Trump announces 100% tariffs on movies ‘produced in foreign lands’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Trump announces 100% tariffs on movies ‘produced in foreign lands’

#431

Post by g9yuayon » Mon, May 05, 2025, 6:03 PM UTC

habosa wrote: post #77

The MAGA people attacking Hollywood is such a big mistake. Yes I know the average celebrity doesn’t share their views, but that doesn’t change the fact that Hollywood projects American culture around the world in a way that the government could never do itself. Movies and music made here are so often cited as the reason why young people around the world idealize America and want to emulate us (buy our clothes, speak…

I actually think the intention of the tariff here is to bring jobs back to the American filming industry - not that I agree with this approach. Just an assessment of mine. But speaking of cultural influence, I think something interesting has been happening.

> that doesn’t change the fact that Hollywood projects American culture around the world in a way that the government could never do itself

I'll all for the "soft power" of the US, including cultural influence. Just wanted to point out that things have been changing slowly. More and more people started to be more credulous about Hollywood's values. Case in point, Blank Panther won Oscar, yet it was widely criticized in China and its box office in China was miserable. Below is the translation of a popular criticism of Black Panther:

Imagine you made a movie about China, kind of like Black Panther. In it, China is this isolated country with crazy-advanced technology, way ahead of the rest of the world. But instead of a modern government, it's run by tribal warlords—each one basically a dictator. To choose their top leader, they fight each other with knives and spears on top of the Forbidden City.

In your story, Chinese people still do foot binding like it’s totally normal. The elite chieftains live in ridiculous luxury inside the imperial palace. Their medicine is so advanced it’s basically magic—people come back from the dead—and they’ve got levitating trains that look like they’re from another planet.

But regular folks? They live in grass huts, spend their days feeding rhinos (or maybe pandas), and there are barely any roads in the whole country.

Then you take this movie to China and tell everyone it’s a tribute to Chinese culture? People would be so insulted, they might actually beat you up.

Re: Trump announces 100% tariffs on movies ‘produced in foreign lands’

#432

Post by mvdtnz » Mon, May 05, 2025, 6:15 PM UTC

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #426

ecocentrik wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Americans have the same problem. The US justice system does not perfectly mirror the Hollywood justice system and jurors are constantly reminded of this when they're called to serve on US juries.

It's hilarious to watch police body cam footage where an arrested person is screaming that they haven't been arrested properly because it didn't happen the way it happens in movies.

I like the ones who scream "I know my rights" when they absolutely do not know their rights.

Re: Trump announces 100% tariffs on movies ‘produced in foreign lands’

#433

Post by nobody9999 » Mon, May 05, 2025, 6:20 PM UTC

jdiff wrote: post #419

imcritic wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I see an argument with a phrase like "basic premise" I know I'm reading some word mambo jambo, otherwise the author would just give their summary of that "basic premise" instead of deadlinking it (refer to something without actually referring it). You don't have an argument yourself, you just wanted to share that you are pro some position.

There are clear factual errors in the underlying assumptions of what was stated about water fluoridation. Those are simply table stakes for having a discussion about anything at all. If one thinks that water fluoridation is useful "just for a few seconds," that it's not done outside of the United States, that it's a replacement for toothpaste, that it's a vital chemical, or that we don't fortify other foods, then the…

>If someone came in with a curious mindset, that'd be one thing. But this is someone walking into a room with an agenda (get rid of fluoride) and a shocking lack of knowledge about that agenda.

But since "Internet People Lie About Fluoride,"[0] why are you surprised? And that's nothing new.

Why? I have no idea. Perhaps cpursley[1] could enlighten us?

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GefwcsrChHk

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43894013

Re: Trump announces 100% tariffs on movies ‘produced in foreign lands’

#434

Post by bluGill » Mon, May 05, 2025, 6:23 PM UTC

digitalPhonix wrote: post #429

marcuskane2 wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the police does not show up to a fire or an emergency, why would they? Because they're trained first-responders, who have medical first aid training, vehicles with lights and sirens to move quickly through traffic, knowledge of the local area to navigate around road closures or ambiguous location descriptions, etc. There are many situations where multiple sub-specialties of first-responders (police, firefighters, E…

A common joke with firefighters: the difference between a training exercise and a real fire scene is the lack of law enforcement getting in the way. > Because they're trained first-responders, who have medical first aid training In many parts of the US they are only trained to EMR level (if that) which isn't particularly useful. Most fire departments require everyone to be EMT and will often have a paramedic on board…

Where I'm from the police all have a larger first aid kit than is the typical home and they also have AEDs. If there is any change a police officer can arrive before the ambulance or fire department then they will dispatch the police there because seconds might be counting.

Yes the ambulance and fire department is better trained for these things. However basic first aid (CPR) and an AED in the hands of someone with basic first aid training often beats the most trained professional who is arrives just a minute later. So dispatches will get whoever can get to the scene first there, as well as the right people.

Yes the police often are in the way in a fire real scene - but that is a lot better than all the bystanders watching the fire in the way instead. However it is hard to see how bad it could be, while easy to see how bad things are.

Re: Trump announces 100% tariffs on movies ‘produced in foreign lands’

#435

Post by misja111 » Mon, May 05, 2025, 6:40 PM UTC

peder wrote: post #361

misja111 wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if a significant amount of film production moves to the UK, it's likely that criticisms of the UK would be more muted. Have you watched British television or movies sometimes? They're not exactly sparing their country from criticism .. E.g. (the original) House of Cards, Not the Nine O'Clock News, etc. The other country you mention, China, is a better match. But is that the kind of society that the USA wants to be?

Are you intentionally missing the point? Our films made in the US are already neutered from a free-speech perspective because we're chasing opinions that are politically correct in China . We don't want to worsen that by bending to every foreign tax break. We should be making unapologetically American movies, and if foreign consumers still watch those movies, all the better. But we shouldn't be writing these to a low…

There's some point in that, although certainly not all US movie companies are self censoring in favor of China. Also, if the goal is to prevent chasing Chinese opinions, why not specifically target China?

Or are countries like Canada or the UK also seen as part of "a concerted effort by other Nations"?

Re: Trump announces 100% tariffs on movies ‘produced in foreign lands’

#436

Post by motorest » Mon, May 05, 2025, 6:41 PM UTC

ulfw wrote: post #358

motorest wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most top movies last year [1] were shot outside of the US. The movies you listed as examples are Hollywood productions (aka Hollywod movies, aka American movies).

That's like saying an Apple iPhone is a US phone and hence shouldn't be tariffed. No, it's made in China. Not in the US. The movies aforementioned are not made in the US either.

> That's like saying an Apple iPhone is a US phone (...)

It is a US phone.

> No, it's made in China.

It doesn't make it any less of a US phone. If you go to Newegg, order a bunch of PC parts from CPU to case, and put them together in your room, how much of the PC was made in your neighborhood?

> The movies aforementioned are not made in the US either.

Ninsense. Do you think that gophers and local caterers are the ones producing and profiting from a movie production?

Re: Trump announces 100% tariffs on movies ‘produced in foreign lands’

#437

Post by guerrilla » Mon, May 05, 2025, 6:54 PM UTC

kjksf wrote: post #329

Maybe people should first understand the context of this. Apparently, here's the data: California is losing its grip on the film industry as Canada, the UK, and Australia outspend the U.S. on production subsidies. LA’s soundstage occupancy dropped to 90% pre-strikes, while Warner Brothers and Netflix ramp up overseas filming. Even a $3.75 billion tax credit boost might not be enough to keep Hollywood on top. Meanwhil…

Leftist?

Re: Trump announces 100% tariffs on movies ‘produced in foreign lands’

#438

Post by jimmydddd » Mon, May 05, 2025, 7:08 PM UTC

whizzter wrote: post #338

dagw wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know the US better than many parts of Germany I read an article years ago from a lawyer (might have been a judge) complaining that, thanks to US TV and movies, people in Sweden know more about how the US justice system works than the Swedish system. Far too many people just fall back on their US TV knowledge of how they think courts work and that they keep having to explain to the people that, no that's not how thi…

We have very few shows about lawyers/law here because our system is simple (and boring?) enough that there isn't much to make anything interesting about. IANAL but have taken some intro level course (that usually starts with don't think anything from American shows applies). 1: It's rooted in civil law so the written laws(and their precursor political discussions) are first considered, laws are thus fairly broadly wr…

It's actually pretty boring in the US as well. As an attorney, it's always interesting to see US law school applications increase if a "sexy" legal drama becomes popular on TV. I feel bad for those applicants, because 99% of legal work is not as exciting as on TV, the lawyers don't dress as well as they do on TV, and they definitely do not look as attractive as the ones on TV. :-)

Re: Trump announces 100% tariffs on movies ‘produced in foreign lands’

#439

Post by Gormo » Mon, May 05, 2025, 7:08 PM UTC

jparishy wrote: post #166

Gormo wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The filmmaking industry is constantly flying productions all over the world to avoid paying US labor. Think of all the American jobs that are lost when a film studio chooses to shoot on-location in Paris instead of attempting to build a replica of Paris in Los Angeles. No one ever thinks about all of the construction workers who never get a chance to build a fake Eiffel Tower, or all of the struggling local actors…

mock the actors and builders and hvac technicians all you'd like, sorta reinforces the overall political landscape. not a great look imo

In case it wasn't clear, I'm not mocking actors, builders, and HVAC techs; rather, I'm mocking you, for making the ridiculous claim that these hard-working folks are in such dire straits (hint: they're not) that studios should be forced to make production choices that result in ultra-lame movies just to artificially guarantee them some extra work.

Re: Trump announces 100% tariffs on movies ‘produced in foreign lands’

#440

Post by Voultapher » Mon, May 05, 2025, 7:16 PM UTC

sorokod wrote: post #406

JeremyNT wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy is obviously senile, so it's pointless to even try to analyse this. What did he mean when he said this? Who knows - he probably doesn't even remember himself. What will the resulting policy, if any, actually be? His advisors were probably hearing it for the first time just like the rest of us.

Probably, but a useful senile. Would be interesting to know whom did he have conversations with on the day of the post.

https://www.project2025.observer/ it's not just aimless senile guy doing stupid things. Project 2025 is very much real and his handlers are fast tracking it.