ROTTEN TOMATOES: North Carolina Wants Script Approval Before You Can Shoot There? Thanks, Dakota...

North Carolina Wants Script Approval Before You Can Shoot There? Thanks, Dakota...

by Scott Weinberg | January 29, 2007

The Dakota Fanning film "Hounddog" is still causing lots of controversy ... even after it debuted to a mediocre response up at Sundance. Seems the fine state of North Carolina is oh so concerned about the kind of subject matter that's being lensed in their backyards -- and they're taking steps to "approve" screenplays before filmmakers will be offered admittance.

The (alleged) new law would apply only to productions that take advantage of North Carolina's "filmmaker incentive" program, which basically means that if a production wants to earn up to 15% of their budget back, thanks to tax credits, they must have their screenplay pre-approved before the shoot begins.

Or productions could just go to one of NC's bordering states and not deal with all the hassle. Word from The Wilmington Star indicates that this action is by no means a done deal, but it sure seems like the North Carolina politicians are trying to make a pointless little statement. One like "Oh dear, you made a movie in our state, and that movie deals with a young girl who is sexually molested. Therefore we must step forward and act all offended, just so you know we don't approve of child abuse -- even the fictional kind."

That's just the way I see it, anyway. (Click here for the full story.) And I'm sure this extended bout of extra controversy doesn't bother the "Hounddog" filmmakers all that much....

Related Items

Celeb:	Dakota Fanning
Movie:	Hounddog

(1-20 of 36 posts) | Reply

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Jan 29 2007 01:06 PM

[b]Hmmm, could have guessed the author w/o the name[/b]
Or maybe since they're partially footing the bill to allow certain movies to be made they should be allowed to cover their ass or have some say in how their state is reflected.

Perhaps these stories should be reported in a less op-ed fashion.

(Reply to this)

HurinThalion writes:
on Jan 29 2007 01:30 PM

Hey, if the tax-payers don't agree with the film script why should they pay for it?

(Reply to this)

Jen Yamato writes:
on Jan 29 2007 01:56 PM

I think the point is, it's troubling from an artist's point of view -- consider if this is the pebble that leads to a much larger ripple effect on artistic freedom for filmmakers without big budgets/who don't want to compromise.

Just playing devil's advocate here. Thoughts?

(Reply to this)

carrierj1 writes:
on Jan 29 2007 02:07 PM

[b]Rednecks[/b]
Who cares. They're just going to lose money to South Carolina, Virginia, and any other state that looks like North Carolina.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Jan 29 2007 03:20 PM

In reply to this comment (#854241)
If they don't want to compromise, then they need to foot the bill. Or explain their reasoning convincingly. Or realize that perhaps their art isn't appreciated by most people (a bit of DA on my part here ;) )

(Reply to this)

highdough writes:
on Jan 29 2007 03:24 PM

Wow, until hearing about this new law, I thought that North Carolina actually approved of child rape. Especially since the movie apparently glorifies it and basically tells the viewer that's it's cool to rape little girls. On another note, I just watched Silence of the Lambs and now I want kill people and eat them. Where was that filmed, because it seems to glorify cannabilism.

(Reply to this)

boxman writes:
on Jan 29 2007 04:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#854244)
Nothing more needs to be said after that fine bit of sarcasm.

(Reply to this)

jukeboxhero6660 writes:
on Jan 29 2007 05:37 PM

In reply to this comment (#854239)
well he is reporting and reporting of late hasnt been very balanced in any field so why should he? and its his opinion he gave the link so you can make up your own mind and not just follow, so who cares how he says it, if you dont like it go to a different site.

(Reply to this)

3263827 writes:
on Jan 29 2007 05:39 PM

In reply to this comment (#854245)
Ditto to that, but sometimes even when you don't need to say something you can't resist. And as such I can't resist noting that I moved to Vermont after seeing Chevy Chase's Funny Farm. And let me say that I feel completely ripped off. Vermont's not at all like it was in the movie. Do I get a tax credit?

(Reply to this)

mofojoe85 writes:
on Jan 29 2007 06:39 PM

if north carolina doesn't want a film produced in their state due to content then it's their business. just like it's dakota's business, or at least her parents, over what movie roles she accepts. deal with it.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Jan 29 2007 08:44 PM

In reply to this comment (#854246)
Well that makes it alright then, doesn't it? Everyone else is doing it... Gotta love that idealogy. Heaven forbid that someone not like the way something is said and comment on it... oh wait, that's what you did...

(Reply to this)

Vitamin M writes:
on Jan 30 2007 07:25 AM

In reply to this comment (#854241)
Yes it's troubling from the point of view of the artists who now have to jump through hoops to get their films made because some dumbass filmed a rape scene invovling a child. Instead of talking about this movie we could always just lobby for harsher sentences for sex offenders! That seems more useful...

(Reply to this)

clamman27 writes:
on Jan 30 2007 09:33 AM

Yeah I guess freedom of expression no longer matters. Censorship anyone???

You don't have to like it. You don't have to even see it.

All of this controversy over a movie. Give me a break. Things like that happen unfortunately in life all too often. So are we as artists supposed to pretend it doesn't and never talk about it, never write about it, never show it in the context of a story because someone somehwere may be offended. Tough! I'm getting so damned sick and tired of people's works being edited and watered down-often without their permission-so it will be "acceptable" for "families" and "family values". Who's family and who's values are we basing that on? "Raging Bull", I'm sorry, is not and should not be a "family film". Leave it alone. Not everything is meant to be for kids or should be seen by kids.

Movies, books, art sould often make you uncomfortable. It should make you think. It should make you mad. It should make you laugh. It should make you cry.

Filmmakers shouldn't have to hide like drug dealers becasue they're making a movie about child prostitution, selling of children, etc. whatever the issue may be.

(Reply to this)

highdough writes:
on Jan 30 2007 09:43 AM

In reply to this comment (#854250)
Actually, what's troubling is that simply having a child rape scene in a movie is, for some reason, taboo, yet no one bats an eye when someone makes a movie where dozens of people are killed in a gunfight. It's the irony that is the US. During a sports event where people are pummeling each other, and there are ads for movies like Troy, Van Helsing and The Alamo, all of which featured violence, but show a breast (with the nipple covered!!) and the country falls apart.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Jan 30 2007 10:01 AM

The article's not discussing removing the creative license of artists. It's talking about removing the funding. If someone pays money to someone else, they should be able to have a say in what goes on with their money. If you want carte blanche, you need to find someone who'll back you wholly or pay the piper's fee yourself.

(Reply to this)

rockstarfrank writes:
on Jan 30 2007 10:19 AM

In reply to this comment (#854246)
Hey brother, it's called a comment section where the intent is to write your opinion...
and while I am fan of Rotten Tomatoes I would like to state that this article was slanted and I disagreed with the author. You want to censor someone who disagrees with your opinion?

(Reply to this)

EmmG389 writes:
on Jan 30 2007 10:19 AM

[b]Censorship in response to clamman.[/b]
Fine. Censorship should not be allowed.
Lets make a movie about gays being hanged and make it a comedy. No even better how about black gays being hanged. Lets see what happens. peace.

(Reply to this)

bravo10 writes:
on Jan 30 2007 10:52 AM

[b]People, be more careful when reading[/b]
North Carolina doesn't pay anything for films to be made in that state. So, all of you posters who imply that if they want to pay production companies to film in the state, the governement of NC should have script approval are basing your arguments on a fallacy. To attract filmmakers, NC essentially asks for less money from crews than other states in the form of taxes. The NC Legislature, is essentially making a stupid, red-neck statement at the expense of locations in the state that benefit when movies are made. If I were a craft services company in Raleigh, for instance, I'd be mad. Its the people that live in NC that will be hurt. And for what? NC is third in the country when it comes to the number of sexual assault arrests per year based on population, yet that sad fact is ignored. NC is pathetic.

(Reply to this)

SinnFeinHammer writes:
on Jan 30 2007 11:08 AM

In reply to this comment (#854242)
Don't be ignorant. I have family in Charlotte, NC. North Carolina is farrrr from being redneck. You know, home of the 2nd biggest bank in the country...Charlotte alone has the headquarters of 9 fortune 500 companies. Silly rednecks with their booming economy, and 20th biggest city in the US, and home of some of the best schools in UNC, Duke, Wake Forest, ect. Damn rednecks!

(Reply to this)

SinnFeinHammer writes:
on Jan 30 2007 11:10 AM

In reply to this comment (#854256)
You are beyond ignorant.

(Reply to this)

RottenTomatoes.com