Posts by SteveH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Add up the participants in any film crew, and chances are, unless it's something with a cast of thousands (but remember, many of them will be doing it just for the hell of it, and going back to their day job), actors will always be totally outnumbered.
Isn't that exactly the point Jacqui? The actors' actions don't just affect themselves, they affects thousands of other NZers
-
Am I the only one thinking that this could be the beginning of the end for NZ as a destination for stupid-budget (nine figures is stupid money in my book) movie production? Which is precisely what SAG want, and now we've got NZAE, however naively, apparently playing directly into SAG's collective hands by portraying our leading silver screen light (and, by association, the rest of the industry at that end of town) as an anti-union hard-arse who won't negotiate in good faith.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what a number of us think. And it looks a lot like MEAA has the same motivations. Thus Russell's multiple references (in the other thread) to the potential for fallout if The Hobbit ends up being made in Australia.
-
So then the question becomes, are they telling their members it's not a boycott as well?
From that interview JW-L claims the NZAE advice to their members is "don't sign anything until we've met with the producers". She's not saying what the position will be if the meeting doesn't go the way NZAE want. But many foreign unions are saying "don't sign anything until we get a collective agreement" (see the MEAA factsheet), so I don't imagine NZAE members will be advised to sign unless NZAE get what they want. Whatever they are calling it, it is in effect a boycott.
-
And now read this, and tell me what's wrong with what's being said in terms of the statement 'this is not a boycott'.
The SAG advisory states:
The makers of feature film The Hobbit – to be shot in New Zealand next year – have refused to engage performers on union-negotiated agreements.
Members of Canadian Actors Equity, US Actors Equity, the Screen Actors Guild, UK Actors Equity, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (Australia) and the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists are advised not to accept work on this non-union production.
If you are contacted to be engaged on The Hobbit please notify your union immediately.
It doesn't matter how many times JW-L claims it isn't a boycott, the SAG have made it one.
-
The truth is that alcohol is the most neurotoxic and carcinogenic of the 50 most commonest recreational drugs.
Alcohol is more likely to give you cancer than cigarettes? Cite please...
-
I have to ask my stupid question. What would they be getting back if they called in your mortgage? Real money? A piece of paper saying what exactly? A promisory note of what?
If you cannot repay the loan then they will take the property - it's no different than a foreclosure due to failure to make the loan payments. If you had reasonable equity in the property you would probably try to refinance with another lender. It's not an option a bank will undertake lightly, as who is going to take out a mortgage in the future with a bank that is known to have foreclosed in this way?
So whose do they pick?
At a guess I'd say they'd go for the marginal cases first - the loans they probably shouldn't have made in the first place.
-
Either Hide is telling porkies or he's just an incompetent idiot.
Going by his position on climate change I'm pretty sure it's both. But
I don't think there is anything remotely surprising about Hide's position. I'm sure that in private Hide still doesn't see Garrett's offenses as a big deal. But it's pretty clear that the Garrett is politically radioactive now and Hide can't keep him around.Between this and the Roy situation there must be quite a few in the ACT party wondering if they can afford to keep Hide around now.
-
Yes, but come on, CR...Tony Abbott is probably a goner after this, and will be replaced by someone more palatable to the electorate.
No way is he a goner. The feeling is that he almost pulled off a massive upset. He's come out of this looking very good. The first Liberal party meeting is happening right now and both Abbott and his deputy will be re-elected unopposed.
-
No. That's not what I am saying. I am saying that, if you believe that for reasons of social acceptability* you shouldn't show say, rape, even when entirely historically justified, in certain kinds of film, then I don't think you can object to a similar refusal to show smoking,
Is it really that black and white? 'A' is not socially acceptable for some reasons, 'B' is not socially acceptable for other reasons, but we should treat 'A' and 'B' in the same way in the media?
except on the grounds you don't think smoking's that bad, which is entirely fair and something I quite agree with, but rather different from any concern about rewriting history.
Going back to your example of the WW2 film portraying rape - have such portrayals been edited out of historic media? I think there is a difference between an artist deciding not to include something that's no longer socially acceptable (though I don't think they should be pressured to do so), and other people going back and editing an artist's work to remove something they find objectionable.
-
But the pertinent thing, that rape was socially acceptable in certain circumstances and here and now isn't, and that that has very similar implications for historic depictions as any other change in social acceptability is, I think, sound.
So you're saying that there is a parallel between the change in society attitudes towards both rape and smoking, and since it's not morally acceptable to show rape at 7:30 (or in a G movie) we therefore shouldn't show smoking? I don't buy it. The reason rape is restricted in timeslot (or can result in an R rating) is because graphic portrayals are violent and disturbing, not because rape is not socially acceptable. I don't think that whatever parallel exists in terms of the change in social acceptability is very relevant to censorship/rating.