Posts by Peter Cox
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Yes, so not so much an ultimatum: 'negotiate a collective agreement with us or else'; so much as 'we've got you by the balls, waddya gonna do about it?'
It's not so much a threat as... what is the word when you carry out the threat in advance and then say you'll stop doing it only when they do what you say?
The FIA meeting where the resolution was passed was in July or so. Not sure if AE was at it or not.
-
They were threatening a global boycott if a collective MEAA contract was not put in place.
Actually, just from those letters on the MEAA website, it rather looks to me like the boycott was instituted well BEFORE those first letters requesting a meeting were even sent...
There may be letters to 3'7 before that but I've never heard of any specific reference to those, much less seen any evidence of them.
It does seem very odd to institute a global boycott on the Hobbit and not tell the Producers about it for a couple of months, but... that's certainly the way it looks from the publicly available documents.
-
I was talking about NZ films. Massive return on back end? Uh-uh.
What?! Oh, NOW you tell me...
-
Barney's contention is that the residuals are covered in the OF actors' pay, but he kinda would say that.
Pretty much.
Question: would residuals be calculated before or after the NZ On Air clawback?
Hmm... good question. Depends on whether it's net or gross in the individual contract itself I'd imagine. Good luck getting anything net though...
Way back when Global Rule One was introduced, the MEAA objected loudly to it -- but then did a deal and everything changed.
Well, natch. ;)
All in all, it's just patently daft to have an Australian Guild negotiating here for Australian rates as it would in the film industry. There's nothing wrong with Global Rule One, if NZ AE were negotiating their own conditions within the 'eco-system' of the local NZ Industry, but it ought to be obvious trying to shove MEAA rates carte-blanche in NZ should be something that's obviously going to make the rest of the industry pretty furious.
Having said all that, that's what AE seem to be doing with SPADA now, so all power to them.
-
And while we're briefly on the subject of screen-writers, someone just facebooked this to me, so here it is:
'17 Reasons Your Screenplay Got Rejected'
(An old rejection letter from a production company that made Charlie Chaplin movies):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130812644
-
I love that Guardian article about potential locations if Te Hobbit shifts to England. It finishes with the question:
Are we calling it "Te Hobbit" now?
I think we should.
-
Breaking in as a screenwriter "over there" is super, super hard. By my reckoning the number to have made it stands at: 1. Andrew Niccol.
True, but not terribly many people seem to try it though; at least in terms of physically relocating. Funnily Actors seem to do better... mainly off the back of offshore productions made locally (ironic, that). But I do also mean local writers staying in NZ but writing purely for overseas market. Of which there are quite a few. Phillipa Boyens, Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson for a start. It's pretty much where I've been sustaining myself, so yeah, you can imagine how good I feel about the overseas market potentially having a downturn (I think it'll turn out okay though).
Still, the passion is writing NZ stories at the end of the day, at least as far as I'm concerned. Would love to be able to focus purely on that, and remain above the poverty line. But wouldn't we all...
-
Going overseas is not "ALWAYS an option" for everyone: significant factors - like family for example - can constrain...
True, true. But, if the going gets tough enough...
-
So why is that just 'the way it is' for one, crucial, sector of our film industry when, at the same time, another sector -- I dunno ... actors, say -- are taking militant action about being paid more, "raising wages and conditions" etc etc?
Like I say, I don't blame them for wanting those things, but I don't think anyone's under the impression they did an effective job of achieving that though. We'll see about these talks with SPADA. TBH, I don't have a clue how 'the pink book' would be any different to 'non legally binding, standard terms and conditions', but w/e, as long as it keeps everyone happy, and lets everyone save some face, who cares really.
Look at it this way: actor's union demands increase local budgets. Two things can happen:
1 - budgets have to go up a bit to accommodate those demands. But less films get made (not the end of the world, and, pretty much what many people have been asking for all along - ie if we want a professional industry, you can't treat people like wage slaves)
2 - Govt is forced to increase industry funding to keep film production at the current level.
3 - TV pretty much meets basic standards anyway, at least in terms of upfront costs (residuals probably need some negotiation, if it's true Robyn Malcolm got precisely nothing from the DVDs). So no real direct budgetary pressure there.I'll tell you one thing that does p**s me off though: the MEAA trying to get MEAA conditions in NZ local production, but not accepting SAG standards in Australian local production. Hypocritical at all?
-
Peter, there is a very interesting and pertinent conversation (that I've been thinking a lot about) to be had regarding film writers: when do they get anything like minimum wage, sick pay, holiday pay, job security, cancelation fees etc etc
No, but I don't blame the actors for giving it a go though. Obviously, I do give a portion of blame to them for how it's worked out, but anyway...
To some extent it's everyone's choice if they want to work in the film industry.
But I try to think about it in terms of overall industry strength and health: it really just comes down to whether things get so miserable, only a fool would want to be a film writer, and you consequently wind up with all our scripts written by fools, or directors who end up having to write their own scripts, even though they don't really want to (or a lot of the time, have the talent, frankly, no offense to the many incredibly brilliant, talented directors who are also rubbish scriptwriters). Either that or our best head off overseas. Which is ALWAYS an option for anyone in this country with talent.
Writer's don't get paid AT ALL on the Escalator scheme. AND the scripts are written before the budgets are even approved for the productions. So you do all your work without even knowing if it's even going to be put on, AND you don't get paid for it even if it does. Minimum wage nothing, ANY wage would be a start.
And people wonder why scripts are often the things that let NZ productions down...
But hey, go talk to the Film Commission about that... hmm... maybe we should go on strike. Let's see how the commission do with their review first, though ;)
Television is touch and go. You have the Shortland Street Writers/Storyliners of course. Then there's maybe eight to ten or so writers who make a decent-ish living for TV. But even they have their lean times.
At the end of the day though, domestic funding is minuscule compared to Australia. Blame our 4 million population, our government not valuing the industry enough, and our lack of huge tracts of minerals to dig up.