Of the top 100 highest-grossing feature films released in 2016, only 12 were primarily shot in California, according to a new analysis out Tuesday.

“La La Land,” “Zootopia,” “Sully” and nine other films placed the state fourth overall in worldwide jurisdictions where high-earning — and generally higher-spending — movies get made.

So where are the big-budget movies shooting?

Georgia led the 2016 domestic releases list with 17 big productions, followed by the United Kingdom with 16 and Canada with 13.

The main reason those places outperformed California in this particular industry segment had everything to do with their production incentive programs; California’s is capped at $330 million per year and only applies to costs below $100 million per film. Other places have no caps at all.

“This really demonstrates how strong an impact incentives have for driving the largest feature films to locations other than California,” explained Paul Audley, president of the local production permitting office FilmL.A., which conducted the Feature Film Study.

• RELATED STORY: After a cameo in ‘La La Land,’ Angels Flight railway is on track to reopen

Something else to note, all of the films produced in California with budgets over $100 million were animated projects.

But when it comes to live action projects, California’s tax credit is not enough of a lure for the biggest films, he said.

That’s a drag for local businesses, since the larger a film’s budget, the more it tends to spend where it’s being made.

But it’s hardly catastrophic. California still sees more production than Georgia, Britain, Canada and a bunch of other places combined when you factor in smaller-budget films and television.

“The reverse side of that story is that despite the fact that some of these big box-office films are being largely produced elsewhere, California still owns the majority of the total film and TV production spending,” Audley added.

And coming in fourth actually isn’t bad as long as the state is still in double digits — the states tied for sixth place, New York and Louisiana, had just six films each.

• RELATED STORY: Here are the summer movie release dates for 2017

In fact, California ranked higher in several of the report’s financial specifics charts. Though second to the UK in the amount of money that movie productions spent in their jurisdictions ($1.112 billion in Britain, $851.2 million here), the California figure represents a whopping 86 percent of the films produced here. The UK only got 59.5 percent of theirs — Georgia and Canada even lower percentages.

In addition, while only two films in the survey — “The Conjuring 2” and “Why Him?” — were able to take advantage of California’s recently improved tax credit program, the state’s “incentive-to-spend ratio” is off-the-charts, ahead of, well, everywhere else.

Although the full impact of California’s two-year-old incentive plan won’t be fully reflected until next year’s FilmL.A. study, in general there’s more than $30 billion worth of production spending here annually on a $330 million investment by the state. Georgia, by comparison, got about $2.02 billion last year off of $606 million in incentives.

Part of that is because movies such as “La La Land” and “Sully” shot in the L.A. area without benefit of state incentives, either because it’s the home of the industry with unparalleled talent and facilities or, in “La La’s” case, because it simply couldn’t be shot anywhere else.

That adds an extra economic benefit, not covered by the FilmL.A. study.

“There are ancillary effects, like tourism, when you have major features done in a place,” Audley acknowledged. “We know that, for example, ‘La La Land’ is drawing people to L.A., looking for the locations.”

By contrast, productions run away from Southern California almost solely for incentivized, bottom-line reasons. And when those programs are diminished, as recently happened in Louisiana, it gives filmmakers strong arguments for staying closer to home.

Still, when $200 million movies can get more of their costs covered elsewhere, they’re going to go there.

“The purpose of a report like this really is so that we can evaluate what’s going on in the world, where it’s filmed and why,” Audley says. “Clearly, one of the things that shows up time and time again is that the draw of large financial resources from competitors to California does have a large effect on where things end up.”