The Hobbit in Danger Due to Labor Squabbles

Avelestar

New member
Apr 17, 2010
137
0
0
It's a sad day to be an Australian...get your heads out of your asses and help make what should be an awesome movie fellas. I've been waiting to see a liveaction hobbit movie since I was 6!
 

2fish

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,930
0
0
To be honest I have no interest in this film and will probably never see it. However, since so many of my fellow escapists want this film I offer my support. May the movie be made so the hate threads can begin the masses can have fun.
 

Berithil

Maintenence Man of the Universe
Mar 19, 2009
1,600
0
0
Why do they have to torture me so much with all these delays? I hope this doesn't stop the movie from being made. Oh, please be made.
 

Nouw

New member
Mar 18, 2009
15,615
0
0
Don't give up hope, Jackson has the high ground.

Please film it in Auckland!
 

spectrenihlus

New member
Feb 4, 2010
1,918
0
0
The Root Beer Guy said:
I really wish this movie would just die. LOTR was enough to make me happy.
Imagine being able to watch in one day the LotR trilogy and the Hobbit back to back on the same day. Think of the happiness you will be able to have.

I know you want to see Smaug on the big screen.
 

Soviet Steve

New member
May 23, 2009
1,511
0
0
Baaah, unions evil

Just kill anyone qualified to work on this project and there's no risk of unions getting into the mess, and no, human rights don't apply to humans anymore, it's inconveniant for the employers and the consumers.
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
This is clearly a case of the Australian Unions pulling some real bad acts just for some extra pull in how things get done. Frankly I am getting tired of labor unions as their message got lost a long time ago when they let themselves get exploited by gangs and politicos. Either the objective here is to claim territory in New Zealand which is breaking national laws and possible international treaties and trade acts, or they actually don't want PJ making the Hobbit in NZ and are acting in this manner to drive the production out. I don't see the first having any success, and would be stupid to act on as the government would use any ammo they could to suppress the abilities of unions to act. Which would harm their members who are more interested in a paycheck and less on some stupid agenda. The second is just as stupid as if this does cause PJ to move production to Eastern Europe, other studios and producers might see a sign that New Zealand and Australia just ain't worth the effort right now to produce movies in. Which would pull a lot of tax dollars out of both countries and put locals out of work.
Yeah, way to protect hard working people there, dumbasses.
 

darthricardo

New member
May 7, 2010
130
0
0
Hithlain said:
At least finish the movie before Ian McKellen kicks it. There will never, ever, ever be a better Gandalf then him.
My thoughts exactly. The switch of Dumbledores after Harry Potter 2 was jarring enough. You will never, EVER get a better gandalf than Ian McKellen.

EDIT: Actually, Christopher Lee wants to do it. No doubt he would be thrilled.
 

Veylon

New member
Aug 15, 2008
1,626
0
0
I guess I don't see the problem here. Why the fixation on New Zealand, anyway? Sure, the other films were shot there, but I'm sure that nice scenery and actors exist in other places. Off to Czech, then, I suppose.
 

Vern

New member
Sep 19, 2008
1,302
0
0
Good, after the debacle that was the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I don't need them ruining The Hobbit as well.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
LoneGunmanO23 said:
Wow. Maybe Unionized labor is trying to pass itself off as something more respectable than a bunch of cutthroat thugs nowadays. I see that as an improvement. Personally, I think that the best way to respond to Unionized rioting is with automatic weaponry, but that's just me.

EDIT: spelling

I think your attitude sort of illustrates the problem given that it is fairly naive and ignorant. I'm sure a lot of people in organized labour feel that way.

Don't be insulted, rather look at it this way:

When it comes to anything in society there is an attitude among people that they should be able to get something for nothing, with no real risk or effort on their part. When it comes to unions people fail to realize that the entire power of such groups is based on force. Just like how non-violent protest is also based on the threat of violence. When dealing with people in a position of power there is no reason why they have to listen to those who do not have power if they do nothing but talk. The law doesn't matter in such cases as those at the top of the social food chain are the ones who control the laws due to having the money and control.

Once the people in power cease to fear unions, or protestors, they lose their power. Even strikes can be ignored if an employer doesn't feel that a union is going to do anything to the scabs, or effectively prevent them from simply replacing the people involved.

The problem today is that people increasingly feel that all the big fights have already been won, and there is no real reason why they should have to do anything more than show up with the occasional sign, or mention a word like "union" and get fair treatment. Sadly it doesn't work that way. For things to work employers need to feel that if they don't deal fairly with the employees they are going to be hurt, killed, or lose their holdings. They also need to feel that the law (which they buy) is not going to be able to stop this. Then when the employees sit down to negotiate the employer is going to seriously weigh the employee demands against the potential costs, and perhaps seek a middle ground since this kind of action is still painful for the employees to engage in.

The lack of respect/fear for employees is exactly why businesses can move overseas yet still use American markets to sell products, engage in profit based layoffs, and all of the other things we see going on.

Right now the people who resort to strong action, like violence, are typically regarded as aberrants, yet arguably those are people that have the right idea, but can't accomplish anything on their own. Today people tend to just sit there and go "well I'm glad that wasn't me" when someone is fired unfairly, or even a group of people are let go. Then when their turn comes around, nobody else does anything and just looks at them and goes "I'm glad that wasn't me".

EVERYTHING has a cost, and fair employment is one of those things. The cost is the constant willingness to fight in a very literal sense for those rights. When a union, or employee group ceases to keep the employers on their toes and starts worrying about the laws and such above and beyond their purpose, things go to pot like we're seeing now.

See, it's easy for the authorities to arrest a few people, but if hundreds or thousands of people act in concert, one of the demands of the union is also going to be that the Governor effectively pardons those involved in the action. What's more smart people in unions are going to wear masks and the like when they actually do anything. Arresting hundreds or even thousands of people isn't practical with prisons that are already overcrowded, especially when these people have reasonable demands and are easy enough to deal with.

On top of this, one has to understand that nowadays police have unions and such too. One has to remember that having a volunteer police force, recruited from the population, one of the benefits is that if things are done right the police might not exactly be excited to risk their lives to oppress what is a just cause. That kind of perception is very important. If say a hundred union people in masks storm a factory after an unjust layoff of whatever and start shooting or beating the crud out of scabs, supervisors, etc... the police *might* very well decide to show up an hour or so late. People tend to forget the kinds of things that went down (both support from, and resistance by the police) to establish unions. It happened that way, because there is no other way.

People need to understand that violence and the threat thereof is a big part of human society and overcome their resistance to use it leverage. There is such a thing as causing problems by becoming too civilized. There are contexts in which it's perfectly right and acceptable.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
pinchy said:
That's the key word here. Collective bargaining is completely legal and common in regards to employees in New Zealand- actors however are not employees, they are independent contractors (i.e- they are on fixed-term contracts, they get many tax benefits but don't enjoy holiday pay and some benefits that employees would get. Really there's good and bad points to both working arrangements).

What the union wants is illegal- not to screw workers but to protect consumers. It's like if all the plumbers got together and set minimum prices, it's price-fixing and quite frankly a bad thing. The only thing they stand to accomplish here is to piss off the studios to the stage that they pull out. Instead of getting international exposure by being in a big-budget movie that will hopefully lead to big money Hollywood roles they will get to go back to bit parts on Shortland Street (or go into the exciting worlds of retail and fast food). I really don't see how anything that is going on is actually in the best interests of anyone other than the union.
Things like price fixing and cartel activity are something that should be policed seperatly. An entirely differant subject which would derail this something fierce.

In this case what your dealing with is an unjust law, an exception that was probably put into place by those who want to exploit the workers. Things like stage actors guilds, screen writers guilds, and similar things exist for a reason. Entertainers and those who support them have frequently been exploited throughout history using exactly the same logic. Independantly contracted or not, the people have the right to fair treatment, and if they are being abused in numbers sufficient to raise resistance like this it's an issue that needs to be addressed.

As far as whether or not union activity benefits people outside of the union, that is more or less irrelevent overall. The inconveience caused is ultimatly balanced by the benefits accrued by other workers being taken more seriously for fear of the same thing happening. It's easy to curse out a union for causing problems that affect something you want/like, but at the same time when it comes your turn to be on the receiving end of mischief by employers your going to be happy that things like this have happened. Unless of course unions become toothless which is something else I've been talking about here.

Whenever there is a real issue with workers, the law is inevitably going to be on the side of the employer. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any kind of serious employe rally to begin with. The union would simply do things legally with it's own lawyers and PACs (Political Action Commitees).
 

heyheysg

New member
Jul 13, 2009
1,964
0
0
Go to china.

Chinese elves speak elvish the same as any other elves lol

They do have some locations that could out rival New Zealand though
 

BlueHighwind

New member
Jan 24, 2010
363
0
0
Eastern Europe would completely kill the grand open feeling of Middle Earth. Do we really want a Middle Earth filled with grey forests and bogs? If they want to hire a vampire to play the Necromancer, then it will be fine. Otherwise, you gotta keep the original's proper visual feel.
 

YodaUnleashed

New member
Jun 11, 2010
221
0
0
oliveira8 said:
Keava said:
I mean innovantion in actual artistic form of a movie, not technological innovation, which for me barely matters when i watch the end-product. Did it revolutionize the industry? Honestly, i am not sure. I hear about such changes every now and then, and if i would be to sum them up we would end up in the future already.

Massiveness is odd sort of value, technology moves forward each year and so does implementation of special effects and more advanced filming methods is made easier. You can't really compare them to what was available when Star Wars was first made, or even what was possible 15 years ago, just look at videogames from 1995 and 2000, you will see the difference.

As for the whole filming from the get go, keep in mind it was not original scenario but adaptation of a book written over 50 years before, well established 'brand' that had millions of fans all over the world. Hard to really compare such luxury to Star Wars that was a new idea, still being planned and fleshed out.
Actually, there aren't many changes. It looks like there is, but there isn't. Between Star Wars and LotR, the only significant jump was Jurassic Park. There was plenty of other attempts(like Tron) but none sticked. Even in terms of sets, there was nothing like this since the days of the grand epics like Lawrence of the Arabia or Cleopatra. It was massive.

It was a big jump. One much bigger than most people seem to realize. Avatar? That's nothing compared to what LotR did almost 10 years before. They already did Avatar with Gollum. Actually that was what Weta did on Avatar. Same shit, but with the fancy pants camera of James Cameron.


Also I'm not sure you know how movie industry actually works. Having an already established fanbase doesn't really matter, if what the producer is selling is not that good movie wise.
This was what Peter Jackson was selling in the 90's:

A 3 movie deal. It will cost seas of dollars. It's considered unfimmable. Directed by a B-Movie director. Special effects by the Hercules and Xena crew. It's Fantasy.

Can you name a fantasy movie based on a book, that actually made lots of success before Lord of the Rings? The only one was made 70 years before LotR, and people saw it cause it was the first in colour. Since Wizard of Oz there was no fantasy film that made big bucks. Massive big bucks. They tried. Like Conan. That went okay, not great and Conan has a big fanbase, and the only good thing it did was launching Schwarzenegger career.
Most of them hurt companies. There was much more affluence in science fiction, than fantasy in what comes to cinema. It has been the norm since Star Wars. Science Fiction does better on cinema. Period.

LotR wasn't a good sell to no studio. No matter how much fanbase it had. Star Wars compared to LotR project, is a safe project. Most important Star Wars was made by an independent studio, something that LotR could not be.

From a commercial point of view of a studio, financing this project was like burning cash. Lucky for Peter Jackson, there was a studio that had the amounts of crazy to say "Here have 400 million dollars go nuts with it.". Keep in mind that this was in the late 90's not late 00's. And that Peter Jackson had no real career at that point. "From director of Braindead" isn't a good sell to a major audience.

So that was what Lord of the Rings project was in 1996. Too expensive and no way to be sure that it would be a major success. That's 3 movies. Imagine if the fellowship of the ring was absolute crap, that it would even scare the fans of the book. What then? The studio had two more films done, that would be box office failures. No one wanted to take that risk back then.

By the twist of fate one did, the movies were a major success and a whole new window of movie opportunities was open.

Studios are now taking more risks. Some times it works, others not. Stuff like A Song of Ice and Fire now can be filmed, without LotR, that would never happen. Even the comeback of Super Heroes movies can be attributed to LotR, as studios had more courage to take on these adaptations that would not come cheap.

Lot of things changed cause of LotR.
Right on. You just said everything I was going to say and more in defense of these astounding films. Many people criticise what they don't fully understand or comprehend whether through simple ignorance or stupidity and post these thoughts on internet forums not caring too much about what they say because they often see such posts as fleeting and temporal in comparison to real verbal discussion.
 

dochmbi

New member
Sep 15, 2008
753
0
0
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. " -Adam Smith
 

LoneGunmanO23

New member
Jan 20, 2010
18
0
0
Theru, the point you're missing is that when an organization commits criminal acts, it ceases to be a legitimate, legal organization. Unions have their place, which is to represent their workers. If the employer cannot find laborers willing to work when the union ceases to, then the union has a case and the problem will be fixed or the employer will no longer be able to turn out a product/service. If they can still find labor, then the union's demands are shown to be more than what is necessary for the labor, as some are willing to work for less. This is balance, and it works within the system to keep power with the employer who is in charge of and responsible for the business at the end of the day, while making sure that conditions for the labor do not become unreasonable. The moment that criminal acts become standard practice, negotiations become extortion, which is illegal, making the union or subgroup thereof a criminal organization, no better than a street gang, and they lose the legitimacy of any argument they're trying to make.