Films and the politics of the American dream

Mmm. The saga of the ages. Principle versus pragmatism.

The fact is that a bunch of Warner employees - who nothing else to do - will have to accept they can be fired for non-performance.

Tough. The short-term benefits are that we get 1/2 billion investment and, long term, superb promotion of our tourism industry (our largest money-making sector).

I doubt the present pragmatism will spin off into other labour sectors, despite the howls of the unions.

If some government tries it on, there will be more than just howling.

For now, we have a happy result.

 

Yes, American movies are so inferior that the rest of the world doesn't want to watch them.

Uh, wait...

 

Wish we could ban them as easily as PF has banned you.

 

Pragmatism? Probably not. Your government has rolled over.

It's strange how governments are willing to sacrifice hostages of terrorists on the principle that to give in just encourages them yet will do exactly the same when a corporation takes hostages.

Stand by for more.

 

The NZ film industry is in a highly competitive but lucrative market. Losing the hobbity things because of our labour laws would also have meant failing to gain further film investment in the future. Film is now a big earner for NZ.

The "roll-over", if that's what you want to call it ("concession" is another description), affects only flim industry employees. And they are hardly "hostages". They will have reasonably well-paid jobs they would not otherwise have if Warner had taken the hobbits elsewhere.

It is not as though we traded arms for hostages.

Of course, it pissed off the Aussies. If, thanks to the agitation of its actors union in our affairs, it had stymied the deal, there was a good chance the hobbits would have moved to Aussie.

Now, there's a real betrayal of principle. The Aussie actors union scuttling the NZ actors union for its own gain.

 

Trading arms for hostages would be a repudiation of the policy of the west regarding terrorism and would likely encourage it and probably a lot more. Just as well you didn't pull that one, you'd be the pariah of the west.

But on point - the benefits really don't matter, what has happened is that your government has caved in - conceded if you wish - to demands by a corporation. The corporation may well have gone elsewhere but if it had done it would have been because it was stood up to by your government. Now any corporation that thinks it can roll your government will do so. It will simply point to Australia next door. That's what happens in the US - Missouri outbids Kansas on the way to the bottom just to get a foreign corporation to build a spoon factory in its state. Same thing happens in Australia too but I never said our system was sensible.

 

We won.

Just another slant.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwYpY4IxibE"]YouTube - Andrew Denton & The Live And Sweaty Cast - As Long As We Beat New Zealand[/ame]

 

I'm sure I could find a few more.
(Try EVERY single holocaust movie.)

 

(Two jews who would have knew.)

 

This isn't Stormfront, you hit the wrong bookmark.

 

Last time we met, didn't your boat sink?

 

Nah it was the French secret service trying to suck up to you Kiwis.

 

The deluge of American tripe continues to bury us. I suspect it is part of American foreign policy and/or the malevolent designs of Rupert Murdoch (who owns the network that delivers the tripe) - is there a difference?

I am coming to the conclusion we would function better as a nation if American film and television were banned by a government concerned for our mental health. Or at least carried health warnings.

How can, for example, Jackass not reduce the average IQ by at least 20 points?

 

In the US, it seems it already has.

"Hopplehead" is a wonderful description, don't you think?

** And the lower the IQ score.

 

You watch "Jackass?" Why am I not surprised.

 

Once. My IQ fell from 140 to 110.

But I had enough residual brain power never to watch it again.

 

It has got to the point that whenever I hear an American accent, I immediately switch to another channel.

You have no idea how much time I spend watching Russia Today and France24.

 

To janpor: European moviegoers live with the pretentious assumption that cinema is an art form. It isn’t. Hollywood tries to sell it as an art form; indeed, still photography is also presented as an art form. Hard-eyed realists play along, but they know it’s about what sells to a specific audience.

If there is any truth to the art claim, India must be the most artistic country in the world because its film industry produces ten times more movies every year than does Hollywood. In fact, there is a film industry in every major country and language. Either that’s an awful lot of artists, or an awful lot of people chasing a buck.

Movie-making was always a commercial enterprise. Today’s movies are all about the stars and advertising. Put a big star in a movie and as bad as the movie is the more advertising dollars it requires to recoup production costs. A fifty million dollar advertising budget is nothing to spend on a so-called blockbuster.

Let me add that the Golden Age of movie-making was golden because of the hundreds of character actors who were as familiar to audiences as were the big stars. Some of those character actors appeared in hundreds of movies. Today, a movie fan would be hard put naming 10 character actors. Movie fans would also have a hard time naming the leads in second tier movies.

Finally, the art myth is discussed in these two threads if you’re interested:

http://www.politicalforum.com/media-commentators/184161-art-ripoff.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/budget-taxes/186170-art-masses.html