4 ms·

I would think because the organizers of these typical activities lack the resources or customer compliance to pull off as strict a regime as described above.

nostromo 6y ago
No, it's because Hollywood can pull strings in Sacramento. It's crazy how much weight Hollywood has in this country. Hollywood can open doors sometimes that even Apple and Google cannot, even though the entertainment industry is tiny compared to tech. I believe it's because politicians get star-struck. Just look at how many celebrities visited the white house in years past. It's insane how much access they have to the highest levels of government.
- mitchdoogle 6y ago
  I would count that access as part of their resources, which the poster above you mentioned
- gamblor956 6y ago
  No, it has nothing to do with star power or celebrity. It's because the studios are willing to spend lots of money and implement extremely strict protocols so that they can keep filming, because if they don't they will literally go bankrupt and die. And because the studios and the crew depend on filming for their economic survival, everyone involved is willing to do what it takes. I have friends who work in Hollywood. They're not allowed to socialize when they're working on set, nor for the two week period before they start working on set. They can't use public transportation. They can't visit friends or families for Thanksgiving or Christmas. They must get tested multiple times a week: a rapid test nearly every day (or every day for some sets), and the regular test at least every two weeks. The stricter sets won't even let crew go to the groceries when they're off set; they must use Instacart or limit themselves to eating at the crew stations on set. When traveling, they must stay in lodging provided by the studios, usually AirBnbs because hotels are too risky.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    Why is it important that Hollywood studios don't go bankrupt and die, but not restaurants and hair salons. I can't think of a more "non-essential" business than Hollywood movie production.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      For starters, Hollywood's combined impact on state finances exceeds that of the restaurant and hair salon industries. Why is Hollywood essential? It's basically the piggy bank keeping LA alive right now. Hollywood isn't just the actors and studio executives. Hollywood includes over a hundred thousand specialists, ranging from tradesmen like carpenters and electricians, to caterers, stylists, and landscapers. Those several hundred thousand individuals further support smaller local businesses like restaurants, hair salons, etc. There are dozens of restaurants in LA that are still alive right now because a Hollywood shoot used them for catering and that money has kept thousands of restaurant employees employed. There are hundreds of stylists still getting by because of the one week they worked on a set, which paid more than they would have made working at their local hair salon for several months.
      - TigeriusKirk 6y ago
        Is economic impact how "essential" is defined, then?
        gamblor956 6y ago
        Hollywood directly supports more than 2 million jobs and 400,000 U.S. businesses, and those 2 million jobs and 400,000 businesses in turn support several tens of millions of other jobs and hundreds of thousands of other U.S. businesses. Do you honestly believe that the states or cities have the ability to take over supporting those 2 million jobs and 400,000 businesses if they ban film shooting? (On another note: Film/TV shoots can be managed in ways that eliminate the possibility of spreader events, because Hollywood can and does require cast and crew to agree to all sorts of practices and behavioral restrictions far beyond the simple and unburdensome restrictions much of the general public has refused to do. Half of the country refuses to wear a mask when they go outdoors; Hollywood cast and crew have agreed to give up dating, socializing, traveling, and pretty much every thing outside of work just so that they can work this year.)
- trimbo 6y ago
  > I believe it's because politicians get star-struck Maybe that's part of it, but I believe it's because they know these filmmakers have incredible power to influence. Remember "Sideways"? A fictional character in a fictional movie said one negative line about merlot and wiped out the market for that varietal[1]. People who liked the wine suddenly didn't like it, because a character in a movie didn't like it. Now consider all of the semi-fictional movies that are made, like Citizen Kane was about Hearst (which destroyed Marion Davies' reputation as collateral damage). Or all of the movies glamorizing war, soldiers, FBI/CIA/police or politicians. This is something our government has needed and continues to need people to embrace. [1] - I asked some winemakers about this and they said merlot in Napa "was being ripped up like crazy" after the movie came out. And that merlot often ends up in red blends because selling it as a single varietal still doesn't fly. It's only coming back in the last few years.

nostromo 6y ago

No, it's because Hollywood can pull strings in Sacramento. It's crazy how much weight Hollywood has in this country. Hollywood can open doors sometimes that even Apple and Google cannot, even though the entertainment industry is tiny compared to tech. I believe it's because politicians get star-struck. Just look at how many celebrities visited the white house in years past. It's insane how much access they have to the highest levels of government.

mitchdoogle 6y ago
I would count that access as part of their resources, which the poster above you mentioned
gamblor956 6y ago
No, it has nothing to do with star power or celebrity. It's because the studios are willing to spend lots of money and implement extremely strict protocols so that they can keep filming, because if they don't they will literally go bankrupt and die. And because the studios and the crew depend on filming for their economic survival, everyone involved is willing to do what it takes. I have friends who work in Hollywood. They're not allowed to socialize when they're working on set, nor for the two week period before they start working on set. They can't use public transportation. They can't visit friends or families for Thanksgiving or Christmas. They must get tested multiple times a week: a rapid test nearly every day (or every day for some sets), and the regular test at least every two weeks. The stricter sets won't even let crew go to the groceries when they're off set; they must use Instacart or limit themselves to eating at the crew stations on set. When traveling, they must stay in lodging provided by the studios, usually AirBnbs because hotels are too risky.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  Why is it important that Hollywood studios don't go bankrupt and die, but not restaurants and hair salons. I can't think of a more "non-essential" business than Hollywood movie production.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    For starters, Hollywood's combined impact on state finances exceeds that of the restaurant and hair salon industries. Why is Hollywood essential? It's basically the piggy bank keeping LA alive right now. Hollywood isn't just the actors and studio executives. Hollywood includes over a hundred thousand specialists, ranging from tradesmen like carpenters and electricians, to caterers, stylists, and landscapers. Those several hundred thousand individuals further support smaller local businesses like restaurants, hair salons, etc. There are dozens of restaurants in LA that are still alive right now because a Hollywood shoot used them for catering and that money has kept thousands of restaurant employees employed. There are hundreds of stylists still getting by because of the one week they worked on a set, which paid more than they would have made working at their local hair salon for several months.
    - TigeriusKirk 6y ago
      Is economic impact how "essential" is defined, then?
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        Hollywood directly supports more than 2 million jobs and 400,000 U.S. businesses, and those 2 million jobs and 400,000 businesses in turn support several tens of millions of other jobs and hundreds of thousands of other U.S. businesses. Do you honestly believe that the states or cities have the ability to take over supporting those 2 million jobs and 400,000 businesses if they ban film shooting? (On another note: Film/TV shoots can be managed in ways that eliminate the possibility of spreader events, because Hollywood can and does require cast and crew to agree to all sorts of practices and behavioral restrictions far beyond the simple and unburdensome restrictions much of the general public has refused to do. Half of the country refuses to wear a mask when they go outdoors; Hollywood cast and crew have agreed to give up dating, socializing, traveling, and pretty much every thing outside of work just so that they can work this year.)
trimbo 6y ago
> I believe it's because politicians get star-struck Maybe that's part of it, but I believe it's because they know these filmmakers have incredible power to influence. Remember "Sideways"? A fictional character in a fictional movie said one negative line about merlot and wiped out the market for that varietal[1]. People who liked the wine suddenly didn't like it, because a character in a movie didn't like it. Now consider all of the semi-fictional movies that are made, like Citizen Kane was about Hearst (which destroyed Marion Davies' reputation as collateral damage). Or all of the movies glamorizing war, soldiers, FBI/CIA/police or politicians. This is something our government has needed and continues to need people to embrace. [1] - I asked some winemakers about this and they said merlot in Napa "was being ripped up like crazy" after the movie came out. And that merlot often ends up in red blends because selling it as a single varietal still doesn't fly. It's only coming back in the last few years.