Muse: Hooray for Wellywood (Really!)
187 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Yes saw some off the coast in the UK and I found them pleasing to the eye. Better than the oil rigs spotted all over the States
-
why is the airport company dabbling so amateurishly in tourism promotion anyway? Isn’t that someone else’s job?
That's the easy one. Infratil are a bunch of glorified accountants and HR people. They think that by cosying up to the movie industry, some of their glamour might rub off on them. I'd suspect the prospect of getting laid by someone other than a Jetstar flight attendant (of any gender) might be not far from their minds, also.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
@Tom:
Why is a hillside some distance past the end of the runway considered part of the “airport precinct”? I imagine it may have been reserved to prevent high buildings (although there are specific rules to prevent those), as a site for some sort of aviation equipment or to prevent houses being built whose occupants would then object to the noise.
I can’t see why that then puts it in the same category as the terminal car park? Not to mention how, if the site was acquired under the Public Works Act (how does one check) a vanity erection qualifies as an ‘airport use’.
The other, bigger question concerns the right of the Wellington community to control our city. One of the negatives that got Kerry unelected was this very sign – having expressed that opinion, why can’t we as a city set planning rules that allow us to regulate such things. (Not to mention using our 35% holding in the airport to make our disapproval clear).
-
Raymond A Francis, in reply to
Much later
Thank you Islander, I was aware of those reasons (and that's plenty) for not being happy about the Museum, just wandered if there was even more -
OK, I'm going to be offline until late tomorrow morning but would like to thank you all for the restrained (for the most part) and thoughtful discussion. The swill that's landed in my e-mail is quite another matter, but has been dealt with.
Play nice, y'all.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
OK, I'm going to be offline until late tomorrow morning but would like to thank you all for the restrained (for the most part) and thoughtful discussion.
And thanks in turn for wading in.
The swill that's landed in my e-mail is quite another matter, but has been dealt with.
Ugh. I don't seem to get the hatemail any more -- even though you, Emma and the saintly Dr Haywood do. It's as if they eventually ran out of puff.
-
Tom Beard, in reply to
Why is a hillside some distance past the end of the runway considered part of the “airport precinct”?
It has been for decades, I think. Part of that land houses the building that used to house air traffic control functions, and there was always potential for other equipment to have been sited furter north along the ridge.
Not to mention how, if the site was acquired under the Public Works Act (how does one check) a vanity erection qualifies as an ‘airport use’.
The Designation has always allowed for airport-related activity, with very little control under the RMA. IIRC, the council got nervous a few years ago about WIAL's plans for retail parks, and their potential effect on the viability of established town centres, so Plan Change 57 was passed to try to gain some control and certainty. Other changes would have happened during that, but if you read the submissions you'll get some sense of how the commissioners treated the various submissions for and against certain aspects, and there's always a certain amount of negotiation at that point. Then there's the ability (at the time) for anyone to appeal a Plan Change, and given the cost of going to court, councils usually try to mediate a compromise. One might say that such a process allows powerful property owners to avoid any Plan Changes that might restrict their development potential, but I couldn't possibly comment.
-
bmk, in reply to
No, it was "Paris, boasting the biggest penis in the world for 40 years". Which is cheezy, but still awesome, IMHO.
Whereas Auckland has gone for "Auckland, boasting the biggest hypodermic syringe in the world." Or maybe that's just how I see it.
-
recordari, in reply to
Or maybe that's just how I see it.
Coffee plunger. What? It was only a matter of time.
-
Well, it got noticed in America. How proud the airport bosses must be.
Not much is sacred in Hollywood. Classics are remade; final cuts are subjected to focus groups and re-edited.
But the Hollywood sign? That is sacrosanct.
Plans to erect a “Wellywood” sign mimicking the Hollywood sign in Wellington, New Zealand — part of an effort to promote that city’s growing film industry — have riled Hollywood insiders.
-
recordari, in reply to
have riled Hollywood insiders.
Best we don't rile the Hollywood Insiders. It's the Illuminati, don't you know?
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Well, it got noticed in America. How proud the airport bosses must be.
Fitzgerald said a few days ago that the airport's legal advice is that they can go ahead regardless, which drew a rather testy response from the Hollywood chamber of commerce. So, to sum up: what Wellingtonians think doesn't count because the sign is aimed at visitors. What the owners of the sign we're plagiarising doesn't count because we think we ought to be able to get away with it. The airport board's consultation model is quite the beacon.
-
Latest in Dompost has airport being bloody-minded.
Wellington Airport says it is considering feedback about its controversial Wellywood sign, but will go ahead with it anyway.
...Wellington Airport chief executive Steve Fitzgerald said the airport had been in discussion with several councillors and senior council staff this week.
"We have listened and are aware of the range of views and were surprised by the apparent need for a motion."
However I just heard Bob Jones in the background preparing to make that a bloody nose. Wouldn't be the first time.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
“We have listened and are aware of the range of views and were surprised by the apparent need for a motion.”
Does that mean they are Shitting themselves?
;-) -
Islander, in reply to
Yes!
What I think whenever I hear that odd term! -
We still love the poo jokes ;-)
-
andin, in reply to
Hollywood Insiders
Nah, their just pissed cause a plane loaded with their favourite after dinner treat from Colombia seems to have landed in Wellington by mistake.
-
I always liked the nuclear-free Wellington sign - now in the Wellington Museum of City and Sea, it was rescued from a skip before being displayed, hence why it is snapped in half. It was located next to the main road beside the runway so you were in no doubt that it was directed at tourists and was on airport-owned land
-
And, Harold says this
-
Yes Jessica, that's the epithet we want the world to see and remember!
Despite personally being 99.9% against "New Zealand's Eiffel Tower", with all this highly publicized controversy, it'd make an interesting tale for would-be tour guides to dish out along with the intimation that more or less everyone in the country holds an opinion on the piece.
"Most people hate it"
It could thus serve as the perfect ice breaker for any visitor wanting to strike up conversation with the locals who (it has been said) are quite an insular bunch.
-
Ironically, I would massively prefer a giant garden gnome on the top of the hill.
I hope if it does get built (and I can't really raise myself to care either way), that rather than destroying it, the trend is to add things to it - a gnome, a big hat on an "O", massive y-fronts on the "Y". Way better use of idle time than this planking thing that is the trend this week.
People are actually trying to do something or not. Wouldn’t it be nice to see a bit more of this attitude with regard the country as a whole and the direction we are going there. Further up someone mentioned being an example of democracy if the protesters influenced a change of mind. Yes I think that would be refreshing.
I see it as the opposite. If the only thing which gets people up in arms is a sign which, when it comes down to it, has no real effects on anyone, rather than the umpteen things that are seriously wrong and which people could devote themselves to being up in arms about, then participatory demoracy isn't looking too good. I don't hold any hope that this will lead to larger numbers of people suddenly caring about all the other issues.
The airport is perfectly entitled to brand itself – when they say they’re wild at heart a) nobody cares and b) it doesn’t reflect on the rest of the city.
Maybe it's because they're wild at heart, that they felt able to put up the Wellywood sign despire that fact that almost everyone in the city didn't want it?
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Maybe it's because they're wild at heart, that they felt able to put up the Wellywood sign despire that fact that almost everyone in the city didn't want it?
Ah, so by Wild at Heart they mean Arseholes. It's so obvious when you explain it like that.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
I think the biggest irritant for me – besides the idea that the airport gets to brand the whole city, and without consultation, which is appalling – is that when it became clear that everyone hated it, they opened the floor to suggestions for other signs. As if the hill couldn’t possibly survive without of any number of stupid-arse huge-lettered monikers.
Of course there are more egregious things to worry about in the country, possibly worthier of our outrage, but that people reacted to that particular act of imposition by a corporate board of a message designed to define who we are makes me not sorry at all. Kinda proud actually.
Yep.
But if we must have a sign there, I like Tau Henare’s suggestion:
KIA ORA
-
…a corporate artwork that purports to say something about Wellington as a whole?
Is it purporting that though?
Steve Fitzgerald said:
Everyone benefits from increasing tourism for Wellington. …
We remain open to ideas for future projects to further raise Wellington’s international profile.
And (emphasis added):
"When we judged them against the things we were trying to achieve – to celebrate the film industry, making it clear it was in Wellington, and making it globally relevant – Wellywood was the clear No1”.
A Hollywood-style sign saying Miramar was a “reasonably distant No2”.
So yes, it seems to me this is about branding Wellington and not Miramar. (I wouldn’t be surprised if Fitzgerald has not mentioned Miramar in any of his public statements on this issue.)*
[*Edit: notwithstanding addressing a question put to him mentioning Miramar.]
-
linger, in reply to
When McDonald’s opened in the cathedral square in Milan, it was allowed to but couldn’t use its ordinary signage, on account of the fact that it was too loud and brand-y. I assume this has happened elsewhere as well.
Yes -- there's another example in Freiburg (where the McD is sited on the city's original main gate). I was relieved they hadn't painted the gate arch yellow.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.