Posts by Jaymax
-
In one sense, the 3-strikes law is way worse than the legal-aid changes - sure the direct impact on New Zealanders from three-strikes will be less; but the subjugation of NZ democracy to an organised, international, largely-hidden campaign to implement this ACTA clause - supposedly no longer part of that agreement - freaks me out.
Wherever it is this law comes from, it is not from within NZ.
-
Hadn't seen the SPADA factsheet until I was searching for the MEAA one. Nice to have their perspective succinctly wrapped up as well.
-
The FIA meeting where it was passed was in July or so.
25th of June most likely.
-
I would shoot the Hobbit in the face
The hobbit, of course, would prefer to shoot itself in the foot.
-
I think there will be reasonable residuals even 2 years after release, at least for first movie.
What are TV broadcast fees like for major films? I can easily imagine things like five-week runs of Hobbit+LOTR in 10 years.
-
In 2009 New Zealand Equity has continued to grow in numbers and in strength. Eighty five performers have joined their union.
To me that reads that the union grew by 85 in 2009, (assuming no one left, net growth prob a little less). Which makes the 598 figure sound reasonable. Looks like 'only 85 members' was an early misreading that became a bit of a mantra.
-
so grateful for our down-to-earth NZ actors
So grateful for NZ period. At some point, chasing parity (whether with Oz generally, or with overseas actors specifically) has to be balanced against being somewhere so, well, NZish. (per all those global surveys where we come out ~4th - often just under the Scandinavians)
-
Either way, I'm not sure why an agents union would be any more effective than an actor's union. Certainly, it puts the power in the hands of a very limited number of people which is dangerous imho
I can think of several reasons, not least being the financial incentive to negotiate better deals and to make sure the money comes in, which doesn't apply if the union isn't taking a cut (and unions taking a % cut of any earnings is just a disincentive to membership). I can't help wondering if both the union AND the agent in Australia manage to take a % bite.
As for the power - splitting things so that the daily financial operations are distinct from the oversight, and making sure the union is in a strong position to provide oversight (visibility of the accounts etc) tends to be effective (and more fraud and apathy resistant). Oversight of the process is a better reflection of the functions unions typically provide looking after members, than being involved in handling and distributing member 'wages'.
However; I suspect here is not the best place to have this debate. :)
-
I'm sorry but the people who earned them (ie the membership) should be handling the residuals. They do that through their union.
I'd still say, rationally, it should be through the agents which puts the union into an oversight role. The agents (through a collective entity, obviously) should cover any operational costs out of the percentage cut they get of the residuals, just as they cover other operational costs of getting actors paid. (of course, if agents aren't entitled to a cut of the residuals, then I'm talking complete nonsense.)
-
Yes, that really bothered me this morn when I read that twerp Paul Holmes' crap. "Left filth... " iirc.
I posted a very annoyed comment on that article - didn't get published, probably a bit too pointy. What pissed me off most was his deliberate and recurring use of 'Actors' as though every single actor in the country is incredibly gullible.
However, in the interests of accuracy: The 'filth' term was specifically about a certain Australian, both times it's used. However 'left-wing' (and 'bolshy') was used as a pejorative. It's used twice, the second time: "the Australian filth".
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10682616