Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Levelling the Playing Field, in reply to Jonathan King,
cinema is one subset of screen content in the same way as television or internet are
Yes – but the lines between them are almost entirely dissolved these days …
And thinking of the future - at some point the watching experience will be better using a personal device than it can ever be using a large room with a white wall. At that point the market is individuals and not distributors and media companies.
-
Speaker: Levelling the Playing Field, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I’d like to thank the British and Australian taxpayers who (however indirectly) put money in the pockets of every Kiwi employed on Top of The Lake. Thanks, Screen Australia & the British Broadcasting Corporation!
It's a very good point and a really good reason to not close our investment borders so to speak.
But there is a difference of scale between those two entities and our own govt resources. SO yeah I'd still like to see our taxes preferentially favour our own stuff, not exclusively of course but preferentially.
But as I said I speak purely from the perspective of the consumer - I know practically nothing about the intricacies of the industry.
-
Just as another thought, if I do see my taxes used to create more content then personally I am much less interested in seeing big films made here that have little or no creative input from New Zealanders. If those who understand this industry say that doing that really does help kiwis create content then fine. But personally I'd prefer to see my contributions go into genuinely local content eg The Blue Rose and the like.
-
Bearing in mind that I barely have a creative bone in my body and can only speak as a consumer.
Isn't part of the problem the change in consumption? The music industry changed because consumers changed the way they listen and are still changing the way they listen. The book industry is going through a similar trauma as old institutions struggle to maintain revenue in an industry where the consumers want something different from that which the industry was designed to deliver.
It seems very much to me that kids nowadays (heh) get most of their viewing at the computer. The cinemas exist for a different purpose than consumption of content. And hence the content that is produced to fit those cinemas is no longer relevant to the interests of the new breed of consumers.
I can see the problem you describe with technology changing the production of content. But I see a larger problem with the change in technology affecting consumption.
For me it's a problem, I just started watching The Almighty Johnsons, it feels so very kiwi and I love it. I missed it on TV. But I bought the DVDs. I could have so easily stolen (or borrowed) that content but I chose not to because I can't figure out how they continue to be able to produce the content if I choose to steal (or borrow) it.
But the TV channel that paid for the production has given up on that content - because I and others chose not to watch it on the media they wanted me to use.
So here's the question, "How do I as a consumer get my dollar to the creators of content I want to see?".
Some part of the answer really has to be via my taxes, so please tax me some more, really. But also there needs to be some other way.
-
Hard News: Awards and Rewards, in reply to Russell Brown,
So that's what we're doing on Friday night
That brought a big smile to my face.
-
Hard News: Friday Music: Lorde's Mixtape, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Jet-lagged and partied out
She's 17. At that age her recovery time will still be amazing.
-
Hard News: Mandela, in reply to Matthew Hooton,
Sorry for writing so long.
All the memories are good.
I have 10 years on Matthew and significantly more left wing leanings so my memories a coloured differently. But what is the same is the recognition that Mandela was a genuine force in the world. You could argue it was all hype and politics but that would be blinding yourself to the simple fact that his name and his voice changed more than just one nation.
He became a focus of attention and then took that attention and used it to change South Africa and to some degree to change the world. He could so easily have been a bitter selfish leader, but he wasn't. He took the power he was given and tried to make a better country and a better world.
For me he will always be what politicians should at least try to be, a statesman.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Swan,
I assume everyone disagreeing with Edgeler thinks editorial indepedence is a dumb idea?
No, it isn't a dumb idea. What is dumb however is to believe for a second that editorial independence exists in talkback radio. The format is designed to attract controversy and the owners/editors have demonstrated time and again that they only care about advertisers dollars.
That is why the public protest was appropriate.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Because they denied the existence of Amy’s rape
Well, I’m reasonably sure that didn’t happen.
Correct. Amy was a reporter, not a survivor.
My bad, "Amy’s rape" was meant to equal “the rape Amy reported upon” not “the rape of Amy”
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to john Drinnan,
talking about the rape rather than how important it was to get rid of two people
How about you ask Graeme that.
But if you ask me it's because talking about rape is hard and talking about abstracts like free speech is easy
But if you're asking why it is important that the two broadcasters are off air - here is my opinion
Because they were rape apologists and rape enablers
Because they denied the existence of Amy's rape
Because they could not see that what they did was in any way wrong
Because they could not apologize
Because their voices make money for Media works (well not that much)
Because their voices were loud and the voices of the victims are not
Because our society continues to accept rape and excuse rape
Because they were examples of a society that blames the girlsNot because it was simple ... but because it was the right thing to do