Hard News: A few (more) words on The Hobbit
1304 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 29 30 31 32 33 … 53 Newer→ Last
-
Kind of a meet point, since the don't work order was rescinded by then, wouldn't you say?
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Kind of a meet point, since the don't work order was rescinded by then, wouldn't you say?
Not when Trevor Mallard is still repeating the "truthiness" that there was no boycott, never was a boycott and we've always been at war with Eurasia. Or something.
Yes, I'm somewhat unsurprised that Warners were (gasp!) putting their own spin on things and (shock!) actually brought their own agenda to the table. Just not swallowing Helen Kelly's retcon either -- but if it does repair her own dented credibility, I guess you can't blame her for trying it on.
-
It’s hardly a moot point. The way SAG works is if you sign up to a boycotted movie they can take away your union card and hence stop you from working on any other movie for as long as the want – apart from low budget non-union ones.
It is worth noting that the very day after SAG lifted the boycott – that’s officially lifted the boycott not just say they will (which appears to be the issue at the base of Jackson's claim the boycott had not been lifted) – the studios signed contracts with the lead actors. The very next day. These issues are taken very seriously in Hollywood. The studios would not dare to sign actors with a boycott in place and no actor would be self-destructive enough to do so.
-
Clint Fern, in reply to
Of course the boycott kicked it off, but so what - thats a reason but not a justification for what Jackson did. I don't find the actions of the unions / Key / Brownlee / Warners at all surprising, they all will defend their own interests by whatever means.
The 'news' out of the email is that of Jackson, Walsh & Boyens cynicism and duplicity. I'd sided with them in the debate as I'd thought them pretty honest, they have in my eyes and I'm sure in many others soiled their reputations. It'd be hard to take what they say at face value any longer, which is a shame for them. Still be going to see the film to support the work of Taylor, the Hennahs and all the other kiwi sub-contractors.
-
A bit of a timeline:
October 1
Jackson says “The Hobbit is being punished with a boycott which is endangering thousands of New Zealand jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign income, for no good reason.”
At that point in time the boycott was in place, the unions had made no moves to lift it
October 16/17
The unions agree to lift the boycott
October 18
Jackson says: “There is no connection between the blacklist (and it’s eventual retraction) and the choice of production base for The Hobbit,”
October 20
Actors Equity recommends to SAG the boycott be lifted
October 21
SAG lifts boycott
An important even took place in between Jackson’s comments on Oct 1 and Oct 18 – namely the unions decide to lift the boycott. Yes Jackson said different things, because the situation had changed dramatically.
October 22
Studios announce Martin Freeman signed for Hobbit
-
Clint Fern, in reply to
Nice timeline Neil. You did miss out the big broadcast by Jackson on Oct 21 & Walsh / Boyens on Nine to Noon on the same day where they all said the production was in danger because of the boycott.
After the email of the 18th this suggests they were deliberately misleading everyone and using the situtation to Warner's advantage. These 3 are not looking good at all over this.
-
In short: this did start with the boycott. And the situation was subsequently exploited by the producers.
I’m not sure why this is even news to anyone.
But anyway, a couple of points: why are we assuming that PJ isn’t simply manipulating Brownlee a little? Let’s say – for the sake of argument that -in early october- the boycott was going to send the production overseas (at least as far as PJ knew anyway). But then because the boycott was in the process of being rescinded, Brownlee would have the argument: ‘so you don’t need tax breaks’, so Peter Jackson was saying: no, this particular boycott ending makes no difference, what we need is long term stability of our vague and somewhat counter-intuitive labour laws, and a realistic assessment of our financial viability in bringing productions over.
However, it was never a particularly great argument that just because certain unions hadn’t officially posted their rescindment officially, the boycott wasn’t over. Technically it was true, but still… it wasn’t a particularly convincing argument.
Oh my god, I can’t believe I’m discussing this again.
Anyway, glad Helen Kelly managed to get the point in at the end of the interview that the only way we’ll get a stable workplace is allowing the film industry to engage in legally binding collective bargaining agreements, instead of the vague ‘we promise to be good’ system we have at the moment.
The law change doesn't really fix anything.
-
FletcherB, in reply to
These 3 are not looking good at all over this.
Who do you think IS looking good?
AE/MEAA/CTU... proven liars and/or stupid, as well as spinning.
Walsh/Jackson/Boyens... liars/spinning
Nat Gov... spinning and folding to foreign interests.
Warners... taking advantage of a position of power (who expects otherwise of a business?)Everyone covered in shit as far as I can see?
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Anyway, glad Helen Kelly managed to get the point in at the end of the interview that the only way we’ll get a stable workplace is allowing the film industry to engage in legally binding collective bargaining agreements, instead of the vague ‘we promise to be good’ system we have at the moment.
Which makes one wonder why the CTU (of whom AENZ/MEAA is an affiliate) didn't consider that a priority for action during nine years of a union-friendly government? You know, like Irish Equity fecking did? Its not as if the issue exactly dropped out of a time-space vortex a couple of months back...
It's really rather embarrasing when Irish actors have turned out to be a damn sight smarter and more focused than their Kiwi brethren. There goes the stereotype of feckless artistes who'll do anything for liquor and the occasional baked potato.
-
Peter Cox, in reply to
Which makes one wonder why the CTU (of whom AENZ/MEAA is an affiliate) didn’t consider that a priority for action during nine years of a union-friendly government?
I'm sure they did.
-
Sir Pete's greatest need was to ensure his workers were kept as contractors. He achieved that. He can fire and hire as he pleases. Any other combination of employee relationship was catastrophic to him.
The cynical timing of who did what and when from the Key/Brownlie/Jackson cabal looks suddenly like geared to ensure that aim. The actors boycott delivered the opportunity. The Nats nailed the coffin shut on collectivism in NZ film industry.with the legislation.
Has/does Jackson - or any of his companies - made/make any donations to any political parties? Lets see now, which one? Hmmm.......
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
The Nats nailed the coffin shut on collectivism in NZ film industry.with the legislation.
Not necessarily. The large majority of film workers don't want to be employees and rather like claiming a third of the mortgage against their tax. As I said above, this gives them the ultimate excuse when IRD questions their tax status. But they still like their guilds and unions.
The Irish changed the law to allow contractors to negotiate collective agreements. As I wrote in the original post for this discussion, I would like to see Labour adopt something like the Irish law as manifesto policy. Unfortunately, we're instead getting Trevor Mallard claiming "there was never a boycott", which is, frankly, bloody ridiculous.
-
Why can't we have sensible people arguing from the left in the media? That really, in a nutshell is my feeling about the whole thing: it's f****ng annoying to agree with something in principle and then have the people who are supposed to be advancing the cause screw it up so royally. And then, apparently, not even learn anything from it.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Has/does Jackson - or any of his companies - made/make any donations to any political parties? Lets see now, which one? Hmmm.......
Well, jog along to the Electoral Commission and tell us what you find. If you really want to get into the new season's tinfoil hat, Jackson should be personally bankrolling Labour's election campaign next year -- the tax credits and whatnot for the LoTR trilogy were far from petty cash and all on Michael Cullen's watch, IIRC.
-
Clint Fern, in reply to
If you bothered checking my earlier posts you'll see I wasn't claiming anyone looked any good, just that I was more disappointed in Jackson / Walsh / Boyens as previously I'd had no reason to doubt their word.
-
You mean something like a guild for contractors and some protection in law. Like the Pike River contractors have? To get their individual cake (like tax and mortgage breaks) something has to be paid to achieve it. Like all contractors get full ACC. Yeah right. There are swings and roundabouts to this employment, free market and socialism game. If you want the breaks and still receive all of societies benefits (ACC springs to mind) then someone needs to contribute. (And don't get me onto the self employed and ACC. I know) But if people in such a situation do nothing with their "tax windfalls" to counter any risk, then how can anyone expect the rest of society to give a shit when the whinge sets in. I like a bit of collectivism as it keeps the employer a wee bit more human.
I can't quite see the difference between self employed contractors getting tax breaks and the employed not. It is not as if these are "real costs to a business" you are extracting back from the IRD.
I am prepared to pay my taxes to help keep NZ as fully funded as possible and give as many people as possible backstops to health and welfare. But that is probably just me. And I have been on both sides of the fence. Receiving as well as giving.
-
Neil Morrison, in reply to
Boyens and co were completely correct to say at that point in time the boycott had placed the production in danger. That the boycott had been lifted made no difference to the consequnces of the boycott which was to have the studios reassessing their options.
Remember, at the time the Kelly and co were denying there ever was a boycott. It did have to be reinforced that there indeed had been and that it had been very damaging.
Mallard, complete lack of leadership from Labour. If there was ever an issue where someone in Labour should have been able to make sense - Art and Industrial Relations - this was it but it didn't happen. And with Mallard continuing to talk crap no one seems to have learnt anything.
-
Clint Fern, in reply to
Walsh claimed on 9 to noon that the production was likely to head offshore due to the union boycott. This was on the 21st. She was pretty specifically questioned by Katherine Ryan on this.
As you handily pointed out Jackson typed “There is no connection between the blacklist (and it’s eventual retraction) and the choice of production base for The Hobbit,” this was on the 18th.
I think you would have to believe in the tooth fairy to think that Fran Walsh didn't know Jacksons thoughts on this and so it would strongly appear that she was not telling the truth.
You may wish to conflate this with whatever the union might have said, personally I don't care about the unions / govt / Warners as I have said repeatedly they are vested interests. As I previously stated Jackson et al might have used the union position as a reason for their actions but I see it as no justification for their seeming deliberate misleading of the public through their media statements of 21st Oct. They have damaged their reputations through cynical actions and no amount of "but Helen Kelly said, Trevor Mallard said" changes that.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I think you would have to believe in the tooth fairy to think that Fran Walsh didn't know Jacksons thoughts on this and so it would strongly appear that she was not telling the truth.
Nice carpet bombing with qualifiers there - are you calling Fran Walsh a liar or not?
-
nzlemming, in reply to
I can’t quite see the difference between self employed contractors getting tax breaks and the employed not. It is not as if these are “real costs to a business” you are extracting back from the IRD.
WTF are you talking about? It's real money when I have to fill the car with petrol to visit a client. It's real money when I have to buy a certain piece of software or a new piece of hardware that will enable me to fulfill a client contract. The paper in my printer is a real cost, as is the printer itself. Even the GST payment is a real cost if it's been a slow month. As for holidays...
I am prepared to pay my taxes to help keep NZ as fully funded as possible and give as many people as possible backstops to health and welfare. But that is probably just me. And I have been on both sides of the fence. Receiving as well as giving.
I've been a contractor for years, in IT, information management and (very occasionally) theatre. I also pay my taxes, sometimes in advance of having earned it (buggrit). I also have to pay company tax and GST, though there are swings and roundabouts there. I then pay my ACC levy, to cover that full funding you talk about. Whether as an employee or as a contractor I have been paying tax since I left school. So take your pathetic moral high ground and shove it. You have no idea. Seriously.
-
Clint Fern, in reply to
As she isn't a politician I'd say she was deliberately misleading rather than telling straight out lies like Brownlee / Mallard.
-
Neil Morrison, in reply to
The NatRad interview was on Oct 21 - NZ time, SAG lifted the boycott on 21 Oct - LA time ie 22nd NZ time.
At the time of the interview the boycott had not been lifted. Walsh and Boyens were telling the truth.
-
Clint Fern, in reply to
...and as you pointed out that Jackson had said three days before this that the boycott would have no effect on the choice of production base.
You can keep on repeating that the boycott wasn't lifted as long as you like (something I have not disputed). That does not change the deception of Jackson saying the above in an email to Brownlee and then 3 days later he and Walsh both said the production was likely to move offshore BECAUSE of the boycott, it'd seem to me most people are agreeing this was spinning.
Over to you for the last word as I'm stepping out of this circular argument....
-
correction, SAG lifted the boycott a fews hours after that interview on 21st our time.
http://www.sag.org/sag-statement-regarding-feature-film-production-hobbit
Helen Kelly when she was on straight after claimed the boycott had been lifted. It actually had not. She thought that the statement from a few days before saying that they intended to lift the boycott was the actual lifting of the boycott, which is wasn't.
I'm not surprised Walsh and Boyens wanted to see this up on the SAG web site before believing the boycott was actually off.
Also, during the interview - while the boycott was on - Walsh and Boyens said that the lifting of the boycott may not be enough to save the production, that the damage was already done and that NZ will have to show that there will be a stable environment for the production.
I can't see and deception.
-
Ross Mason, in reply to
You are quite right. It was terrible. Why I said it is beyond me. I need a holiday and I will now take it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.