Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit
1304 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 53 Newer→ Last
-
Gee - probably not that surprsing really. More spin though - Robyn Malcolm was-mid way shifting to Aus before this thing blew up - so they are obviously gonna make out it's 'because of all this'. Note too that John Barnett (someone who would normally be totally pissed about a debacle like this) has only come out in support of Robyn because 'Outrageous Fortune' has a couple of weeks to run - and hey - he cares about ratings eh.
I do feel a little sorry for the actors. They've been played, and they deserve a better deal in terms of contracts... it will no doubt come -- but not with these MEAA nonces attached.
-
from the Herald -
This was about the shooting of just two films.
just two films?? Two of the most expensive films every to be made.
There's been a hell of a lot of very poorly informed opinion about the flim industry.
-
Learn something about the entertainment industries.
Omigosh! The RIAA reports that the sky is falling! And CNN reported it, so it must be a fact! How could I have got it so wrong???
^^^^^
That's sarcasm, in case you missed it, Jeremy. You're very late to this particular party. I suggest you do more than a quick google to support your theory. You could start over here with discussion we've had before, including the original Thread of Doom, which leads off the results. -
Death threats fly over Hobbit
Talking of 'lynch mob mentality', enter stage right the New Zealand public.Not wishing to minimise any danger to individuals, but this does tend to come with the territory. They wouldn't be the first union organisers to receive death threats. I had people threaten to "fill me in" in much less heated circumstances when I was an official.
I agree with quentinc - they've been played, and badly treated, by the MEAA which should have protected them from the predictable fallout. And I also agree that there's probably a fair amount of spin in there, on past MEAA performance.
However, Whipp gets paid over $A120K per annum to take this sort of shit. Ward-Lealand is an elected volunteer (there may be an honorarium, I don't know, but I doubt that it compensates for this) and Malcolm is not even that.
-
I can't see how s6(5) could be used to determine that a film worker is an employee in a situation where s6(1)(d) expressly states that they are not. Surely in making a declaration a judge has to apply the law, which will now clearly state that certain types of workers are not employees. That's how I read it anyway.
Scott, the way I read it is that s6(2) is not touched, and that's the section that says that the true nature of the relationship must be examined. So s6(1) is modified to say that film workers aren't employees unless their contract says they are, but does nothing to stop an application under s6(5) and nothing to stop a judge looking, per s6(2), at the true nature of the relationship.
You're the lawyer, I'm just a geek with a Commerce major in Commercial Law, but I don't see how the proposed changes block judicial examination of the whole relationship. They're ostensibly trying to stop another Bryson, but to paraphrase badly I don't think the words they're inserting mean what they think they mean. -
Russ, I just noticed you closed the Anatomy of a Shambles thread, after only a week. That IS a record. The Thread of Doom took 2 years and spam to achieve that status. We're getting better at this ;-)
-
You don't have to like the films to add up the benefits of them being made here.
I'll say. All these years spent banging on about creative industries and the knowledge economy and guess what - that is it.
-
They're ostensibly trying to stop another Bryson, but to paraphrase badly I don't think the words they're inserting mean what they think they mean.
I agree. Instead of taking the time to produce a criteria-based test (which is what the Court had to devise for itself so, y'know, they could have just used that as a starting point), they tried for a shortcut.
I think it's still open for judicial review on a case by case basis, but it will be whether the contract is being fulfilled, or whether it's misleading, just as the IRD do for trusts. Whether it will be the Employment Court or the District Court that gets to deal with it will be of interest.
-
Luckily in New Zealand political death threats generally remain threats. A union colleague of mine in the 80s GH Andersen, had a file literally an “inch” thick of abusive and threatening letters, 99% anonymous. This does not mean tragedy never happens-FG Evans killed by scabs in Waihi 1912, Ernie Abbott, Wellington Trades Hall bombing 1984, and Christine Clark run down intentionally by Derek Powell at a 1999 Lyttelton picket.
So when the likes of Dean Morganty from Queenstown called on FB for “burning effigies of Jennifer WL” I began to take this “Hobbit thing” more seriously. The internet seems designed for the dark sadistic kiwis. Facebook groups sometimes more like mobs. The debate here while often not to my taste, has indeed been reasonably civilized albeit very well represented with producers.
A family member works in the film industry and I have restricted comments under my own name in recent days. “You’ll never work in this town again” has not been said but I could feel the vibrations.
John Barnett’s comments about Robyn M and Jennifer WL’s likelihood of future work pretty much add up to that too. The whistle to other actors being- ‘try this and you’ll get some too’. Bad behaviour from anyone does not of course necessarily negate the last months arguments over tactics, and who did what when.
-
There's been a hell of a lot of very poorly informed opinion about the flim industry.
And the Herald seems determined to lead the way in its editorial column.
Take this:
Unquestionably, the tourism industry did well out of the Lord of the Rings series. But the extent of the benefit can only be estimated.
Well, duh. Does that mean it doesn't exist?
Tourism is our largest export industry -- $9.5 billion in the year to March. That's bigger than dairy, so if you want a way out of pouring ever more shit into out streams, that's it.
And it's surely worth noting that Tourism NZ has been sufficiently convinced of the benefits of film-related tourism that it is still a cornerstone of its marketing strategy.
This 2006 USA Today story cites New Zealand as the model of film tourism to which others aspire:
The annual tourist influx to New Zealand jumped from 1.7 million in 2000 to 2.4 million today, a 40 percent surge, largely due to the Rings phenomenon.
"You can argue that Lord of the Rings was the best unpaid advertisement that New Zealand has ever had," remarks Bruce Lahood, US and Canada regional manager for Tourism New Zealand. "In the last decade New Zealand has been the most successful country to benefit from movie tourism. We've been looked at and case-studied from many angles."
-
All respect N.Z lemming you really are making no sense.
You should consider that all business is about revenue. These are industy facts, revenues are insecure in the future. Economics is not something I googled yesterday.The immediate good news is that we don't destroy our techies and their families lives for two years, the bad news is that the blockbuster wont last forever. Revenues slip, more concessions on production, etc.
This episode is cartoonish. All labour really have at the end of the day as a negotiation is the withdrawal of their services, as do employers.
But Warner bros executives and Peter Jackson will never starve even if the film bombs.
-
So when the likes of Dean Morganty from Queenstown called on FB for “burning effigies of Jennifer WL” I began to take this “Hobbit thing” more seriously. The internet seems designed for the dark sadistic kiwis. Facebook groups sometimes more like mobs.
I've found the willingness of both sides to vilify quite alarming. I'm really over being called a "scab" for daring to discus the matter, personally.
But it's worth noting that the rallies driven by one of the Facebook groups don't appear to have included any of that. We might not want to get too carried away as to the scale of truly unacceptable behaviour.
-
You should consider that all business is about revenue. These are industy facts, revenues are insecure in the future. Economics is not something I googled yesterday.
I'm with Mark, you don't know what you're talking about. And when was a time in history when "revenues were secure in the future"? In fact, as Jackson explains in this interview with James Cameron, they have never been more secure - it's almost impossible for a blockbuster to lose money in the current climate. But it'll never be a certainty.
-
Learn something about the entertainment industries.
Music's lost decade: Sales cut in half .CNN
Yeah, about that. Without going into the details, revenue is down, unit sales are way, way up. This equation works because units sold are mostly digital singles at USD0.99 or thereabouts, not CDs at many multiples of USD0.99.
RIAA haven't caught up with it not being the music industry's inalienable, deity-granted right to have eternally-increasing revenue figures. That doesn't mean the industry is dying, just changing.But, yeah. *gestures vaguely in the direction of the Thread of Doooooooooooom* (I giggled at that one)
-
And what you're missing, Jeremy, is that profits are actually up in the music industry. Revenues are always insecure in an open market. Public tastes change, and industries have to adapt to that. The RIAA runs their particular line about downloading because their members don't want to adapt. Those who are adapting are doing okay.
"Music industry facts" is one or the biggest oxymorons of the 21st Century so far, only surpassed by "war on terror".
-
Pet day at the school doesn't keep thousands of creative people in work, or underpin their industry. It also hasn't made NZ a case study in movie-related tourism.
There's sadly no longevity of that 'keep', the bird has flown the coop. Admitting it's a stopgap would be the first step to reconciliation with the reality that what has come to pass will ultimately necessitate an influx of creative people into the (movie) tourism industry.
-
We might not want to get too carried away as to the scale of truly unacceptable behaviour.
True, it's always the exception at the end of the bell curve that does the damage. And the sound and fury, ugly though it is, rarely leads to actual damage. But it's not unheard of.
-
Where the film industry is troubled, as Jonathan King and others will be able to tell you, is in the current treatment of anything that is not a blockbuster having difficulty getting seen. That's not due to downloading, but to lack of time in the theatres and scheduling against the big ones.
If you can monetise it (yes, I hate the word too, but it works), downloading offers more opportunity for small film-makers than threat.
-
There's sadly no longevity of that 'keep', the bird has flown the coop.
I'm not sure what you mean. Four years' work is considered a pretty good gig in the film biz.
-
Mr Whipp said he was "very surprised" by the intensity of the reaction in the past few weeks.
"I have never seen that before in all my years. Myself and staff have received threats and we have hired a security guard at our office.
Whipp appears to have a short memory. Only three years ago a small-time Australian producer was threatening to rip his eyes out.
-
3410,
excludes work performed, or services provided, in respect of the production of any programme intended initially for broadcast on television
[my emphasis]So if I make it available initially as a live stream, with low promo and for say, half a day, or, alternatively, if I intend, initially to not broadcast on television (but subsequently change that plan), then my workers will be unable to engage as employees, right?
[ the bill ] -
Where the film industry is troubled, as Jonathan King and others will be able to tell you, is in the current treatment of anything that is not a blockbuster having difficulty getting seen. That's not due to downloading, but to lack of time in the theatres and scheduling against the big ones.
Films are very expensive. Arthouse films are great but they just don't bring in the revenue. If you have a plan to get arthouse or smaller films better receptions I'd love to hear it, but it's all about those bums on seats. Of course that would involve planning , something you told me off about.
-
and downloading is a free concept for a lot of twentysomethings, they watch and consume films like single television episodes.
-
He's right: the state has entered to meddle in the relationship between workers and capital on the side of capital (as evidenced by the overly broad, vague legislation being rammed through under urgency as I write).
The status quo is that the state meddles in relationships between employers and employees by making employment law something other than simple contract law; something which is, I think, all to the good. Moreover, people in the sector are self-employed; if there was a serious effort to give up the benefits of that and become employees, fine, but there seems to be a certain are of having the cake and eating it.
I'm not buying into arguments that don't acknowledge people's right to withdraw their labour in pursuit of better conditions.
Yes, but that's not actually what happened here. An executive, without any kind of mandate from a membership that represents a tiny proprtion of actors in New Zealand called an international boycott. Industrial action without a membership ballot doesn't bother you as a matter of principle?
-
Films are very expensive.
They don't have to be. Plenty of films are made on budgets of under $100k. Sure that's not nothing, but it's not millions either.
I'm going to stop talking on this point, now, and *gesture vaguely in the direction of the Thread. Of. Doooooooooooom*, before we adhere to Public Address' law that any thread on any topic will eventually become a copyright thread.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.