|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starling
Gondolin
Nov 21 2012, 5:59am
Post #2 of 98
(1771 views)
Shortcut
|
I was under the impression I lived in a country where there is such a thing as free speech, and workplaces doing the decision making about the allocation of tasks to their own staff. Unbelievable.
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Nov 21 2012, 6:10am
Post #3 of 98
(1708 views)
Shortcut
|
So it was the Roadshow rep who said the invitation had been revoked....isn't Roadshow connected with WB? I wonder if this is WB strongarming those who wrote against their actions during the strike. 
Silverlode
|
|
|
Starling
Gondolin
Nov 21 2012, 6:15am
Post #4 of 98
(1705 views)
Shortcut
|
Never, in all my time here, have I felt it necessary to use this:  Until now.
|
|
|
ElendilTheShort
Mithlond
Nov 21 2012, 7:20am
Post #5 of 98
(1596 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They are entitled to invite who they want as guests at their expense if it is a press junket.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It is impossible to make informed comment without all the facts and a full history of this reporters work relating to the production. On the surface it does not reflect well on the studio and smacks of bad sportsmanship, but who knows, this reporter could have been negatively biased towards the production.
(This post was edited by ElendilTheShort on Nov 21 2012, 7:21am)
|
|
|
Danielos
Nargothrond
Nov 21 2012, 7:54am
Post #6 of 98
(1565 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I almost would like to boycott this spectacle now!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
No wonder everything seems so easy-going and merry about this production when all we get are commercials and reports from fawning yes-journalists.
Incredible! This stinks like a pile of dead horses!
|
|
|
Starling
Gondolin
Nov 21 2012, 7:57am
Post #7 of 98
(1533 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I consider Radio New Zealand National
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
to be the most reliable and credible news source in NZ.
They are my main source of news information. I am familiar with this reporter's work, and I have never heard anything I would consider to be biased.
|
|
|
Fardragon
Nargothrond
Nov 21 2012, 9:22am
Post #9 of 98
(1477 views)
Shortcut
|
I expect most of the NZ media people know each other.
Anyway, arguments about "free speech" are meaningless when it comes to who you choose to invite to your party.
A Far Dragon is the best kind...
|
|
|
Starling
Gondolin
Nov 21 2012, 9:47am
Post #10 of 98
(1425 views)
Shortcut
|
Radio New Zealand are refusing to send another journalist as a replacement.
I am proud of them for taking a stand.
Yes, it's an invitation to an event, but I feel very strongly that they are trying to manage and control what people say in order to gain favourable coverage. And that disgusts me.
|
|
|
Fardragon
Nargothrond
Nov 21 2012, 9:56am
Post #11 of 98
(1412 views)
Shortcut
|
They are more likely to get negative coverage by NOT inviting someone, and I'm sure they are well aware of that.
Ergo, the reason for not inviting this person has nothing to do with positive/negative coverage.
A Far Dragon is the best kind...
|
|
|
Fŕfnir
Nargothrond
Nov 21 2012, 10:02am
Post #12 of 98
(1450 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, it's different to silence a negative opinion of someone who saw the movie
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and to not invite someone who you already know will be negative. She probably wasn't neutral about the movie, wich is kind of your duty when your journalist before you see it.
But a negative opinion wouldn't have kill them, they should not have done it. And I'm sure they don't do that to exaggeratedly positive people.
|
|
|
Fardragon
Nargothrond
Nov 21 2012, 10:18am
Post #13 of 98
(1415 views)
Shortcut
|
She will still write here negative review, so the reasons for not inviting her must be something other. Probably something they can't talk about for legal reasons,
A Far Dragon is the best kind...
(This post was edited by Ataahua on Nov 21 2012, 7:26pm)
|
|
|
Danielos
Nargothrond
Nov 21 2012, 10:26am
Post #14 of 98
(1400 views)
Shortcut
|
She seemed a pretty reasonable person in the radio clip. I think they saw her as a potential "party pooper" for being skeptically minded instead of the usual fanboys/fangirls. But I would expect most people on TORN to defend PJ & crew, since they are too much fans to be objective.
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Nov 21 2012, 10:41am
Post #15 of 98
(1417 views)
Shortcut
|
You see someone in a radio clip and you think she's 'pretty reasonable'. And anyone who disagrees is blinded by their admiration for Peter Jackson. Well, she's not likely to present in any other way, is she? A radio clip is hardly grounds to base a judgement on either way.
Whoever decided to bar her has their reasons. Without knowing what those are, no one is in a position to say whether they were right or wrong. Seems to me it's an unusual and rather extreme thing to do; as they haven't issued a blanket ban on anyone who might be critical, it would appear that their objection relates to this person specifically and therefore to something she has done or said in the past.
Was it fair? I don't know. But I do know that there are always two sides to anything, and without knowing the details, taking sides is not a good idea.
|
|
|
Estel78
Dor-Lomin
Nov 21 2012, 11:16am
Post #16 of 98
(1370 views)
Shortcut
|
|
She already didn't handle herself well in that clip, i don't like her. ;)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"claims of animal abuse by Peter" - no, it was a farm the production company contracted to hold the animals. Peter Jackson might not even have been personally involved in choosing the farm.
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Nov 21 2012, 11:16am
Post #17 of 98
(1357 views)
Shortcut
|
The production crew doesn't set up these promotional press junkets; the studio and distributors do, as they're responsible for all PR for the films (even PJ's production vlogs have to get their ok before they're uploaded). "PJ and crew" fulfill the promotional portion of their agreement by showing up to be interviewed by all the reporters invited. If the "uninvitation" had come from 3foot7 or Wingnut, or any of PJ's companies, that would be a totally different matter. But this came from Roadshow, the Warner Brothers distributor for AUS and NZ.
The confusion comes in because the phrase "the filmmakers" was used and people assume that can only mean PJ - the studio comes under that heading too, as it is the entity which is making the film (bankrolling and contracting with a production company to do the work). I think this is Warner Brothers' PR department's call, for whatever reason they objected to this reporter and apparently some others.
Silverlode
|
|
|
Xanaseb
Dor-Lomin
Nov 21 2012, 12:38pm
Post #18 of 98
(1293 views)
Shortcut
|
|
goodness, why so much scandalous hubub recently a week before the premier?... ... funny timing I say. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
--I'm a victim of Bifurcation--
__________________________________________
Join us over at Barliman's chat all day, any day!
__________________________________________
|
|
|
Demosthenes
Sr. Staff
Nov 21 2012, 1:14pm
Post #19 of 98
(1366 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Jackson spokesman says it's not them...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Despite numerous calls Roadshow hasn't responded to 3 News to confirm they've taken away Ms Norman's red carpet pass and why, but in a statement a spokesman for Sir Peter said:
“What we don't have - and have never had - is any form of media blacklist. That's not who we are or how we operate.”
http://www.3news.co.nz/Journo-banned-from-Hobbit-premiere---Radio-NZ/tabid/1748/articleID/277604/Default.aspx
TheOneRing.net Senior Staff
IRC Admin and Hall of Fire moderator
|
|
|
Antalasse
Lindon
Nov 21 2012, 1:29pm
Post #20 of 98
(1260 views)
Shortcut
|
Is it normal for such a big-budget film to have that much negative press build-up before the premiere?
...in every wood in every spring there is a different green...(c)
|
|
|
Magpie
Elvenhome
Nov 21 2012, 1:40pm
Post #21 of 98
(1267 views)
Shortcut
|
|
well.... this is kind of what I meant with the phrase 'opportune time'
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think timing it like this gets more coverage for the person making the claims. Although, the second incident in this matter isn't a case of that. It happened recently.
But the other thing is, news sources are more likely to run stories that are on topics that are hot and these are stories that aren't rehashes of 'there's a movie coming out in a few weeks set in a fantasy land by an English author'
This stuff could be happening all the time but news sources don't feel they are interesting enough to their readers to carry.
LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide
|
|
|
Antalasse
Lindon
Nov 21 2012, 1:54pm
Post #22 of 98
(1247 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Get something controversial or you won't be noticed?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In my country the press only covered The Hobbit production as long as there was some kind of scandal - real or imagined. 
...in every wood in every spring there is a different green...(c)
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Gondolin
Nov 21 2012, 2:21pm
Post #23 of 98
(1245 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So that's why I wasn't invited to the premiere.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Welcome to the real world. It all started with "embedded journalists." Anyone care to deny they don't massage the news now?
To play this sort of game with NZ's national broadcaster goes beyond disrespectful. It is a snub to the entire country. (But why not? didn't they change laws affecting human rights for this thing already?)
Is WB a world super power for bleep sakes? Un-bleeping-believable! I am sickened that I ever supported any aspect of this thing. And Peter can deny all he wants. His credibility has been on shaky ground since 2010 and this isn't helping one lick.
(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Nov 21 2012, 2:22pm)
|
|
|
Fardragon
Nargothrond
Nov 21 2012, 2:38pm
Post #24 of 98
(1339 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But don't you see, your allegations make no sense!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If you don't invite someone for free food and drink, they are more likely to give you negative coverage. So the outcome would be exactly the opposite to what you claim.
How about Radio NZ bans all it's journalists from attending any kind of media junket, on the grounds that been given free food and drink could bias their coverage?
A Far Dragon is the best kind...
|
|
|
easterlingchief1
Ossiriand
Nov 21 2012, 3:09pm
Post #25 of 98
(1185 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This isn't a violation of free speech
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Studios and Production companies have the right to show their films to whomever in the press they choose to. Regardless of where you stand o nthe creator-or-audience-ownership debate, in a court of law, THEY are the ones who own the films, and they get to decide who gets to see it first. This is a corporation trying to promote its latest product, not that same corporate behemoth forcing a change on NZ's constitution.
That being said, I do think this is a little unscrupulous. I live in LA and the studios do this all the time. For press-screening link this, they're trying to get the best buzz that they can. Journalists get turned away and banned from press screenings all the time (see Fox's ban on Drew "Moriarty" Mcweeny of AintItCoolNews.com and Hitfix as an example), and that's largely excuse they've said something that could potentially hurt the box office returns.
The bigger question for me is did Peter JAckson have anything to do with this? She says "filmmakers," but that term has been used pretty liberally by the international press to refer from anything to PJ, the writers, the people at Weta, to the studio execs. Taking into account how the studio system works and PJ's statement from his publicist, I'm going to assume the decision o ban Ms. Norman came from Warners here in LA. They have a presence in Oceania, so it's not unlikely the marketing and PR teams had knowledge of her "coverage" of the Hobbit.
Regardless who made the call, it is a little messed up that the studio is throwing it's weight around in NZ like this. They abuse their power all the time here in the States (they're a private company so they can get away with stuff like this). It's not surprising that they're taking advantage of a country and populace with laxer labor laws and a less cynical view than the type they're used to working with.
|
|
|
|
|
1
