The Impact of Globalization on Creative Industries: The Analysis of Film Industries in Central and Eastern Europe

This book by Hergengrader talks about how the film creator lacked in providing moviegoers with motivation and thus the films became huge defeats. A good example comes from viewer reviews in the movie “House of the Dead.” It shows that the producers ignored the Hollywood production ethics and fundamentals while creating the film. This book clearly depicts the lack of passion by the creator that led to bad reviews and negative consequences.

The filmmaker did not engage in activities that would inspire upcoming professionals because his movies became major frustrations to the viewers. For instance, the reviews regarding The House of the Dead indicated that the filmmaker did not pay close attention to the Hollywood production standards. The reviewers also indicated that Boll did not make his movies out of a passion for them.

Honthaner, E. L. (2013). The complete film production handbook. Focal Press.

This handbook by Honthaner showcases many of the existing ways that the government planned to expand the movie industry by focusing on one of the main techniques applied. The administration credits by playing a huge role in inspiring film creators to pass the torch to the next generations. This would be through training, shows and movie seminars. This would guarantee steady growth in productivity and consistency in the talent of making movies. Employment opportunities become available. This handbook also defines looks at incentives and defines them as significant investments given by the government to the movie industry to spur growth, amplify earning and support continued growth in research and talent development. Existing laws influence the nature of the incentives from state to state.

Mitkus, T., & Nedzinskaitė-Mitkė, V. (2016). The impact of globalization on creative industries: the analysis of film industries of Central and Eastern Europe. Creativity studies, 9(1), 64-74.

This book delves in deep and looks at the existing impact of tax incentives in the film sector.

It reports that most of the incentives do not benefit the industry due to the lack of solid foundations and relationships among few of the big shots in the industry with the administration. Boll’s impact in the film sector credits with preventing the movie sector from benefiting from the anticipated incentive benefits. These include better working environments for the staff and actors. Critics as reported in the book label the incentives as worthless and not worth the hassle in providing a suitable Return on Investment. Boll is the only beneficiary of the incentives and this has greatly affected those below him and the movie sector as a whole.

Powrie, P. P., & Gabrysiak, D. (2015). Money: now you see it, now you don’t. Studies in French Cinema, 15(3), 197-206.

This book by Powrie and Gabrysiak looks at the reasons why investing huge volumes of incentives in the movie sector that consists of foul players and producers such as Boll is a bad idea. They label it as a scheme that only benefits the heavyweights. Only this scenario negatively affects the moviegoers and junior staff. The government should follow up with movie producers, creators, and directors to guarantee that they provide quality products in the case that they provide their incentives to the industry. This will guarantee the vision is achieved and even those without voices are heard through the amazing science of film production and movie creation.

References

Hergenrader, T. (2016). Films and Games: Interactions. Afterimage, 43(4), 42.

Honthaner, E. L. (2013). The complete film production handbook. Focal Press.

Mitkus, T., & Nedzinskaitė-Mitkė, V. (2016). The impact of globalization on creative industries: the analysis of film industries of Central and Eastern Europe. Creativity studies, 9(1), 64-74.

Powrie, P. P., & Gabrysiak, D. (2015). Money: now you see it, now you don’t. Studies in French Cinema, 15(3), 197-206.