This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 5th, 2013 at 12:35 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
It’s amazing hiw this video mirrors our blog. The NZ artists and workers are hurting. No doubt. They feel the same sting we in LA feel.
They lobby for more incentives. They even say it’s not a solution.
The interviewer I feel I very pushy towards the minister who has the right facts for a change! He does not want to do a race to the bottom.
I feel a lot of similarity in this to the save bc film movement we saw. Both clearly don’t understand the evil of subsidys even though they are in the mids of it and yet they just lobby for more!
I applaud the minister for raking his stance.
A pregnant woman talking about the industry collapse for large sections. Really trying to ram home the subsidy message to the viewers there alrighty.
I am a Kiwi working in Auckland as 3d Artist. I personally feel that giving more incentives is not an answer when the problem is the high NZ dollar. Other exporters are supporting too yet they are not asking for hand out. This is not sustainable
Meant to say “Other exporters in other industries are suffering too”.
So, artificially devalue the NZ dollar or subsidize the industry – they’re both forms of interference. Do one or the other or say goodbye to your industry.
Well it’s a global
Indystry? Shitty thing to hear right? It’s why we need to get rid of all incentives. Worldwide
LASky….I am not proposing that the NZ value should be devalued. From my understanding NZ does not have enough reserves to do so like the way Swiss has been able to do.
@3DKiwi – if the NZ gov is unable to reduce the NZ dollar’s high value (NZ interest rates significantly higher than the US Federal Reserve) then the alternatives are: subsidize the NZ film/VFX industry, work cheaper or move to somewhere where the work is. Subsidy would appear to be the most palatable option to people in the NZ film industry.
Yes it does @Andreas, and if one more person says “…but it’s an international industry” to my face while there is still no work in L.A. or N.Z. I’m going to punch them right in the mouth.
If subsidizing was such a great deal why can’t NZ afford too boost it, and why is it not used in all their non native business dealings?
This is where the argument shows is transparency.
It is a tool used to keep the film world dependent on one source and keep local politicians in a facade of importance.
Ironically it tears apart the very fabric of creativity by keeping the creative and their assets in turmoil, with the reflection of this eventually ending up in the product itself.
I think the biggest issue here is that how can NZ find a way to save their Film Industry. Incentives are not ideal, but the problem is that they have build this industry on those incentives. In my opinion the government has said A, then you must also be able to say B. At the Or either just let it die. But definitely don’t wait to take action.
Obviously NZ, and any other subsidy country out there, needs to look for a long term plan where the industry can do without any subsidies, but as of right now that is sadly and surely no option. Also the focus on IP is great, but it will not fix the problems. IP should be the focus of the long term plan. You can’t just pull a strong IP culture out of a hat.
I also find it highly unlikely that policy makers didn’t see this coming.
Sorry to disagree with you. By that logic if you started with subsidies you need to continue with subsidies. thats EXACTLY why this blog promotes ” you live by the subside, you die by the subside” you are experiencing exactly this.
lok at weta, they are busy. subside or not. they made a name for themselves. sure if the subsidies would disappear maybe 20% of weta work would also be done elsewhere but overall they are busy while the rest of NZ is unfortunately not.
Im not happy workers are out of work. some of them are my friends. but not changing the model and just shuffling more tax payers money into the subside machine is NOT a solution.
All the work that goes through Weta gets the NZ post production incentive. All of it. A combination of them being very good at what they do and the competitive edge from the incentives keeps the work rolling in. But any NZ VFX artist pushing to remove the incentives is basically pushing to have their job shifted to Singapore or the UK.
yes its a part of it. but you are not stating weta would close if the incentives go right?
neither the uk nor singapore can take on all the work worldwide if the subsidies go.
i find it interesting that LA looks to our canadian neighbors for our jobs (right or wrong fully) and NZ apparently to singapore and the uk but not canada.
abolish all subsidies and let the skill dictate the awards. cheaper labour will sometimes win but as you see with indias wages doubling it wont last long,
Well, in 1998, way before the incentives, Weta Digital had around 15 employees. You assume that without subsidies/incentives that everyone would be the same price – that’s bullshit. Rate of exchange, cost of living and fringe all come into play. Fringe. Remember that word, the elephant in the room that’s the other big driver of why production in all areas runs away from California. And doubling wages in India makes them maybe 1/5 the cost of the equivalent in LA?
Weta was also less established then. I’d argue rings was the big break and PJ wanted to make that in nz because of the locations and his home. I doubt the tax incentives were a huge draw.
Fringe is important but you see in Vancouver everything is more expensive (16% , cannot find the link. Google it) and yet wages are down from what LA artist made. Uk artist always accepted less considering the not existing overtime.
Weta pays big bucks for foreigners and half of your wage if you are a kiwi. Really sad.
Indian Roto is about half by now. 250$/day is a going outsource rate. A junior Roto guy is making 15$/hr or maybe 150$ day. How is that good? India has capacity. We don’t anymore.
The problem is, that was not NZ’s film industry. By that, I mean, it was not NZ’s size of film industry until the subsidies came along. The subsidies only rented the industry, along with a lot of foreign nationals to come in and fill out the demand. Now that the subsidies are (rightly) being reallocated as a local spend, the industry is contracting to what it can realistically support.
America’s film industry is what it is because it started building it 100 years ago by the Hollywood pioneers. Without government assistance. Now, rather than looking to ourselves for personal risk and build something from scratch (whether that be a single film or an entire film industry), we’ve become accustomed to the idea of instant gratification. People want a film industry and they want it now, so the quickest way to get it is to wave a bunch a cash around and buy one. And who is seemingly made of money? Why, our governments, of course. Never mind that the projects you’re buying are a product of what was built up by someone else.
I’m sorry New Zealanders are feeling what my friends in L.A. have been going through the past couple of years. They’re the most recent casualties in the subsidy wars. Other locations’ days will come. Will anyone shed any tears when it happens?
“America’s film industry is what it is because it started building it 100 years ago by the Hollywood pioneers.”
You mean the Hollywood pioneers who “rented it”, to use your words, from the existing industry in New York?
“Without government assistance.”
You do realize that a major reason the first wave of Californian filmmakers moved in the first place was because the government there turned a blind eye to them infringing on Edison’s patents? Well, you do now. So much for that theory.
Then after this, you started typing in a bunch of nonsense which is so stupid, I can’t even be bothered to refute it right now.
You mean, avoiding Edison’s patent claims that the US courts ultimately deemed as illegal restraint of trade and thus dissolved in 1915? Again, America’s film industry is what it is because it started building it 100 years ago by the Hollywood pioneers.
Did California offer Edison’s competitors government funded kickbacks on their productions if they shot them in California? No. They went because of the weather and sunshine needed to expose the film stocks of the time that New Jersey couldn’t offer. Not because of subsidies. The current renting analogy is valid. As is everything else I typed following.
Log in issues. Old name before someone hacked it.
New York and California are part of the US. The film industry has been in both for 100 years. Either way, it’s still America’s film industry even if it relocates to Montana. And let’s give credit to NJ, the actual birthplace of the industry in the US.
Despite the patent history you speak of, the real reason for the relocation to Hollywood was cheap and plentiful land in a place with almost constant sunlight for an early industry where this was crucial. It also helped that a 2 hour drive from LA means finding landscapes that look like most any place on the planet.
Even if the patent history were accurate, the burden was on Edison to pursue alleged infringement…not the State of California, which has as much jurisdiction over US patent law as New Zealand.
What were you saying about stupid nonsense again?
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,271 other followers
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.