
Texas torn apart over A-listers' attempt to make it 'the new Hollywood' as bizarre rules directors must follow are revealed
But now a gaggle of A-listers and lawmakers believe the it is the perfect place to set up a film industry which could not only rival Tinseltown's, but topple it altogether.
Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson and Renée Zellweger are among the actors leading the charge.
They have recently helped secure a bill that will inject $300 million into the Texas film industry over the next two years and provide tax incentives for the next decade.
However the new law, which comes into effect on September 1, does contain some distinctly Texan stipulations when it comes to who can qualify for the cash.
Officials plan to be far more selective about who gets taxpayer money than their Californian counterparts, with Governor Gregg Abbott given veto powers under the new law.
But despite the strict parameters, the decision has been heavily criticized by conservatives in Texas, who described the bill as an 'abomination' and fear it will turn the Lone Star State into a new La La Land.
Subsidy Rules
Supporters of the new Texas law say they want to be as influential as Hollywood, but without the same liberal cultural values.
As a result, they have created a series of hoops filmmakers must jump through if they want to secure any state cash.
'We are not trying to make Texas the next Hollywood - we don't like Hollywood. We want to export Texas values,' Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, one of the biggest proponents of the scheme, recently said in a campaign update.
Patrick is a staunch conservative who despite his opposition to legal marijuana, gambling and abortion, wants to make Texas 'the film capital of the world'.
He and other legislators have devised a system which will reward films with, 'export Texas values', according to Patrick.
For projects that spend at least $1.5 million in Texas, the new law offers tiered grants worth 25 percent of that in-state spending.
Films that are faith-based, shoot in historic sites or employ a percentage of crew who are Texas-based military veterans can get a grant as high as 31 percent.
Additionally, the governor's office has broad powers in determining which projects do and do not get funding.
If films are deemed to have content that is 'inappropriate,' has obscene content or portrays Texas negatively - they won't get a dime.
Celebrity backing
None of this would have been possible without the support of several towering figures in the entertainment industry.
In January, Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Renée Zellweger and several others appeared in a video that campaigned for Texas officials to bring increased film incentives so people can make movies in the state without breaking the bank.
The four-minute video begins with Harrelson and McConaughey barreling down a highway in a sedan as they're deep in conversation about this very issue.
'You ever wonder if this industry of ours is just chasing its own tail?' Harrelson asks.
'No, I don't wonder. Restrictions, regulations, nickel and diming productions, political lectures,' McConaughey replies.
The video had a surprising level of credibility, considering the fact that McConaughey, Harrelson, Zellweger and Dennis Quaid (who also appeared) were all born in Texas.
McConaughey, whose social media feed focuses almost exclusively on Texas sports, attended a March hearing with state legislators and had the final word.
'If we pass this bill, we are immediately at the bargaining table for shooting more films and TV and commercials in our state,' he said while wearing a cowboy hat.
'That is money that's going to local Texas restaurants, hotels, coffee shops, dry cleaners, street rentals, home rentals ― even Woody's barber,' in reference to Harrelson, who was also in attendance.
Two months after McConaughey's overture, the Senate voted 23-8 in favor of the bill and it became law by June.
The Opposition
But these restrictions weren't enough for the many conservatives who opposed the law when it was being debated over the last few months.
Some were concerned that the bill would allow Texas to go down a path of unrighteousness, while others thought the subsidies were taxpayer theft.
'The Bible warns us of the consequences of the government wrongfully taking money from some and handing it out to others,' Texans for Fiscal Responsibility said in one of its papers against the bill.
Republican State Rep. Brian Harrison has emerged as the main enemy of the bill, calling it an abomination.
'And shame on everybody who voted for it,' he has said.
'This is big government liberal redistributive socialism,' Harrison told the LA Times. 'The governor and lieutenant governor of the supposedly Republican-controlled state of Texas chose to keep property taxes billions of dollars higher so that you can subsidize a rich liberal Hollywood movie industry - how embarrassing.'
He plans to introduce legislation at a special hearing later in July that would repeal the law.
Exodus from California
The bill deepens the growing rivalry between California and Texas, which has already poached several major companies once based in the Golden State, including Tesla and Hewlett-Packard.
These businesses were largely lured by lower taxes and a business-friendly environment, both things the bill signed by Abbott seeks to address with the film industry specifically.
It couldn't come at a worse time for California, a state that is already bleeding talent and expertise.
When Hollywood writers and actors went on strike in 2023, California lost roughly 40,000 film and TV jobs that year alone, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
California also has to worry about the tax subsidies being offered in the other states, not just Texas, and even other nations.
That's why in late June, California legislators doubled their own tax incentive ceiling to a staggering $750 million a year.
While Texas isn't spending nearly as much tax money as California on movies and TV, experts believe that this could be the start of a real competition.
'Texas now has a program that is going to be competitive,' Fred Poston, the executive director of the Texas Media Production Alliance, told the Los Angeles Times. 'When you really take a close look at it, you realize this is a big deal. We have this new level of funding to start building more industry around it.'
A Return to the Glory Days
Proponents of the law feel that without the incentives, Texas is leaving tons of economic growth on the table.
Texas, while not Hollywood, has been the filming location for many highly-celebrated pieces of media, including but not limited to the 1956 western 'Giant', the 1974 slasher film 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' and the high school football drama TV series 'Friday Night Lights.'
By the early 2000s, nearby states became more attractive to film because of better incentives being offered to producers.
'Texas had been highly competitive, we had all of these ingredients,' Rebecca Campbell, CEO of the Austin Film Society, told the LA Times. 'Then all of a sudden, Texas stories were getting shot in New Mexico and Louisiana.'
Texas introduced its first program for film incentives in 2007, earmarking $20 million for it.
Because of how underfunded it became over the years, the producers of 'Fear the Walking Dead' decided to move production in 2021 from Austin to Georgia.
Richard Linklater, a Houston-born director, filmed his 2024 romantic crime thriller 'Hit Man' starring Glen Powell in his hometown. But because there wasn't enough incentive funds, he had to move the operation to New Orleans.
'We're completely surrounded by states that have very active film incentive programs,' he said on the podcast 'Friends on Film.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
13 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Braless Eva Longoria, 50, stuns in a daringly plunging silk gown as she attends charity gala in Marbella
Eva Longoria looked nothing short of sensational as she attended the Global Gift charity gala in Marbella on Saturday evening. The Desperate Housewives actress , 50, went braless as she slipped into a daringly plunging yellow silk gown that hugged every inch of her jaw-dropping figure. Her gorgeous dress boasted a racy keyhole detail which she accessorised with a simple gold necklace and diamond earrings. Eva added extra height to her frame with a pair of perspex heels and slicked back her long brunette locks into a ponytail. In May the actress, who shares son Santiago, seven, with husband José Antonio, said she always thought she'd become a success in Hollywood. Eva has enjoyed a hugely successful career, starring in shows such as Only Murders in the Building, and Eva has now revealed that she never doubted her own talent. The actress told Byrdie: 'When I look at the longevity I've had in this industry, it makes sense to me'. 'Of course, I'm going to work as hard as I can at whatever I do, and it just happens to be in this industry. I knew I'd be successful because I was surrounded by successful women - my mother, sisters, and aunts were independent, strong, smart, and charitable. 'They were everything I wanted to be.' Eva's self-belief has helped her to navigate the pitfalls of Hollywood. She explained: 'I remember the first time I was on a billboard and somebody said to me, "Oh my god, who would have thought?" 'And I said, "Me. I thought it. I dreamt it." If you don't champion yourself, who else is going to? That unwavering belief in yourself will take you so far.' Despite this, Eva admits that her priorities have changed in recent years. The brunette beauty shared: 'When you're young, you should say yes to every opportunity, so you can decide what you want to do in life. 'Now that I'm 50, I'm prioritizing differently,' explained the close friend of ER star George Clooney. 'I'm curating my life to be very specific to what I want the next 50 years to look like. I'm spending more time with my family, working less, and doing more of what I love. 'Being financially secure helps with those decisions, but I feel I've worked hard enough to say 'no' now.' Eva has also confessed to becoming more health-conscious in recent years. The actress said: 'I don't mind ageing. I just want to age well. I'm grateful to be able to move my body and work out, hike up a mountain, and play with my son. I'm trying to be as mobile as possible for as long as possible.'


The Guardian
32 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why many Black Americans are boycotting big-box retail stores: ‘using my money to resist'
Rebecca Renard-Wilson has stopped shopping at Target and all things Amazon including Whole Foods and Amazon Fresh. These days, the mother of two shops for the things she needs at farmer's markets, small mom-and-pop stores or she goes directly to the websites of products she wants to purchase. 'I have options of where I put my money,' Renard-Wilson, 49, said. 'Yes, Target's convenient. Yes, Amazon Fresh is on my drive to my kids' school. The options that I have discovered have opened up new relationships. I feel more connected to my community because I'm not shopping at those big-box places. I'm able to now use my money not only to resist places that don't align with my values, but I'm able to now support places that do align with my values. To me, that's a win-win.' Renard-Wilson is among a growing group of African Americans who are ditching corporate big-box retail stores who rolled back their DEI programs and instead are shopping at small, minority- and women-owned businesses they believe value their dollars more. In February, more than 250,000 people signed a pledge to boycott Target after Rev Jamal Bryant, pastor of New Birth Baptist church outside of Georgia, called for a 40-day Target Fast that started at the beginning of the Lenten season. The boycott has become a movement across social media and within community neighborhoods nationwide with the shared goal of rejecting systems that do not value the African American community, and it has already impacted Target. In the first quarter of the year, the company reported a $500m loss in year-over-year sales, citing reaction to the boycott and lower foot traffic. Shortly after taking office in January, Donald Trump eliminated DEI programs across offices in the federal government. Retailers, including Target, Walmart and Amazon, followed the president's lead in eliminating their DEI programs and initiatives. In 2020, following the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery, millions marched in the streets in protest of police violence – and tech giants, retailers, Fortune 500 companies and industries pledged their commitment to diversity practices. Target specifically committed to invest $2 bn in Black-owned businesses. It increased the amount it spent with Black-owned suppliers by over 50% and doubled the number of Black-owned brands on its shelves. Customers found Black-owned hair products such as TGIN (Thank God Its Natural), Camille Rose and Pattern (by actor Tracee Ellis Ross), beauty brands Black Opal and TLB (The Lip Bar), and lifestyle merchandise like Be Rooted and Tabitha Brown's products including mugs, stationary, tote bags, home decor and kitchen essentials. Some considered it to be a 'racial reckoning'. By 2024, the reckoning had soured as racial justice fatigue and a deviance to progress set-in with the reelection of Trump. 'We are standing in righteous indignation against racism and sexism in this nation,' Bryant told his congregation. Target, he said, 'made a commitment after the death of George Floyd that you would invest $2 bn into the Black community before December 2025'. When Target dropped its DEI programs and initiatives in January, Bryant said the company was 'reneging on the financial commitment you made to our people'. Bryant partnered with the US Black Chamber of Commerce to provide a digital directory of more than 150,000 Black-owned businesses across the US and asked that the more than 250,000 people who registered to buy directly from the Black-owned businesses' online platforms and not Target. And during the Easter weekend Bryant said that five mega churches turned their spaces into retail malls so congregants could support Black-owned businesses. It wasn't an easy decision to boycott Target, Renard-Wilson said. She has friends who have products on Target shelves and liked supporting their businesses. When she learned about the boycott on social media, she was conflicted. 'Some people were saying if you boycott Target, then you are basically crippling those Black, queer, or Latino creatives who have had to put so much capital, so much time, and so much resources just to get their stuff on the Target shelves,' Renard-Wilson said. 'I was like, 'Damn, now this is complicated.'' The retailers' decisions to eliminate their DEI initiatives, Renard-Wilson said, demonstrated that they 'don't really care about' minority communities. There was a time, she says, when she shopped at Target and Amazon Fresh pretty regularly, because they were convenient. Sometimes she visited Amazon Fresh two or three times a week, because it was on the way to her kids' schools. Renard-Wilson, who lives with her husband and two young children in Los Angeles, gets a lot of the goods that she used to purchase at Target or Amazon from Costco now, which doubled-down on its commitment to DEI. 'We didn't really mess with Costco that much because it was a headache to get to and the parking was always crazy,' said Renard-Wilson. 'But when Target was like, 'Forget DEI', and Costco was like, 'We value diversity,' I was like, 'I'm going to spend my money in a place that's aligned with my values.'' And when Renard-Wilson can't find what she needs at Costco, she'll go to small local mom-and-pop stores or buy directly online from the source. She found a deodorant she likes produced by a Black woman-owned company. Renard-Wilson is also part of a Facebook group where people share where to get certain items. The financial cost of not shopping at Target or Amazon has been minimal, Renard-Wilson said. In fact, when she compared one of her pre-boycott credit card bills with her credit card bill during the boycott, she had spent $2,000 less by not shopping at the big-box retailers. She points out the one time her husband, a teacher, paid more than double for workshop supplies that he could have gotten much cheaper at Amazon. Other than that, Renard-Wilson says most products have only been a few bucks more along with the cost of shipping sometimes. 'Thankfully, prayerfully, we're in a financial position to be able to pay a little bit more,' says Renard-Wilson, who acknowledges that her family is currently in a privileged financial position to be able to explore options outside of big-box corporate retail stores. But there are families in smaller rural areas who do not have the retail options of big cities, technology access or the financial means to fully participate in the retail boycott. Karmen Jones' 82-year-old grandmother lives in rural Mississippi. The closest grocery store to her grandmother is a Walmart, Jones says, which is 30 to 40 minutes away from her grandmother's home. There is no Instacart or Uber Eats in her area that's close to the Delta, and her elderly grandmother is not going to go online to purchase items, Jones said. There's also the transportation issue. Jones often has to take her grandmother grocery shopping when she visits. 'It's a privilege to be able to protest,' Jones, 26, said. 'My grandmother does not have the privilege to say no to a Walmart if that's the nearest grocery store that she has.' Jones' family's roots run deep in Mississippi. Her family had to be protected from the Ku Klux Klan, she says, because her great-grandmother owned a successful Black business. Jones recently visited the plantation where her family lived and worked in Mississippi, and witnessed the large wealth gap between Blacks and whites in the rural area. Given her family's history, she doesn't want people to judge her grandmother if she is unable to participate in the boycott. 'I believe the elders deserve to have a break at times. They deserve to have support and to have care. That is where she [my grandmother] is in her chapter in her life. She's in a place where she deserves care,' said Jones, a communications consultant, whose family travels between Washington DC, where she first heard about the retail boycott, and Mississippi for work. She also notes that there's a difference in the robust grocery market in the DMV (Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia) versus the food deserts in Mississippi. 'In the DMV, we quickly noticed that you don't really have to go to Walmart or Target. You can go to Harris Teeter or Trader Joes,' Jones said. In Mississippi, Jones says she's shopped at Kroger or Costco since the boycott. If she goes to a particularly rural area, she has to stop at a corner store or market for goods. But more importantly, she's noticed the big financial cost to boycotting. Most of her beauty or hair products used to be purchased from Amazon, Jones says, but now she buys items from Ulta, which has remained committed to its DEI initiatives put forth in 2020 and 2021. 'There is a price to pay for protesting,' Jones said. Though Jones has had to pay more for products, she says she will not be going back to big retailers anytime soon, even if they reinstated their DEI initiatives. Target, especially, was a disappointment, Jones said. 'Target marketed itself prior to Trump's last election as being pro-DEI and being pro-Black creatives. Our faces were all around the store and even in the aisles,' she said. Bryant told CNN's Erin Burnett in May that the Target boycott will continue until things shift. He's taking a page out of the history books, pointing to the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott that lasted 381 days. That protest, which occurred 70 years ago, serves as a model. Most recently Bryant called for a boycott of Dollar General stores and McDonalds. Renard-Wilson says she doesn't plan to return to the big-box retail stores, even if there is a shift to embrace DEI again. 'I do not have any desire to continue supporting capitalistic systems that put profit over people,' Renard-Wilson says. 'I'm going to use my money and try to invest in people who care about me and my community.' This story was co-published and supported by the journalism non-profit the Economic Hardship Reporting Project.


BreakingNews.ie
43 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
What you need to know about Trump, Epstein and the MAGA controversy
The 2019 suicide of disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in a New York jail cell generated conspiracy theories, fuelled by US president Donald Trump's conservative MAGA movement, that he was killed by one of his famous connections. Here are some facts about Epstein and the current controversy: Advertisement Who is Jeffrey Epstein? The Brooklyn-born Epstein, a former high school math teacher who later founded consulting and financial management firms, cultivated the rich and famous. He was known for socializing with politicians and royalty, including Mr Trump, Democratic president Bill Clinton, Microsoft MSFT.O co-founder Bill Gates and Britain's Prince Andrew. Some friends and clients flew on his private plane and visited his Caribbean islands. Mr Trump knew Epstein socially in the 1990s and early 2000s. During the 2021 trial of Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier's longtime pilot, Lawrence Visoski, testified that Mr Trump flew on Epstein's private plane multiple times. Mr Trump has denied being on the plane. What was Epstein charged with? In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to a Florida state felony prostitution charge, after federal prosecutors agreed not to charge him with sex trafficking of minors. He served 13 months in jail and was required to register as a sex offender. That punishment is now widely regarded as too lenient. Advertisement In July 2019, the US Justice Department charged Epstein with sex trafficking minors, including sexually exploiting and abusing dozens of girls, in New York and Florida between 2002 and 2005. He pleaded not guilty. Epstein died on August 10th, 2019, at age 66 by hanging himself in a Manhattan jail cell, an autopsy concluded. He was never tried on the 2019 charges. What is the current controversy over Epstein? Though the New York City chief medical examiner determined that Epstein's death was a suicide by hanging, Epstein's ties to wealthy and powerful people prompted speculation that one or more of them wanted him silenced. In several interviews, Mr Trump left open the possibility that Epstein may not have died by suicide. During the 2024 presidential campaign, when asked on Fox News if he would declassify the Epstein files, Mr Trump said: "Yeah, yeah I would." Advertisement In February, Fox News asked attorney general Pam Bondi whether the Justice Department would be releasing Epstein's client list, and she said: "It's sitting on my desk right now to review." The 2019 suicide of disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in a New York jail cell generated conspiracy theories. Photo:Some of Mr Trump's most loyal followers became furious after his administration reversed course on its promise. A Justice Department memo released on July 7th concluded that Epstein killed himself and said there was "no incriminating client list" or evidence that Epstein blackmailed prominent people. The demands by Trump supporters for more Epstein-related documents have caused a rare fracture within the president's base. Supporters, inspired by conservative talk show hosts and podcasters, have said the federal government is concealing records to protect wealthy and influential people with ties to Epstein. Advertisement Trying to contain the fallout, Mr Trump defended Ms Bondi and accused his supporters in a Truth Social post of falling for a hoax, calling them "weaklings" who were helping Democrats. With backlash from his base not abating, Mr Trump on July 17th requested that Ms Bondi ask a federal judge to unseal grand jury transcripts related to Epstein's 2019 indictment. The government on Friday filed a motion in Manhattan federal court to unseal the transcripts. What happens next? Ultimately, a judge will decide whether to release the transcripts. Transcripts of grand jury proceedings are generally kept secret under federal criminal procedure rules, with limited exceptions. If a judge agrees to release the transcripts, it is likely that some material would be redacted, or blacked out because of privacy or security concerns.