Tweak script before rebooting film credits

Even in an IMAX theater, it wouldn’t be easy to see the big picture when it comes to assessing the tradeoffs of luring moviemakers to Connecticut.

Back when he was still mayor of Stamford and the likes of John Travolta and Uma Thurman were drawing crowds to the city’s streets, former Gov. Dannel Malloy was dubious about whether generous tax credits produced a hit or a misfire for the state.

More than a decade later, Connecticut has been focusing on investments in digital and television productions, as related projects can become business anchors while big screen shoots vanish faster than “Robin Hood” did from multiplexes in November.

Some lawmakers, though, seem to believe the 2006 tax credits are due for a reboot. H.B. No. 6267 , “An Act Restoring the Film and Digital Tax Media Program,” has been introduced by Representatives Joseph Gresko (D-Stratford), Joe de la Cruz (D-Groton, New London), Alphonse Paolillo (D-New Haven) and Christopher Rosario (D-Bridgeport).

Here’s a plot twist: It has bipartisan support from lawmakers in Greenwich, which has been a primary beneficiary with the presence of Blue Sky Studios.

Blue Sky is Connecticut’s star, producing hits such as “Ice Age,” “Rio,” “The Peanuts Movie” and “Dr. Seuss’ Horton Hears a Who!” and enticing young wannabe filmmakers into the digital animation industry.

It’s doubtful Blue Sky would have moved from White Plains, N.Y., in 2009 without the 30-percent credits, and its massive success was unpredictable.

That’s the kind of gamble that makes the credits irresistible to some lawmakers. Back when the state was promoting the cause in 2007, Jim Amann was speaker of the House of Representatives. He moved on to become a lobbyist representing hundreds of filmmakers in hopes one would become the next James Cameron and open a studio in the Nutmeg State.

There’s a lot to like about reviving this franchise. Connecticut could do with some starry-eyed residents and tourists, and we support the notion that using towns and cities as temporary sets can boost several local businesses, including housing, dining and hardware stores.

But Connecticut has to rewrite the script. The original initiative was polarizing for a few reasons. It didn’t help that most of the films were duds (three from Robert DeNiro alone).

The bigger issue is whether the state gets a return on its investment. It’s impossible to do precise accounting, given the potential for trickle-down benefits.

More concerning was that the original 30-percent credit was sometimes enough to offset a production’s tax liability. There was also a provision that permitted producers to sell unused credits to other entities. Lawmakers need to read such fine print.

We like the idea of promoting the growth of the film industry in Connecticut. It would be naïve not to recognize film as one of America’s most successful exports. Connecticut colleges have launched filmmaking programs, and the state should nurture career pathways that don’t lead elsewhere.

That would be a Hollywood ending.

Connecticut could do with some starry-eyed residents and tourists, and we support the notion that using towns and cities as temporary sets can boost several local businesses.