Posts by Jan Farr
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I know there is more than one side to this debate. I just have to keep repeating it to myself when I read some of the responses (yours excluded Jacqui).
-
On tax relief: it might have been required to keep the production here, but it's not what it was all about. If Helen was right about this she should be able to point to Warners asking for tax relief before the boycott. She can't because they didn't.
On the boycott: the notices lifting the boycott when up on the unions' sites on the 20th. This is when the actors knew they could sign contracts for The Hobbit. That's when the boycott was lifted. Helen was right in that there were discussions about it being lifted on the 17th but it was actually lifted on the 20th.
So I don't agree that she was right on either count.
Sorry to be late - but Derek Cheng's article answers both of these questions. Particularly interesting is:
Emails show Warner Bros and Equity had drafted statements about the end of the boycott up to five days earlier. The documents suggest that it was Sir Peter who was unhappy with the wording of Equity's statement because of the words "the spirit of good faith", and that had delayed release.
Hard to believe that if Sir Peter knew, Fran Walsh did not. Hard, then, in my opinion, to justify her calling Helen Kelly a liar.
And interesting that he's not prepared to approach negotiations in the spirit of good faith - which is the backbone of our current industrial law.
-
Now if Jackson could film Nigel Cox's Tarzan Presley as written (and before the US lawyers for Edgar Rice Burroughs came down like a ton of bricks, probably followed by a phalanx from Gracelands) that would be great - Giant wetas and all!
Given the difficulty of finding a copy of aforementioned and fabulous book, he might have to make do with a grubby little black and white movie about the lawyers.
-
And Sofie - I have to admit I've done stuff-all all day except walk the dog and hang out a bit of washing. I resolve to do better tomorrow.
-
If Helen was right about this she should be able to point to Warners asking for tax relief before the boycott. She can't because they didn't.
They didn't need to. The constant stream of histrionic threats, and the mass hysteria that resulted, was quite enough to do it.
-
Warner Brothers- "What the fuck are we going to do when we run out of hobbit books."
If that's the extent of their imagination, who knows what the fuck they would do?
-
The way Peter Jackson was targeted?
It's not like the head of the CTU called him a spoiled brat, or he's been described as a slave-owner, a feudal lord, a crap director, a shame on New Zealand's cultural landscape. And it's not like he's been targeted to try and gain leverage over industry-wide agreements he has no power to negotiate.
Spoiled brat, I heard, but none of your other examples have reached me - possibly because this is the only on-line discussion I look at. In the main media, I witnessed a bit of a tsunami coming in the other direction.
Strangely, when Helen Kelly said that it was all about tax relief and that the actor's ban had been lifted some days before, Fran Walsh called her a liar. It turned out Helen was right, on both counts.
-
Yes, I am, Hi Jacqui! Nice to read your posts and I liked your links - however inelegantly displayed!
-
Despite their connections with evil foreign multinationals and unpatriotic subject matter? Good on you.
Craig: The 'evil foreign' and 'unpatriotic' words are yours. I'm not a nationalist. It doesn't stop me from taking pride in my surroundings and from enjoying more things in the Wairarapa than the bleeding obvious.
-
Jacqui:
(Edit) Ah no. Bugger. Anyone tell me what I've done wrong by looking at the above? I'd be very grateful.
The only way I can get it to work is by copying and pasting it from the side bar first - then replacing the words 'url' and 'link text' with the obvious.