Q&A on The Hobbit

Written By: - Date published: 11:30 am, October 28th, 2010 - 84 comments
Categories: business, tax, Unions, workers' rights - Tags: , , ,

Q. What were the actors asking for?

A. Actors in NZ are usually employed as independent contractors. They have a set of guidelines (The Pink Book) which set out the standard conditions for the employment of actors, but this is a guideline only and not enforceable.

Actor’s Equity have outlined the following areas as causes of concern: minimum fees, conditions of engagement, professional protections and residuals.

In lay terms, there is no minimum that you can pay a NZ actor and no minimum working conditions. A contract can be terminated at any time with no obligation to pay out the contract. ‘Residuals’ are a bit like royalties – they are payments to someone for their work when it is used again after the original showing (such as releasing a movie on DVD).

For the most part, the Kiwi industry is made up of low-budget, no-budget and modest-budget productions, so these conventions have worked for actors for some time. But things are changing. Big budget international productions have been filming more and more in NZ – examples being LOTR, The Last Samurai, Spartacus and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

It’s not so acceptable for these large budget productions to play by the same rules as a modest-budget Kiwi production. Especially when they employ international actors on much better conditions to do similar work on the same production.

Actor’s Equity wanted to address these issues with the makers of The Hobbit. The producers came out saying that the union was not registered in NZ and that contractors can’t bargain collectively. That didn’t need to be an obstacle however.

From Actor’s Equity on 1 October 2010 below:

“Advice we have received today from Miriam Dean QC, a senior barrister specialising in competition law, confirms our views that:
•       “There’s no legal impediment to negotiating fair wages and terms for actors taken on as employees.
•       “Nothing in the Act prohibits us from having some meaningful engagement with the producers on non-price terms for actors taken on as independent contractors, such as rolling credits to acknowledge New Zealand actors’ input into the movie.
•       “Nor does the Act prohibit us from discussing pricing in general terms with the producers to enable us to help our independent contractor members in their individual negotiations with producers.  The Union accepts that these could only be recommended prices – nothing more.”

The union accepted that there would be no formal collective agreement bargained by the union. As they point out, there is nothing in the law to stop the union having a meeting with the producers to argue their piece and have the producers voluntarily offer improved conditions to the actors.

Q. How did it all go so wrong?

A. The first approaches to the producers appear to have been through FIA (The International Federation of Actors) an international collective of actor’s collectives from around the world. The letters they sent to the production company do demand a union-negotiated collective agreement or a blacklist will apply. These demands don’t sit easily with NZ’s situation, where most actors are contractors and are not allowed to bargain collectively. What FIA was asking for seems to have been nothing short of bringing NZ fully into line with the situation in other countries, where film industry work is highly unionized.

However, if the producers had discussed the situation with the union, then the issues could have been clarified and worked through a lot earlier.

Q. Was the dispute ever a credible threat to the production going ahead?

A. In the early stages, yes. The support of international unions including the US Screen Actors Guild for the blacklisting meant that the dispute could have halted the production of The Hobbit.

However, the international blacklist has been lifted. Actor’s Equity have resolved their dispute and have guaranteed that no further industrial action will disrupt The Hobbit.

There seemed to be an agreement between Warner Bros and Actor’s Equity that it was all settled, until Peter Jackson announced that the studio was thinking of moving the production overseas due to the now-settled dispute.

Q. How scared could Warner Bros really be of a small Kiwi union?

A. Warner Bros has been engaged in industrial action with much bigger, scarier unions than NZ. The most recent major action being the Writer’s Guild strike in America in 2008, which was also about residuals.

These are some of the other major strikes engaged in by the US film industry:
•  2000 Commercial actors strike, almost six months.
•  1988 Writers Guild of America strike, 22 weeks.
•  1987 Directors strike, 3 hours and 5 minutes.
•  1985 Writers strike, two weeks.
•  1981 Writers Guild of America strike, three months.
•  1980 Actors strike, three months.
•  1960 Actors strike, led by SAG President Ronald Reagan, six weeks.
•  1952 Actors strike, two and a half months.
•  1945 Set decorators Hollywood Black Friday strike, six months.
•  1942–44 Musicians’ strike, thirteen months plus.
•  1941 Disney animators’ strike, five weeks.

During the Writer’s Guild strike, the financial impact on the studios of accepting the writer’s demands was assessed as ‘negligible’ and that the studios were afraid that a settlement would ’embolden directors and actors in their coming renegotiations’.

The American alliance of producers, AMPTP used the following strategy:

“Fabiani & Lehane’s strategy appeared to be to try to weaken the WGA membership’s resolve and foment resentment and doubt regarding WGA leadership within its ranks and in the film industry at large, especially with below-the-line workers [technical crew], by framing the strike as “havoc… wreaked… by the WGA’s actions” (paraphrased) and by blaming the WGA for “start[ing] this strike”.”

A major difference in the WGA strike appears to be that the public actually supported the writers, rather than the studios:

“One national survey conducted by Pepperdine University from November 7 to November 9 found that…nearly two-thirds of the sample sided with the writers, one third was unsure, and only four percent sympathized with the AMPTP (1,000 American adults participated). A second regional poll conducted by SurveyUSA on November 11 of Los Angeles residents indicated that eight percent supported the studios with sixty-nine percent supporting the writers (550 American adults participated, with 482 identifying themselves as being familiar with the strike).”

Q. Was the Warner Bros decision to consider other locations the result of the NZ actor’s industrial action?

A. The issues that Warner Bros took to the NZ Govt appear to have been the following:

* Clarification over the Bryson case – where a contractor successfully claimed to have actually been an employee and entitled to the protections given to employees.
* The appreciation of the NZ dollar against the US dollar, which makes it more expensive to film in NZ
* The size of the tax breaks given by the Government to big budget film productions.

The first point is only tangentially relevant to the Actor’s Equity dispute, and the other two points are completely unrelated.

Q. Did the actor’s industrial dispute give Warner Bros an opportunity they wouldn’t otherwise have had to renegotiate tax breaks?

A. Warner Bros could already have been agitating behind the scenes for increased tax breaks, but the actor’s industrial dispute unquestionably gave them the opportunity to increase their leverage by threatening to leave NZ if they didn’t get what they wanted.

However, the actors cannot be blamed for this. Warner Bros exploiting them to gain an advantage is not their fault.

– Blue

84 comments on “Q&A on The Hobbit ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sufi Safari 1
    28 October 2010 at 11:59 am

    I disagree with you on the final point. Perhaps not the actors, but NZAE and MEAA should absolutely be blamed for giving Warner Bros an opportunity to improve their position. It was clear from day one of the boycott hitting the front pages that it was a bad option, and if NZAE and MEAA had been at all competent it should have been pretty clear to them that it was a bad option before they took it.

    I have no love for exploitative industry, but at the same time as decrying Warner Bros we should be holding NZAE and MEAA to account for their amateur hour approach to playing hard ball with a major studio. With any luck they’ll learn their lesson from the debacle and will end up better equipped to negotiate with SPADA, lobby the Government and Opposition and be an effective voice for their members.

  2. smhead 2
    28 October 2010 at 12:07 pm

    New game for today: Let’s count how many times a leftie calls it an “already settled labour dispute”.

    You guys need to hire Crosby Textor. If you are going to use blatant propaganda like that at least get the experts in to finesse it a little.

    • mickysavage 2.1
      28 October 2010 at 12:19 pm

      SMhead.

      Guest post presents a reasoned analysis backed by considerable factual information and you brand it as “blatant propaganda”.

      Is there a chance that you could indicate which facts are not admitted and why an alternative analysis is appropriate?

      Or are you just trolling?

    • Colonial Viper 2.2
      28 October 2010 at 12:20 pm

      It was all about tax breaks and breaking the union. Nothing more, nothing less.

      NZ workers deserve the same rights to negotiate as workers in successful, established film making countries like Australia, US, Canada, UK and Ireland.

      Instead we got ourselves a sell out corporately complicit Government.

      • Joe Bloggs 2.2.1
        28 October 2010 at 12:25 pm

        what a complete misrepresentation Wormtongue – disingenuous mischievous nonsense – and typical of a species that spends its whole life crawling on its belly.

        • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1
          28 October 2010 at 12:30 pm

          Australia, US, Canada, UK and Ireland have successful longstanding film industries.

          Our workers deserve the same rights to negotiate as workers in those countries, if not more.

          Perhaps you should back your fellow NZ workers for a change instead of backing the foreign money.

          • Joe Bloggs 2.2.1.1.1
            28 October 2010 at 2:02 pm

            Australia, US, Canada, UK and Ireland have successful longstanding film industries.

            Colonial Viper’s raised this smokescreen a few times now – successful, longstanding film industries.

            Take a moment to look at each in turn:

            Canada, a country of 33.3m people produces around C$3.3bn in film and television programmes. That’s around NZ$130 a year for every man, woman and child. The Canadian industry faces huge financing problems and the output of productions has dropped by nearly 50% in the past 50 years. The CEO of the Toronto International Film Festival believes the industry is financially unviable

            UK value their industry at 4.3bn stg – including revenues, merchandising and tourism. That’s NZ$149 per man, woman and child – but includes the value of merchandising and tourism on top of production revenues. According to the UK Film Council the industry is underfinanced, under-resourced, suffers from poor quality outputs and doesn’t investment in new talent.

            The Irish industry is worth 550m euros and is the only country from CV’s list that remotely approaches NZ’s industry. The Irish industry generates NZ$230 a year per capita. This is the only significant success story of the Western European film industries.

            The much-vaunted Australian industry is in a crisis. It generates A$2bn a year in revenues, less than NZ$125 a year per capita. SPAA notes that the industry is devoid of artistic merit in its productions, significantly underfinanced, and suffers from a destabilised workforce.

            At $2.9bn in 2009, the NZ industry generates $675 per man, woman and child in NZ. In the group singled out by CV NZ stands, head, shoulders, and chest above the rest.

            That’s why I back the foreign money – because it brings a shitload more to NZ than to other countries – and that’s why I support the workers who benefit from filming continuing to be based in NZ – because the workers benefit.

            And that’s why I think the unions have behaved like a large bunch of burst arseholes throughout this fiasco – because they seriously jeopardised the successful, longstanding local industry with their ideological brain-fart of a boycott.

            captcha: owed – an apology from Simon “Washed my hands of the whole sordid affair and scuttled back to Australia” Whipp

            • The Baron 2.2.1.1.1.1
              28 October 2010 at 2:09 pm

              Thanks Joe for adding to the relatively impartial analysis above with some real hard facts, instead of the vacant fanboyism of Gleg and CV.

              Really guys, just cos a Union said it, doesn’t meant its true.

              And as for this “supporting NZ workers” meme of yours, CV – I’m supporting the 1,500 non union members that the 80 member Actors Equity wouldn’t side with. Looks like you support the team more than the players – bit of a shame your such a hypocrite really.

        • Jim Nald 2.2.1.2
          28 October 2010 at 12:32 pm

          Yup, agree that Wormtongue reference sums up the current prime ministership.

    • The Voice of Reason 2.3
      28 October 2010 at 12:24 pm

      Yeah, CT are the experts all right, Smeggy. They’re that good they managed to lose John Howard not only an election, but his own blue ribbon seat. Blue has done a great summary of the situation, have you got anything intelligent to say about the post or are just into public self abuse?

  3. tsmithfield 3
    28 October 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Only two words for the unions on this one.

    Own Goal.

    • Joe Bloggs 3.1
      28 October 2010 at 12:16 pm

      and three words for the next elections:

      Remember The Hobbit

    • mickysavage 3.2
      28 October 2010 at 12:23 pm

      And one word for Warners/Jackson

      Caching

    • Colonial Viper 3.3
      28 October 2010 at 12:24 pm

      I guess thats what you get when Jackson blackmails his own country for more taxpayers money, and Key sees an opportunity to break down our employment law for foreign interests. The meeting of like minds.

      As if Warners was ever going to film the Hobbit in the middle of a frigid Irish winter, instead of in in NZ brilliant summer light. We got sold down the river.

  4. Joe Bloggs 4
    28 October 2010 at 12:30 pm

    SPADA’s illuminating email on MEAA – Liars, damned liars and Simon Whipp:

    http://thestandard.org.nz/the-price-of-our-hysteria/#comment-264668

    now this makes for illuminating reading – a comprehensive 11 point arsehole ripping of the MEAA’s inflamatory actions and barefaced lies. Should be obligatory reading for those who seek to defend the MEAA.

    Hattip to Infused

  5. Speaking Sense to Unions 5
    28 October 2010 at 12:36 pm

    “As if Warners was ever going to film the Hobbit in the middle of a frigid Irish winter, instead of in in NZ brilliant summer light.”

    I think even in the Northern Hemisphere summer follows winter and if you knew anything about film making you might know that NZ’s ever-changing light makes shooting here quite challenging.

    There’s also things called “studios” and “green screens”, they probably have them in Ireland.

  6. tsmithfield 6
    28 October 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Great link Joe. Just shows exactly why Warners had justifiable reasons not to want to deal with these people.

  7. The Voice of Reason 7
    28 October 2010 at 12:39 pm

    Thanks for the summary, Blue, it’s a good read. I was struck by the similarity of the bosses response to the ’88 writers strike to the response here. Undermine the union, lie about the facts. Add to that breaching good faith agreements, publicly dissing your bargaining partners, and, particularly, exaggerate the threat to the economy from the workers actions, even though you are the group making the threat. Add in a compliant Government and it’s an effective industrial coup. It’s classic stuff really.

    Out of all of this, I can’t help thinking that if the Actors had gone to a more mature and thinking union for advice and support, they would not have been done over like this. At the very least, a union like the EPMU would have had a bailout strategy for the possibility of the dispute going off the rails. And I don’t think they would have straight to the strike option without mounting a more engaging campaign first, both within the industry and with the wider public..

    • Anne 7.1
      28 October 2010 at 2:48 pm

      @TvoR
      “… I can’t help thinking that if the Actors had gone to a more mature and thinking union for advice and support, they would not have been done over like this.”

      Andrew Little and Co. from the EPMU would never have fallen into the same trap. I hope it’s a big lesson for the Actors – and other related groups.

      It’s time another of the current establishment players was ‘done over’. I refer to John Barnett. Heard him on Nat Radio this morning describing AE as “those bloody actors who caused the whole thing”. What an arrogant bastard. They’re all coming out of the woodwork under NAct!

      • SHG 7.1.1
        28 October 2010 at 3:05 pm

        AE did cause the whole thing. AE, through its representative Simon Whipp, called an international boycott on the Hobbit before requesting an illegal meeting.

  8. TightyRighty 8
    28 October 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Sorry blue, who are you? and what the hell do you know? this isn’t a reputable post, this is just pro-union anti-employer spin. Why won’t you just accept the fact the unions and their puppets got smashed in the face with the big stick the unions usually like to wield? no one sees the unions or the actors represnting them as the victims in this, except of course the actors and unions the unions they represent.

  9. mickysavage 9
    28 October 2010 at 1:34 pm

    I see are studiously avoiding commenting on the contents of Blue’s post.

    Much easier to have a stab at ill informed and unmeasured “public perception” and rely on that.

  10. SHG 10
    28 October 2010 at 1:54 pm

    The letters they sent to the production company do demand a union-negotiated collective agreement or a blacklist will apply

    Incorrect. The letters stated that A BLACKLIST WAS ALREADY IN EFFECT.

    Resolved, that the International Federation of Actors urges each of its affiliates to adopt instructions to their members that no member of any FIA affiliate will agree to act in the theatrical film The Hobbit until such time as the producer has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance

    Resolution to impose boycott: fail

    Requirement for illegal collective bargaining: fail

    Requirement to deal with an unregistered union (MEAA) with no legal right to negotiate: fail

    • The Baron 10.1
      28 October 2010 at 2:15 pm

      Yup, why keep going when there’s a lie right up front. is that enough analysis for you Greg?

      • Richard 10.1.1
        28 October 2010 at 2:20 pm

        If the unions were relevant to the negotiation they would have been at the negotiation table.

        The important negotiation was that between Warners and the government. The fact that the unions were not invited goes to show that they had sod all to do with it. The union was just a pretext.

  11. Bart 11
    28 October 2010 at 2:16 pm

    Colonial viper, you idiot, do you really think natural light is what a movie\’s location is based on, or are all those lighting credits at the end of a movie just made up, like the unions arguements about this whole sorry saga!

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      28 October 2010 at 3:07 pm

      Bart, you work in a cartoon, and as such I don’t expect you to know anything about natural light, or filming in fog/snow/winter storms in Ireland/UK as compared to the brilliant long summer hours of NZ daylight.

      • Speaking Sense to Unions 11.1.1
        28 October 2010 at 3:27 pm

        CV, which movies have you done lighting on?

        You might be surprised to find they do actually make films in Ireland. A lot of the exterior material for Saving Private Ryan was shot there. I suppose Speilberg did make a huge mistake.

        Dealing with weather is not a new problem for the film industry and you might find that after winter comes summer plus on rain days they have back-up studio shoots.

        • lprent 11.1.1.1
          28 October 2010 at 3:39 pm

          That was because a large portion of the scenes required dull and overcast weather. After all that is what most of the weather was like just after d-day.

          Why bother making such an silly statement? It is pretty nonsensical.

          • Speaking Sense to Unions 11.1.1.1.1
            28 October 2010 at 3:49 pm

            you might find that they can shoot films in Ireland with sunshine as well. The sun does shine there. But how many films have you and CV done lighting on?

            Quick question – what sort of day is easier to shoot on, overcast or bright sunlight?

            • Roflcopter 11.1.1.1.1.1
              28 October 2010 at 10:21 pm

              Much easier to shoot on an overcast day. It’s easier to add light than remove it.

              And Ireland/UK have some of the biggest and best sound stages available.

          • luva 11.1.1.1.2
            28 October 2010 at 10:01 pm

            lprent…what makes you think The Hobbit will need bright sunshine as opposed to D-day type conditions

            • lprent 11.1.1.1.2.1
              28 October 2010 at 10:34 pm

              Because it is easier to put filters on than it is to setup lights. That leaves more shooting time. The cameras themselves tend to capture less light than is available (pretty obvious if you think of the mechanics). When you get to post you can only fiddle with the recorded detail on the images. The more detail on the images you have, the easier it is to manipulate to what is required.

              Especially when you are going through those tedious transcriptions to all of the various formats with all of the various frame rates and colour transforms. Lyn has (from memory) about 8 different formats flying around the world to festivals based on what they can display. Each is a nightmare in it’s own right..

              Basically no one who has been near a edit suite or transcribing from masters wants anything less than the best light available. Articifical light is good, and really good at highlighting shadow features. But full on natural sunlight is cheap and usually more powerful here for overall lighting.

              Incidentially, in my personal view, directors are obsessional and producers are almost as bad (usually about the director)

              Besides, have you read the hobbit? There are some dark sections, but a lot is in sunlight.

  12. James 12
    28 October 2010 at 3:03 pm

    “However, if the producers had discussed the situation with the union, then the issues could have been clarified and worked through a lot earlier.”

    This is incorrect. The VERY FIRST request for a meeting with Peter Jackson was made on the 17th August AFTER the boycott had already been enacted.

    This has been confirmed, in writing on the MEAA’s own ‘hobbit factsheet’ which is on their website.

    How could they work through the situation before that when no one had EVER actually asked for a meeting first?

    The Union never bothered working through the legal issues, they just charged right out and did it.

    It’s crazy. And that’s why this whole horrible mess happened.

    If you want to blame anyone, the Actor’s Union deserves a VERY large portion of it.

    Oh, and from the MEAA’s latest email to their members, they seem to be lying to their members about it as well.

    Nice.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      28 October 2010 at 3:09 pm

      This has been confirmed, in writing on the MEAA’s own ‘hobbit factsheet’ which is on their website.

      No link, no truth. Please point us the way good James.

      • James 12.1.1
        28 October 2010 at 3:22 pm

        http://www.alliance.org.au/documents/100922_hobbit_factsheet.pdf

        Read the August 17 letter VERY CAREFULLY. The boycott was in effect, before the first letter on August 17th.

        There are emails out in the public between Frances Walsh of AE and Peter Jackson confirming that the August 17th letter was their first communication with Peter Jackson or his company. It is also confirmed in a letter from the MEAA/AE to its members that was leaked 2 days ago:

        http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,2769,hard-news-anatomy-of-a-shambles.sm?p=187587#post187587

        This email has been confirmed to be legitimate. You can probably request a copy if you want to try. I know SPADA have one, but you might be able to get it direct from Actor’s Equity.

        The emails between Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh of Actor’s Equity were first leaked here:

        http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,2769,hard-news-anatomy-of-a-shambles.sm?p=187715#post187715

        FW is indicating in the ‘over a month ago’ line confirms the first letter was 17th August.

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1
          28 October 2010 at 4:56 pm

          I don’t quite get your time line here. It clashes with many reports which say the boycott was activated by the SAG and other unions on Sept 24, essentially 5 weeks *after* your claim of a pre Aug 17 activation e.g.:

          Variety magazine says the boycott was initiated Sept 24.
          http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118026048.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&nid=2562

          This Sept 26 Reuters article announces the boycott as new news.
          http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68Q03820100927

          The LA Times writes on Sept 27 that an industrial dispute has ‘erupted’
          http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/09/labor-dispute-erupts-over-the-hobbit.html

          Basically the union was stonewalled for at least 5 weeks by the studios and/or Jackson before the global boycott actually came into effect.

          Read the August 17 letter VERY CAREFULLY. The boycott was in effect, before the first letter on August 17th.

          In conclusion, no it wasn’t, you are wrong.

          • SHG 12.1.1.1.1
            28 October 2010 at 5:11 pm

            DATE: 17 August 2010
            TO: Directors, 3 Foot 7 Limited
            FROM: International Federation of Actors
            (…)
            Recently, The International Federation of Actors (FIA) became aware that the production of “The Hobbit” intends to hire performers under non-union contracts.

            For this reason FIA, at its most recent meeting, unanimously passed the following motion: “Resolved, that the International Federation of Actors urges each of its affiliates to adopt instructions to their members that no member of any FIA affiliate will agree to act in the theatrical feature film “The Hobbit” until such time as the producer has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance for production in New Zealand providing for satisfactory terms and conditions for all performers employed on the production”.

            FIA therefore encourages you to meet immediately with representatives of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance in order to reach an agreement covering all performers engaged on this production.

            In the first instance could you please make contact with Simon Whipp of the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance on 612 9333 0999 or via email: simon.whipp@alliance.org.au
            (…)

            Full text: http://www.scribd.com/doc/40284396/FIA-17-VIII-10-en

            That’s the union saying on August 17 that at its previous meeting it passed a boycott resolution. A meeting some time before August 17.

            • Speaking Sense to Unions 12.1.1.1.1.1
              28 October 2010 at 5:32 pm

              don’t distract them with more facts, they’re still pondering whether or not the northern hemisphere has a summer.

              • lprent …
                28 October 2010 at 5:48 pm

                The northern hemisphere does have a summer.

                But the quality of light here is far more intense than it is in any continental or near continental climate. There is less airborne dust. It is the same reason why the sunburn times here are a *lot* shorter than anywhere near a continental area.

                Before you start being stupid and going off into the usual irrelevant fallacies. The ozone hole has no appreciable effect anywhere above the lower south island and lets through more UV with little difference to visible light. Tropical areas have a lot of moisture in the air which adsorbs a lot of UV and some visible light.

                The vast ocean around NZ makes the light here a lot sharper and clearer on film. It means quite a lot of difference when you’re shooting.

                Perhaps you should actually understand what you’re talking about before sprouting your nonsense.

                • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                  28 October 2010 at 5:57 pm

                  how many films have you done lighting on?

                  you’re arguing that Warners would never shift the film to Ireland because of the weather, I’m curious about what you base that on.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    28 October 2010 at 6:18 pm

                    Being intelligent? Not just having a brain but using it too?

                    you’re arguing that Warners would never shift the film to Ireland

                    Not never, just not in the next 6-8 months during the Irish winter, sleet, snow, storms, short murky daylight,…

                    • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                      28 October 2010 at 6:31 pm

                      you know that a studio often has a roof?

                    • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                      28 October 2010 at 6:54 pm

                      ok, you’ve got a brain

                      you’re on set and you’ve got 60 sec to make this decision:

                      it’s an interior day location shoot. Overcast skies and about to roll but the director now wants a shaft of sunlight.

                      The genny’s down, do you call for a diva, a source 4 or a 10k. The director also wants even exposure over a large room. How do you respond?

                  • lprent …
                    28 October 2010 at 9:13 pm

                    None. But I have a degree in earth sciences so I understand climate factors. Of course my partner is a filmmaker who spends a large chunk of her time behind a camera.

                    • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                      28 October 2010 at 9:19 pm

                      so your argument that Warner’s couldn’t relocate in time is based on knowldge of the film indusrty and that is what exactly? You haven’t said.

                • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                  28 October 2010 at 7:22 pm

                  “…and lets through more UV with little difference to visible light.”

                  so you wouldn’t factor in UV light for a scenic long shot?

                  • lprent …
                    28 October 2010 at 9:09 pm

                    The equipment doesn’t have UV capabilities. For some reason if we can’t see it then the film makers don’t think it is worth recording.

                    • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                      28 October 2010 at 9:21 pm

                      film is actually sensitve to UV. If you want less haze you use a UV filter. If you want more you don’t.

                      we can’t see IR either but it is something film makers have to consider, hence hot mirrors.

                      So your argument is…?

                    • lprent []
                      28 October 2010 at 11:00 pm

                      As I said, filmmakers aren’t interested in shooting uv. Their equipment is designed to exclude it. Especially from film

                      So your point is? More nonsense from an fool trying sidetrack using antiqitated troll techniques from ACToid central as far as I can see…do you actually have anything substantive to say, or should I just ignore you as being too stupid to debate with?

                    • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                      28 October 2010 at 11:24 pm

                      “As I said, filmmakers aren’t interested in shooting uv. Their equipment is designed to exclude it.’

                      well you actually said –

                      “The equipment doesn’t have UV capabilities.”

                      which is quite different.

                      The “equipment” does have UV “capabilities” because film is sensitive to UV. A film maker can decide to make an aesthetic choice of using the UV or not using it. It makes a significant differnce on how some scenic wide and long shots look.

                      some filters are designed exclude UV, cameras and lens are not and some film makers will use UV to give a certain quality to some shots.

                      If you have some argument that for logistical and/or aesthtic lighting reasons Warners could not reloacte in time then put it forward. So far you have shown no understanding of any of this.

                    • lprent []
                      28 October 2010 at 11:38 pm

                      I was referring to digital camera equipment. I haven’t seen anyone shoot on film for a quite a while. I notice you ignored my rather pointed reference to that and didn’t quote it? Why was that?

                      You haven’t shown yourself to be a person worth debating at this point. But consider this. One of the crucial features to getting a workable shooting schedule is to know before the start of the project where and when you are likely to be shooting. That takes time, and the pre has probably been going on here for quite some time. Quite a lot of it is required from what i understand for a feature film. As I understand it they haven’t started doing more than starting to look outside nz, and shooting is meant to be starting mere months away.

                    • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                      28 October 2010 at 11:43 pm

                      digital equipment is also sensituve to UV, they have to have UV filters if you don’t want it.

                      Film making – “film”. Yes more is done on digital but still a lot is done on film and in both cases film makers have to make allowances for UV. In the case of digital they also have to make allowances for IR.

                      your quote –

                      “For some reason if we can’t see it then the film makers don’t think it is worth recording.”

                      completely wrong. Not just landscapes but flowers and clothing – with both film and digital equipment.

                    • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                      29 October 2010 at 7:53 am

                      Ok, so you don’t know very much about film lighting, camera equipment etc so now your agument is not about light but about organisational logistics and all it amounts to is your assertion that it couldn’t possibly be done.

                      Film is all about planning. Planning for the unexpected, weather, location changes. It’s all part of what film people do everyday. Large numbers of people are paid very well to make sure things happen on time. However you think you can make a judgement call on the basis of wild speculation.

                      Much like Helen Kelly you don’t know much about the film industry and that lack of knowledge had contributed to this disaster for the unions.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    29 October 2010 at 9:02 am

                    Film is all about planning. Planning for the unexpected, weather, location changes.

                    Jackson was never going to film The Hobbit in wintery, freezing Europe. Neither was Warner going to agree to a 6-8 month delay in shooting. As a country we were had, even if you argue that Jackson would have happily planned to film in Irish sleet as opposed to a brilliant clear NZ summer, in scenary which is a perfect match to the LOTR.

                    Much like Helen Kelly you don’t know much about the film industry and that lack of knowledge had contributed to this disaster for the unions.

                    Uh, just because its possible to technically overcome filming in snow or fog, does not mean that it is desirable.

                    Fact of the matter is we were had, and Jackson and Key double teamed the tax payer who got screwed proper.

                    • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                      29 October 2010 at 9:23 am

                      I’ll take you through things slowly.

                      In Europe you have winter, followed by spring followed by summer. In Ireland they have what are called in the film industry “studios”. A lot of the production will be done in studios and they will orgainise their shooting schedule so that when they can’t get the exterior locations they want they’ll shoot indoors.

                      When they need to shoot scenes that demand summer – not all of The Hobbit is set in summer – then they will shoot that in the European summer.

                      If they want specific NZ scenery they’ll use a B unit. No big deal.

                      NZ has a special quality of light but talk to some DOPs and they will tell you it can be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on what you want. It’s often dust in the atmosphere that they want to give an extra glow to sunsets.

                      And they’ll be using a DOP who has spent their career dealing with such issues, they get paid the big bucks to deal with light.

                      Where do you get this 6-8 months from?

                • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                  28 October 2010 at 8:13 pm

                  Any advice for Andrew Lesnie on hot mirrors?

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 October 2010 at 6:14 pm

                Hey yeah it does, if Jackson and Warner Bros want to push back the release of their blockbuster by 6-8 months 😛

                • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                  28 October 2010 at 6:24 pm

                  ?

                  They just reschedule if they have to. Shoot more location in the summer and more studio in the winter. They would have to do that in NZ. There’s always plans for poor weather on any movie with locations.

                  Working around the weather is not a new skill in the film industry and in NZ it is a particular problem because of the 4 seasons in 1 day nature of a lot of our weather.

                  Where do you get the 6-8 months from? Have you seen their shooting schedule?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    28 October 2010 at 6:29 pm

                    LOLz mate yeah ‘reschedule’ on a mmovie late already they would make it more late by 6-8 months?

                    I guess they could shoot indoors in Ireland through the whole of the european winter but *shrug* it was never on the cards except to blackmail the NZ tax payer.

                    Give up the brilliant long NZ summer light, and settings exactly the same as LOTR for an Irish fog which looks nothing like it? Never was gonna happen.

                    • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                      28 October 2010 at 6:38 pm

                      Where do you get this 6-8 months from?

                      Are you aware of what portion of the film will be shot on location and what in studio? Are you aware that Ireland does have a summer when they can shoot the exterior location scenes?

                      And I presume you do know that quite a bit of what appears to be an exterior location actually isn’t or that if it is a lot of it has CGI.

            • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1.1.2
              28 October 2010 at 6:21 pm

              Hahaha urges a boycott != a boycott.

              Boycott did not occur for another 5 weeks during which time Jackson et al proved intractable in their corporate brinksmanship.

          • James 12.1.1.1.2
            28 October 2010 at 7:13 pm

            You absolutely MUST be kidding. The letter on the MEAA website, sent by the MEAA on the 17 August says they’s instited the boycott, and you still won’t accept it.

            That’s just… you’re insane, right? You do realise that. IT’S RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU.

            And now we’re talking about the fucking weather in Ireland now, almost as if avoiding the issue. That’s all just… ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

            If people like you have anything to do with the Union movement, no wonder it’s f***ed.

            • IrishBill 12.1.1.1.2.1
              28 October 2010 at 9:13 pm

              I think you need to take a couple of deep breaths there Jimmy.

            • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1.2.2
              28 October 2010 at 11:09 pm

              No boycott occurred until Sept 24. The letter is posturing to try and get Jackson to listen.

              Good frakin luck with that as we foubnd out.

              • James …
                30 October 2010 at 2:24 pm

                I’m sorry, but you’re wrong and you know it. It’s right there in black and white. You should be ashamed of yourself.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  30 October 2010 at 2:30 pm

                  Sept 24th is the earliest entertainment media announcement of the global boycott having gone into actual effect.

                  As opposed to having been bandied around as a negotiation tactic.

                  You should be ashamed of yourself.

                  Meh, what does the self-moralising Right know?

                • Speaking Sense to Unions …
                  30 October 2010 at 6:26 pm

                  James, it’s honestly not worth the effort. Most people have give up on The Standard as some sort of honest and intelligent Left-wing discusion forum. I only mess with them coz its morbidly funny.

                  Go over to Public Address and save your sanity.

                  If you’re Left-wing you’ll cheer up by mixing with nicer and brighter people, if you’re Right-wing you’ll actually debate people who appreciate facts.

      • The Baron 12.1.2
        28 October 2010 at 4:03 pm

        Backing down now, CV? Or can you still spin this to suit your beloved Union, even though there were more real workers protesting against that Union than they have members?

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.2.1
          28 October 2010 at 5:00 pm

          Oh, and you are wrong too.

          • The Baron 12.1.2.1.1
            28 October 2010 at 5:22 pm

            Tally ho – am I also wrong about you supporting an 80 member union over 1,500 real workers – then claiming that you’re the one who is pro worker?

            No, you haven’t addressed that yet, have you. Sounds to me like your support for hard working kiwis really means support for lazy union bosses, who like to nosh it up at expensive restaurants and not actually respond to the people they purport to represent.

            Pigs in a trough, ruining jobs and lives. And that’s who you back over the real working men and women. Shame CV, shame.

            • Colonial Viper 12.1.2.1.1.1
              28 October 2010 at 6:26 pm

              Good to see you backing foreign corporates and hundred millionaires over basic workers’ rights Baron. Nothing if not consistent.

              Equity an 80 member union? Meeep! Wrong AGAIN. This time only by a factor of 7, mind you.

              Last night, NZ Actors’ Equity, which has about 600 members, cancelled its Auckland meetings for safety reasons

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10682244

              Pigs in a trough, ruining jobs and lives.

              My friend, are you referring to the true fat NAT cats? Because a union organiser is a pretty averagely paid job and most of them do it because they are passionate about helping ordinary workers through difficult disadvantaged situations.

              And before I forget – gosh darn it, you are WRONG again.

  13. mickysavage 13
    28 October 2010 at 4:46 pm

    The bill is out and there is a major bug as identified by Charles Chauvel. He was incidentally one of the counsel involved in the Bryson case.

    Clause 4(2) of the bill says that the deeming provision (that film workers are contractors) does not apply “if the person is a party to, or covered by an employment agreement that provides that person is an enmployee”.

    So you still need to analyse the contract to see if it is an employment contract or not and if it is an employment then the amendment does not apply.

    If this argument holds the bill is toothless and does no more than reflect current law.

    The trouble is that when you rush things you invariably stuff it up.

    • The Baron 13.1
      28 October 2010 at 5:24 pm

      Quick Greg, get on the wires – you and Charles have a scoop! Hell, if you ever get into the big house you could even pat him on the back for his good work, then go back to sitting on Goff’s lap like a good little dog.

      • mickysavage 13.1.1
        28 October 2010 at 6:43 pm

        TB

        Before your lot trash parliamentary custom and muck around with employment law and use urgency again when it is not warranted you should at least make sure that what you are doing actually achieves what you intend to do.

        This is why the select committee process is so important. The problems could be sorted out.

        But this tory born to rule we know better stuff is a recipe for disaster.

        Watch lawyers rub their hands as a new avenue for litigation is opened up.

        And BTW you could address the points rather than engage in personal abuse.

        • ianmac 13.1.1.1
          28 October 2010 at 9:05 pm

          Yes Micky. The abuse from some is in inverse proportion to the discussion of the issues. Must be important for the political game to have so many visitors here. Wonder why?

          • Jim Nald 13.1.1.1.1
            28 October 2010 at 9:23 pm

            The tory spin machine is in overdrive to try to counteract the emerging true facts. The polls are telling them that Jonkey is looking shakey.

            • wtl 13.1.1.1.1.1
              28 October 2010 at 9:42 pm

              And they continue do go on about how everyone in NZ supports the move by the government, even though opt-in polls, that are usually right-leaning, suggest people are very split on this issue. Perhaps they think that if they keep repeating to themselves that it is a clear win, it will come true.

            • Armchair Critic 13.1.1.1.1.2
              28 October 2010 at 9:45 pm

              Ultimately this National government will come unstuck on its own contradictions, which are really starting to accumulate.

Links to post