Posts by Peter Cox
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Here's something that was just pointed out to me:
This battle is actually SAG vs the Studios.
So we're probably going to see it solved and announced there before anything here changes, if what we do here even matters at all (not sure if that makes anyone feel better or not).
Although whether that announcement means it stays in NZ or not is another matter altogether...
Explains a lot, doesn't it...
-
Okay, this is an interesting read in terms of the legal discussions that went down at the meetings, particularly the Wellington meeting, where the Simpons-Grierson guy turned up and stated his position.
It's only one attendee's take on it, of course, but seeing as it's the only take I've seen, it's pretty interesting.
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=144590555584156&topic=228
-
Just an educated guess.
-
Okay, well to put it another way: I defend their right to make their case to be well paid. Which is why I wish they'd just been straight up about it right from the start instead of trying this 'it's not about the money, we're not greedy actors' line.
Goddammit, if you've got a case, make the damn case!
If people think it's reasonable, they'll back you on it!
Again, I blame the MEAA for not realising that right from the start, because that bird has well and truly flown. If they start going on about residuals now, they're just going to get that quote thrown right back in their faces. "Oh, so you ARE greedy actors then?" *sigh*.
This isn't about Peter Jackson's ingenious spin machine. Everything they've done or said should be entirely expected. This is just about the MEAA charging in and f***ing this up.
But remember, they're asking for a standard contract that will cover across everything.
Well, Simon Whipp (rather foolishly) said that to the Hollywood reporter. Unfortunately Robyn Malcolm repeated something similar. Maybe in their heads that was somehow a sound strategy once upon a time. I think they've backed away from that well and truly now.
Anyway, it doesn't seem to be what the members have actually voted for. And that's what counts. On the other hand they didn't vote on the No Work order either, so what the hell do I know.
-
Also, I'll add: I have no problem with the NZ actors and their cause. I love a great many of some fairly vocal AE members very dearly, and completely defend their right to be well paid.
But the more I think about how MEAA have gone about doing this thing on their behalf, and have c**ked it up so badly, it just makes my blood boil.
Okay, now I'm REALLY going back to work this time :)
-
That might have been something good to mention instead of nudity clauses.
And I'll also add: I don't believe the shambolic nature of this thing is actually Actors Equity's fault - it's the MEAA who set this thing up, dropped it on them, and has been apparently not been a great source of advice on how they should deal with this thing.
And now AE, who have had to front up, and defend it, apparently without time to develop a proper media strategy, wind up looking bad. If anything AE have been doing a good job with the s**ty script and direction they've been given.
And to anyone who says: PJ brought this into the media first. What the hell was MEAA expecting when they started this boycott? If you're going to try and use all your leverage, then the other side is going to use theirs.
Just because they're not prepared to deal with it, is nobody's fault but Simon Whipp and the MEAA.
So, nice of him to take leave for 2 weeks now.
-
Oh, I wasn't too far off then. :)
-
Sure, I didn't mean to imply it doesn't matter, all I'm saying is that's not the real core of the problem.
EDIT: Oops, sorry Richard, I think I might have mistook you for an actor. 'David Aston". Bugger, thought we had a real live AE member.
Alright, sod it, I'm going back to work.
-
Who cares? As long as they're more than 50 they have every right to represent their members. Getting into a debate about numbers is a bit of a side show, really.
Although admittedly, that they're the acting arm of the MEAA I guess makes a difference. Although again, TBH, I don't think arguments about numbers are gonna make any difference to anyone's opinion.
-
Firstly Richard, saw you in a production of the Caretaker a few years back, thought it was brilliant.
(pause)
Second, do you feel as if you agreed to a boycott of the hobbit unless they give you a legally binding collective bargaining agreement? Or are you asking for something different?
Generally, also, I'd ask if any AE members floating about thought the above quote was an accurate portrayal of the Auckland AE meeting.