Of Hollywood, Hobbits & NZ-US politics: Episode II

66 comments on “Of Hollywood, Hobbits & NZ-US politics: Episode II ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Kotahi Tāne Huna 1

   4 October 2012 at 8:38 am

   “Key heads of to…”

   His timing couldn’t be worse.

   Every new bit of information breeding questions like Hydra.

   And on his return, the feeding frenzy 🙂
   • karol 1.1

     4 October 2012 at 8:43 am

     Thanks, KTH. Fixed the typo. Agreed on the timing.
2. just saying 2

   4 October 2012 at 8:53 am

   Excellent post. Well said.
   • Kotahi Tāne Huna 2.1

     4 October 2012 at 8:55 am

     +1
     • karol 2.1.1

       4 October 2012 at 3:16 pm

       Thanks, KTH & JS. I was just looking around for some articles to refresh my memory about the finer details of the Hobbit dispute, as background in preparation for anticipated reports on Key’s Hollywood mission.

       The whole of that edition of the NZ Journal of Employment Relations is focused on the Hobbit dispute, but I found the Haworth article, ‘A Political Economy of ‘The Hobbit’ Dispute’ particularly useful.
       • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1

         4 October 2012 at 3:52 pm

         The whole of that edition of the NZ Journal of Employment Relations is focused on the Hobbit dispute, but I found the Haworth article, ‘A Political Economy of ‘The Hobbit’ Dispute’ particularly useful.

         PDF Here
         • mike 2.1.1.1.1

           4 October 2012 at 4:38 pm

           Thanks karol and DTB.

           It is rare indeed to observe such a textbook case of national interests being so comprehensively subordinated to the interests of international capital and its domestic agents.

           From the conclusion of said article.
           • karol 2.1.1.1.1.1

             4 October 2012 at 5:07 pm

             Thanks, DTB.  The access to the article i had seemed to require a library membership login, which is why I didn’t link to it.

             [Update: Journal link added to the post above.]
   • LynW 2.2

     5 October 2012 at 8:31 am

     +100 Very informative Karol. Thank you
     • mickysavage 2.2.1

       5 October 2012 at 6:40 pm

       Thanks Karol.  Utterly disturbing.  Haworth elegantly expresses what many of us felt.  

       The politics of the dispute started to descend into the levels of Nazi Germany where much evil occurred in the name of TINA.  Apologies for breaking Goodwin’s law but this is how it felt to me.
3. marsman 3

   4 October 2012 at 9:05 am

   Excellent Post once again karol!
   • Tigger 3.1

     4 October 2012 at 9:36 pm

     +1. Great stuff, K.
4. Red Rosa 4

   4 October 2012 at 9:13 am

   Well said.

   This is a full-scale constitutional crisis, when you think of the implications.

   Is the Prime Minister working for the best interests of New Zealand, or is he using every means – legitimate and illegitimate – to advance the interests of the United States?

   These revelations make John Key look more like the agent of a foreign power than PM of NZ.

   And for sure, there is more to come.
   • Draco T Bastard 4.1

     4 October 2012 at 3:54 pm

     Is the Prime Minister working for the best interests of New Zealand, or is he using every means – legitimate and illegitimate – to advance the interests of the United States?

     I don’t think there’s any doubt – he’s working for Wall Street.
5. Chris 5

   4 October 2012 at 9:17 am

   Whatshisname key has said that he will not be offering any sweeteners/inducements to movie moguls.Could this possibly be true????????? Or maybe he will go ahead and do it and then won’t remember that he had said that he wouldn’t do it so therefore in his view it will be allright to go ahead and do so. “Right guys,what do you want, just ask and it’s yours”Anything,anything at all!
   What is this trip going to cost US!!
   • karol 5.1

     4 October 2012 at 10:05 am

     Depends on what he means by “sweeteners/inducements”. That usually means money: such things as tax breaks for filming in NZ. But would it include NZ law changes (like the Hobbit law, weakening worker rights), or things included in the TPPA?

     eg Jane Kelsey, in her press release linked in my post above, says the visit is all to do with the TPPA and intellectual property rights:

     The next round of TPPA talks is in New Zealand in early December and (secret) new US proposals are expected to be on the table.

     The intellectual property negotiators from the US Trade Representative’s Office are currently in Wellington putting pressure on the government to stop resisting the US demands and agree to its new text.

     Hollywood is driving the US push for unprecedented extensions to intellectual property rights, carrying with them the further criminalization for breaches and massive cost increases for everyday Internet users. It also wants a ban on parallel imports.
     • Colonial Viper 5.1.1

       4 October 2012 at 4:02 pm

       Can we have “sweeteners and inducements” for our own on-shore manufacturing industry please.
       • karol 5.1.1.1

         4 October 2012 at 8:28 pm

         Yes.  That’s a thought, CV.
         But then, of course, it wouldn’t involve Key swanning off to the US to hang out with the rich, powerful, famous and beautiful people!
6. Ad 6

   4 October 2012 at 9:25 am

   Perhaps it’s easier now to think of new Zealand no longer as a country at all but as a set of globally fluid molecules that join up for specific commercial projects, like films, and are then released back to the fluid of the world’s economy.

   Key is less relevant because he doesn’t generate any commercial molecular formation.

   According to outbound immigration, everyone who can still float, is doing so.

   Jackson is still choosing to stay.
   • karol 6.1

     4 October 2012 at 10:08 am

     Following your metaphor, Ad, I think maybe Key’s role is to improve the flow, and in ways that are on balance, more likely to favour the interests of multinational corporates.
7. mike e 7

   4 October 2012 at 10:19 am

   Where is gooseman Kim.Kong BM etc no where to be found!
   • David H 7.1

     4 October 2012 at 1:38 pm

     They must be off at a Nact indoctrination day. Have to get their instructions sometimes.
8. Bill 8

   4 October 2012 at 11:14 am

   Google Richard O’Dwyer. English student being extradited to the US for hosting a file sharing website that didn’t hold any files. As with Dotcom, it was US agencies that sought to bring him to trial. O’Dwyer hadn’t broken any UK laws. But the US claim that since ‘.net’ and ‘.com’ are domain names or suffixes hosted in the US that any copyright infringement using those suffixes are crimes on US soil.

   O’Dwyer is facing 10 years. He was a smaller fish than Dotcom. The US is pursuing a number of individuals around the world for copyright infringement based on their use of ‘.com’ or ‘.net’.

   Dotcom is their biggest fish yet. So maybe JK is looking to grease the wheels of ‘justice’…a wee tweak of NZ law? And that could easily sit apart from or be in addition to any TPPA agreement.
9. muzza 9

   4 October 2012 at 12:20 pm

   NZ is now so obviously under the influence/control of “America*” these days, its sickening!
   • karol 9.1

     4 October 2012 at 3:21 pm

     Well the US government and its agencies are particularly keen to re-establish their dominance in the Pacific, now that China is making some economic inroads into the area.  So we are at the centre of a bit of a struggle.
     Key seems to want to play both sides a bit, but his main allegiance seems to be to the US.  And most of NZ culture, economy and politics (not to mention spy agencies) have leaned that way for a long time.
     • Colonial Viper 9.1.1

       4 October 2012 at 4:04 pm

       Notice how the US is using force and pressure to push its own interests in the Pacific.

       I think that’ll be received well by locals over the medium term, don’t you.
       • Jim Nald 9.1.1.1

         4 October 2012 at 4:36 pm

         Labour/Greens: green jobs for NZ

         John Key/Natz: bl _ _ jobs for US 🙂
         • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1

           4 October 2012 at 7:33 pm

           lolz
           • Jim Nald 9.1.1.1.1.1

             4 October 2012 at 9:51 pm

             yeah, just get Key to say “blue jobs” really quickly and hear how it comes across 🙂 🙂
       • Populuxe1 9.1.1.2

         7 October 2012 at 5:44 pm

         Force? I am not thinking this word is meaning what you think it is meaning. And as this has pretty much been the status quo since WW2 I doubt anyone will notice much.
10. David H 10

    4 October 2012 at 2:14 pm

    I haven’t watched a P. Jackson movie since I tried to watch the absolutely way too long King Kong. And his other movies are even longer, so I have NO inclination to watch anything he does. Maybe if he does a good remake of The Dambusters but I hear the wowsers were up in arms at the dogs name FFS. Just wait for ASH or who ever to have a conniption fit about the pilots smoking and the anti drinking league about the parties All part of life in the 1940’s but i fear the wowsers will make him make changes, and ruin the movie. At least I have a copy of the original version.
    • karol 10.1

      4 October 2012 at 3:25 pm

      I’m not a great fan of PJ’s Hollywood movies, or his early schlock horror stuff.  Like Heavenly Creatures.

      LoTR and King Kong seem to me to be largely boys own, stuff, and more a mix of US and UK culture than anything specifically Kiwi.  This all suggests to me where PJ’s allegiance lies.  And his Hollywood blockbuster movies do tend to be a bit of an indulgence in VFX cleverness, and go on for too long, for my taste.
    • Reagan Cline 10.2

      4 October 2012 at 6:21 pm

      David H,

      Another “part of life in the 1940s”.

      Operation Chastise caused flooding that led to the death of 1,294 people, 749 of which were Ukrainian POWs and the rest innocent civilians.
      • McFlock 10.2.1

        4 October 2012 at 6:32 pm

        Part of the point of the whole operation, really.
             
         
        • Rich 10.2.1.1

          5 October 2012 at 3:49 pm

          I don’t think any of the Nazi generation of German’s could be considered “innocent”. They voted for and tolerated the Nazis and (some of them) got what they deserved.

          The deaths of the prisoners could be regarded as the fault of the Nazis for bringing them into a war zone.
        • Rich 10.2.1.2

          5 October 2012 at 3:49 pm

          I don’t think any of the Nazi generation of Germans could be considered “innocent”. They voted for and tolerated the Nazis and (some of them) got what they deserved.

          The deaths of the prisoners could be regarded as the fault of the Nazis for bringing them into a war zone.
11. Jokerman 11

    4 October 2012 at 2:23 pm

    “it’s my precious”-Gollum / Smeagle “it’s my precious” “I wants it, I needs it!”
12. mike 12

    4 October 2012 at 3:57 pm

    But Mr Key yesterday dismissed suggestions that his call on industry executives who may have made the original complaint about Dotcom was untimely.

    “I’d say it’s excellent timing insomuch that this is an industry that’s worth $3 billion to New Zealand … Yep, there will always be conspiracy theorists out there but I’m interested in jobs, not people who live in fantasy land and want to make things up.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10837799

    Oh look he’s doing it again – ‘my opponents are full of shit’. And the sheeple go – ‘Yep, makes sense to me…’
    • Clashman 12.1

      4 October 2012 at 4:21 pm

      $3 Billion? I read somewhere that the Hobbit was supposedly worth about $350 million to NZ. If true then there must be about 9 other big budget films being made here. What are they? Sounds like more bullshit from Key.
      • mike 12.1.1

        4 October 2012 at 5:09 pm

        http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/one-budget-to-ruin-them-the-hobbit-destined-to-become-most-expensive-film-of-all-time/story-e6frfmvr-1225936918719

        He said ‘the industry’ not The Hobbit.The entire cost of the two hobbit films is expected to be around $500m. I think he’s adding up all of the production industry, post-production industry, and TV industry figures. In which case his answer is just a meaningless, glib, rehearsed, question dodging response. Otherwise I’m also not sure where he’s getting $3b from. Maybe it’s from the same place as the 170,000 jobs.

        Wellington’s feature film industry generated $495 million in revenue in 2011…

        http://www.wellingtonnz.com/media/wellington%E2%80%99s_status_film_capital_reaffirmed

        The Rings trilogy added about NZ$350 million ($261 million) to New Zealand’s economy in the three years to March 2002

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/-hobbit-may-not-be-filmed-in-new-zealand-amid-actor-dispute-studio-says.html
    • karol 12.2

      4 October 2012 at 5:20 pm

      I think international/ Hollywood productions filmed in NZ, do provide an access route into the industry for some individuals, which didn’t exist very much before the 1990s.  It especially provides a career for some NZ techies and film crew.

      It also has given some Kiwis access to technologies, and knowledge of systems used on such productions.
      However, many of the most successful also then go overseas.  And there are questions about how it impacts on Kiwi filmmakers trying to produce local stories – i.e. not PJ Hollywood blockbusters.  They are competing with international productions that have better technologies and can pay better wages.

      And in the process of getting some access to work on Hollywood productions, it can draw many of us further into US culture, and capitalist values.
      John Key doesn’t really seem that interested in helping to stimulate a more NZ-focused movie industry, that would train new workers. 

      A big problem, though for making a successful industry in NZ, is the difficulty in a big enough audience to make it commercially viable.  That’s why some people favour international co-productions.  But it’s hard to find a successful overseas film company that wouldn’t be the dominant partner.
      • Draco T Bastard 12.2.1

        4 October 2012 at 5:59 pm

        I think international/ Hollywood productions filmed in NZ, do provide an access route into the industry for some individuals, which didn’t exist very much before the 1990s. It especially provides a career for some NZ techies and film crew.

        And we could do all that without Hollywood. Just need to have the government make funds available through, say, NZOnAir. Make the whole movie from beginning to end in NZ and then the profits also come back to NZ and the profits are far higher than the measly few hundred million we get from the Hollywood studios.

        It also has given some Kiwis access to technologies, and knowledge of systems used on such productions.

        All of which is commercially available. Here’s a free (limited) version of the software used to make Avatar. It’s part of the range of software I use to make my desktop wallpapers.

        A big problem, though for making a successful industry in NZ, is the difficulty in a big enough audience to make it commercially viable.

        Movies go international especially through the internet so I really don’t think that’s an excuse. We don’t need to use the old distribution channels which is really the only reason left for using Hollywood studios.
        • karol 12.2.1.1

          4 October 2012 at 6:38 pm

          Yes, the technologies have become increasingly accessible.  Jackson and Weta were able to get a start here when the first off the shelf CGI technologies became available.  Before that each US movie studio had developed their own.
           
          I guess it’s really a similar situation to the manufacturing sector – Hillside trains etc.  The government needs to put some effort into developing a more independent NZ industry. Instead of Key doing the LA photo ops schmoozing with the stars and other rich and famous (as seen on TV3 6pm news tonight.
           
          It’s the access to a potentially sizeable audience int the US that many NZ producers are interested in chasing.  But then they have to make film and TV programmes that US-ians can relate to.
          • Draco T Bastard 12.2.1.1.1

            4 October 2012 at 7:56 pm

            It’s the access to a potentially sizeable audience int the US that many NZ producers are interested in chasing.

            Which is really quite stupid considering the bigger market, and thus the possibility of finding an audience, is in Europe. And even then they’d still be able to find a market in the US as well as there will be some who will watch the films.

            What I’m getting at here is that movies don’t need to be made for a particular country but for the people who will watch the film and that comes down to genre – SciFi, Fantasy, Horror, thriller etc. Making them specifically for the US is actually limiting the market.
            • karol 12.2.1.1.1.1

              4 October 2012 at 8:36 pm

              What I’m getting at here is that movies don’t need to be made for a particular country but for the people who will watch the film and that comes down to genre – SciFi, Fantasy, Horror, thriller etc. Making them specifically for the US is actually limiting the market.
               
              That sounds like a sensible suggestion. I guess some of the problem with that is that all other countries’ movie industries kind of look to the US (at least in the “west” ). Countries like Japan, China, India and South Korea are another matter.  Though I thought NZ was looking to do some co-productions with South Korea a couple of years back?
               
              And the US (government and entertainment/screen industries) works hard to maintain their international dominance.  Of course the likes of Dotcom and the Internet threaten that.  I know a few US-ians, who, once they could access them online, started watching more movies and TV from other countries – stuff they wouldn’t usually see on their TVs, or movie screens.
              
      • Ad 12.2.2

        4 October 2012 at 6:21 pm

        From that description isn’t the film industry simply an instance of the new Zealand manufacturing sector? We will always rely on international markets, our products always have to reify the values of the markets they are exported into, we will only ever support a very few domiciled multinationals.

        Has ever been so.

        I don’t ever see this changing under any of our political parties. Do you?
13. captain hook 13

    4 October 2012 at 6:39 pm

    Jeebus, I hope that I can get the peanuts, popcorn and candyfloss concession to the upcoming Warner Brothers feature, “The Country That Went Crazy”.
    • BloodyOrphan 13.1

      4 October 2012 at 6:44 pm

      It’ll be epic M8!, 2 1/2 hours of sedation.
      Stumblin out afterwards, Good Film M8!
      I might watch that again!.
14. John Gilbert 14

    4 October 2012 at 6:44 pm

    I actually work in the film industry, and think the changes made in response to the Hobbit dispute were good for the industry. For many years I was subject to various audits by the IRD to determine whether I was an employee or a contractor. I worked for various film companies for periods from a day to many months,.The uncertainty as to my tax status was problematic for me in determining how I would organise my business.

    I prefer to be a contractor as I like being a free agent. I can choose what work I want to do, rather than have it thrust upon me by an employer. I can negotiate a fee for each job based on how much I want to be involved with that particular film, and how much they want me. The uncertainty is balanced by the rewards.

    The issue of Peter Jackson’s kiwiness is irrelevant. Whether he makes ‘kiwi’ films, or films for an international marketplace doesn’t matter, nor does it matter if the commenters here like his films. What matters is that worldwide he has a large number of fans that do want to see them, and therefore he is a powerful player in the international film business. That he has chosen to stay in Wellington is remarkable, and he has built world class film infrastructure here, employing thousands directly, and many more indirectly. I thought Labour was for job creation in ‘smart’ industries here in NZ…Why would you not want to support Peter Jackson’s efforts?
    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 14.1

      4 October 2012 at 6:59 pm

      That all sounds very reasonable, but for one thing: The Standard does not represent the Labour Party.

      I note that the dispute was between actors and the industry, not editors. Are you claiming to speak for the actors?

      What with the Actors Equity Association having such power it’s little wonder no movies ever get made in the USA. No, wait…
    • Colonial Viper 14.2

      4 October 2012 at 7:25 pm

      John Gilbert: do you think NZ actors in the industry should have standard minimum breaks, travel allowances etc, just like foreign actors get?

      Or are you just thinking of yourself and not the difficult situation many other industry workers find themselves in?

      BTW your tax status with the IRD would have been clear if you weren’t sailing so close to the wind with how you organised your affairs.
      • John Gilbert 14.2.1

        4 October 2012 at 9:39 pm

        Ill informed Mr Viper. Actors here get minimum breaks, travel allowances etc. And carrying out a business where my status as a contractor or employee was unclear does not mean I was ‘sailing close to the wind’. You are one eyed. Without Peter Jackson those workers would not have the opportunities they currently have.
        • Draco T Bastard 14.2.1.1

          4 October 2012 at 11:19 pm

          Without Peter Jackson those workers would not have the opportunities they currently have.

          BS. If not him then someone else would have and if we actually had a rational economy it would’ve been those people getting together to do it without the need for the capitalist.
        • Colonial Viper 14.2.1.2

          5 October 2012 at 12:04 am

          Actors here get minimum breaks, travel allowances etc.

          Wrong. That’s a completely voluntary and unenforceable standard you are referring to, one which was set by the likes of Peter Jackson with no input from workers. Please don’t try and mislead.

          Peter Jackson stopped NZ workers from having the same protections that his overseas workers get, and that he gets as a union member himself.

          The guy is slime.
15. John Gilbert 15

    4 October 2012 at 7:19 pm

    I am speaking for myself of course. The dispute ended the uncertainty of employee vs contractor, which affected everyone in the industry. I was also reacting to some of the the negativity directed at Peter Jackson, which I think is unwarranted.
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      4 October 2012 at 7:30 pm

      Peter Jackson sold out Kiwi workers.

      Here was a half billionaire who resisted giving Kiwi workers the same protections and organisation that he has as a member of at least 3 different unions.

      For that he deserves to be lambasted.
      • karol 15.1.1

        4 October 2012 at 7:56 pm

        John, I’ve never been a great fan of Jackson’s Hollywood movies, even before the Hobbit dispute.  And I do like action/adventure/fantasy movies.  I’ve always been unhappy with the spinning of Jackson and Middle Earth as somehow being a Kiwi cultural thing. It’s pure Hollywood branding.
    • karol 15.2

      4 October 2012 at 7:52 pm

      John, I have said above that there are pluses for some NZ workers in the industry being able to stay in NZ and work on international productions.
       
      You have actually pretty much repeated something that I said in the post, albeit with a bit of a different slant – that Jackson is primarily working in an international industry.  I see that as meaning his primary allegiance is to the big multinational movie studios, and distributors, and not to NZ.
       
      At the time of the dispute, workers in many industry were under attack (still are) from changes to the laws.  Jackson, Boyens and Walsh played to the governments attacks on unions generally, mainly to gain more taxpayer funds to support his productions.  The NZ actors union also had a legitimate case that was smeared and undermined by the government, Jackson and the media.
       
      There are big issues about the Americanistion of NZ’s economy, values and culture, that don’t seem to be of interest to you.
       
      I can see pluses and minuses for smaller NZ filmmakers in being in an environment where there are international productions.  I am interested in exploring that a bit more.  But Key doesn’t seem to be interested in that, only in the glamorous and lucrative side of the Hollywood industry.  I would like to see the government put more focus on the NZ industry generally, rather than the high end of the international industry.

      PS: I’ve never been a member of a political party, and haven’t given my party vote to Labour for a few elections now.
    • CarolJ 15.3

      4 October 2012 at 11:06 pm

      John

      There *was* no uncertainty.

      The fact is that the IRD may continue to audit you as their rules and regulations are completely separate from the question of whether you are, in employment regulation matters, an employee or sub-contractor and so entitled or not to the protections of employment regulation – such as (in the Bryson case which was constantly paraded in defence of the ‘clarification” Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] 1 ERNZ 372 (SC) ) the right to notice and redundancy on dismissal.

      This is settled law in every other common law jurisdiction – including the UK and USA – , and still for everyone in NZ outwith the film industry the only “uncertainty” is when there is no actual agreement between the parties as to the nature of he contract – “of services” or “for services”.

      The test then applied to determine employee/contractor is pretty clear for those who wish to take the time to read it, and I would have thought that someone such as Jackson (or rather his HR managers) would have had plenty of opportunity to find that out.

      When, and only when, there is a disagreement between the parties as to the nature of the contract the main, and easily discoverable, points are that:

      • The Court must determine the real nature of the relationship;
      • The real nature of the relationship can be ascertained by analysing the tests that have been historically applied, such as control, integration and the “fundamental” test;
      • The fundamental test examines whether a person performing the service is doing so on his or her own account;

      There are decades of case law, and none of it particularly controversial, to give examples of all of the above.

      This was nothing more than the continuation of a neo-liberal agenda to totally gut the rights of workers (including you btw) in NZ, to drive down wages and working conditions generally ensuring that the capital holders retain an ever greater proportion of the wealth created on the backs of others.

      Now you speak of your choice to work as a sub-contractor – good for you – but now *no-one* else in your industry has the choice to do otherwise because you can be sure the “employers” (because in reality for most people that’s what they are) won’t employ anyone when they don’t have to, and won’t maintain minimum standards of employment if they don’t have to.

      As for Jackson – he lied to the public and the workers about whether the dispute was over, he lied about (or totally misunderstood) employment law, and given some of information that’s come out through OIA requests used his position as a “Kiwi icon” (whatever that is) to have a temper tantrum over losing the Bryson case. Like a small minded, petty adolescent is how came across to me throughout September and October 2010.
      • karol 15.3.1

        5 October 2012 at 8:11 am

        CarolJ, I deleted your duplicate post.  
         
        Thanks, very much for explaining clearly just what happened with respect to Jackson et al’s role in the employment contracts dispute.
         
        And this:

        This was nothing more than the continuation of a neo-liberal agenda to totally gut the rights of workers (including you btw) in NZ, to drive down wages and working conditions generally ensuring that the capital holders retain an ever greater proportion of the wealth created on the backs of others.

        and this:

        As for Jackson – he lied to the public and the workers about whether the dispute was over, he lied about (or totally misunderstood) employment law, and given some of information that’s come out through OIA requests used his position as a “Kiwi icon” (whatever that is) to have a temper tantrum over losing the Bryson case. Like a small minded, petty adolescent is how came across to me throughout September and October 2010.
         

        Sum it up very well.  Well said.
         
        • LynW 15.3.1.1

          5 October 2012 at 8:24 am

          +100 Excellent summary of events CarolJ and great debate above!
16. Anne 16

    4 October 2012 at 8:21 pm

    Ouch! I love this.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/key-denies-trip-overshadowed-dotcom-saga-5116083/video
    • karol 16.1

      4 October 2012 at 8:43 pm

      Thanks, Anne. Oooo.  There’s a word for that.
17. Brett Dale 17

    6 October 2012 at 2:15 pm

    This will create more jobs and help the economy.

    If people here are so against it, then i guess you wont be going to see any movie here
    filmed in New Zealand by an overseas company??

    Oh of course you wont be doing that.
    • CJ 17.1

      7 October 2012 at 9:23 am

      Brett

      Maybe we will, maybe we won’t – it depends on your taste for moves I guess.

      But what I will be doing is continuing to try and debunk the lies that those in power and those with capital continue to tell in order to take away more rights and pay from the workers in order to line their own pockets.

Links to post

1. » Of Hollywood, Hobbits & NZ-US politics: Episode II « The Standard: posted on 4 October 2012 at 2:28 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS