|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spaldron
Ossiriand
Nov 30 2012, 11:34pm
Post #1 of 10
(3006 views)
Shortcut
|
|
New article on Hobbit union dispute.
|
Can't Post
|
|
Some fairly negative stuff in this Guardian article. Have to say if all is true then NZ, Warners and PJ don't come across so well. 
"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."
|
|
|
Carne
Dor-Lomin
Nov 30 2012, 11:39pm
Post #2 of 10
(589 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I wouldn't look too much into this
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Guardian has posted more negative stories about The Hobbit than any other newspaper I can think of.
They did the same with Tintin.
Edit:
As Tim said, this is just a desperate attempt to shed more bad light on the production.
(This post was edited by Carne on Nov 30 2012, 11:42pm)
|
|
|
Tim
Dor-Lomin
Nov 30 2012, 11:40pm
Post #3 of 10
(581 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Bleh we've been all over this before
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Interesting it's being dredged up again. Some folks continue to use The Hobbit as a bully pulpit...
-Tim came by. Tim! If you had heard only a quarter of what I have heard about him, and I have only heard very little of all there is to hear, you would be prepared for any sort of remarkable tale.
|
|
|
Maiarmike
Hithlum
Nov 30 2012, 11:42pm
Post #4 of 10
(577 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Interesting that they publish this now...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...not. Same situation with the PETA stuff. Take advantage of the hoopla surrounding the release to badmouth people associated with the production.
Here's my shocked face...*whaa?*
"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien
|
|
|
Lacrimae Rerum
Hithlum
Dec 1 2012, 12:02am
Post #5 of 10
(556 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's a little wee bit naughty of the Guardian
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Not to mention who Helen is in this context, I think. I had to look her up.
LR
|
|
|
Starling
Gondolin
Dec 1 2012, 1:18am
Post #6 of 10
(497 views)
Shortcut
|
if the information about who wrote it was clearer. It makes sense to me as an opinion piece. Most people probably wouldn't bother to click on her name.
I don't agree with everything Helen Kelly says, but I am very glad we have a council of trade unions.
|
|
|
Lacrimae Rerum
Hithlum
Dec 1 2012, 1:26am
Post #7 of 10
(492 views)
Shortcut
|
And similarly if an opinion piece were to be included from Warner Bros Head of Public Relations, I would also think it would be useful to know that as one reads.
LR
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 1 2012, 2:07am
Post #8 of 10
(479 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not at all impressed by this, as it's simply a repeat of what she said at the time and ignores certain other salient points, such as the fact that NZ Equity denied that it ever asked for a boycott and the head of the Australian Union apparently called it without their approval. And it was left up for a month, well past the time when it ought to have been taken down. Also, according to PJ's interview just prior to the premiere, WB sent him a whole bunch of location-scouted photos of the UK around that time, which is pretty good evidence that they would have taken the production overseas if it were not resolved to their satisfaction.
There's nothing here to make me change the conclusion I reached at the time.
Silverlode
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Gondolin
Dec 1 2012, 2:34am
Post #9 of 10
(534 views)
Shortcut
|
The Guardian piece is a response to comments Jackson made in a Telegraph article published just before the premiere (discussed here) and in a 20 minute Radio NZ interview aired the day of the premier (from the home page).
In other words, it was Jackson who resurrected this issue at this time. It may have implications for the NZ government so I guess it was thought to be expedient to rehash the official story just as all eyes (media) were on NZ for the premiere, and fan enthusiasm/anticipation is running highest.
At the first link PJ maintains the threat to leave was because of the union issue. In the radio interview he says the box of locations photos WB delivered to his offices (referred to in both pieces) must have taken 3-4 weeks to assemble.
Therefore it appears that WB began looking at moving the production some time before the boycott was announced. And, since the union action was cancelled before the session of parliament was even convened, it is clear to me that the union became a scapegoat for what was obviously a very controversial decision (IE to give a foreign multinational a quarter of a billion dollars while also passing a law to limit the rights of some people working on the production.)
In the final analysis, the union thing was more about bad timing than anything.
(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Dec 1 2012, 2:34am)
|
|
|
alienorchid
Menegroth
Dec 1 2012, 5:30am
Post #10 of 10
(532 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't really get the technicalities,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and there seems to be pretty biased stories on each side, so it's hard to really know the truth of the situation, but I do know that a bunch of people I know who work in that industry are pretty unhappy about the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
|
