John Key after meeting - Full 8min statment

about timelines and where WB's skittishness is stemming from. It seems the 2005 court case about whether actors are employees or contractors is a prodominant issue from WB's perspective. Certainly there has been plenty of time to express concerns about that case, before now.

But the PM didn't seem pessimistic, seemed kind of relaxed and unshaken really.
 
Okay, so .... Jackson goes on TV a few days ago stating unequivocably that Warners are not out for added tax breaks and just want added confidence to film in NZ. Said industry big-wigs meet the NZ PM, and now he's talking about, um ... them wanting 'incentives' = tax breaks?!?! [shocked]

Is it me, of after witnessing the extraordinary outpourings of support all week, for WB not to not come back with a decisive and clear answer at this point has only given credence to Helen's assertion that this is what Warners were angling for?

I mean, what more do they need? Jackson will be happier in NZ. The films will be better for it. The Unions have given their word not to interrupt the filiming (so hold them to it!)

I smell the aroma of horse manure again ... [unimpressed]
 
Last edited:
Seems to me the main issue is the NZ Unions. I can understand why WB is skittish. If you sink $200 million into a movie, the last thing you need is a strike.
 
The Unions have given their word not to interrupt the filiming (so hold them to it!)

There is nothing legally binding about 'giving their word'. WB have no means to hold them to anything. If more industrial action was called again in the middle of The Hobbit production there is nothing WB can do about it.

Up until this dispute they had confidence in NZ, but that confidence has been shattered so "giving their word" is kinda worthless to them now. Thats why they want the NZ Government to look at the laws to see if something can be changed to make the situation more secure again from their POV.

Of course they will be looking for econminc "sweetners" now that other countries has made one off incentives because of what has happened, but WB probably looks at this as an extra feature to try and regain some of the losses theyve encountered due the production being in limbo for the last few weeks, but it may not be a dealbreaker in the end.

We'll know soon enough.


 
imo this is 100% a play by WB to try and extract more money from the NZ taxpayer. They know the deal they can get o'seas and will go for that money if NZ doesn't match it.
 
If the union hadn't brought on this craziness, Warner wouldn't have lost a few million in production holdups, and things would have went along without issue; however Warner being a corporation looking to get those lost dollars back, and now seeing an opportunity to get it through tax breaks...of course they are going to use this new leverage they never had before...the unions boycott gave them this leverage. I also think that Warners threat is very real, because I think they have been planning to use the Harry Potter UK set for filming some scenes, in order to work around Martin Freemans (Sherlock) schedule, as well as possibly other actors in the UK that may reprise a role without traveling to NZ. So I think that Warner wants to leave the majority of filming in NZ, but if they can't recover their losses to date, and also if they don't feel secure from another union action, then they are ready to move everything off shore. I think they will feel secure on the union front after their meetings, but are now going for the new tax break incentive 'can of worms' that the union opened up for them.
 
That is basically what I said in another thread. Warner were quite 'happy' to be based in NZ. They and PJ sank a lot of money into preproduction, sets etc so the idea that WB always intended to move off-shore is a bit difficult to believe.

But, by forcing the situation, the unions have given ammunition to WB to argue for not just assurances of industrial stability within NZ but also for raising the tax incentives. They are well aware, as is the NZ government, that the subsidies offered by NZ are lower than some other countries. WB are just using the opportunity given them by the unions and this dispute to gain more for themselves. Which is basically what John Key said in that interview.

With regards to the union assurances: haven't they only promised to keep working until early next year, when the Pink Book negotiations will be completed? Presumably, if the outcome of those discussions is not satisfactory, then the unions will feel obliged to use other means to obtain the terms they want. If I have understood that right, then no wonder the producers and WB are skittish about it all.
 
"Its not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath." - Aeschylus

Their (the union's) "word" is meaningless due to their behaviour. There is now zero confidence that this won't happen again. And as stated, even if they signed a "contract" or "document" not to strike, would it hold up in court? Would a "return to work" order be immediately enforceable, or would it get tied up in the court system?

I think what's happened here, is that the actions of the unions have shown WB that there is issue with labour laws and that this seems to be a dispute between the unions and the government; WB just wants to make a movie, not get involved in politics. If NZ is going through developmental changes, they don't want to get caught in the middle, with deadlines and millions of dollars at stake.

I listened to the whole "statement" he did say the government was contemplating trying to sweeten the deal for them, but he said they were quite clear their anxiety was based solely on the instability of the workforce. The difference between NZ's tax breaks and the other countries isn't "in the tens of millions" according to Key. So, I'm assuming from they way he said it, the savings are insignificant. But in the end, Warners DID loose money by halting production by this whole ordeal.... [unsure]
 
PJ said that Warners never talked to him about wanting greater tax breaks. Now, based on this meeting, it seems that is exactly what they want...

Would they have been "good to go" without sweeteners prior to the industrial action? Perhaps, I don't know.

It's very difficult, at this point, to get a sense of what exactly the truth is.
 
the unions have utterly lost all credibility and semblance of trustworthiness they and 'Helen' once had by their unjustifiable boycotting of the films, and Warners now require additional financial incentives in order to tip the balance of risk-assessment in New Zealand's favour. The unions are lucky Warners didn't leave the country immediately.
 
The best sweetner in the world is useless to WB if 6 months later the MEAA decide they want to enforce industrial action again.

I don't really understand this conspiracy theory thing. Is the theory that WB somehow instructed Simon Whipp to decide to put The Hobbit on a worldwide union blacklist in order to create a public labor crisis that would then prompt film councils in UK, Ireland, Canada etc. to offer WB one-off tax incentives if they abandoned the millions of dollars worth of preproduction work already sunk into NZ and move?

Phew.
 
There has been no reported pressure from WB with regards to tax breaks until after the boycott was started and other locations were being looked at. WB might have wanted better tax incentives but appeared to be prepared to live with the current NZ setup, for all the advantages that having PJ, Wingnuts, Weta and the rest that NZ offered.

Now they have the government of NZ negotiating with them, so obviously they're going to put incentives on the table, even if it was never part of the discussions before.

One has to hope that the cost of relocating, the potential losses in having to start again, as well as the obvious advantages of being based in NZ, outweigh the benefits of higher tax concessions elsewhere. But having seen some of the decisions made by other studio executives based on the bottom line I am not sanguine about the outcome.
 
The best thing NZ could do is formalize the union negotiating process in the country by changing its labor laws to allow for collective bargaining. That would completely eliminate the possibility of such instability. Random industrial actions on this scale don't happen in places with such laws - apart from France and Italy - but that is a function of a different set of laws, practices and history of industrial protest.

Until this action, I had no idea NZ labor laws were what they were. I'm glad I do now, and I hope this ultimately results in progress for the working people of the country. Fingers crossed that Warners and the NZ government can come to an agreement.
 
We've now heard Peter Jackson, Philippa Boyens, Fran Walsh and the Prime Minister of New Zealand say that Warners were all set to film in New Zealand and had not asked for financial incentives until the union action took place and that's good enough for me - I believe them. The money they've already sunk into preparations for the film argues for the same case.

Then the unions gave them a good financial reason to look elsewhere and opened the door to other countries offering tax incentives (kind of hard to believe our government has, given the parlous state of the public finances....) and when Warners sit down to negotiate with the New Zealand government of course they've going to say 'this is what we've been offered elsewhere', that's how businesses negotiate. They've lost money through this and will be out to get the best deal they can. But it seems pretty clear that money isn't the only issue. They don't believe assurances from the union side and who can blame them, with spokepeople from that side still trying to wriggle out of all responsibility by claiming that it's all down to Warners and they wanted to move anyway.

It's a sad, sad business - and who'd have thought two or three years ago that the film would still be shrouded in so much uncertainty. I just hope the employment issue can be sorted out and the cost and inconvenience of starting again elsewhere will outweigh the tax incentives on offer.

My guess is that the one big miscaulculation the union made was in thinking The Hobbit was so deeply rooted in New Zealand that it couldn't be moved....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top