|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Sep 27 2010, 5:49pm
Post #101 of 330
(3401 views)
Shortcut
|
If the unions were really interested in using the Hobbit as a platform they should have started a couple of years ago to get the laws changed. This is just mean and rude. Anyone or anything who stands in the way of this project should be eaten by a dragon, slowly.
This is a New Zealand law matter and it should have been settled years ago. I pray the New Zealanders don't get screwed in the process of this Australian union making a grab for power.
King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: There are some who call me... Tim.
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Sep 27 2010, 5:57pm
Post #102 of 330
(3173 views)
Shortcut
|
If you read PJ's statement (have you?) this isn't about wages being unfair, it's about the unions using The Hobbit to make a grab for power. Timing is important here. These unions have had seven years to make in-roads and get New Zealand law changed. The Australian union is using The Hobbit to try and get New Zealand to change its laws. Since this can't happen quickly - if the actors stay with the boycott - The Hobbit suffers unfairly. At least that's how I see it.
Read PJ's statement and come back to me with what you think about what he says about wages (please). 
King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: There are some who call me... Tim.
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Sep 27 2010, 6:24pm
Post #103 of 330
(3091 views)
Shortcut
|
I heard reference to the Pink Book in one of the news items yesterday but didn't understand what it meant, so thanks for filling in that blank. :)
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Sep 27 2010, 6:25pm
Post #104 of 330
(3336 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I note the NZ contracts didn't stop them from working on LOTR. /
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Sep 27 2010, 6:36pm
Post #105 of 330
(3056 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Given that any employment law change
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
regarding contractors would affect every single workplace in the country, I doubt the NZ Government would make any moves to change the law in time for The Hobbit.
I don't know how New Zealand Parliment works, but I would think it would not be a quick fix.
This argument about whether or not unions are a good thing in the film industry is superfluous. In NZ, actors are contractors not employees, and so - by law - can not be part of a collective agreement. The MEAA is targeting The Hobbit when their argument is actually with the NZ Government.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
Lark
The Shire
Sep 27 2010, 7:01pm
Post #106 of 330
(3018 views)
Shortcut
|
I had read the statement, I didn't mention it because PJ didn't mention the issue that I'm talking about. PJ came back with a statement saying he can't do what they ask (pay fairly) because they want power. Well, there may be truth to that, I don't really know, but I still stand by my stance. There is no excuse. There is a reason these actors are with the boycott and not against it, and I don't think it's because they want to see Australia take over the NZ film industry.
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Sep 27 2010, 7:04pm
Post #107 of 330
(3059 views)
Shortcut
|
There seems to be an argument by the New Zealand film industry that it is too small and isolated to be able to afford a fully unionized labor force. As the producer on the show said, "the financial conditions here are different." He believes that if the wages and conditions were the same in NZ as anywhere else in the developed world, there'd be no reason for the big companies to come to so remote a location. Only the cheap labor makes up for the distance problems.
Yet the outside unions are pointing out that NZ boasts of its ability to host global-scale blockbusters, with global scale talent and global scale profits, in its efforts to attract new films.
I remember the many comments by LotR staffers that the entire trilogy was like the biggest low-budget film ever made. They were referring to the working conditions, the lack of support and infrastructure, and the resulting 'can-do' Kiwi spirit making up for whatever was missing. Many of the NZ actors we've heard from, who resist unionization, clearly still see themselves as part-timers, lucky to be able to act professionally at all.
But like it or not, the rest of the world has taken notice that NZ is now a viable place to shoot really big, first-class professional films. Therefore film-making in NZ is entering a painful transition phase, just as it has in every other country at some point. Painful, because evidently there are still too few other films and videos, of less than first-class size and budget, to provide a critical mass of work for those first-class professionals that unions are best at representing. Structurally, there's not yet enough infrastructure in the labor market. It's like building glittering skyscrapers just a few blocks away from substandard housing (the problems of globalization are not restricted to the entertainment industry).
Jackson is by all accounts a decent man with a decent sensibility towards his employees, and he clearly is making efforts to protect his labor without unions and within the limits of his budget. But unions exist because not all bosses are so decent, especially in an industry that is inherently feast-or-famine, big bang or big bomb. Not every feature film that NZ wants to attract in the future is going to be directed by Sir Peter Jackson, or so one has to imagine. I wonder if he appreciates the irony that his under-the-radar success with The Lord of the Rings, and his subsequent efforts to personally lead the development in NZ of a first-class film industry ("Wellywood"), is now biting back. You want to play in the big leagues, the big leagues are going to start asking you to play by big-league rules.
A side comment: The "independent contractor" thing that NZ currently enforces is a bit of a gag that benefits the producers by forbidding unions. It's perfectly possible for a union to represent workers who are employed by a film company, even though the workers think of themselves as "free-lance." Since the death of the studio system, film careers have always been free-lance. But really the jobs themselves are full-time, and sequential. You can't act or do costumes or edit for more than one film at a time, if the film is a big one. True independent contractors can take on more than one job at a time, and work their own hours and provide their own equipment.
Actors and technicians in large films are not independent contractors by this standard - they are short-term full-time employees. The films are technically produced by temporary companies of convenience, which are started up and shut down just for the duration of the production, while being wholly-owned and financed by the actual studios that are really making the film. They hire their labor force like any other company - as employees, whether under union contract or not - and when the film wraps, the company lays off its people and shuts down. Everyone (both labor and management) walks away, paid and more or less happy, looking for their next job.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
 = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Sep 27 2010, 7:16pm
Post #108 of 330
(3049 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Peter Jackson did not say "he can't do what they ask (pay fairly)"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He said that he is paying fairly and that to do what this group is asking would violate New Zealand law.
"There is a reason these actors are with the boycott..." To which actors are you referring? It sounds like the vast majority of actors in New Zealand like things as they are. I am a union member and I do not believe in forcing membership on anyone. If the union has a good deal to offer people will join.
Kangi Ska
Make the Hobbit Happen Now!
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Sep 27 2010, 7:18pm
Post #109 of 330
(3124 views)
Shortcut
|
... but nowhere in that statement does Peter Jackson say he can't pay fairly. He says he can't involve in collective bargaining with an Australian Union because it isn't legal for him to do so. What the union wants is to be involved in negotiating the actors' contracts as of right, and that's what he won't and can't agree to. As the film hasn't even been greenlit yet, I don't suppose anyone knows what he's actually paying so it's a bit soon to assume it won't be fair.
He doesn't discuss the actual wages actors will be offered but he does explain that provisions are being made to allow non-union actors the same sort of profit share deal that union members already have. He also speaks generally about his respect for actors and his intention to treat them fairly. You may not believe him, but that is what he says.
|
|
|
Lark
The Shire
Sep 27 2010, 7:19pm
Post #110 of 330
(2952 views)
Shortcut
|
This argument about whether or not unions are a good thing in the film industry is superfluous. In NZ, actors are contractors not employees, and so - by law - can not be part of a collective agreement. The MEAA is targeting The Hobbit when their argument is actually with the NZ Government.
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Sep 27 2010, 7:39pm
Post #111 of 330
(3089 views)
Shortcut
|
|
True independent contractors can take on more than one job at a time, and work their own hours and provide their own equipment.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
True independent contractors can take on more than one job at a time, and work their own hours and provide their own equipment.
That's interesting I've been an independent contractor and couldn't do more than one thing at a time. Nor did I provide my own equipment - I just provided my expertise.
I'll cede this can be a battle of semantics, but the historical precedent in New Zealand (as pointed out in this thread) doesn't flow with your take of what is an independent contractor.
Are you saying PJ is lying when he says actors are contractors? Or is he just "mistaken"?
King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: There are some who call me... Tim.
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Sep 27 2010, 7:55pm
Post #112 of 330
(3049 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Others have accurately pointed out you mis-represent what PJ says in his statement but I'll add my two cents as well
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You said:
PJ came back with a statement saying he can't do what they ask (pay fairly) because they want power.
This is actually everything PJ says in his statement regarding unions and non-union members and compensation. Nowhere in this is that he can't pay them fairly.
– Many Actors are members of SAG, but many are not — especially younger actors and many Australian and New Zealand performers. MEAA claims we are “non-Union”, but whenever we hire an actor who belongs to SAG, we always honour their working conditions, their minimum salary agreements and their residuals.
– The SAG residuals is a small pot of money that comes from the movie’s profits. The DGA and WGA have similar schemes. An agreed upon percentage of movie profits is placed in a pot, which is shared amongst the members of the guild who worked on the film in question. Despite MEAA claims that The Hobbit is “non-Union”, our studio, Warner Brothers, is honouring these residuals, and making the profit sharing available to all the various Guild members – just as it did on The Lord of the Rings, and Universal did on King Kong.
– These residuals can be worth tens of thousands of dollars to an individual if the film is successful – however the normal situation is that if an actor is not a member of SAG, they do not share in the profit pot.
– This has always struck us as unfair, since most Kiwi actors are not lucky enough to be SAG members. For the Hobbit, Warner Brothers have agreed to create a separate pot of profit participation, which will be divided up amongst non-SAG actors who are cast in the film. This was not done because of any pressure from Guilds or Unions – it was actually Warners doing the decent thing, and New Zealand and Australian actors will be the principle beneficiaries. SAG members have their pot, and non-SAG members now have theirs. We have introduced the scheme to Kiwi agents and it’s now part of all our Hobbit cast deals.
There will always be differing opinions when it comes down to work and conditions, but I have always attempted to treat my actors and crew with fairness and respect. We have created a very favourable profit sharing pool for the non-Union actors on The Hobbit — and now the Union is targeting us, despite the fact that we have always respected SAG conditions and residuals.
King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: There are some who call me... Tim.
|
|
|
Lark
The Shire
Sep 27 2010, 8:06pm
Post #113 of 330
(2963 views)
Shortcut
|
Sigh... I'm just saying that the non union actors should be paid fairly. In PJ's statement, he was referring to union actors, which I have no doubt he has always paid properly. He said he couldn't make do anything about the wages for non union actors because that would mean illegal negotiation, which doesn't make sense to me. Since this was the platform of the MEAA (or at least the public one) I just want to say that I agree with it weather it is their true agenda or not. I think it is right that the union members like Cate Blanchette and Ian McKellen should stand by the boycott for this reason.
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
Sep 27 2010, 8:07pm
Post #114 of 330
(3145 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My guess is that this will be a flash in the pan
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I cannot see actors and actresses deciding not to participate in this film because of this Australian union question.
Other blogs have posted articles saying just give up, pull out now etc etc but I cannot see that happening.
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/09/should_peter_jackson_give_up_o.html
Another blog said 2012 is looking to be crammed with sequels of anticipated movies....so if Dec 2012 is still on the mark it will culminate a busy year.
http://www.popbunker.net/2010/09/hobbit/
The Hobbit: Will We Ever See it?
By Lithera – September 27, 2010
Once the greenlight is given I expect things to progress quickly with the union issue ultimately having no force.
(This post was edited by Eruonen on Sep 27 2010, 8:09pm)
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Sep 27 2010, 8:16pm
Post #115 of 330
(3028 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Saying he can't negotiate with the unions
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
is not the same as saying he can't pay the non-union actors fairly. He actually says he will pay them (non-union) fairly and he points out the "pot" they created for the non-union actors. That's my point. In my mind we can't jump to the conclusion that just because the actors are non-union they are not going to be paid fairly.
He didn't say he couldn't do anything about the wages for non-union members - he said in that process of fair wages for non-union members the unions can't be involved because it's illegal. See the difference?
You don't even know at this point what the non-union members are being paid and you already think it's right for Cate Blanchette and Ian McKellan to boycott? Shouldn't we withhold judgment until unfair conditions are proven? Or are they automatically unfair by default (the wages) just because they are not union?
As an aside - we have no confirmation that Cate Blanchette or Ian McKellan are boycotting The Hobbit.
King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: There are some who call me... Tim.
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Sep 27 2010, 8:18pm
Post #116 of 330
(3042 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, an informative post though I find it odd
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
that, no matter the country and no matter the industry, regular folk believe that the wages of the people doing the actual work (union or otherwise) are what makes or breaks a company.
It would be interesting to see what percentage of the budget went to wages on LOTR. If it is anything like the heavily unionized North American auto sector, wages and benefits account for 3% of production cost. Yet this is where savings are always sought and blame is laid for being priced out of the market.
There's no way 97% of the production cost is ever mismanaged.
Also, for the record, the presence of unionized workers in any given sector has consistantly been shown to have a positive impact on working conditions, pay and benefits for all workers in that sector. In an effort to stay union free, employers offer perks and incentives -- sometimes even adopting work standards and committees that mirror those in union workplaces -- but always subject to management discretion. This is how "blue/pink books" and other non-binding quasi contracts come into being in the first place (not from the goodness of the govenors' hearts as we are led to believe).
Of course the real test is would any of the higher ups on the production work without a binding contract? For that matter would any of the services or materials needed for the film, right down to paper for the port-a-potties, be provided without a binding guarantee or contract? Why is it then that the people working just in front and just behind the camera, the people who will be the face of the films and directly impact the films' success are expected to work without guarantees?
By the way none of this is directed at you personally, it just seemed a good place to throw this in. In fact I wish you great happiness on the Hobbit and in your career in general. May the lean times be covered by the good times.
(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Sep 27 2010, 8:23pm)
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Sep 27 2010, 8:18pm
Post #117 of 330
(3082 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks, by the way, Lark, for sharing your point of view with us. It's great to hear all sides of the issue, especially from those who are affected more closely.
As importantly - welcome to TORn and to our message boards!!
Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.
"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower
"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase
TORn Calendar
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Sep 27 2010, 8:24pm
Post #119 of 330
(2944 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I do believe you hav misunderstood parts of Peter's starement.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I suggest you go back and reread carefully. I know, I am being pedantic but I think it is important. This is a complex and complicated situation and we should be as clear as possible about what has been said before we decide what it means.
Kangi Ska
Make the Hobbit Happen Now!
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Sep 27 2010, 8:37pm
Post #120 of 330
(3065 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Everybody's mileage may differ
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've been an independent contractor in all kinds of scenic design situations, and I've been a union employee ditto. A lot of times when I was working full time for weeks I was still technically a contractor, so my employer could avoid the taxes and other legal requirements; I went along because my employer was a solo artist or very small business and I wanted the work. Other times I've worked a union job like a commercial for a three day shoot, and was thus an three-day employee of the production company, taxes withheld and all - a company which made dozens of commercials a year, was always in production, and thus agreed to work with the unions because their members' professionalism was worth the extra pay in such a tightly-scheduled and technically difficult format.
In many work situations the difference is very clear cut, in other situations it's a gray area as to when one ends and the other begins. Show biz is one of those gray areas because of the scarcity of long-term employment. Note that in my previous post about how film folk can be temporary but full-time employees, I was referring to large films. Not all films in the U.S. are large union films, and not every job I took when in the union was a union job, either. But the bigger the project, the more likely it was that our union would try to get a contract for us, its members. Now The Hobbit is a big project, but NZ remains a small country. Thus this current tizzy.
Jackson of course isn't lying. I hope I didn't imply that. At this time (as I understand) actors can legally only be independent contractors under NZ law. But it's ridiculous to say this kind of thing is set in stone. Why did NZ pass such a law in the first place? I doubt some MP woke up one morning and said, "Of course! Actors can never be employees... that would be ridiculous! Quick, let's pass a law just to be sure." I would guess the law was passed at the request of the film industry, because of the obvious benefits to producers. It's an artificial restriction and there's nothing inevitable about it going forward. That's what I found amusing about people saying that the unions should keep their noses out of The Hobbit because it's "the law".
If and when the law is ever changed, it will be at the request of the industry that is affected, as with most legislation. Parliaments don't lead, they follow, in issues like this. The main point of my last post is that the ground is visibly shifting under the feet of everyone in NZ who is in the entertainment industry, and things may be changing faster than many people like.
By the way, we are all tending to refer to the unionization of the actors and the unionization of the off-camera crews as the same issue. It sometimes is, and sometimes isn't. Likewise not all union issues revolve around pay and residuals. Crafts workers certainly don't get residuals, but their hours and working conditions can be horrendous. Just as it's clear that the unions here are using Jackson's The Hobbit as their vehicle because of its prestige with the people of New Zealand, I suspect the actors' unions, because they represent stars that the public can identify, are fronting for the crafts unions, which represent far more people with far less visibility and power, and who may benefit more from joining a representative collective bargaining institution.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
Lark
The Shire
Sep 27 2010, 8:53pm
Post #121 of 330
(2972 views)
Shortcut
|
You are probably right, I probably don't understand the issue fully at all, but a lot of that is about an issue I actually have much less opinion about. (I consider the Australian power grab and the non union wages two very different things) The reason I went ahead and assumed that non union actors are paid unfairly is because, in my experience (even tough I'm in a different country) that is the way it is, and actually the only reason people hire non union actors. I would never expect any company to hire a non union actor and pay them a union salary, it's almost laughable. But so often it goes overboard, actors are given a flat salary that for a project that would demand so much work and time such as this would, the wage often is really terrible. I guess I am having a hard time taking the statements made by PJ at face value (not to say that I'm convinced they are not true, just questioning for myself) because as much as I love his work, and really want the films to get made, he is a business man first. Maybe I'm jaded but it is a pretty easy opportunity to take advantage of a non union performer.
|
|
|
Iolite
The Shire
Sep 27 2010, 9:21pm
Post #122 of 330
(2974 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We do have contracts and laws to enforce them...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't think anyone is arguing that the wages of actors would make or break Warners or MGM, simply that there are a number of factors that make filming in New Zealand more attractive to big budget overseas productions and that wages of actors (and crew) are one of them. If those wages are brought into line with Australia or the US through Unionisation then there is one less incentive for those big movies to come here. Why come all the way down to NZ when the movie can be filmed in Europe for less due to cheaper crew and local actors there? The overall percentage difference in final profit for the film companies might be less than 1%, but let's face it - the film company is doing it for profit and 1% could easily mean many millions of dollars saved. The onus is on them to return as much profit to their financial backers as possible.
You also seem to be implying that actors and crew here don't have clearly defined contracts - of course we do! Most are structured and worded around the guidelines of the Pink/Blue books, but all are clearly written and outline the obligations/rights of both the production company and the contractor - at least this has been my experience so far. If a contract looks dodgey why would you sign it? There also seems to be a perception that the producers control everything - but it works both ways. If cast and crew get too unhappy about the hours they are being asked to work it is not unheard of for them to seriously threaten to walk off the job. I don't know if anyone has actually ended up walking off the job, but it has definitely been threatened. In a country like NZ where the workforce is relatively small having to replace a large number of cast or crew in a short timeframe can be impossible and having a 'walkoff' could easily ruin a production. Producers know this and they also know that people can only be pushed so far. They also know that to get the best results from their cast and crew they need to be keeping them happy or at least satisfied. If a particular production company gets a reputation for exploiting cast and crew they will have a much harder time securing talented and experienced cast and crew for future jobs.
I would love to hear more about how NZ actors are supposedly being exploited or underpaid, because quite frankly I just don't believe it is a big problem. I'd also like to hear what the majority of NZ actors think about this situation: are they in fact dissatisfied with the pay rates or working conditions or are they simply unhappy about the amount of work that is available to actors in New Zealand? So far the only publc statements seem to have been from the overseas unions on behalf of a small group of NZ actors, not the people in NZ who are directly affected by the issues at hand.
The main problem with being an actor or crew member in New Zealand is not the wages or in most cases the working hours - it is that the jobs are often hard to find or spaced far apart. That's why actors here struggle to make a living from acting, not because of the pay they get when they actually are in work. Yes hours can be long and occasionally gruelling, but the ability of the NZ Film/TV industry to get stuff done within tight timeframes is one of it's selling points. Time equals money and if the cast/crew here are prepared to work overtime to get something done quickly enough then where is the problem?
Generally speaking I am a big supporter of Unions. I think they can be a very helpful force in upholding the rights of workers. However in the case of the NZ film/TV industry I don't believe the industry is currently ready for them. As Squire pointed out in one of his earlier posts the NZ industry has grown very quickly and is now at a transition phase where the pros and cons of Unionisation do need to be considered. Undoubtedly there are aspects of working in the industry that could be improved or brought more into line with overseas practices. However, I don't think we are quite at the point yet where we should be having an all out debate/negotiation about it at the expense of a project that is as hugely important to the NZ film industry as The Hobbit is! The NZ industry has been very quiet for the past two years - we NEED the Hobbit movies badly! Putting the Hobbit production at risk to decide on the Unionisation issue is simply not appropriate as far as I am concerned. There is far too much at stake. They majority of cast/crew in NZ did not ask the overseas unions to do this. It simply is not fair for overseas unions to be jeopardising the careeers of workers in the NZ film industry who would rather carry on with things the way that they are rather than risk not getting the work.
|
|
|
Altaira
Superuser
Sep 27 2010, 10:00pm
Post #123 of 330
(2878 views)
Shortcut
|
Thank-you for your clear, concise posts and your perspective on the issues.
One of the very clear dangers here is that people are inferring things based on statements and hearsay instead of facts. Some of the facts, like the NZ laws and the fact that NZ actors *do* have contracts (thanks for clarifying that) we can track down with our own research or with input from folks like you. Other facts in the situation (such as the motivations behind the statements we are seeing), we will probably never be privy to. And, while it's fun and interesting to speculate about those, it's best to accept that speculation is just that, and not be too quick to draw hard and fast conclusions from it.
Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.
"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower
"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase
TORn Calendar
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Sep 27 2010, 10:09pm
Post #124 of 330
(2913 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Aside: I've seen "Waiting for Superman"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and while I appreciate a bright light being shone on the teacher unions, I don't think the film gave a complete overview of the problems with education in the US. There was no discussion about how the parents have sometimes failed their children by not becoming involved. Every parent in the film is a committed caring parent who works very hard to get the best education for their children. Unfortunately, that's not always true.
But the similarity to this situation is that both are very complex and can not be reduced to simple answers. We are hearing from multiple affected parties, but not everyone. It's difficult to form a conclusion without knowing all the facts, and all the agendas of the parties involved.
|
|
|
Tim
Tol Eressea
Sep 27 2010, 10:16pm
Post #125 of 330
(2971 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It came across as maybe you implying - but that's why I asked because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Jackson of course isn't lying. I hope I didn't imply that. At this time (as I understand) actors can legally only be independent contractors under NZ law.
Hmmm I missed that. I didn't know the law said that actors were contractors - I thought it was just a matter of perception - that PJ considered actors to be contractors and thus would hire them only as that. Wow if the law says they're contractors it's even more out of PJ's hands than I thought.
King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: There are some who call me... Tim.
|
|
|
|
|
