Posts by Peter Cox
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
See what you make of it.
From a (very) cursory glance my personal opinion is that it would be bloody handy if someone at Actor's Equity went through it with a highlighter to show what they're interested in.
A fair portion seems pretty irrelevant to an independent contractor relationship, which is unsurprising seeing as the Australian Actors are classed as employees.
-
Well, I like how you can earn experience points...
-
Sir Ian's Opinion (according to 'showbiz411.com' anyway):
http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/10/03/ian-mckellen-waiting-for-hobbit-papers
-
Actually I disagree with this:
"If industrial action causes catastrophic damage to huge numbers of people, far in excess of the interested parties, it's not justified."
So do I, this is not a reason not to strike. It is however, a reason to make pretty damn sure that your strike is well managed in terms of legality, public perception, and membership approval.
-
Minister Chris Finlayson met husband and wife filmmakers Sir Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh at the Beehive this morning over the issue
They've been listening to you Craig!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10678126
-
My impression, from media reports is that the daily rates were higher, and the residuals (which having any at all was a first for New Zealand) were lower than the SAG rate.
But not lower the Australian residuals rate? And maybe that of some other counties? I can't find the quote anymore, I might be entirely making that up.
EDIT, okay found it, and this is what PJ is saying:
PJ: "This is the first time ever NZ actors have had residuals, and we are proud that it's being introduced on our movie. The level of residuals is better than a similar scheme in Canada, and is much the same as the UK residual scheme. It is not quite as much as the SAG rate."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10677358
-
Jackson has said that he couldn't offer those sorts of things here because the production company couldn't afford it and it would devastate the local film industry by raising expectations.
My understanding is that's not exactly what he said. I believe what he said was that they were already offering rates higher than the SAG minimums anyway, and that if local industry rates were to be discussed that would have to happen with SPADA. Which I think is what Actor's Equity were asking for too on Campbell Live last week.
So at least that's one good thing they both agree on unless I've misunderstood someone.
If they were to go elsewhere and do it non-union who would decline to be involved?
I think the point that's being made is that if it was filmed overseas it wouldn't be non-union anymore.
-
Is the Peter Cox posting in this thread the Peter Cox who is the President of the Writers Guild? It's not clear.
Yes, I am. But the comments I have been making here are my personal views and not those of the NZWG officially. Hence, I'm not signing myself as the president.
The official NZWG position is that we don't believe it would be constructive for a positive outcome for the NZWG to publicly take a position, and that the relevant parties involved should be left alone to reach equitable resolution.
(although obviously that could do with a copy editor, but you get the point)
I'd like to also hope that upon looking at my posts you'll see I haven't taken any specific position of support or non support for the MEAA's stop order. Though I do what I can to add facts to the discussion, and to ask questions I think are pertinent.
Also, very well said Simon, they echo a lot of the sympathy I have towards the actors in the way this has played out.
-
Their statement probably isn't so much activating a boycott, as highlighting the fact that these movies don't meet those conditions so SAG members shouldn't sign for it.
It's an automatically effected boycott. That's how unions work and collectively have power. Just because it's automatically effected doesn't mean it's not a boycott.
(edit: Oh, sorry, I kept reading and realised you already knew that)
-
Am I the only one thinking that this could be the beginning of the end for NZ as a destination
At the end of the day, they can't actually legally do what they've been trying to do, and as soon as that starts to become more clear, I'm hopeful things will settle down.
Though this whole thing hasn't been exactly helpful. Quite a few producer friends of mine who have been negotiating US financing have been telling me some gruesome stories of how this is being taken in the states.
Anyway, I think once the dust settles, and assuming the hobbit survives (which I'm hearing is no certainty) we'll be okay.
Now, if the hobbit leaves NZ... that's another story altogether. Game over.
And by no means, it won't just be the stupid high budget films. Any international financing on any level for anything will be one hell of a lot harder to come by.