Smug Alert

Oliver Stone, it turns out, is a bludging ratbag:

When Oliver Stone made the 2010 sequel to “Wall Street,” in his mind there was only one place to shoot it: New York City. Nonetheless, the film, a scathing look at bankers’ greed, received $10 million in tax credits, according to 20th Century Fox.

In an interview, Mr. Stone criticized subsidies for industries like banking and agriculture but defended them for Hollywood, saying that many movies can be shot anywhere and that their actors and crew members pay state income taxes. “It’s good,” Mr. Stone said of the film subsidies. “Or like basically the way business is done. I don’t understand what the moral qualm is.”

The practical consequences can be easily seen. The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative group, found that the amount New York spends on film credits every year equals the cost of hiring 5,000 public-school teachers.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Patrick

    Typical socialist – “do as I say not as I do”
    Just like Cullen and his “rich pricks” remark. Most Kiwis would considr Cullen to be one of those rich pricks with his hundreds of thousands of dollars salary, gold plated superannuation & all the perks that come with a lifetime of sucking on the public tit.

  • cows4me

    Great more bludgers . They can come and make a movie at our place, should make Whale happy, two bludgers in one location.

  • Anonymouse Coward

    I wonder if the luvies who think Sir Peter & Hobbits are entitled to taxpayer money can see the parrallels between Oliver and the object of their adoration.

    • Neil

      That whole episode was a disgrace for everyone involved for both sides. Aussie Union bullies vs USA Multi-Nationals no way anyone in New Zealand was going to come up smelling of roses.

  • Hard1

    Let’s be clear here . A tax credit is costing the taxpayer nothing . It is used as an incentive to get the movie production . Without the tax credit , the movie would be made elsewhere losing the entire benefit to the economy .

    So , the Hobbit was not given one dollar of taxpayer money .Is this difficult to understand?

    • Seems to me

      Seems to me you are one of the few rational thinkers her amongst the bleeters here. Of course you are correct NO TAXPAYERS PAID ANYTHING. On the other hand Banks and Financial institutions in teh USA got actual cash money courtesy of the taxpayer(fairs fair tho-most of that has been repaid-unlike GM handout)

  • Hazards001

    I’m a bit dull I suppose but I thought Cams point was the hypocrisy of Stones statements? Not a comparison to the Hobbit and the tax credits to film in NZ?

    • Anonymouse Coward

      Can I have a tax credit please.

      I want to film a legend about a film distribution company and its quest to loot a fabled behive filled with gold, guarded by a group called the cabinet who shower gold on those that come up with good story.