Said Mr Key,
“The threat of industrial actions...have substantially undermined the confidence that Warner Bros has in New Zealand.”
So what ‘substantial damage’ is WB alleging that the unions have caused? What 'confidence' has it 'undermined' in Warner Bros? The confidence that the working ‘hobbit’ classes of NZ will continue confusing their knees for their feet, like their counterparts in related films, and take a pittance for remunerationI suppose WB’s threat to move the set is a clear signal to the hobbits populating the world that when it comes to work, you better leave your interests in the hands of those who gain from your labour. I think that WB will probably go ahead with doing a prequels or at least one prequel in NZ, but want to send a clear signal to the working classes that they better shut up about exploitation. I'd say that they would do at least one prequel in NZ to show that they are magnanimous despite union 'threats'. If they were to just move to other climes now, they might be seen as too belligerent in their exploitative approach. But the message to working classes everywhere would have been sent.
WB is basically attempting to push the blame for their threatened move of the set to other countries to the unions. It's strange that in the same article, it is stated that,
“The three Lord of the Rings movies, which were all filmed in New Zealand, earned billions of dollars at the box office. “
So what ‘substantial damage’ is WB alleging that the unions have caused? What 'confidence' has it 'undermined' in Warner Bros? The confidence that the working ‘hobbit’ classes of NZ will continue confusing their knees for their feet, like their counterparts in related films, and take a pittance for remuneration whilst the main cast and producers walk off with Oscars, fleets of flashy cars, villas and private jets? With billions made, what 'substantial threat' can the unions afflict?
And what is this idiot, Richard Taylor (Oscar-winning technician behind the LOTR movies) on about?
"This is where Middle Earth was born and this is where it should stay,"
Now I don't know if he was just quoting Peter Jackson(left), the director, or it's his own words as this is not clear in the BBC or a few other reports i've seen. But either way,
..just because someone farts in your homeland doesn’t give you ownership over his arse.
It's sort of a ‘reverse fascism’ isn’t it - ‘what’s born here must stay here’ as opposed to ‘what’s not born here must stay out’ (like what the BNP in the UK, the spirit of the EU, and the chinese-centric ‘opposition’ in singapore go on about). I can accept that with historical artifacts, etc, but just because someone farts in your homeland doesn’t give you ownership over his arse.
And I have to wonder at the bourgeois squabbling with each other here. WB is threatening to move the set, and Jackson, Taylor, etc, are fighting to keep it in NZ. I wonder if this is not a 'good cop, bad cop' scenario where both have the same goals but are giving the exploited the impression that they are supportive of their interests. Earlier, Jackson had condemned the actions of the unions, and is now fighting to keep the set in NZ.(cnn) He should be given an Oscar for his 'double-agent for WB' role here. We'll have to see what happens in the end through 'compromises'. But you can be sure that compromise, as it is in all exploitative situations, will still favour the advantaged as they will still be the one with the relatively greater privilege.
The moment you validate injustice in one arena via an ‘its not my problem’ or ‘what i do ain’t gonna make a difference’, you strengthen its generic and overarching existence. - you can call that 'ed's law'. When it arises in other forms to put a bite on your interests, don’t forget to take it with a smile as it owes its existence to you.As for the BBC, as i kept reading about what WB had to say about it on this article, i kept wondering what the Union’s standpoint was. For this, i had to go to another article. I have to wonder why is it that the BBC thinks it fit to keep repeating WB’s arguments without an expected mention of what the union had to say. In psychological terms, it is called ‘priming’. That is, keeping certain information in your mind by what you say and what isn’t. Whilst this might be intentional, it could also be unintentional. However, either way, it can reveal the bias of the source. This, amongst a host of other means and methods comprise the well-paved and lit path to the backdoor, aka, ‘subconscious’, of the masses’ minds.
For myself, on principle, i won’t be watching any on the prequels given WBs anti-union stance. Oh, the idiots out there might say, what you do won’t make a difference, and with such people around, it’s no wonder that it isn’t going to make a difference. But, at the end of the day, I can at least remain blameless whilst they take their rightful place in the global conspiracy against justice, fairness, and egalitarianism. Don’t forget mate, the moment you validate injustice in one arena via an ‘its not my problem’ or ‘what i do ain’t gonna make a difference’, you strengthen its generic and overarching existence - you can call that 'ed's law'. When it arises in other forms to put a bite on your interests, don’t forget to take it with a smile as it owes its existence to you.