Las Vegas Studio Proposal Backed by Sony and Warner Bros. Dies in Nevada Legislature
Sony Pictures and Warner Bros. had teamed up to support Summerlin Studios, a 31-acre facility that would have 10 soundstages. A bill to subsidize the project, AB 238, passed the state Assembly last week but died in the Senate on Monday night.
More from Variety
Sony's Buy One, Get One TV Deals: Here's How to Get a Free Sony 4K Ultra HD TV
Sony Just Dropped the New WH-1000XM6 Noise-Canceling Headphones: Here's How to Buy a Pair Online
Sony Chief Hiroki Totoki Outlines Entertainment-First Strategy, Addresses Trump Tariff Concerns: 'We Are Paying Close Attention'
'People just couldn't get there,' said Sen. Roberta Lange, who backed a rival studio project in partnership with UNLV. 'When we're cutting other important things like housing, education and health care, it's really hard to get to a place where people feel comfortable putting a lot of money into something new.'
A similar effort failed in 2023. The Nevada Legislature meets every other year, so the next opportunity to push the project forward won't come until 2027.
Sony and Warner Bros. were backing rival projects last fall. Sony supported the Summerlin proposal, which would be built by Howard Hughes Holdings. Warner Bros. was aligned with the UNLV proposal, which was slated for a research campus in the southwest area of Las Vegas.
But in February, Warner Bros. switched sides and threw its support behind the Summerlin studio. AB 238, by Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui, would have created a $95 million annual tax credit, which would go to film and TV productions shooting at that facility. An additional $25 million would go to support other productions unconnected with the facility.
Lange continued to back the UNLV project, which partnered with Manhattan Beach Studios and Birtcher Development. Her bill, SB 220, did not advance to a floor vote.
Jauregui's bill passed the Assembly on a narrow 22-20 vote on Friday. It needed to win Senate passage by midnight on Monday, but was not taken up. In the closing hours of the session, Lange offered an amendment calling for an economic study of the issue. That, too, did not get a vote.
'A film tax credit may not be what people want in the end, but there may be something else,' Lange told Variety. 'We have to do a study and look at what we can do that fits our state and move forward.'
The rivalry between the two studio projects did not help the cause. From the outset, it was clear to stakeholders that only one — at most — would win approval.
Lange said she spoke to Gov. Joe Lombardo, a Republican, on Monday night, and he was non-committal on the issue, and more focused on winning passage for his own priorities.
Best of Variety
What's Coming to Netflix in June 2025
New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week
'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
27 minutes ago
- UPI
3 reasons Republicans' redistricting power grab might backfire
Texas state Democratic representatives, shown at a rally in Washington, previously left the state in 2021 to try to prevent the state's Republicans from reaching a quorum and passing new voting restrictions legislation. File Photo by Michael Reynolds/EPA The gerrymandering drama in Texas -- and beyond -- has continued to unfold after Democratic state legislators fled the state. The Democrats want to prevent the Republican-controlled government from enacting a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans several more seats in Congress. The Texas GOP move was pushed by President Donald Trump, who's aiming to ensure he has a GOP-controlled Congress to work with after the 2026 midterm elections. Other Republican states such as Missouri and Ohio may also follow the Texas playbook; and Democratic states such as California and Illinois seem open to responding in kind. But there are a few factors that make this process more complicated than just grabbing a few House seats. They may even make Republicans regret their hardball gerrymandering tactics, if the party ends up with districts that political scientists like me call "dummymandered." Democrats can finally fight back Unlike at the federal level, where Democrats are almost completely shut out of power, Republicans are already facing potentially consequential retaliation for their gerrymandering attempts from Democratic leaders in other states. Democrats in California, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, are pushing for a special election later this year, in which the voters could vote on new congressional maps in that state, aiming to balance out Democrats' losses in Texas. If successful, these changes would take effect prior to next year's midterm elections. Other large Democratic-controlled states, such as Illinois and New York -- led by Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Kathy Hochul, respectively -- have also indicated openness to enacting their own new gerrymanders to pick up seats on the Democratic side. New York and California both currently use nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw their boundaries. But Hochul recently said she is "sick and tired of being pushed around" while other states refuse to adopt redistricting reforms and gerrymander to their full advantage. Hochul said she'd even be open to amending the state constitution to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting commission. It's unclear whether these blue states will be successful in their efforts to fight fire with fire; but in the meantime, governors like Hochul and Pritzker have welcomed the protesting Democratic legislators from Texas, in many cases arranging for their housing during their self-imposed exile. Dummymandering Another possible problem for either party looking to gain some seats in this process stems from greediness. In responding to Democrats' continued absence from Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened even more drastic gerrymanders. "If they don't start showing up, I may start expanding," Abbott said. "We may make it six or seven or eight new seats we're going to be adding on the Republican side." But Abbott might think twice about this strategy. Parties that gerrymander their states' districts are drawing lines to maximize their own advantage, either in state legislatures or, in this case, congressional delegations. When parties gerrymander districts, they don't usually try to make them all as lopsided as possible for their own side. Instead, they try to make as many districts as possible that they are likely to win. They do this by spreading groups of supportive voters across several districts so they can help the party win more of these districts. But sometimes the effort backfires: In trying to maximize their seats, a party spreads its voters too thin and fails to make some districts safe enough. These vulnerable districts can then flip to the other party in future elections, and the opposing party ends up winning more seats than expected. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as "dummymandering," has happened before. It even happened in Texas, where Republicans lost a large handful of poorly drawn state legislative districts in the Dallas suburbs in 2018, a strong year for Democrats nationwide. With Democrats poised for a strong 2026 midterm election against an unpopular president, this is a lesson Republicans might need to pay attention to. There's not much left to gerrymander One of the main reasons dummymandering happens is that there has been so much gerrymandering that there are few remaining districts competitive enough for a controlling party to pick off for themselves. This important development has unfolded for two big reasons. First, in terms of gerrymandering, the low-hanging fruit is already picked over. States controlled by either Democrats or Republicans have already undertaken pretty egregious gerrymanders during previous regular redistricting processes, particularly following the 2010 and 2020 censuses. Republicans have generally been more adept at the process, particularly in maximizing their seat shares in relatively competitive states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina that they happen to control. But Democrats have also been successful in states such as Maryland, where only one Republican serves out of nine seats, despite the party winning 35% of the presidential vote in 2024. In Massachusetts, where Democrats hold all eight seats, Republicans won 37% of the presidential vote in 2024. There's also the fact that over the past half-century, "gerrymanderable" territory has become more difficult to find regardless of how you draw the boundaries. That's because the voting electorate is more geographically sorted between the parties. This means that Democratic and Republican voters are segregated from each other geographically, with Democrats tending toward big cities and suburbs, and Republicans occupying rural areas. As a result, it's become less geographically possible than ever to draw reasonable-looking districts that split up the other party's voters in order to diminish the opponents' ability to elect one of their own. Regardless of how far either party is willing to go, today's clash over Texas redistricting represents largely uncharted territory. Mid-decade redistricting does sometimes happen, either at the hands of legislatures or the courts, but not usually in such a brazen fashion. And this time, the Texas attempt could spark chaos and a race to the bottom, where every state picks up the challenge and tries to rewrite their electoral maps - not in the usual once-a-decade manner, but whenever they're unsatisfied with the odds in the next election. Charlie Hunt is an associate professor of political science at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Newsweek
29 minutes ago
- Newsweek
American Eagle Scores Big Win Amid Sydney Sweeney Ad Backlash
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. American Eagle's Instagram followers have skyrocketed following its ad campaign with actress Sydney Sweeney. Newsweek reached out to an American Eagle spokesperson via email for comment. Why It Matters American Eagle sparked a firestorm online late last month when the clothing company released a commercial featuring Sweeney, an actress known for her roles on Euphoria and The White Lotus. "Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color," she says in the denim ad. "My jeans are blue." In response to the line, critics argued the wordplay with "genes" had "white supremacy" undertones. Others pushed back against the claims, however, saying that it was just clever marketing. On August 1, American Eagle defended their campaign in a statement posted to social media: "'Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans' is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story. We'll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone." A digital advertising display featuring Sydney Sweeney is seen outside an American Eagle store in Times Square in New York City on August 4, 2025. A digital advertising display featuring Sydney Sweeney is seen outside an American Eagle store in Times Square in New York City on August 4, 2025. TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Following Sweeney's July 23 commercial, American Eagle has seen a significant surge in social media engagement. According to the analytics website Social Blade, the brand has picked up more than 142,700 followers on Instagram in the last 30 days, most of which were in the days and weeks after the ad was released. On August 1, the same day American Eagle released a statement, it racked up 18,300 followers. The next day, it garnered an additional 25,969 followers, and on August 3, 15,492 people clicked the follow button. In comparison, the company lost 157 followers on July 13 and lost 152 followers on July 14. At the time of publication, American Eagle has 3.8 million Instagram followers. The news comes amid American Eagle's stock boost after President Donald Trump complimented the brand. Upon learning Sweeney is a registered Republican in Florida, he told reporters: "I love her ad!" In a separate message posted to Truth Social, he said Sweeney "has the 'HOTTEST' ad out there" and "the jeans are 'flying off the shelves.'" On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that American Eagle's stock rose by more than 23 percent after Trump's comments. What People Are Saying Sweeney's brother, Trent Sweeney, posted a certificate of his promotion to staff sergeant in the U.S. Air Force on Instagram and said: "It's them good jeans." Robin Landa, an advertising expert and professor at Michael Graves College at Kean University, previously told Newsweek: "The campaign's pun isn't just tone-deaf—it's historically loaded." Political commentator Megyn Kelly said on her show: "We're sick and f****** tired of the nonsense, where you are not allowed to ever celebrate someone who is white and blonde and blue-eyed. That we have to walk into a room apologetic for those things, or have for the past five years. In a way, this ad is the final declaration that we're done doing that s***. It doesn't mean we're better, but you know what? We're no worse than any other race or any other hair color or eye color." What Happens Next Sweeney's new film Americana, which also stars Paul Walter Hauser, Halsey, Simon Rex, Eric Dane and more, hits theaters on Friday, August 15.
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
What the new China chip taxes tell us about doing business in Trump's America
Depending on your age, you might think I'm describing Soviet-era Russia — or Russia in the Putin era. You'd certainly think about modern-day China, where the government is an official partner in many private companies, and has unofficial but meaningful influence over most of them. And in 2025, you might also think that's beginning to describe America in the second Trump administration. Last week, for instance, Donald Trump called on the CEO of Intel to resign because of his past business connections to China. In June, Trump approved Nippon Steel's plan to buy US Steel — but only after the US government was granted a " golden share" in the company that gives Washington the ability to approve or veto some actions, like closing plants. In January, Trump floated the idea of having the US government own a portion of TikTok's US operations. And now Trump is requiring Nvidia and AMD to hand over 15% of revenue from high-end chip sales to China, as first reported by the Financial Times. (Nvidia has released a statement noting it "follow[s] rules the US government sets for our participation in worldwide markets," without addressing reports about the deal directly; AMD and the White House have yet to comment.) You can make arguments for or against any one of these transactions — US chip sales to China have been a particularly divisive issue, even within the Trump administration. But taken together, there's little question that in Trump 2.0, we should expect the federal government to insert itself into private business. Call it "state capitalism, a hybrid between socialism and capitalism in which the state guides the decisions of nominally private enterprises," Wall Street Journal columnist Greg Ip wrote Monday morning. It's an exceptionally timely piece he appears to have written before the Nvidia/AMD story broke, because it doesn't contain any reference to it. (You can make the list of Trump's interventions even longer if you'd like: He personally required former Paramount owner Shari Redstone to pay him $16 million to settle a seemingly specious lawsuit, for instance. And Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed head of the Federal Communications Commission, has required Paramount's new owners to promise to " root out the bias that has undermined trust in the national news media." You could also include the concessions Trump is demanding from some of the nation's most prestigious universities and law firms.) The chip story is particularly hard to get your head around, since it inverts the premise of the tariff plans Trump has been pushing this year. Instead of taxing goods made overseas and imported into the US, the US is now taxing goods made by American companies, in America — the thing he supposedly wants to see much more of. It's not surprising to see Donald Trump say one thing and do another. And half a year into his second presidency, it's no longer surprising to see the Republican-controlled Congress let him do just about anything he wants: This is the same Congress that passed a law last year requiring TikTok's US operations to find a US buyer or shut down — and hasn't said a word about the fact that Trump has decided to ignore that law, repeatedly. And again, you might not care about the moves the Trump administration has made to steer companies to date. You might even like them. But the odds are increasing that he's going to end up involving the federal government in an industry or company you do care about. Maybe one you work in. How are you going to feel about it then?
