An angry Peter Jackson today is fighting back at a “Member Alert” that went out Friday afternoon from the Screen Actors Guild advising actors not to accept work on the non-union production of The Hobbit. It’s part of an international showbiz labor effort begun by New Zealand Actors’ Equity and its umbrella The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance headquartered in Australia to go public with a campaign confronting Peter Jackson, the director and producer of the back-to-back Hobbit movies. NZ Actors’ Equity is calling a meeting of actors on Tuesday to pressure The Hobbit filmmakers Jackson, Three Foot Seven, MGM, and Warner Brothers to negotiate a contract providing minimum guarantees on wages and working conditions, residual payments, and cancellation payments to actors engaged on the production. But Jackson is having none of it:
Statement regarding The Hobbit and claims by the Australian Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA):
The Australian Labour Union, the MEAA is using our production The Hobbit in an attempt to widen it’s membership, and power within the New Zealand film industry. As a New Zealand filmmaker, who has nothing to hide or be ashamed about, I’m not going to see this threatening behaviour continue without some form of sensible discussion about the “facts” and “truth” behind their various allegations.
It’s incredibly easy to wave the flag on behalf of workers and target the rich studios. It’s not hard to generate an emotive response, nor is it hard to sway public opinion, since nobody seems to like the facts to get in the way of a good story in these situations.
Behind the claims of exploiting actors who are cast in the “non-Union” Hobbit production, and claims that various high-profile stars will refuse to take part in the films, there are clear agendas at work. As usual with these agendas, they are based on money and power.
I am not a lawyer, nor am I an expert in unions and how they operate – but I like to think I have a degree of common sense, and that’s what I’m basing my observations on. Let me run over a few facts:
– Personally speaking, I’m not anti-Union in the slightest. I’m a very proud and loyal member of three Hollywood Unions – the Directors Guild, the Producers Guild and the Writers Guild. I support the Screen Actors Guild (SAG). All these organisations (I must confess I’m not entirely sure what the difference is between a “Guild” and a “Union”) do terrific work on behalf of their members.
– Many Actors are members of SAG, but many are not — especially younger actors and many Australian and New Zealand performers. MEAA claims we are “non-Union”, but whenever we hire an actor who belongs to SAG, we always honour their working conditions, their minimum salary agreements and their residuals.
– The SAG residuals is a small pot of money that comes from the movie’s profits. The DGA and WGA have similar schemes. An agreed upon percentage of movie profits is placed in a pot, which is shared amongst the members of the guild who worked on the film in question. Despite MEAA claims that The Hobbit is “non-Union”, our studio, Warner Brothers, is honouring these residuals, and making the profit sharing available to all the various Guild members – just as it did on The Lord of the Rings, and Universal did on King Kong.
– These residuals can be worth tens of thousands of dollars to an individual if the film is successful – however the normal situation is that if an actor is not a member of SAG, they do not share in the profit pot.
– This has always struck us as unfair, since most Kiwi actors are not lucky enough to be SAG members. For the Hobbit, Warner Brothers have agreed to create a separate pot of profit participation, which will be divided up amongst non-SAG actors who are cast in the film. This was not done because of any pressure from Guilds or Unions – it was actually Warners doing the decent thing, and New Zealand and Australian actors will be the principle beneficiaries. SAG members have their pot, and non-SAG members now have theirs. We have introduced the scheme to Kiwi agents and it’s now part of all our Hobbit cast deals.
– Whatever damage MEAA is attempting to do — and it will do damage, since that’s their principal objective in targeting The Hobbit – we will continue to treat our actors and crew with respect, as we always have.
– As I said earlier, money and power lies behind this threatening behaviour from our Australian cousins, and to fully understand that, you simply have to step back and look at the greater picture in context.
– It starts with “NZ Actors Equity”. This is a tiny organisation that represents a small minority of New Zealand Actors. They are not a Union, and have none of the legal status of a Union. They are a … well, a smallish group who have some New Zealand actors as members. How many actors are members of NZ Equity? They guard that information very closely, but various reports I’ve seen put their membership at 200, although somebody in the know swears it’s nearer 100.
– How many professional actors are there in New Zealand? Somewhere between 2000 and 4000, depending on just how you describe a “professional actor”. Obviously most Kiwi actors have other employment too, but there’s certainly over 2000 actors available to cast in a film production.
– So taking the most generous numbers, NZ Actors Equity represents 200 out of 2000 Kiwi actors, or 10%. Perhaps I’m wrong, and if so, NZ Equity will no doubt reveal their real membership numbers.
- Now there’s nothing wrong with NZ Actors Equity representing 10% of the actors in this country. It’s great that they offer that service, and if an actor chooses, there’s a supportive group they can join. Obviously the more actors that join NZ Equity, the better, since these organisations usually survive by taking a small percentage of their members acting fees. I’m guessing that Equity do something like that. Recently they have been part-funded by MEAA.
- Over the last 10 years our relationship with NZ Equity has been rocky — whenever we cast an “overseas actor”, we get a letter telling us why such and such Kiwi actor would be so much better in the role. In most cases we have already auditioned the actor in question, and formed our own opinions — but what strikes me as unfair, is how this “helpful” service of suggesting better choices only includes the “Equity 200″. If you happen to be a good actor who doesn’t belong to NZ Equity (and many don’t), you’re automatically not good enough to be put forward.
– What really does strike me as wrong, and this is my personal opinion, is the why that the MEAA is using NZ Actors Equity as a vehicle to represent the voices and opinions of New Zealand actors. A couple of years ago, the members of NZ Actors Equity voted to join some kind of alliance with the Australian MEAA group. At the time, there were voices of alarm at how this relationship could damage the interest of Kiwi Actors, but the merger went ahead – and now we’re about to find out just how damaging it’s going to be.
– As far as I know, the membership of NZ Actors Equity was allowed into the MEAA, meaning that the Australian MEAA organisation represents 200 out of 2000 Kiwi actors. I don’t believe it represents non-Equity NZ actors. It speaks on behalf of a tiny minority of our actors.
– The management of NZ Equity are clearly happy to be used as a political football by the Australians — but my sympathy goes to the 1800 New Zealand Actors who are not part of the “Equity 200″, but who are going to suffer the fallout if this Hobbit thing goes nuclear.
– I also feel a growing anger at the way this tiny minority is endangering a project that hundreds of people have worked on over the last two years, and the thousands about to be employed for the next 4 years. The hundreds of millions of Warner Brothers dollars that is about to be spent in our economy.
– Why is this endangered? Because the “demands” of MEAA cannot be agreed to, or even considered – by law – and therefore the only options that remain involve closing the Hobbit down, or more likely shifting the production to Europe. It could so easily happen. I’ve been told that Disney are no longer bring movies to Australia because of their frustration with the MEAA.
– The MEAA is demanding that the Hobbit production company (Warners owned, 3foot7 Ltd) enter into negotiations for a Union negotiated agreement covering all performers on the film.
– I personally have a problem with any organisation who represent a small minority, but attempt to take control of everyone – but that’s not the real issue. The complex web of NZ labour laws are the reason why this demand will never be agreed to.
– NZ law prohibits engaging in collective bargaining with any labour organisation representing performers who are independent contractors, as film actors clearly are. The NZ Commerce Act claims it would be unlawful to engage with an Australian Union on these matters.
In closing:
My personal opinion is that this is a grab for power. It does not represent a problem that needs a solution. There will always be differing opinions when it comes down to work and conditions, but I have always attempted to treat my actors and crew with fairness and respect. We have created a very favourable profit sharing pool for the non-Union actors on The Hobbit — and now the Union is targeting us, despite the fact that we have always respected SAG conditions and residuals.
I can’t see beyond the ugly spectre of an Australian bully-boy, using what he perceives as his weak Kiwi cousins to gain a foothold in this country’s film industry. They want greater membership, since they get to increase their bank balance.
The conspiracy theories are numerous, so take your pick: We have done better in recent years, with attracting overseas movies — and the Australians would like a greater slice of the pie, which begins with them using The Hobbit to gain control of our film industry. There is a twisted logic to seeing NZ humiliated on the world stage, by losing the Hobbit to Eastern Europe. Warners would take a financial hit that would cause other studios to steer clear of New Zealand.
– Seriously, if the Hobbit goes east (Eastern Europe in fact) — look forward to a long dry big budget movie drought in this country.
– Others gain from that too. SAG would much rather have it’s members hired on movies — as opposed to non-SAG actors. The easiest way to control that, is to stem what are called “runaway productions”, which are American funded films made outside of America. The Hobbit is one of them, as was King Kong and LOTR. SAG, which is naturally supporting MEAA, would see it’s own benefit in studios having a miserable experience in Australia/New Zealand. That may well be pushing the conspiracy theories one step too far, and it’s perfectly natural that one Union would support another – but the point is that in the complex web of Hollywood intrigue, you never really know who’s doing what to whom and why.
But it sure feels like we are being attacked simply because we are a big fat juicy target – not for any wrong doing. We haven’t even been greenlit yet! It feels as if we have a large Aussie cousin kicking sand in our eyes … or to put it another way, opportunists exploiting our film for their own political gain.
Peter Jackson
(NB: This represents Peter Jackson’s opinion as a Kiwi filmmaker, and not that of Warner Bros or New Line Cinema, who were not consulted about this statement.)
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.


Rock on Mr. Jackson. I agree with your point of view one hundred percent.
So why don’t they film most of it in America?
…oh, right. ‘Cause we got unions here and you gotta pay the staff a livable wage.
Hey Mr Jackson! Skip Eastern Europe, they got enough d-bags already. Just move the production to Calcutta…..that’ll show everybody!
…..what an a-hole.
Are you saying that the workers aren’t paid a living wage in those other countries? I think you might be shocked to discover that you’re quite wrong. I’d guess, apart from the exchange rate, the reason studios film outside of the US is that they aren’t at the mercy of powerful unions that make them hire more workers than they need and be beholden to them.
I’m all for the idea behind unions, but when they become as greedy and power hungry as the corporations they face off against, I’ve got no patience for them.
Australians and of course, Americans are the bad guys. Not your beloved Uncle Pete, scooping twenty-five million-plus right off the top. “We don’t even have a green light, yet!”
This poignant letter proves Jackson is vulnerable to pressure. He’s afraid of going from Kiwi national hero to hated national zero.
“Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.” Peter Jackson himself is your key.
You’re missing the point: It’s against New Zealand law for him to bargain with the MEAA (an Australian union). He CAN’T go union. New Zealand’s Commerce Act and Employment Relations Act set the entire country up to be independent contractors, which works effectively in a small country with a small population like New Zealand.
So MEAA and SAG don’t (and can’t) exist in NZ. NZ Equity is like an advocacy group, as is the Writers Guild there.
Peter Jackson is a New Zealander who wants to make movies in New Zealand. Why shouldn’t he make movies in his home country? So what can he do? He can honor the SAG contract terms, as he has stated he does. For SAG to issue a “Member Alert” is a slap in the face not to Peter Jackson or this production, but to the country of New Zealand — and as a kiwi myself, it is wholly offensive.
MEAA and SAG are grabbing for publicity for their own agendas, and they’re using a filmmaker making his own film in his own country — a country where they have no jurisdiction — as a pawn in their game.
Wake up, people. Hollywood is Hollywood. New Zealand is New Zealand. Australia is Australia. You don’t just go running roughshod over another country’s laws because you don’t like them.
@jack, Why do you feel a New Zealand filmmaker should “film most of it in America” instead of his own country or another country of his choosing?
They should really shoot this in INDIA!!! cheap labor no crappy unions and a heckload of fans eager to welcome the production units… and we do have loads of mountains (we’re bordered by the fricken Himalayas!!!) and heckloads of forest land…. Peter Jackson, you’re welcome here!!!
If you think New Zealand wages are cheap as per your comment, then you are not very well travelled. New Zealand is a first world country NOT a third world and they have more benefits as workers than you do here. Take for example – healthcare covered for all by Government. Wow thats a concept.
Why not film it in America? Because PJ is a New Zealander, not an American. Why wouldn’t he want to bring employment and funding to his own country?
Those unions you tout have done American workers few favors in the last several decades. They drove convention business out of Chicago, drove manufacturing jobs out of the US, and have used their clout to push their own agenda, rather than that of the people they represent.
It’s a shame really, labor unions were created to prevent abuses against workers, but they’ve grown to the point that they are becoming the abusers.
SIR PETER JACKSON IS ON HUNDRED PERCENT ON THE MONEY
A QUOTE FROM AND OLD CAMPAIGN THE AMERICAS CUP QUOTED FROM DENNIS CONNER “WE SHOULD HAVE GUESSED WHEN YOU TAKE ON A NEW-ZELANDER THE COUNTRY TAKES IT PERSONALLY SO YOU END UP TAKING ON THE WHOLE DANG COUNTRY ”
NO ONE HAS TO BELONG TO A UNION IN NEW ZEALAND TO WORK FIRST FACT
JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN FORCE UNIONS IN YOUR COUNTRY IT DOES NOT MEAN YOUR LEGISLATION APPLIES HERE! IT DOES NOT.
UNIONS ARE A VOLUNTARY THING IN NEW-ZEALAND AND ONE BELONGS IF ONE WANTS TOO.
TO TOP IT ALL OFF NO NEW-ZEALANDER CAN DEAL WITH A COLLECTIVE UNION FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY AS THEIR RULES DO NOT APPLY
IN THIS COUNTRY
THE GENERAL POPULATION OF NEW ZEALAND COULD NOT GIVE BRASS FARTHINGS WHAT ANY BODY ELSE DOES OR SAYS .
THERE IS ANOTHER OLD SAYING “YOU GET MORE WORKERS WITH HONEY THAN YOU DO WITH VINEGAR ” MAYBE THE M.E.A.A SHOULD TAKE NOTICE HERE
SIR PETER JACKSON HAS THE BACKING OF NEW ZEALAND BEHIND HIM HE HAS THE LAW ON HIS SIDE AND THE GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION, HE KNOWS IT AND WE THE POPULATION KNOW IT.
WE ALSO AGREE THAT THESES SO CALLED M.E.A.A REPRESENTATIVES ARE JUST A LOAD OF BULLING THUGS IF YOU WANT ANOTHER OPINION WHO OBVIOUSLY CANNOT THINK FOR THEMSELVES AND THINK EVERYBODY HAS TO BE LIKE THEM AS WELL. ” WE ALL KNOW THE KIND WEAK FEEBLE MINDED EASILY LEAD ”
SO WHAT I MAY SUGGEST AND THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION GO AND TAKE A DISTANT COUGH M.E.A.A !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OOPS SORRY THEY ARE ARROGANT AUSSIES YOU WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND THAT COMMENT WOULD YOU
SIGNED A TRUE PATRIOT OF NEW ZEALAND
Good for Pete… A little long and redundant, but a fine point all-the-same. Back off, Australia. Keep the money (and the power) in the hands of the people who worked to get it, you little weasels.
Well maybe this will shut some people up about how cheap peter or wb is not paying them enough eh? Nz laws are not like usa laws so you cannot apply by the same rules for unions.
“(NB: This represents Peter Jackson’s opinion as a Kiwi filmmaker, and not that of Warner Bros or New Line Cinema, who were not consulted about this statement.)”
Clearly, no PR people were consulted either. 3+ single-spaced rant, with paragraphs that should have been cut. His films are unnecessarily epically long, so it shouldn’t really surprise me that his personal press releases are too.
Ryan, Keep uneducated comments to yourself. PJ has a point, the lesser talented weasels are trying to muscle in on the fruits of Kiwi genius.
Just because you haven’t the intelligence or talent to appreciate the films, it does not give you the right to burden us with your inane, irrelevant, grammatical observations.
The world is getting destroyed by a small group of international bankers anyway, economic collapse is actually their goal in order to make everyone submit and even welcome a world tyrannical government, so it’s not surprising a microcosm of this is expressed in the form of this Oz union debacle. PJ is correct in getting angry at this counterproductive greed.
A small group of people destroying it for the whole, sounds familiar…..
You’re an idiot, Albert. Jackson’s overlong rant against unions shows what a pompous windbag he is.
Leave the PR to the experts, Peter. And stop being a cheap SOB.
Why is a foreign union pushing their agenda on New Zealand which actually secures work that Australia can’t because they are too expensive. Any by expensive – more than crews costs in LA. Seems to make sense to me – scare then away from Australia and they go to NZ. Union realises this and tries to move into NZ. Why are we kiwi’s letting them do this. Since when was that acceptable.
“His films are unnecessarily epically long, so it shouldn’t really surprise me that his personal press releases are too.”
To some people, like you perhaps. but for others, some of his films could go on forever.
What’s the matter? Had to use the bathroom and miss some…..
His press release let out all his pent up anger and frustration over the way they try to stifle work. Hollywood has always tried to screw those who would not follow the rules……..ask JD why he no longer lives in the U.S. Don’t follow the rules, get your hand slapped!
Too bad that backfired on them, he became “extreme” famous despite Hollywood shunning him and now they come crawling to him to make their films…
I say….YOU GO PJ…….don’t back down, they said you could not make the LOTR the way you wanted either, but you never gave up, don’t give up now!
“The SAG residuals is a small pot of money that comes from the movie’s profits. The DGA and WGA have similar schemes.”
Uhh, no.
Guild residuals are paid on a percentage of non-theatrical revenues, regardless of the profitability of the enterprise. In other words, first dollar gross (albeit a small piece and only from non-theatrical sources).
Surprisingly Mr J doesn’t know this, or chooses to mis-state it.
Who knows the definition given to the non-SAG actors? Perhaps this is one reason SAG wants to extend jurisdiction, and membership, world-wide.
As an independent producer who has to set aside by escrow or bond up to 9% of estimated non-US income to satisfy all the Guild participations — money that could otherwise be used to fund the production — I’m not entirely sympathetic to people who want to be paid to do their work and paid again for their work to be shown on TV and DVD and electronically etc. — again, REGARDLESS of the picture’s ultimate profitability.
They get theirs long before I get mine, but I’m the one who took the risk to develop the material and put the talent together and find the financing. And that’s true whether I’m a Warner brother or just little old me.
With regard to your point about having to “escrow” or, in the alternative, “bond” a percentage of a film’s estimated earnings, it is hard to think kindly of SAG, and its residuals practices, when you know: (1) how difficult it is to get any portion of funds escrowed with SAG back — regardless of the differential between the estimated performance and the actual performance of a film; and (2) as a result, how much money remains in “escrow” with SAG (with SAG collecting all of the interest earned on such funds) for movies that under-performed (in many cases, by leaps and bounds).
Given the horrendous track records of the major studios and record companies when it comes to paying residuals and profit participations, etc., I understand SAG’s desire to grab as much money “up front” as possible. However, SAG’s own track record of holding onto, and actually profiting, from moneys still listed on SAG’s books as “in escrow” for movies that failed to perform as anticipated is downright vulturous, and actually hurts the film industry in the long run. So, while I know SAG would like to have worldwide jurisdiction over all actors of all nations, I find it refreshing that, in practice, there is still plenty of debate about the actual strength that SAG (and other guilds backed by SAG) should have with respect to films produced outside the U.S.
Typical anti-union rhetoric. He and Tyler Perry should join forces. Peter Jackson hasn’t made a great movie since Heavenly Creatures. I wish Guillermo was directing The Hobbit, because he’s a much better, more interesting, director. More power to the unions, who help protect against the exploitation of this annoying hack. Peter Jackson’s just bitter because Lovely Bones did no business. His comments here remind me of Rupert Murdoch’s stance on unions.
“LeavesOfGrasssss” — You are misreading Jackson’s press release. He is FOR the unions. He’s for the actors, whether they are SAG or aren’t fortunate enough to be. That’s the whole point. He’s directing his ire toward a small independent faction operating out of Australia who are crying, hurling epithets, patently false(and premature) innuendo and generally threatening to disrupt his whole team’s production process just because THEY (the organization—NOT the actors) are not going to get a piece of the action. If any of their (100 or so) members work on “The Hobbit” they will get a share of the profits, as though they were in SAG. Which I think everyone who has clear comprehension skills can agree is more fair than many productions have offered in the past. So please, if you want to form intelligent, rational comments to post on a blog, you must first get the story straight instead of going off on a tangent about how you dislike Jackson’s movies (as though you could do better). The only one who is bitter, is you, my friend. Smarten up and be good.
How is he for the unions and for the actors when his very own LOTR actors complained how poorly paid they were while filming LOTR? Unpaid overtime for working over 12 hours a day and what not. Where was his goodwill towards actors and unions back then?
Of course the studio has done everything they can to appear fair on this high profile production, to try to make it seem as if unionization would make no difference. I would be shocked if they hadn’t.
And Peter, of course no one is going to join the Kiwi guild if it’s going to cost them work with anti-union producers. It’s only once the union has the strength to stand up to producers that the actors join in droves.
Bystander — actors and writers (and, frankly, everyone whose work ends up in the final film) deserve residuals because their work makes yours profitable many times over. Without them, you’d be nothing.
Let me repeat that: without the hard work the creatives do to bring a project to life, you’d be nothing.
So why the he’ll shouldn’t those who create the product that makes you money NOT share in the profits every time that product makes more money? I mean, they only created the fucking thing.
And you can’t. Not without them.
A counter-question to this might be: Are all of those people who worked on a film prepared to repay their salary into a pre-negotiated ‘loss pot’ similar to the pre-negotiated ‘profit (residuals) pot if a film makes a loss. After all it is their work that made the thing and as you say, and without them there would be no film etc…. And this is very true. So, is their work ONLY to be rewarded when it comes together to create a success but not penalized when it comes together to make a failure.
Just curious
(And I am not a producer or studio person – I am a member of three guilds – and this is a genuine question based on the point made above)
Hi, my beef isn’t sharing in profits, it’s sharing in revenue BEFORE there’s profit. If you can’t grasp that simple distinction, you’re a bonehead.
And what’s the “more money” you speak of? Do you live in the 70s, when the only revenue was from theatrical exploitation and anything extra was truly “extra”? Or are you in the real world where every scrap of potential revenue must be harvested just to break even, or to get the picture financed in the first place?
Don’t bother answering. I think I know.
Innocent Bystander is right on the money. Unions are a ridiculous, outdated racket that are especially silly when dealing with creative positions and “talent”. I don’t think the members of the UAW have agents and managers. The salaries and pay structures exist for other unionized businesses because that’s it. I have never paid a “name” actor anywhere near scale, and they always negotiate a cut of the back end, but that back end always comes from the “net” so they get paid when we producers get paid. Even no name actors with agents always push for more than the union requirements.
On top of that, SAG is the most disorganized bureaucratic failure in the world. They constantly lose paperwork, confuse situations, and are incredibly slow. It’s all fun and great to point to big, successful films that make hundreds of millions of dollars and vilify evil producers who balk at paying the little guys their fair share, but what about films that don’t work? Did Megan Fox and Josh Brolin pay back part of their money when Jonah Hex tanked?
I think not.
Oh “Maverick”.
You really have no idea why there are unions do you? Unions are not for the name stars who negotiate their own deals top to bottom, they’re for the other 99% of the talent, the ones that hack producers like you think should be paid nothing AND feel thankful for the privilege of being on “your” set.
Having been an actor, a writer and a director, I can tell you that numerous contracts I’ve signed, usually the ones on independent films with less experienced/less professional producers, were violated in some way by douche producers like you that think that talent is an annoyance. Thank god my unions have always been there to keep things as straight as possible. You have any idea why the crew always knows when lunch is? Or when overtime begins? Or why actors have all sorts of work clauses? Or writers have clause protecting their credit? Because hack producers will always try to screw them. Great producers respect their crews and talent. That’s why they are great.
I could go on. And on. Hack producers like you are the problem in Hollywood. You blame Josh Brolin for why Jonah Hex failed? Really? Josh Brolin didn’t approve the script. He didn’t greenlight the movie. He didn’t choose the director. He didn’t budget the film or set the number of shooting days. He didn’t even cast the movie. He got offered a job as one actor in a huge production. And you know what, Brolin showed up and gave it everything. And you blame him? You’re an ass.
I tell you what “Maverick”, which I’m sure is a name you chose without any irony at all, here’s what I know… You aren’t Scott Rudin. You aren’t Brian Grazer. You aren’t any one of a dozen other producers who turn out great movies. You’re either a mid-level studio functionary or some crap producer who will never have the guts or the insight to understand what great producers understand… that you wouldn’t have sh*t if it weren’t for talent. As you clearly are one of the ones who considers talent an inconvenience, you will never be one of the ones that rises above the scum of hustlers and cheats that think they are producers. You sir, are a producer in name only. And given your low esteem of the people who create things, I doubt you will even be that for particularly long. Well I guess there’s always porn.
Insecure much? You’re just another no-name hack with a sense of entitlement. You need to go back to flipping burgers.
And I have lost just about all respect for Mr. Jackson and I don’t think that I am the only feels the same after spending so much time on his self-indulgent and horribly overlong rant. I hope he enjoys going the way of M. Night in terms of quality and ripping-off his employees while hiding behind his anti-union rhetoric.
Enjoy the way down Peter.
Innocent Bystander: If SAG wants to “extend jurisdiction world-wide”, perhaps it should contact a Kiwi union for a quick refresher course in New Zealand industrial relations law. But, in the end, typical bloody Coca colonialist Americans who don’t know, don’t care, and just expect Johnny Foreigner to roll over and play dead in their own countries.
Death to unions; these corrupt, greedy, government-sponsored extortion rackets have caused decades worth of damage. It’s time to bury them and rebuild, so it’s good to see people stand up to them.
Die, unions, die!
Kill a union save the world?
Are you insane? Unions are the only reason we don’t have f-ing serfs in America these days. The slimy, despicable ultra rich who already control 85 cents of every dollar in this country are held at bay by unions and union-supported laws from sucking every last penny out of the middle and lower class. Read some history, asshole, before you spout off with the Republican mantra, especially on a site mainly read by trade union members.
First I hope your dick withers and secondly, I hope no doctor – all members of a guild or associaion BTW – offers to lift a hand to help you.
We might not need unions IF:
The government provided proper health care benefits to its citizens.
…retirement benefits
…proper unemployment benefits
…working conditions.
Read about the history of the Steel Industry, the Mining industries, Textile workers, and others and their treatment of workers before the unions stepped in to defend their human rights before you spout off about their ‘evils.’ Then get a job at Walmart for a while to see what that is like. Better yet, go to Southeast Asia and make sneakers for Nike. Creative people have always been exploited because of the love of their craft. Their need to work and express themselves make them targets for exploitation. Mr. Jackson’s incoherent rant notwithstanding, the only reason to shoot these films in New Zealand (or elsewhere) is to avoid the studios’ responsibilities to their outstanding negotiated obligations. No one is fooled here.
That old line about how, if not for brave union thugs a thousand years ago we’d all be chattel, wore out decades ago.
Let me summarize my union experiences:
- “I can’t do that, it’s not my job.”
- “You can’t do that, it’s not YOUR job.”
- “I’m on break.”
- “You need to pay me $100 to plug in that extension cord, or I’ll piss myself and file a grievance.”
Lazy bastards. I learned long ago to “look for the union label”. Then I make sure to buy or hire something/someone else. It’s the sanest way go to, always and everywhere.
Now back to work, all of you. If you still remember the concept.
The reason these films are being shot in New Zealand is because Peter Jackson lives there, and prefers to work there, rather than in the US. The book was written in England. The film industry is not just USA!
Hey Bystander is Wrong,
You do understand the difference between “income” and “profit” don’t you?
Or maybe you don’t. In which case, I think you probably need those evil, greedy financial types who understand how business and money work a bit more than you think.
On pretty much every indie film I’ve ever produced (I’m also a creative by the way), the people at the top get paid LESS up front than any crew member or actor. In fact, 99 out of 100 times it is the SAG talent that is paid the MOST on the set regardless of how big their role is or how good they are. On top of that, the union contracts dictate that the union is paid residuals BEFORE investors are paid or the people who sacrificed to get the film made get paid anywhere close to what the talent makes.
Okay first of all, since you’re an “indie” producer (however you define that) you’re talking about apples and oranges when it comes to huge, costly feature films – the contracts are entirely different. The truth is that the three guilds are paid only a portion of their income for the day worked: DGA gets the bulk of theirs up front, WGA is paid well (when they’re paid) up front, SAG gets relatively little of their income from that day of work, which might generate some decent back-end residuals if the film makes bank and the studio is honest about how much. (As if that’s ever going to happen.) I don’t know what/how you pay your ATL people, but they usually get their LARGE payment up front.
What Mr. Jackson doesn’t mention/realize is that a producer paying a SAG member goes deeper than just paying the actor – there are attached SAG contributions to pension and insurance, among other agreed-upon fees, to keep the union (guild) functioning and taking care of its members. It’s all warm and fuzzy that Warner Brothers is doing right by actors but in reality they’re ripping off SAG by not hiring on a SAG contract. But we all know what WB is – they’re part of the AMPTP, which is trying to destroy the guilds, or at least strip actors (and writers) of their rightful income and benefits.
You do know that New Zealand has a completely different pension and insurance system than the US, right? And that the NZ payments are approximately one third of the US payments, and administered primarily through taxes rather than through your employer?
It’s surprisingly generous of Mr. Jackson and Warner Bros. to set aside funds for non-union actors. And I commend them for that. But it falls far short of the protections SAG offers its members. Just to name a few: rest periods between work shifts, penalties for extended periods without a meal, and premiums paid for exposure to smoke and water. Not to mention pay that is proportionate to the overall budget of the picture. Don’t performers on the Hobbit deserve that?
As a declared member of the DGA, WGA, and PGA, Mr. Jackson has benefitted from all kinds of protections of his creative and financial rights. Perhaps his assessment of MEAA and NZ Equity is correct. But If he wishes to maintain a non-union shop he should offer employment contracts that emulate SAG and rival those of his southern-hemisphere attackers. It would be fair and it would silence his critics.
LOTR actors were famously critical of non-union conditions so this isn`t the first time that someone on Jackson`s movie set is seriously underpaid and complains about it.
Says Jackson: “NZ law prohibits engaging in collective bargaining with any labour organisation representing performers who are independent contractors, as film actors clearly are.” In other words, according to him, it’s illegal in New Zealand to negotiate with an actors union or guild. He doesn’t think there’s a problem there?
I think PJ is likely wrong in saying that actors are “clearly” independent contractors for purposes of NZ labor law.
Though I have no knowledge of NZ labor law, here in the U.S. and in all of the other jurisdictions in which I’ve worked, actors are “clearly” employees (not independent contractors) of the production companies that hire them.
Even when a production company engages an actor through his/her loan-out company (and the contract for services is between the production company and the loan-out company, rather than between the production company and the actor), the production company is treated as the actor’s “special employer” and the actor/employee is protected by the jurisdiction’s labor laws (as modified by any applicable guild agreement), and covered by the production company’s worker’s compensation insurance, etc.
Peter Jackson is completely correct in saying that NZ actors are considered independent contractors, the law in NZ is completely different to that in the States. You said yourself that you have no knowledge of NZ labour law therefore you can not make assumptions on how our law works and claim Peter Jackson (who is a NZ’der and works with many NZ lawyers) is wrong.
Without SAG, WGA and the DGA non-famous working actors, writers and directors would be crushed by the studios and producers. We all know this is true. Yes, the superstars will always be able to demand the moon and get it, but the unions protect the other 99% of the members who would be squished like bugs. Perhaps the notion that people who work their whole lives in an industry and want a little protection– things like a pension, health care and a basic minimum wage is odious to some. But it really is just common decency. If we want to really save money, why don’t the studios play hard ball with the superstars, surely there are tens of millions to be saved by demanding top directors and actors work for less. Then we wouldn’t have to argue over the pennies other deserving artists are trying to put into their pockets.
Don’t wait for any funds to come from MGM, and Warners would be just as happy moving to Prague. SAG is right on principle but they’re about to throw a lot of New Zealanders out of work.
This is not about SAG,DGA or WGA they always do OK, it’s always all about you with you Americans. This is about an union organization in one country, Australia, who also represents all below the line labor and journalists, trying to assert their will in another country, New Zealand,in relation to that country’s actors. Next it will be the below the line labor and then journalists. I am an Australian producer who has dealt with these clowns for many, many years and I feel Peter Jackson’s pain.
it does seem like the gist of PJ’s main gripe is being lost on the majority of commenters. it didn’t seem that hard to follow.
I’m all for producers telling the unions where they can shove it (after all, the unions are little more than mafiosos). However, at this budget, going non-union and not paying people a decent wage is a disgrace. If this was a little indie movie financed on someone’s credit card, fine. Go non-union and use the saved money wisely. But when you’ve got the budget Peter Jackson has, it just makes people wonder more and more where his budgets go. I mean, the special effects in KING KONG were on a par with a good Syfy Channel flick. Nothing more. And THE LOVELY BONES should never have cost as much as it did. I think it’s time the financiers took a good look at where their money goes on Jackson’s productions (I’m leaning toward his own pocket).
Hey, I am neither the biggest fan of KONG nor of Jackson-as-filmmaker, but to state that the effects in KONG are on par with SyFy movies??? Well that idiocy just makes everyone understand that you have no idea of that which you speak to… They were much better than that and you know it.
Jackson`s estate reportedly rivals MJ`s Neverland. It has a private lake (few years ago Maori tribe made a huge uproar over Jackson ordering that the sacred river run`s to be re-directed so he could get that lake), a private choo-choo, Hobbiton set transfered on the estate, underground replica of London Dungeon (will all wax figures), olympic-size swimming pool with Hogwarts-like night sky lighting effects, state of the art private IMAX screen. Pretty obvious where all the money goes.
i’m a member of two hollywood unions, so maybe i’m biased. but the key word here is balance. a union should not be so demanding in its contracts that they chase away production, but neither should a production be so negligent in its treatment of actors that their health and safety (both mental, physical and financial) are threatened. when both entities exhibit a mutual respect for one another, a very efficient and successful working environment is created. it’s silly – not to mention counterproductive – to think that neither entity has any grasp of the other’s plight.
the goal here should be to produce a great couple of films in a responsible working environment for all concerned. i hope that can be achieved.
Hear, hear! to “when both entities exhibit a mutual respect for one another, a very efficient and successful working environment is created.”
That’s what is could/should be/is all about.
And I know that NZ actors had their lives put at risk during the filming of Lord of the Rings – one of them told me about it.
MEAA is only doing its best to get good pay and safe conditions for the actors in NZ – it’s not about jealousy or power. And MEAA has a voluntary membership.
People inPeter Jackson’s position have a moral obligation to ensure their workers are treated with fairness and consideration.
The reason you’re wrong, Maverick, is because unlike films, cars don’t make money each time they’re used. Any idiot can see the difference.
A lot of this seems like self-serving rhetoric. If collective bargaining is truly against the law in New Zealand, then it’s against the law and no other discussion is necessary. That single sentence would have been enough. The need for a couple pages of “the big bad Aussies are trying to bully us poor Kiwis” suggests to my cynical mind that it isn’t an accurate description of New Zealand labor law. And if that isn’t accurate, it makes me wonder what else he says isn’t accurate. Sounds like both sides might be playing at politics and truthiness.
Um, the “producers guild” is HARDLY a “union.” And doesn’t pretend to be.
You said it!
You’re not justified in assuming nonunions will be compensated as though they were in SAG. That suggests the compensation would be on par with SAG, which we don’t currently know.
glad to see Peter not backing down and pointing out how new zealand as a new area to shoot films would be damaged if he winds up giving into the demands of this group. hope they back off and let the hobbit wind up finaly being filmed in new zealand after all the work and obstacles to get the hobbit to finaly see the light of day. now some group who wants a bigger chuck of holly wood profits making film is as peter put acting as a bully glad Peter is teaching the bully some manners.