Ryan Bellgardt doesn’t measure success in blockbuster budgets.
“Don’t think of it as one $30 million movie — think of it as 30 $1 million movies,” said the Oklahoma City filmmaker and co-owner of Boiling Point Media, describing the kind of steady, small-scale production he believes can sustain a local industry.
For more than a decade, Bellgardt has built films and visual effects work in Oklahoma, often for international clients, relying less on headline-grabbing productions and more on consistent output. The goal, he said, is not rapid expansion, but stability.
“There’s a danger in growing too fast … building infrastructure you can’t support,” Bellgardt said.
That approach reflects a broader question facing Oklahoma as it invests heavily in film incentives: whether the state can build a lasting production ecosystem or risks chasing an industry that rarely stays in one place.
Across the country, states are competing for film and television projects with increasingly aggressive incentive programs. Even California, long considered the center of the industry, has expanded its tax credits in recent years as productions migrate elsewhere.
The result is a high-stakes competition in which emerging markets such as Oklahoma are trying to find a foothold, while established hubs work to hold onto theirs.
A Model Built Slowly
Oklahoma’s current moment did not appear overnight.
The state’s film incentive program, formalized under the Filmed in Oklahoma Act, operates as a post-production rebate, returning a percentage of in-state spending after projects wrap and expenses are verified. The base rate starts at 20% and can rise to 30% depending on factors such as location, workforce use and project type.
More important than the percentage, officials said, is the structure.
The program is capped at $30 million annually and authorized through 2031, a design intended to provide predictability without overextending state finances.
That predictability has helped attract a growing number of productions. Since 2021, the program has generated more than $531 million in direct economic impact, according to the department, with a claimed 4.4-to-1 return on investment.
Industry growth has followed. A recent analysis found the number of film-related businesses in Oklahoma has increased by approximately 46% since 2019, with employment and wages rising alongside it.
Even so, incentive spending does not fully pay for itself through tax revenue, underscoring the trade-offs inherent in using public money to attract private production.
It hasn’t all been a red-carpet ride. The 2021 law that raised the incentive cap from $8 million to $30 million brought with it a substantial spike in Oklahoma filmmaking, but the flow of activity quickly ebbed.
According to published state data, hiring shot up from 4,510 jobs in 2020 to 6,757 in 2021, but by 2024 the number had fallen to 3,621.
Wages receded even faster. Although they jumped from $15.8 million in 2020 to $76.3 million in 2021, they declined steadily and by 2024 had fallen to $20.2 million. Adjusted for inflation, 2024 wages were just $1 million more than those paid in 2020.
Film industry expenditures rose sharply in 2021, but fell along with the other categories. The Film and Music Office reported expenditures of $187 million in 2021 but only $46.2 million in 2024, a 75.3% decrease.
How the Industry Works
Behind the growth is a business model that looks very different from traditional industries.
“Each movie is its own business,” said Oklahoma producer Jacob Snovel. “You’re essentially running 50 employees for a month, and then it all goes away. Then you move on to the next one.”
Productions are typically structured as separate limited-liability companies, isolating budgets, payroll and risk for each project.
“It’s a craft-based, very fast-paced business,” Snovel said. “A whole lot of money comes in, and then it goes away really quickly.”
In that environment, incentives are often the difference between making a project and not making one at all.
“I just wouldn’t have a career if we didn’t have the rebate,” he said.
Producers frequently build expected rebates into their financing, using anticipated returns to secure additional upfront investment.
“Instead of making a $70,000 movie, now I’ve got $100,000 to spend,” Snovel said. “And I’m spending that in Oklahoma.”
Not One Program, But Many
What sets Oklahoma apart is not just the state incentive, but how that incentive interacts with others. Productions filming in certain areas of the state can layer state rebates with local and tribal programs, increasing their total return.
The Cherokee Nation, for example, offers its own post-production rebate of up to 30% on certain qualified expenses, with a focus on spending within its jurisdiction and on hiring Native American workers.
Unlike some incentive programs, the Cherokee rebate is designed to be used alongside the state’s Filmed in Oklahoma Act. That means productions that meet both sets of requirements — including location and workforce criteria — can effectively combine the two.
In practice, that layered structure can significantly increase the financial return for producers.
“I’ve not seen the stacking structure that we have,” said Jon Vogl, owner of Apex Post Production, who expanded his company into Oklahoma three years ago.
For the Cherokee Nation, the program also serves a broader purpose. In addition to attracting production, it is intended to expand opportunities for Native American crew members and build long-term workforce capacity within tribal communities.
At the municipal level, cities are pursuing similar goals on a smaller scale.
In Tulsa, a local incentive program offers up to $75,000 per project based on in-city spending and hiring, rewarding productions that use local crew, music and services.
“They can stack all of them if they qualify,” said Meg Gould, executive director of the Tulsa Office of Film, Music, Arts & Culture.
That structure allows small markets to compete for projects that might otherwise bypass them, particularly independent films with tighter budgets.
“We do independent film really well in Oklahoma,” Gould said, noting that small productions can be more stable and less likely to relocate overseas than large studio projects.
The result is a layered incentive environment, where state, tribal and municipal programs combine to make Oklahoma financially competitive, but also more complex.
For producers, navigating that system can unlock higher returns. For policymakers, it raises a broader question: how much incentive is enough to attract an industry that remains highly mobile.
A Different Kind of Growth
For local producers like Bellgardt, long-term stability depends less on attracting blockbuster projects than on maintaining consistent work.
That model emphasizes volume over scale; small productions that can keep crews working year-round.
“There’s no real difference between the people out there doing it and the people here,” Bellgardt said. “It’s just that they’re there and we’re here.”
But even that approach depends on maintaining a steady pipeline.
Film work remains inherently cyclical, with crews moving from project to project and often facing gaps in between.
Building the Workforce
Even as Oklahoma builds incentives and infrastructure, the long-term viability of its film industry may depend on something less visible: the workforce.
At the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma, officials are working to build that pipeline from the ground up.
“I think it’s bright,” said Emmo Maddox, digital marketing manager at the university. “There’s so much migration of the work that’s coming here.”
The program, still in development, is designed to train students across multiple disciplines, including cinematography, editing, writing and marketing, rather than preparing them for a single role. That broad approach reflects the realities of an industry where workers often move between positions from project to project.
Maddox said Oklahoma’s appeal may extend beyond incentives.
“Sure, somebody might come along with a better incentive,” he said. “But do you have the community that we have?”
Workforce development efforts are also taking shape outside traditional universities.
At Moore Norman Technology Center, students in the digital cinema program spend two years learning camera operation, lighting and production workflows, culminating in a capstone film project.
“They go from not knowing anything about camera or lighting … to building those skill sets over time,” said David McEntire, a media specialist at the center.
Programs like these are aimed at preparing students to step directly onto working sets, an important step in reducing the need to import crews from outside the state.
McEntire said Oklahoma’s long-term success may depend as much on cultivating local creators as attracting outside productions.
“There’s still something magical about making things here,” he said, pointing to opportunities in independent film and emerging platforms as part of the state’s evolving ecosystem.
The View from Established Markets
In places such as North Carolina, where the film industry has existed for decades, those cycles are well understood.
“I feel like it’s a rollercoaster,” said Guy Gaster, director of the North Carolina Film Office. “When we do get on a hot streak, it’s very good … but when it slows down, it completely slows down.”
That volatility can vary even within a single state.
“On one hand, as a state, we’re going, ‘Not bad,’” Gaster said. “But folks in Wilmington … are going, ‘This was one of our worst years ever.’”
Maintaining a workforce in that environment can be difficult.
“If they can’t make it, then are they going to stay in the area and possibly take second jobs are they going to stay? … Or are they going to take their talents somewhere else?” he said.
North Carolina has already seen that happen, with workers leaving for states like Georgia after incentive changes reduced local production.
Building an Ecosystem — and Its Limits
In Wilmington, North Carolina, the industry grew over decades from a handful of productions into a mature ecosystem.
Italian producer Dino De Laurentis established what is now Cinespace Studios in Wilmington in 1984. The complex has since hosted production of more than 400 film, television, and commercial projects.
Still, said Johnny Griffin, director of the Wilmington Regional Film Commission, none of that history matters unless producers see what a site can do for them today.
“You pretty much can’t get looked at unless you’ve got an incentive,” Griffin said.
However, incentives alone are not enough.
“You’ve got to have all of those elements to make it work,” he said, pointing to crew depth, soundstages and equipment vendors.
Without them, productions must import labor and materials, increasing costs.
Even then, the work remains temporary.
“Each project is a one-off individual project,” Griffin said. “Just because you got that project doesn’t mean you’re going to get any future projects.”
The Georgia Example
Georgia’s rise as a film production hub offers one of the clearest examples of how incentives can reshape an industry.
As recently as the early 2000s, Atlanta was not a major center for film and television production. That began to change in 2008, when the state introduced a generous film tax credit that helped attract major studio projects and long-running television series.
Over the following decade, Georgia built one of the largest production ecosystems in the United States, anchored by large-scale soundstages and a deep workforce. At its peak, the state became a primary location for blockbuster films and episodic productions, earning the nickname Hollywood of the South.
State officials continue to emphasize the durability of that system, pointing to sustained production activity and infrastructure investment.
But industry observers say the same factors that fueled Georgia’s rise expose its vulnerabilities.
Much of the state’s growth has been tied to large-scale studio projects, which can be highly sensitive to shifts in streaming demand, labor conditions and global cost structures. When production slows, the impact can be immediate, leaving soundstages underused and workers without steady employment.
That volatility has become more visible in recent years, as the broader industry adjusts to a contraction in streaming production and increased competition from international locations.
The Competition
Oklahoma is not operating in a vacuum.
Georgia remains the dominant force in U.S. film production outside California, driven by an uncapped incentive program.
North Carolina takes a more controlled approach, offering a capped grant system.
Even California has expanded its incentive program in response to productions leaving the state.
Each model reflects a different strategy, but all operate within the same competitive system.
An International Incentives Race
The competition for film production is no longer confined to U.S. states.
At a congressional hearing in March, Matthew D. Loeb, president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, warned that the United States is losing ground globally.
According to industry data cited in his testimony, U.S. film production has dropped sharply in recent years, with Hollywood losing an estimated 45 million work hours annually since 2022. During the same period, the nation’s share of global production fell from 52% to 38%.
Loeb attributed the shift not to differences in talent or technology, but to policy.
“Foreign governments have successfully lured film and television productions … with aggressive tax incentives and subsidies,” he said, noting that projects intended for U.S. audiences are increasingly being filmed overseas.
The consequences are felt most directly by workers.
In recent years, tens of thousands of film and television jobs have been lost across the country, affecting not only crew members but also the broader network of businesses that support production, Loeb said.
Even so, he emphasized the industry’s volatility cuts both ways.
“It can come back that fast,” Loeb said, describing a system where production moves quickly in response to incentives and costs.
The Question Ahead
For now, Oklahoma’s approach is working.
Productions are coming. Companies are expanding. Training programs are building a local workforce. And for filmmakers like Ryan Bellgardt, the goal is not to land a single blockbuster, but to keep a steady stream of projects moving through the state.
That strategy — emphasizing volume, local development and layered incentives — sets Oklahoma apart from larger production hubs built around blockbuster projects.
But it also places the state within the same global system reshaping the industry.
Production is increasingly driven by cost, incentives and logistics, with projects moving quickly between states and across borders. Even long-established markets have struggled to maintain consistent work, and labor leaders warn the United States is losing ground internationally.
Oklahoma’s bet is that a smaller, more flexible model can withstand those pressures.
Whether that approach can deliver not just growth, but stability, remains an open question.
Oklahoma Watch, at oklahomawatch.org, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that covers public-policy issues facing the state.
