Posts by Peter Cox
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
aww... I liked the earlier version.
Ending with
Still, I guess you should just accept the upgrade from class traitor to potential useful idiot."
actually made me hurt myself from laughing.
-
This just in:
(nice that this is my 100th post ;))
-
NB: I don't know Jennifer Ward-Lealand well, but she has always struck me as a decent person. I hope this doesn't rebound on her."
I can promise you right now that it will not, nor any of the individual members of the Actor's Equity board. Nobody is taking the actions of the actors personally, whether they agree or disagree with how they're going about this dispute. That's my point of view at least, and from what I understand from the people I've spoken to.
-
Sorry, this is to a post a while back, but just to reply to:
Jonathan King:
"Oh, and say what you will about SPADA, at least they've made a clear statement on this issue. The Directors Guild and Writers Guild have remained silent on this, the most significant labour issue to affect our industry (er, other than to say that they have no postion. And that an announcement to say they support pay parity for directors is a hoax)."
To be frank, charging out with public statements is not not necessarily the best way to approach an issue like this.
-
...and while I'm on the subject of unreasonably hassling Russell, given the focus of the report, it would have been nice to get a screenwriter along to the discussion rather than just 2 producers and a director...
-
Short film's a great medium for identifying talent directors but amazingly poor for script. It was good to see the report (rightly, I think) acknowledging that script is our biggest weakness as an industry at the moment. Reducing the focus on short films and putting it into developing screenwriting talent seems sensible for a start. I'd lump the 48 hour film festival in the short film category as well, so I worry a little about suddenly promoting that as the primary source of discovering new young talent.
If we had a shortage of good directors that'd be another matter, but ask anyone trying to put together a TV series, it's finding capable writers that's the far more daunting prospect.
On the subject of short film promotion it'd be great to see short film screenings before features, but that's up to the exhibitors really. Not much the commission can do about that.
In siders Guide
DohWell, it was 6 or 7 years ago now.
-
In siders Guide was another example of a writer-centred series, wouldn't you say?
At the risk of sounding thin-skinned, yes, I'd like to think so.
-
Actually, I think it is kinda disrespectful to mention Outrageous Fortune in the same breath as The Cult and Insiders Guide -- it's achieved a lot more than either of those.
not even in the same breath? Jeez...
-
Jeez, that's a bit rough, Craig. Particularly if you're not going to say why he's wrong...
I liked it too, Cecelia, very much. I've often thought that there rather ought to be some kind of counterbalance to the debate we get from the property council et al., because there's a lot people who have no voice at all. It's nice to see someone say exactly what I've been thinking for quite some time.
-
Those of us who're saying "We don't have anywhere near enough data on this" are being called any manner of things.
Fair enough, there are some tough comments floating about (particularly on the other threads), but for what it's worth, the worst thing I'd ever accuse you of being would be 'wrong'.
If other ways of making money haven't gone away, then the doom is in no way impending and there's actually time to make an orderly transition.
Wait, what? Sure, they haven't gone away completely but that doesn't mean that those markets being damaged isn't going to have a very negative effect on film makers. I mean, you're suggesting that we have to have certainty of the complete doom of film-making before we take any action?
Look, by the the same token, even the worst of the most 'tyranical' attacks on internet freedom in the name of IP protection are not going to make the internet 'go away'. Just to put the show on the other foot, how would you feel if my argument was: 'if ACTA goes ahead, the internet isn't going to stop, it's only going to be damaged to a degree we can't be sure of until we get the proper data, so quite moaning and we'll see what happens, and if it turns out bad, then adapt or die.'
Sounds nice, doesn't it?
But look, all hyperbole aside: you don't feel as if there's enough solid evidence to justify some form of reasonably balanced intervention, and I do. That's cool, we can agree to disagree.