A proposed movie studio in Plymouth lost its bid for a $50 million state infrastructure subsidy last week largely because it would have been too successful in attracting movies to the state.

Plymouth Rock Studios was seeking $50 million for road, water, and sewer improvements under a new state infrastructure subsidy program called I-Cubed. The studio hoped to break ground this summer on a $400 million complex that ultimately would employ 3,000 to 4,000 people.

But Leslie Kirwan, the Patrick administration’s secretary of administration and finance, ruled that Plymouth Rock didn’t qualify for the infrastructure money because the new tax revenues generated by the studio project would not be sufficient to cover the debt service on the bonds the state would sell to raise the $50 million. The implication from the brief statement was that the Plymouth Rock project was a bust financially for the state.

But what state officials didn’t disclose initially was that they reached their decision by taking an expansive view of the tax revenues and costs generated by the movie studio project.

The state Revenue Department, in its analysis of the proposal, concluded the movie studio itself would easily bring in enough new state tax revenue to cover the cost of the debt service on the bonds.

But Revenue Department officials said the studio would also attract lots of filmmakers to the state, who would shoot movies here and become eligible for the state’s 25 percent film tax credit. The officials said the cost to the state of those film tax credits would far exceed the new tax revenues generated by the studio itself, turning the project into a money loser for the state.

In essence, the Patrick administration required the Plymouth Rock project to not only generate enough tax revenues to cover the cost of the infrastructure subsidy it was seeking for its own project, but also the cost of tax credits going to filmmakers who would use the studio to shoot their films.

Joseph DiLorenzo, chief financial officer at Plymouth Rock, said he was stunned at the Patrick administration’s interpretation of the I-Cubed law.

“If I had known we had to offset credits that had nothing to do with our project, I probably wouldn’t have spent all the money and time I did working on this,” DiLorenzo said. “We don’t get any of that tax credit money.”

A Revenue Department spokesman emailed a statement saying his agency and the office of administration and finance were in agreement on how to interpret the law. “Under I-Cubed, taxes generated by new economic activity funded by I-cubed infrastructure are required to cover I-Cubed related debt service, and with the film tax credits generated by new economic activity, Plymouth Rock doesn’t meet the I-Cubed test,” Robert Bliss said. “That doesn’t mean Plymouth Rock wouldn’t merit other state assistance, just not I-Cubed under its very specific requirements.”

Revenue Department projections show that in 2012 the proposed movie studio would have generated $14.4 million in new income, sales, and rooms taxes for the state. But the analysis also showed the studio would attract $407 million in spending by filmmakers, who would qualify for $102 million in state tax credits. The Revenue Department apportioned only 60 percent of the tax credits to the Plymouth Rock project, but even at that level the studio project would end up costing the state some $46.5 million in lost tax revenue.

Over the 30-year life of the state bonds, the numbers were huge. The Revenue Department projected the studio itself would generate $705 million in new tax revenues by 2039, but that would be offset by the cost of $2.6 billion in tax credits paid to filmmakers, yielding a net loss for the state of nearly $1.9 billion.

DiLorenzo said Plymouth Rock is trying to cobble together other revenues to compensate for the loss of the state infrastructure aid.