Posts by SteveH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But I think her point is that basically that if the pink book is legal then it should be legal to have an individual 'pink book' for the hobbit producers.
Sure, but that's not what NZAE was asking for initially, was it? And really, if all they want is something with the same legal force as the pink book, then why not just renegotiate and use the pink book? Which is what has ended up happening.
-
Look on the bright side. If the Hobbit isn't made here, then the NZ taxpayer saves $90mln (15% of the budget).
But the economy loses the other $610M (ok, not all of it would be spent here). And it's not like we get the $90M back - that's money the taxpayer doesn't see either way (though presumably there are some grants we wouldn't have to pay). Worst of all an industry twice the size of NZ's wine industry might be in jeopardy. It's not much of a bright side.
-
Do we know how much the demands were going to cost the movie? How does it stack up against the probable profit?
Initially the demands were for a collective agreement, which the producers believe is illegal, and/or and industry wide standard contract, which the producers believe they don't have the right to negotiate. The cost of the demands was not an issue.
Do we know what the average conditions are for an actor on such a movie?
The producers claim the contracts for The Hobbit exceed SAG minimum rates and include residuals for the first time in an NZ production.
It seems to me that NZ is going to get punished because one tiny sector of the workforce is not prepared to lie down for a big foreign company
Doesn't seem that way to me. To me it seems like the MEAA made a play for more control in the NZ film industry and bungled it (though from their point of view the outcome is not bad). I don't believe the actors here were consulted before the MEAA launched a boycott in their name.
-
How many acting parts are in the hobbit? There's Bilbo, Gandalf,Gollum, a dragon and some dwarves, and 3 trolls and a spider, and that's it I think.
Beorn, the Elves of Mirkwood, and the Men of the Long Lake also feature. And then there's an event called "The Battle of Five Armies". Not sure that'll require much acting but it'll definitely need a lot of extras.
-
no, I havent been given examples of how Peter Jackson has supported 'the local industry.'
You replied to the post in which Eleanor did exactly that.
-
And now - can you point me to any finished ANZ film that has been fully finanically backed by Peter Jackson?
What's that got to do with anything? He's not a studio.
-
so will the irish actors comply with the global "don't work" order?
If they're members of UK Actors Equity (one of the groups that supported the order) then they'd be expected to. But I bet they'll get contracts that conform to whatever collective agreement is in place for Ireland. The producers have never said that they won't honour a collective agreement, they've only said that their advice is the such and agreement is illegal in NZ and that they are not the correct party to be negotiating on behalf of the entire industry.
-
Early on in the piece, one option mentioned was to hang on to the New Zealand Hobbiton location, although I don't know how they'd do that without actors.
I guess they could insert them in post. I think I'd rather they just rebuilt it elsewhere.
-
Steve H-who rebuilt Hobbiton?
If you're doubting whether work had started, it had:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/4190594/Work-forges-ahead-on-Hobbit/
If you're asking whose money was being spent, I don't know, but it has to be the studio's in the end doesn't it? -
The argument that tax breaks are a big factor is hard to ignore.
I don't buy the implication that the studio might have made it elsewhere anyway because of the tax breaks. If that were the case they wouldn't have started rebuilding Hobbiton until the decision was made. No, it was going to made here by default, because the Lord of the Rings was.