Why I will not be going to The Hobbit

Boulevardier

I'm not sure how well known it is at this end of the world that the Hobbit films were only made in New Zealand because the government there were bullied by the producers into weakening their Labour protection and trade union rights laws.

This is from the Wikipedia item on the film:

Industrial dispute in New Zealand
On 24 September 2010, the International Federation of Actors issued a Do Not Work order, advising members of its member unions (including the Screen Actors Guild) that "The producers... have refused to engage performers on union-negotiated agreements."[120] This would subject actors who work on the film to possible expulsion from the union.[121] In response, Warner Bros and New Line Cinema considered taking the production elsewhere, with Jackson mentioning the possibility of filming in Eastern Europe.[121]
Partly out of fear for the Tolkien tourism effect, on 25 October 2010, thousands of New Zealanders organised protest rallies imploring that production remain in New Zealand, arguing that shifting production to locations outside New Zealand would potentially cost the country's economy up to $1.5 billion.[122] After two days of talks with the New Zealand government (including involvement by Prime Minister John Key), Warner Bros. executives decided on 27 October to film The Hobbit in New Zealand as originally planned. In return, the Conservative run government of New Zealand agreed to introduce legislation to remove the right of workers to organise trade unions in the film production industry, and to give money to big budget films made in New Zealand.[123][124][125] The legislation reversed a decision by the New Zealand Supreme Court called Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd[126] holding that under the Employment Relations Act 2000, a model maker named Mr Bryson was an "employee" who could organise a union to defend his interests. The Key government's legislation has been criticised as breaching the International Labour Organization's core ILO Convention 87 on freedom of association, and giving an unfair subsidy to protect multinational business interests.[127]
Some have subsequently called the price (further financial subsidies and specific laws made for the producers' benefit) that New Zealand had to pay to retain the movie 'extortionate'. It was also argued that the discussion had occurred in a climate of 'hyperbole and hysteria'.

I do not appreciate that sort of behaviour by employers, and so, huge Middle earth fan that I am, I will be sitting these films out.

Sad Professor

Thanks for sharing that with us. However, it's not really relevant to the Films forum. We just talk about the art of films here, not the politics and labour disputes behind their production.

Mellor

What exactly did the unions want that the producers wouldn't grant? As without that info it's a meaningless discussion. The union could of just as easily be described as blackmailing the studio.

The tax breaks for the film are pretty standard. I imaging plenty of countries (esoecially ireland) would grant that in an instant. Half-rate tax on a $150 million budgeted film is worth infinitely more than full rate on no film.

Im interested in the answers here, I'll be watching the film regardless.

Giruilla

Boulevardier wrote: »

I'n not sure everyone realises that thjis film was only masde in New Zealand because the producers bullied the government there into weakening their labour protection laws.
...

Patrons might want to ponder this point before they go.

Sad professor, this is relevant, so please do not say otherwise.

I don't understand why your thread was closed myself. Films forum seems like natural place to discuss something film related.. in your case a production related topic!

Personally I won't be going because a) it looks awful, b) they've made a short good book into whats bound to be 8-9 hour borefest and c) that borefest will be spread over 3 films and almost 3 years!

Sad Professor

Alright, I've moved posts regarding this from the main thread to here and I'm re-openning this thread. We'll see how this goes.

Just keep it to this thread please.

jaykhunter

Jeez, can't this be in another forum, say in politics? Not the main film forum we we come to discuss our love for movies, trying to harangue us about this plight & also trying to ruin our enjoyment of a huge film about to be released? This topic feels wrong in this forum. Is unfair labour discussed in the fashion forum? Because if not, this shouldn't be.

Boulevardier

Thanks Professor.

Mellor, I actually do not know what the unions would have looked for had the law not been changed; surely however whatever it was could have been made a subject for bargaining and negotiation, which is what unions do on behalf of their members.

I would have no problem with giving the producers whatever grants it took; that would not be an issue.

The point here is that the government of New Zealand was bullied into weakening its labour protection laws. I do not find that behaviour acceptable from a film (or any other) industry.

I am not saying everyone should boycott the film(s), but I think it is right that people going to the film are aware of this.

Pat Mustard

OMG I hope they didn't harm any hobbits in the making of the movies.

splashthecash

ZZZzzzzzz....

I come into the Films thread to read\discuss films themselves, not the disputes\laws\politics behind them

I bid you good day gentlemen

humanji

I fail to see how the politics of filmmaking can be irrelevant to a film forum or boring. It's pretty fascinating. But as said, in the above case, we don't know the full details so it's hard to form an opinion on it. Production companies have long been making demands of the locations. Sometimes it works out well for everyone (I think it was The Expendables 2 production that built a railway bridge for the local town they were filming in), and other times it turns into a story of blackmail and intrigue that's often more interesting than the actual film being made.

The producers of The Hobbit have a job to do and have shareholders to answer to. They need to get the best deal possible. If they can film cheaper somewhere else, then they should. If the New Zealand government are willing to bend over backwards for the boost to the tourism industry, then I can't see how the production is to blame. It's the governments fault.

adox

If we were to take the moral high ground on every other aspect of our life we would never go outside the door, never spend money on anything!

Also OP, you are of course entitled to boycott the film as you see fit but I would advise a bit more research than a Wiki page to inform both your opinion and stance.

Giruilla

I don't understand why people would care if there is a thread thats 'boring' to them.. just don't read it.
Suppose discussion on animal cruelty during the making of this film should also be moved to 'politics' as it might take away from people precious enjoyment of the film!

I also think the blame lies completely with the NZ government. I'm sure its in the countries short term interests in regards tourism anyway and the legislation will more than likely be reversed later.

krudler

union disputes and working conditions have always been around in filmmaking, like James Cameron losing it because of union mandated tea breaks on the set of Aliens which were part of the British crews working terms etc, its a kinda fascinating part of the process.

pixelburp

Well clearly we're only getting one side of this, and as mentioned above we don't know how the unions acted in this instance - trade unions don't exactly have an unblemished, pious record themselves - it certainly wouldn't have been the first time if they tried to blackmail / scalp the studio beyond any reasonable demands. I support the idea of unions, but don't automatically side with them just because someone goes "yay unions, booo multinationals!"

And of course it goes without saying that pasting a Wikipedia article doesn't exactly guarantee we're reading all the facts, or that the facts are being presented without bias or emotive slant.

As for the shouts for boycott, well tbh if you decide to boycott a film over shady business / labour practices, then OP I would suggest you stop watching films altogether - seems to me like the entire film industry is built on the back of dodgy dealing and less-than-ethical practices. It's a tad glib to pick on one particular film, that just so happens to be a big marquee production everyone's talking about, just because of one particular dispute.

Look at it this way: as mentioned the decision may be overturned in time. Laws change, unions too, but The Hobbit will still be around in years to come & people aren't going to judge it based on the controversies that happened during its production.

Boulevardier

"It's a tad glib to pick on one particular film, that just so happens to be a big marquee production everyone's talking about, just because of one particular dispute."

In my view, this is not just "one particular dispute." It is wholesale bullying of a small country by arrogant producers who threatened to take their business elesewhere. They were forced to change their laws for God's sake!

Anyway, I am just asking that people remember that this is part of the price that was paid to make the movie.

pixelburp

The government weren't forced into doing anything by the looks of things, the decision was made purely out of fear it would hurt the so-called Tolkien Tourism - which if nothing else shows the government pathetically undervalues its own tourism industry (speaking as someone who has visited NZ, they shouldn't). Add to that, the very piece you paste talks of NZ citizens protesting to the government that The Hobbit be allowed film in NZ.

So to me the only people to "blame" are New Zealanders who appear to have a misplaced sense of ownership over this franchise, mixed with inflated guesstimates about how much it would cost the economy. Sure, the studio probably played hard-ball & nobody likes a corporation, but they had the whole world to pick, it was no skin off their nose where they filmed. Instead, I see nothing but a bit of desperation from Kiwis trying to keep a national myth going. One only has to look at the Premiere to see that in full swing.

If they're willing to go to those lengths for the sake of a few films, that's their choice and theirs to live with; it ultimately has no real affect on what goes on-screen, the film will outlast all of us, as do most artistic creations; so I'd suggest that if you would like to see the film, do so in clear conscience

Boulevardier

Obviously I am not dictating to anyone else, but for me the film is tainted goods, and the only way I can treat tainted goods is by not paying my money for them.

It is a real pity - I am a huge Middle-Earth fan. FFS, I even think the Silmarillion is pretty good!

Perhaps I will get to see it eventually, but for now, no.

wildlifeboy

Boulevardier wrote: »

Obviously I am not dictating to anyone else, but for me the film is tainted goods, and the only way I can treat tainted goods is by not paying my money for them.

It is a real pity - I am a huge Middle-Earth fan. FFS, I even think the Silmarillion is pretty good!

Perhaps I will get to see it eventually, but for now, no.

boycott away. i will be enjoying it with my butter popcorn and coke and couldnt give a sh1t about the points you made... lol

Savman

I won't be going to see it either OP, mainly because it looks pants and Peter Jackson is involved.

wildlifeboy

yeah because peter jackson ruins things like that????????

Savman

wildlifeboy wrote: »

yeah because peter jackson ruins things like that????????

King Kong was watchable, but I'm not a LOTR fan at all so will be giving this a miss.

Mickeroo

TBH this is pretty low on my list of things to boycott on moral grounds. Indeed, considering I occasionally drink Coca-Cola, drive a car and eat at McDonalds I don't think I can justifiably boycott anything I enjoy on moral grounds.

MiloYossarian

They nearly stopped The Hobbit being made. One of the places they were looking at as an alternative place to film was Ireland.

krudler

MiloYossarian wrote: »

They nearly stopped The Hobbit being made. One of the places they were looking at as an alternative place to film was Ireland.

Wonder what tax breaks in Ireland are like for movies, there's some amazing scenery here it'd suit a fantasy set epic film.

Hurricane Carter

OP, you're probably the proud owner/consumer of a number of products/services with questionable backgrounds as regards the entire manufacturing process.

As a previous poster said, it's impossible to boycott everything on moral grounds, we'd never have anything!

Pick your battles a bit closer to home if you're really bothered about ethics is my 2c.

Boulevardier

Kong, I pick my battles according to what disgusts me the most.

I find the behaviour of Peter Jackson's company pretty bloody awful. Maybe I should feel stronger that I do about Coca Cola, but be that as it may, the Hobbit films come with a bad smell that I cannot shake off.

Ipso

krudler wrote: »

Wonder what tax breaks in Ireland are like for movies, there's some amazing scenery here it'd suit a fantasy set epic film.

I don't thinkMcMansions featured in Middle Earth though.

NIMAN

I am also seriously considering not going to see it too, but for the reason that I cannot stand Martin Freeman as an actor.

He is awful, and acts the same way in every role I have seen him in.

Shame, as I loved the LOTR films.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i must get around to actually watching the third lotr movie, walked out of the cinema halfway through when it was released as I found it so damn boring

the idea that I could just get up and go home hit me like a revelation during the intermission. i'm also mildly curious to see if i'll dislike the two towers as much now as I did back then.

Giruilla

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

i must get around to actually watching the third lotr movie, walked out of the cinema halfway through when it was released as I found it so damn boring

the idea that I could just get up and go home hit me like a revelation during the intermission. i'm also mildly curious to see if i'll dislike the two towers as much now as I did back then.

Try watching the 4 hour or so extended version..

Miguel_Sanchez

krudler wrote: »

Wonder what tax breaks in Ireland are like for movies, there's some amazing scenery here it'd suit a fantasy set epic film.

Tax breaks are decent enough here.

http://www.iftn.ie/legal/section481/

Fysh

Personally I draw the line at the decision to make a 3-film series out of one straightforwardly short book. I'm not a huge LotR fan - I can appreciate the cinematography in the films, but I still found the theatrical releases long enough, so having the same again for a story that doesn't need it smacks of pure greed.

I respect the OP for being concerned about the treatment of the employees working in the film industry, particularly given that concern for workers in the industry is only usually spouted by big film studios as an excuse for their latest anti-piracy measure. Though, as with every union dispute, knowing more facts is key to making an informed decision.

It's saddening to see so many people in this forum leap to berate the poster for bringing up an issue that's potentially quite important on the basis that they don't want some silly notion like employee rights getting in the way of their enjoyment of a big-budget film. Nobody's saying you specifically have to care, but berating others for doing so because it might interfere with your appreciation of a film seems very callous to me

ThunderApple

Everything is about money.
But even knowing these things I'm going to The Hobbit.

Lennonist

Interesting thread. Politics and labour disputes/issues play a part in the film industry just like in many other walks of life and industries.

FlashD

Boulevardier wrote: »

Obviously I am not dictating to anyone else, but for me the film is tainted goods, and the only way I can treat tainted goods is by not paying my money for them.

It is a real pity - I am a huge Middle-Earth fan. FFS, I even think the Silmarillion is pretty good!

Perhaps I will get to see it eventually, but for now, no.

Good for you, stick to your principle because you know what?

By the looks of things, nobody else gives a sh*t!

Picking on what suits you is hypocritical,

......so not unless you are self sufficent to the point of avoiding every major global brand, and not leaving the house, does your arguement hold any weight with me.

I'll be going along to this, washed down with a Coca Cola and a box of GM popcorn.

Good luck now.

jpm4

Fysh wrote: »

Personally I draw the line at the decision to make a 3-film series out of one straightforwardly short book. I'm not a huge LotR fan - I can appreciate the cinematography in the films, but I still found the theatrical releases long enough, so having the same again for a story that doesn't need it smacks of pure greed.

It's a short book that covers a lot of events that can easily make up 2 films. Add in the appendix material and there is loads for 3 films. It's an argument trotted out time and time again here and it doesn't hold up.

It's saddening to see so many people in this forum leap to berate the poster for bringing up an issue that's potentially quite important on the basis that they don't want some silly notion like employee rights getting in the way of their enjoyment of a big-budget film. Nobody's saying you specifically have to care, but berating others for doing so because it might interfere with your appreciation of a film seems very callous to me

Totally agree - some people must be pretty bored to bother posting such comments in the first place.

Manco

'Removing the rights of film industry workers was welcomed by Jackson and Fran Walsh, who emailed the government saying they were "thrilled" and "relieved" that the law had passed.' Fairly vile stuff alright. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/30/hobbit-actor-union-dispute

pixelburp

Fysh wrote: »

It's saddening to see so many people in this forum leap to berate the poster for bringing up an issue that's potentially quite important on the basis that they don't want some silly notion like employee rights getting in the way of their enjoyment of a big-budget film. Nobody's saying you specifically have to care, but berating others for doing so because it might interfere with your appreciation of a film seems very callous to me

Well I think there's a fair discussion to be had about boycotting the movie on grounds that don't exactly make total sense when seen against the broader history of the medium, or our own commercial-driven 1st world life. Ideologically it's fine and commendable, but pragmatically it seems pointless. Especially when from what I read the Kiwis were happy to take this move themselves.

That said, some of the replies here have been needlessly nasty & trollish. Surprised a mod hadn't stepped in to slap some on the wrists about it; distinct comments taking out the man, not the ball

FlashD

pixelburp wrote: »

Well I think there's a fair discussion to be had about boycotting the movie on grounds that don't exactly make total sense when seen against the broader history of the medium, or our own commercial-driven 1st world life. Ideologically it's fine and commendable, but pragmatically it seems pointless. Especially when from what I read the Kiwis were happy to take this move themselves.

That said, some of the replies here have been needlessly nasty & trollish. Surprised a mod hadn't stepped in to slap some on the wrists about it; distinct comments taking out the man, not the ball

I respect your opinion, you always make good points but its a couple of weeks away from one of the most anticipated films of the year for fans and this negative preachy rubbish gets released in a film forum of all places so i'm not surprised with the trollish replies.

Technocentral

Manco wrote: »

'Removing the rights of film industry workers was welcomed by Jackson and Fran Walsh, who emailed the government saying they were "thrilled" and "relieved" that the law had passed.' Fairly vile stuff alright. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/30/hobbit-actor-union-dispute

Unless your high up in it, the film industry treats people like shiite, you're supposed to be glad of a job in it just because its perceived by the general public as "magical".

bnt

I'm hardly going to take a piece printed in The Grauniad as fully representative of all sides of the story. Particularly a piece written by the President of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. You think, perhaps, she might have an agenda?

Basic economics tells us that value is related to scarcity. Gold would be just another soft heavy metal, like lead, if it was as abundant as lead. (Not a perfect metaphor, I know, but broadly accurate.) So, in this era when labour is abundant, classic union tactics such as withdrawal of labour (by strike etc.) just aren't as effective as they used to be.

If you think this is bad, you should read about what happened in 1986 in the Wapping Dispute. If unions stick to unrealistic demands, employers can just go around them.

Sad Professor

pixelburp wrote: »

That said, some of the replies here have been needlessly nasty & trollish. Surprised a mod hadn't stepped in to slap some on the wrists about it; distinct comments taking out the man, not the ball

I anticipated this which is why I initially locked the thread. However, Boulevardier then proceeded to take the discussion into the main Hobbit thread, implying that I had locked this thread out of personal bias. Rather than get into a fight with him over it, I decided to re-open this thread and give it a chance. If Boulevardier feels as strongly about this as he says, then I assume he's prepared to take a little bit of ridicule. Otherwise he shouldn't have started this discussion here. As I said before, I feel this topic is unsuited to this forum. If he wants I'll re-lock this thread.

In the meantime, if there are posts that you think are crossing the line, then please report them. But I actually think the discussion has been fairly civil so far with some thoughtful replies.

johnny_ultimate

pixelburp wrote: »

That said, some of the replies here have been needlessly nasty & trollish. Surprised a mod hadn't stepped in to slap some on the wrists about it; distinct comments taking out the man, not the ball

There's actually been a banning on this thread (the comment was swiftly deleted) so rest assured we're keeping an eye on it. Don't like bringing unnecessary attention to mod action if we can avoid it. As ever, report any posts you think think step over the line - we haven't received a single report from this thread yet.

As for the case in hand, having been to New Zealand there's undoubtedly a strong tourist industry there surrounding these films - as mentioned in some of the arguments, it is impossible to accurately value, but its prominent especially around Wellington. Peter Jackson has done a lot for the country's film industry - **** it, his companies basically are the film industry - but yeah bullying and cheap labour tactics are not to be encouraged. Still, there's more to it than 'Hollywood is Evil' (even though they are), and if anything the Government of New Zealand are the ones who come out weakest for keeling to corporate pressure. Even then, the repercussions of the decision both positive and negative are impossible to measure without hard facts.

There is something to be said for making a moral stand when your beliefs are strong (my personal futile boycott of 3D trudges ever onwards, and I haven't eaten a McDonalds in a decade), but this does seem like an unusual battle to pick of all the worthy ones - the film is made and is inevitably going to do gangbusters at the box office. Stand by one's conviction if you truly feel that strongly about it, but don't shoot yourself in the foot if you really, really want to see the film - any damage is regrettably already done, and almost completely out of the control of everyone outside New Zealand.

Still, I would wholeheartedly support a boycott of studio productions point blank

Goldstein

The hard facts seem very hard to find - such as exactly what terms and conditions are degraded by being classed as a contractor rather than an employee? Most reports I've read when not descending into sensationalism and hyperbole talk in generalities and vague terms so it's hard to form an opinion either way.

There is one inescapable fact however: Considering the high hundreds of millions of dollars in profits this movie is guaranteed to make, a studio playing hardball to this extent with the very people who will contribute to its success seems to have only one possible motivation for doing so: greed.

I'll be honest, the story definitely won't stop me going to see it as labour disputes must happen in the movie industry continuously without getting this level of exposure but you have to respect the opinion of any who feel strongly enough about it to forego what will hopefully be one of the most enjoyable big screen spectacles of the year.

repsol

Boulevardier wrote: »

I'm not sure how well known it is at this end of the world that the Hobbit films were only made in New Zealand because the government there were bullied by the producers into weakening their Labour protection and trade union rights laws.

This is from the Wikipedia item on the film:

Industrial dispute in New Zealand
On 24 September 2010, the International Federation of Actors issued a Do Not Work order, advising members of its member unions (including the Screen Actors Guild) that "The producers... have refused to engage performers on union-negotiated agreements."[120] This would subject actors who work on the film to possible expulsion from the union.[121] In response, Warner Bros and New Line Cinema considered taking the production elsewhere, with Jackson mentioning the possibility of filming in Eastern Europe.[121]
Partly out of fear for the Tolkien tourism effect, on 25 October 2010, thousands of New Zealanders organised protest rallies imploring that production remain in New Zealand, arguing that shifting production to locations outside New Zealand would potentially cost the country's economy up to $1.5 billion.[122] After two days of talks with the New Zealand government (including involvement by Prime Minister John Key), Warner Bros. executives decided on 27 October to film The Hobbit in New Zealand as originally planned. In return, the Conservative run government of New Zealand agreed to introduce legislation to remove the right of workers to organise trade unions in the film production industry, and to give money to big budget films made in New Zealand.[123][124][125] The legislation reversed a decision by the New Zealand Supreme Court called Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd[126] holding that under the Employment Relations Act 2000, a model maker named Mr Bryson was an "employee" who could organise a union to defend his interests. The Key government's legislation has been criticised as breaching the International Labour Organization's core ILO Convention 87 on freedom of association, and giving an unfair subsidy to protect multinational business interests.[127]
Some have subsequently called the price (further financial subsidies and specific laws made for the producers' benefit) that New Zealand had to pay to retain the movie 'extortionate'. It was also argued that the discussion had occurred in a climate of 'hyperbole and hysteria'.

I do not appreciate that sort of behaviour by employers, and so, huge Middle earth fan that I am, I will be sitting these films out.

Jesus ,I hope Warner Bros don't have to go out of business because they won't be getting your 9 euros entrance fee:rolleyes:

Fysh

jpm4 wrote: »

It's a short book that covers a lot of events that can easily make up 2 films. Add in the appendix material and there is loads for 3 films. It's an argument trotted out time and time again here and it doesn't hold up.

I'll admit I haven't read it in years, so I don't recall it in any great detail - but what I do recall just doesn't seem enough to need to be split into three feature-length films. Yes, the film-makers may decide to flesh out a load of stuff, but there's no guarantee that it will make the story better. Of course, without seeing the three films it's impossible to judge how they've done it so I guess time will tell.

Part of this is the same problem I have with a lot of fantasy and sci-fi fiction - there seem to be some authors and publishers desperate to start selling new series or sagas from scratch, instead of trying to write one good book at a time that tells a complete story in and of itself and building from there. So when I see a film based on a hugely popular fantasy book being turned into a trilogy, I can't help but suspect that a large part of the motivation is the increased returns of such a move compared to a single film release. I know film-making is a business, but if the business actively encourages practices that weaken the storytelling it's bad for everyone. Obviously the question of what weakens storytelling is a personal judgement call that each of us makes as best we can.

kumate_champ07

humanji wrote: »

I fail to see how the politics of filmmaking can be irrelevant to a film forum or boring. It's pretty fascinating. But as said, in the above case, we don't know the full details so it's hard to form an opinion on it. Production companies have long been making demands of the locations. Sometimes it works out well for everyone (I think it was The Expendables 2 production that built a railway bridge for the local town they were filming in), and other times it turns into a story of blackmail and intrigue that's often more interesting than the actual film being made.

The producers of The Hobbit have a job to do and have shareholders to answer to. They need to get the best deal possible. If they can film cheaper somewhere else, then they should. If the New Zealand government are willing to bend over backwards for the boost to the tourism industry, then I can't see how the production is to blame. It's the governments fault.

ha, they also caused the death of 22,000 rare bats in Bolivia in a cave they were filming in, there are rumors of bribes to get the location permit as the bats are a protected species, 8000 survived.

pixelburp

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

...

As for the case in hand, having been to New Zealand there's undoubtedly a strong tourist industry there surrounding these films - as mentioned in some of the arguments, it is impossible to accurately value, but its prominent especially around Wellington. Peter Jackson has done a lot for the country's film industry - **** it, his companies basically are the film industry - ...

Well this thread did get me thinking what the health of the film industry in NZ was actually like: because off the top of my head the only two non-Jackson Kiwi films I can think of are the admittedly-excellent Whale Rider & Black Sheep, whose insane SFX are thanks to WETA anyway, so it probably doesn't count
Not that the export of its films should justify any labour discrepancies in NZ, but I am curious as to how healthy or otherwise its TV & film industry is. The country's no bigger than Ireland, but we've had a decent history of exporting our best (and worst) material, doesn't seem like NZ has that same luck; I'd hate to think that the film industry in NZ is being artificially propped up by the sum-total of work on the Middle Earth films - if so, it might then explain their desperation to get New Line back in the country at any cost.

johnny_ultimate

pixelburp wrote: »

Well this thread did get me thinking what the health of the film industry in NZ was actually like: because off the top of my head the only two non-Jackson Kiwi films I can think of are the admittedly-excellent Whale Rider & Black Sheep, whose insane SFX are thanks to WETA anyway, so it probably doesn't count
Not that the export of its films should justify any labour discrepancies in NZ, but I am curious as to how healthy or otherwise its TV & film industry is. The country's no bigger than Ireland, but we've had a decent history of exporting our best (and worst) material, doesn't seem like NZ has that same luck; I'd hate to think that the film industry in NZ is being artificially propped up by the sum-total of work on the Middle Earth films - if so, it might then explain their desperation to get New Line back in the country at any cost.

The wholly indigenous film industry is small, probably comparable to Ireland if not a bit smaller even. Once Were Warriors - and to a lesser degree its sequel - is one of their most beloved local productions. Taika Waititi is probably their most recent cult directorial export - after his Oscar awesome nominated short Two Cars, One Night (watch it, it's great) he directed Eagle vs Shark, many episodes of Flight of the Conchords and the supposedly rather good Boy (alas yet to receive a release around these parts). There's also Jane Campion, of course, and the internationally funded The Piano. Once Were Warriors and Boy were definitely the two most cited films when I queried asked Kiwis about their local films - they generally seem to have the same apathy towards indigenous productions we begrudging Irish do.

But Peter Jackson's influence has extended beyond the handful of 'directed by Peter Jackson' films (although Kong and Lovely Bones would have been healthy-sized productions too, so he has kept things local since the conclusion of the LotR films). Numerous major productions (not just post-production) have chosen New Zealand thanks in part to its fantasy-friendly sweeping landscapes and WETA / Jackson's stunning Wellington facilities. I was only there briefly, but it's a monster of a setup. Narnia, 30 Days of Night, (ahem) Yogi Bear... oh, and of course a little film called Avatar

Jackson has invested a lot of his own resources into building huge Wellington production facilities - there's probably only a handful of high-quality setups like it in the world. It may well be the best, actually - James Cameron seems to think so. I'm sure the last thing PJ wanted to do was move production internationally if he could avoid it, since no director has done as much passionate work in improving their hometown's cinematic resources as he has. I'm sure there was a lot of studio pressure, and the government made some excessive concessions, but personally I have more respect for Jackson's commitment to NZ and developing fantastic production infrastructure than his filmmaking skills. I'm sure the 'full picture' is much more complicated than that, but from what I've seen and heard from a variety of sources I cannot possibly deny he's done a lot of good work.

GodlessM

Boulevardier wrote: »

The point here is that the government of New Zealand was bullied into weakening its labour protection laws. I do not find that behaviour acceptable from a film (or any other) industry.

No they weren't, and that article does not say so either. The producers could not feasibly make their movie there under the conditions presented and opted to go elsewhere, and so the government made the decision to go into talks to maintain production in their country. That's no bullying, that's doing their damn job, plus it was the government's decision to persue it. You seem to have an idealistic notion about how these things work, but the truth is under the circumstances it was an ption for the producers to go elsewhere or not make the movie at all. New Zealand would have lost out either way, and they made the right move of their own accord to save themselves.

I also find the notion of a government being 'bullied' by a few film makers laughable.

Boulevardier

I do not agree with your contention that the film was unfeasible in NZ without the change in the law. It might have been less profitable but that is not the same thing.

Of course governments can be bullied and blackmailed by big business. It happens here in ireland all the time.