Trump's film duties are supposed to destroy the international film industry | film

Donald Trump's bomb announcement that “films are produced in our country in foreign countries”, a 100% tariff will certainly be exposed to Hollywood's attention, as well as the international film industries, which seems to be directed – mainly Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, and in European countries that often have worked as basic production.

Vague and great is ES-Trump his contribution with an all-cap “We want to make films in America again!” – The chaotic scooters of the former Trump tariffs triggered feverish speculations and defiance in the film industry in order to achieve that.

The internships how a tariff can be imposed on a film is anything but clear. Trump seems to be motivated by China's decision to limit the imports of Hollywood films with the United States as part of his trade war, but a quota system to North America would be relentless at first glance. Films are no longer objects that have to go through an entrance harbor to the USA, and their nationality of production is anything but clear. Most film productions – and TV shows – are a complex patchwork of corporate investments, work booth and multinational income worldwide. Some are tiny, by hand-to-mouth operations, others are gigantic giants, the turnover of which puts GDP in the shade of a small island station. In addition, digital evolution becomes a fully globalized industry that is moved too quickly to enable the imposition of consistent financial taxes.

However, Trump's goal does not seem to be a foreign films, but the outsourcing of production by Hollywood studios that have used decades of studios and locations overseas to reduce the costs and use interesting or unusual backdrops. To take some random recent examples: The new Tom Cruise film mission: Impossible – The last billing was mainly filmed in the Longcross Studios in Surrey and Lake District, but also in Malta, Norway and South Africa as well as in Italy. Marvel's new superhero -blockbuster Thunderbolts* was shot in Atlanta Georgia, but a key scene took place in Merdeka 118, a skyscraper in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and his score was recorded in the Abbey Road Studios in London.

Recovers play a major role in Hollywood thinking. While North America (consisting of the USA and Canada) remains the largest internal market with around $ 8.8 billion (6.6 billion GBP) in the evening treasury in 2024, international income of around $ 21.1 billion is put in the shade. It captures a significant part of it that Hollywood has geared towards its internationalistic thinking, shots in places and casting players to address a specific audience, right down to global roll-outs with a large scale with large-scale premiere in different cities around the world.

So the questions are asked: What would a single film get to excite tariffs? If it is published in cinemas (in which case you expect a wholesale change to streaming)? Would it contain streaming publications (in which case a wholesale as a “television programs”?) And what would actually be taxed? Could an American (mostly) British film like Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire really cause an import service? Would retailers pay a tax to publish them in the United States? If a film shows in streaming, consumers definitely do not pay directly to see it, but for a subscription to a platform, so that the idea of ​​aiming to aim the streaming income of a single film appears meaningless.

Trump seems more pragmat to the goal of pursuing the system of tax subsidies that enable Hollywood producers to excite large sums when they shoot in qualified countries in the studios. For example, it was announced that Universal Studios received 89 million GBP from the taxpayers in Great Britain after he had agreed to film Jurassic World: Return in Elstree in Hertfordshire. This partly explains the decline in film production in Los Angeles – according to Filmla – almost 40% in the last decade – but the California film industry was also attacked by other production centers in the United States, in which countries such as New York and Georgia offer tax incentives. California governor Gavin Newsom, a regular goal of Trump, recently announced a 750 million dollar program to try to reverse the decline in the industry in his state, and Trump's announcement was clearly a shot in his arch, after Newsom in April was a complaint against Trump's international emergency management law from 1977 (Iepa) had submitted to enact tariffs in other industries in other industries.

The current thinking is that Trump's most realistic option is to raise a tariff on financial packages that a film receives from a foreign government instead of tax cinema tickets or streaming subscriptions. However, the effect of a tariff is probably dramatic. The latest figures from the British Film Institute (BFI) show that in 2024 £ 4.8 billion ($ 6.37 billion) production expenditure for film and high-end television in Great Britain came from international sources, 86% of the total amount for film and television in Great Britain. In Australia, the film industry loses up to 767 million. A program of the studio building in Great Britain, which is supposed to increase the capacity and thus sales, should feel the cold almost immediately. And the effects on the domestic industry in the USA are expected to be disadvantageous, since the production costs increase overseas without the injection of tax incentives, whereby projects with medium level may be wiped out.

But whether, as Newsom suggests, all of this is a “distraction” or whether this announcement becomes something more solid, a shocked film industry is waiting to find out.