Hard News: Anatomy of a Shambles
1695 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 43 44 45 46 47 … 68 Newer→ Last
-
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
-
Kudos to Sacha for "Te Hobbit"
-
I would shoot the Hobbit in the face
The hobbit, of course, would prefer to shoot itself in the foot.
-
Should really be Te Hopita then.
Oma hopiti, oma hopiti,
Oma, oma, oma -
The hobbit, of course, would prefer to shoot itself in the foot.
(not for the last time).
-
Andre Alessi - nice one!
-
lol
I often wake up with an 'earworm' each morning. Now I think Oma hopiti will be my morning earworm for the next few years.
Damn you, Andre Alessi! Damn you to earworm hell! *shakes fist* -
Te Hobbit
Thanks, Mark. Be interesting to see how it plays more broadly, Peter.
And nice one, Andre.
-
What are TV broadcast fees like for major films?
Getting worse as more people head to the torrentmobile, I expect.
(I hope no-one carping about actors' residuals would be undermining the business model they depend on in such a way!)
-
In other news, John Minto has finally found a protest rally he was ashamed of.
-
Budgets are going DOWN. No two ways about it.
Its the potential massive return on the back end (if the film is any good, and of course populous film makers think their projects are worthy of massive acclaim) that will always suck people in.
-
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.
OF is really in an unusual position in potentially attracting viable residuals income though -- it's really not an issue with most NZ TV productions. Barney's contention is that the residuals are covered in the OF actors' pay, but he kinda would say that.
Question: would residuals be calculated before or after the NZ On Air clawback?
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?
Way back when Global Rule One was introduced, the MEAA objected loudly to it -- but then did a deal and everything changed.
-
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.
-
>Budgets are going DOWN. No two ways about it.
Its the potential massive return on the back end (if the film is any good, and of course populous film makers think their projects are worthy of massive acclaim) that will always suck people in.
I was talking about NZ films. Massive return on back end? Uh-uh.
-
I was talking about NZ films. Massive return on back end? Uh-uh.
What?! Oh, NOW you tell me...
-
New York times today:
Mr. Whipp said his repeated offers to talk with Warner executives and those producing the films had been ignored. “I would have thought, as a simpleton, that if you have a problem, talking would be one way to solve it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/business/media/26hobbit.html
Of course he is rewriting history here (and being a prick about it). The copies of the letters sent in August and afterwards to 3 Foot 7 were not an invite to have a chat. They were threatening a global boycott if a collective MEAA contract was not put in place. They were an ultimatum that was followed through with.
-
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 would have thought, as a simpleton..."
Well then.
-
Would seem to explain rather a lot.
-
These were the original letters - from:
http://www.alliance.org.au/documents/100922_hobbit_factsheet.pdf
On 17 August the General Secretary and President of FIA wrote the production company which will produce the film asking that they make contact with the Alliance. A copy of that letter is available here
http://www.alliance.org.au/documents/letter1.pdfOn 20 August the English speaking unions in FIA wrote a joint letter to the producers of the film advising that they were adhering to the FIA position set out in the 17 August letter. A copy of that letter is
available here
http://www.alliance.org.au/documents/letter2.pdfOn 31 August the Alliance wrote to the studios behind the film, MGM and New Line. A copy of that letter is available here http://www.alliance.org.au/documents/letter3.pdf
-
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...
Yes you are right. When you read the first letter, they had already passed a resolution for the boycott.
-
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.
-
It's not so much a threat as... what do you carry out the threat in advance and then say you'll stop do it only when they do what you say?
"Dat wuz a nice store you had. Pity somethin' already happened to it. Maybe you should pay us some insurance money for burning it down."
-
The FIA meeting where it was passed was in July or so.
25th of June most likely.
-
No wonder Warners are worried. The same people who said "There was never a boycott" and "We never asked for Collective Agreement" are now giving promises not to strike during the production. Credibility Alert!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.