been declining in the state. A recent report by the Otis College of Art and Design found that Los Angeles’ share of domestic film and TV employment dropped 8% last year, losing ground to rivals such as Atlanta and New York.
A complete reversal of SB 132 would spell “absolute devastation” for the local entertainment community, Davis said. The Hollywood crew members he represents are already hurting badly from last year’s work stoppages and the sluggish return to production.
“California would just not be able to compete anymore,” Davis said.
“The questions [entertainment workers] are asking is, ‘Why would they do this to us?’” he added. “It’s almost like a personal attack.”
RICHMOND, Va. (WRIC) — In this episode of 8News Reel Talk, Julia Broberg sits down with Hekla Petursson and Catori Ryan to talk about “Toy Story 5.”
The hosts gave their reviews and provided the following star ratings:
Catori: ★★★★
Hekla: ★★★★★
Julia: ★★★★.2
To watch more livestreams and digital video content, head to the WRIC+ Originals page. You can also watch full on-demand videos on your smart TV using the WRIC+ app.
Passing “Go” has become especially lucrative for mobile game publisher Scopely.
The Culver City-based Scopely launched “Monopoly Go!” in 2023, betting fans of the classic board game would flock to a mobile version aimed at casual gamers.
By 2025, “Monopoly Go!” had accrued $6 billion in lifetime in-app purchase revenue, becoming the fastest free mobile game to do so, according to app analytics firm Sensor Tower.
This summer, the app is expected to reach $8 billion in lifetime revenue, the company says, solidifying “Monopoly Go!” as Scopely’s biggest game and far surpassing the company’s popular “Pokémon Go.” The company declined to disclose its total profits.
Scopely Co-Chief Executive Javier Ferreira.
As overall downloads in the mobile game market have stagnated and in-app purchases and retention become the main drivers of growth, Scopely has hit on an age-old Hollywood strategy — using known franchises and intellectual property to bring out fans.
“These are incredibly durable and long-lasting games that have really passionate communities and fandom around them,” said Javier Ferreira, co-chief executive of Scopely. “We’re in the business of building people’s favorite thing, and that’s a difficult thing to do. The power of [intellectual property] is that, in some cases, that is already their favorite thing.”
The company’s journey toward “Monopoly Go!” began in 2014, when Scopely formed a partnership with Rhode Island-based toymaker Hasbro. Its first collaboration was a Yahtzee mobile dice game that ultimately drew millions of players worldwide (though it was especially popular in the U.S.) and generated more than $1 billion in lifetime revenue.
After that, Scopely approached Hasbro about taking on the “crown jewel” of its board game empire — Monopoly.
Monopoly’s massive global popularity was an obvious draw. But adapting an hours-long real estate transaction game for a casual, mobile audience proved challenging.
Development of what would become “Monopoly Go!” ultimately took seven years, two of which were spent trying to make movement around the board more fun. In that time, the company scrapped two versions of the game; one deemed too competitive, and one that was too complex, Ferreira said.
Developers wanted to capture the “roller coaster feel” of the board game’s highs and lows, while also having simple rules and ensuring a strong social element, he said.
“We couldn’t just copy,” Ferreira said. “We had to reinvent it and re-imagine it, and that’s a complicated, creative endeavor.”
Today, “Monopoly Go!” brings in more than $2 billion in annual revenue and has been downloaded across the globe more than 300 million times.
Now with “Pokémon Go,” which the company owns after acquiring maker Niantic’s game business last year, “Scopely has gone from a successful publisher to one of the defining companies in mobile gaming,” Randy Nelson, head of insights at Appfigures, a mobile app analytics firm.
“The company cracked the code on licensed games years ago,” he wrote in an email. “Its biggest hits work because they’re great games first and recognizable brands second.”
Though the company’s overall game downloads have slowed, its gross revenue has largely increased every year since 2020, according to Appfigures data.
Shortly after Scopely released “Monopoly Go!,” the company was acquired by Savvy Games Group, which is owned by the Saudi Public Investment Fund, for $4.9 billion.
In a statement about the deal, Savvy Games Group Chief Executive Brian Ward touted the success of “Monopoly Go!” as “indicative of Scopely’s ongoing position at the forefront of the global games sector.”
Representatives of the Saudi investment fund are part of Savvy Game Group’s board and do sometimes give some feedback on company initiatives, though Ferreira said the company has remained “very independent.”
The proposed acquisition of gaming giant Electronic Arts by the Saudi Public Investment Fund is not expected to affect Scopely since EA largely focuses on high-budget console and computer games, he said.
As Scopely, now 3,000 employees strong, looks to the future, it has embarked on a number of entertainment partnerships with studios to add franchises such as “The Simpsons,” “Hello Kitty” and Marvel to its mobile game ecosystem.
“They give us access to these universes that millions of people love and are really invested in,” Ferreira said. “We see this as a very strategic part of our business.”
Rose of Nevada is a genuinely poetic movie that pushes the boundaries of the Groundhog Day-style time-travel narrative while carving out an identity completely its own. Rather than relying on the familiar mechanics that audiences have come to expect from the genre, the film approaches the concept through a more reflective and emotional lens. The result is a movie that feels thoughtful, ambitious, and surprisingly moving.
It makes a huge on-screen presence felt through its cast, particularly George MacKay and Callum Turner, who both deliver performances that elevate the material beyond a simple science-fiction premise. Combined with breathtaking visuals and a strong directorial vision, Rose of Nevada becomes something far more memorable than many of its genre contemporaries.
George MacKay continues to prove why he is one of the most compelling actors working today. Following his acclaimed work in 1917, he once again demonstrates an ability to carry a film through sheer presence and emotional authenticity.
Every scene feels grounded because of his performance, even when the story ventures into more abstract territory. Alongside him, Callum Turner delivers what could easily be viewed as a breakout performance. The chemistry between the two leads helps anchor the film, allowing audiences to connect with the characters even as the narrative challenges conventional storytelling expectations.
One of the film’s greatest strengths is its visual presentation. The cinematography is nothing short of earth-shattering. Nearly every frame looks like a carefully crafted painting, capturing both the beauty and mystery of the world these characters inhabit. There is a dreamlike quality to the imagery that perfectly complements the film’s themes of time, memory, and destiny.
The camera lingers on landscapes just long enough to allow viewers to soak in their beauty without ever slowing the pace. It’s the kind of cinematography that demands to be appreciated on the largest screen possible.
Director Mark Jenkin continues to establish himself as one of the most distinctive voices in modern British cinema. Following the atmospheric and haunting Enys Men, Jenkin once again crafts a story that feels deeply connected to folklore and place.
The British backdrop becomes a character in itself, with rugged coastlines, open landscapes, and isolated locations contributing to the film’s unique atmosphere. His direction never feels showy or excessive; instead, he trusts the audience to absorb the experience and interpret its deeper meanings.
What makes Rose of Nevada especially fascinating is how it recalls classic time-travel films without simply copying them. There are moments that evoke the spirit of The Final Countdown, particularly in the sense of wonder and uncertainty surrounding the temporal elements.
Yet the film remains firmly rooted in its own identity, focusing more on emotion and introspection than spectacle. It invites viewers to engage with its ideas rather than simply consume them.
This is also one of those rare films that benefits from reflection after the credits roll. It is not a movie designed to provide easy answers. Instead, it lingers in the mind, encouraging discussion and interpretation. The more time you spend thinking about it, the more rewarding it becomes. Much like a fine wine, Rose of Nevada continues to improve with age, revealing new layers and details upon reflection.
Overall, Rose of Nevada is a beautiful, ambitious, and visually stunning piece of filmmaking that deserves to be experienced on the big screen. Powered by exceptional performances, remarkable cinematography, and confident direction, it stands as one of the more unique takes on time travel in recent memory.
Overall Grade: 4/5 Stars
-
Politics12 minutes agoControversial billionaire tax proposal will appear on November ballot
-
Sports20 minutes agoShohei Ohtani is the first Dodger to be named 2026 All-Star
-
World30 minutes agoWho will control Africa’s AI infrastructure and at what cost
-
News57 minutes agoThe Supreme Court says the U.S. can turn away asylum seekers at the border
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours agoJury says it is deadlocked in trial of man accused in Palisades Fire
-
Detroit, MI3 hours agoScene active as police shoot, kill man on Detroit’s west side
-
San Francisco, CA3 hours agoCivil grand jury report warns of wildfire risk at SF’s Glen Canyon Park
-
Dallas, TX3 hours agoIvory Coast advances at World Cup, how to buy Ivory Coast tickets
