Talk:Rhythm and Hues Studios/Archive 1

The Rough shape this was in
This article was completly roughed up and somewhat incorrect. Especially in the early years. R&H never worked on T2, Batman Returns, Titanic nor Alien 3/Reserection. I found that out in the end credits of the first two and IMDb for the latter two. Philipnova798 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In the late 90's Rhythm and Hues purchased a now defunct vfx house which did, in fact,work on those films. Nonetheless, I believe these films should not be included in the R&H filmography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lux dixon (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think any credits from Video Image/ VIFX can be added with a foot note explaining the companies merger back in the 90's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.216.3 (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hughes comment on reasons for financial troubles
I'm moving the subject statement from the article to the talk page because there is no consensus as to exactly what he said and how to present it here and the source used some ambiguous descriptions when describing his comments. (To be fair to the source, those may have been the words that Hughes used, but we don't know because there is no direct quote.) Maybe we can try to reach a consensus as to how to characterize what was said, or perhaps find a direct quote from another source, but because of potential WP:BLP issues, we should make sure it's right first.

Content moved from article: --
 * According to Hughes, the company's financial troubles were largely a result of competition from companies in countries where tax breaks, subsidies, and state healthcare give them a competitive advantage over California-based shops.

--

There are only three, short statements from the source attributed to Hughes on the issue:


 * "Hughes made a point of stating that the drive for tax subsidies had undermined California-based business."


 * "Hughes said the company was still at a competitive disadvantage compared with foreign shops."


 * "He said studios can get as much as 60 percent of their production costs back in these countries by factoring in a combination of tax breaks, subsidies and state-supported healthcare in places like the United Kingdom."

The source appears to be very close to the industry and without a direct quote I think that anything we put in the article should be prefaced by "reportedly said that..." or "according to...". The term "state healthcare" does not appear in the article, it only uses the term "state-supported healthcare" which is a much broader term. And the terms "tax breaks", "tax subsidy" and "subsides" are also vague -- is that tax credits, lower rates, exemptions; is it lower sales taxes; direct grants?

Here is what I propose to put in the article:


 * Hughes reportedly said that the company's financial troubles were largely a result of competition from companies in countries where lower taxes and government subsidies like state-subsidized healthcare give them a competitive advantage over California-based shops.

Please don't put anything about Hughes' comments on the subject back in the article until there is a consensus.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  22:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Since Spitzak and  I were both there when these comments were made (and when future ones will be made), does that count as consensus?  We can also try to absolutely make sure of the wording next time as well, if needed. Jason Scott (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for disclosing your external relationship with the subject of this article. That kind of honesty is appreciated. The information in Wikipedia must come from verifiable sources. (see WP:V) Even though you may have first-hand knowledge of those statements, the information in Wikipedia needs to come from published sources. As far as I can tell, what I proposed accurately states what the source reported. If you and others agree, then there is a consensus. If you are aware of another published source, e.g. a published video of an interview, that would be helpful. (see also WP:CON and WP:COI)   Sparkie82  ( t • c )  22:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the "lower taxes" statement. Taxes are *higher* in the countries Hughes was complaining about (England in particular). Also the attempt to merge "subsidies" (which Hughes does not like) with state healthcare (which he does like). I think some libertarian is attempting to reword this to match their own worldview. You may not like Hughes' politics but let him say what he wants!


 * Quote from article is this, and is probably better than anything here now:


 * He said studios can get as much as 60 percent of their production costs back in these countries by factoring in a combination of tax breaks, subsidies and state-supported healthcare in places like the United Kingdom.


 * This is missing overtime pay, which was between the subsidies and healthcare in importance and part of his 60% cost savings. Also I'm not really certain if the term "tax breaks" was used instead of "subsidies".Spitzak (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There were three statements from the article attributing comments to Hughes, which I have excerpted above. The taxes are referred to as "tax subsidies" or "tax breaks". Given those facts, there is no way that competitor companies are paying *higher* taxes in the countries that Hughes was complaining about.


 * Overtime pay was not in any of the statements attributed to Hughes, so we can't say that he mentioned that without another source that says that he said that. The source's statements also do not mention whether Hughes "likes" subsidies or state-sponsored healthcare.


 * We can't use the exact wording from the article, because that would violate the source's copyright. We must write it ourselves. Above, I have proposed wording to include in the article.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The third quote says "subsidies" without the word "tax" in front of it. It also says "state supported healthcare" without using the word "tax" or "subsidy". Please stop trying to change his wording. I can insure you that your wording has nothing to do with his opinion.Spitzak (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)