Saturday, December 1, 2012

Quote of the Day - 1 December 2012

Fran O'Sullivan writes today about The Hobbit's world premiere, and some of the small-minded criticism of what turned out to be a hugely successful and popular day. Within that column comes this observation:

This tendency in the New Zealand psyche to get straight into the post-mortem before even celebrating the birth of a wonderful new venture like The Hobbit has always perturbed me.
Sir Peter Jackson's mates from his Bad Taste days were particularly churlish in their comments to the Herald.
Top unionist Helen Kelly's vitriol was poisonous as she ripped into the Prime Minister on National Radio claiming he had lied over the shenanigans with Warner Bros. Give it a rest, Helen, we know what you think.
At least the Labour Party politicians were not so troubled by their own obvious hypocrisy that it stopped them enjoying a traipse along the red carpet in downtown Wellington.
And why not? Down among the crowds in Courtenay Place, it was a wonderfully joyous feeling. Just like those fabulous moments when South Auckland rocked down to the Auckland waterfront for the Rugby World Cup opening event or when Aucklanders lined the harbour to watch Russell Coutts triumph in the America's Cup regatta.
There is much to celebrate about the successes of these special Kiwis, who have managed to be "world-famous from New Zealand".
Sir Peter's blockbusters are truly huge. Half a billion dollars of hard cash has been invested in The Hobbit series alone.
It is truly great that a film-maker from a country of a mere 4.4 people million can, with a bit of Government help, pull this off.

We couldn't agree more. New Zealand punches above its weight in a wide range of ways, and success is something that should be celebrated, not derided.


bsprout said...

I am prepared to recognize Jackson's obvious talents and don't mind celebrating success, but blind adulation can be dangerous.

Blinkered support of the dairying industry has seen us turn a blind eye to the worsening state of our rivers. People swayed by the apparent strength of South Canterbury Finance learned a valuable lesson. Those who were sucked in the invincibility of Lance Armstrong allowed him to continue cheating.

Jackson is a talented director and has done much to grow the strength of our film industry but the truth is that he did it on the backs of many who were under valued and he, Key and Brownlee did lie so that they could push through anti-NZ worker legislation.

Helen Kelly especially was often defamed in the media and you are doing the same, KS, when you refuse to acknowledge the facts which I have often linked to and not one person here has disputed.

Incase you need a reminder here they are again:

Missy said...

KS I am with you, I completely agree with this. I feel saddened that some people have such bitterness towards the success of Peter Jackson that they feel the need to be so negative at a time when we should be so proud of what he and all the hard working kiwi's on the Hobbit have done.

To try and take away from the success of the Hobbit, or try to score political points (as in the case of Helen Kelly) is truly pathetic, and reeks of jealousy. These movies are going to be very good for the profile of NZ, not only for tourists, but for the talent of the people here, and the skills of those that worked on the film.

Many seem to have forgotten, he could easily have upped and moved to Hollywood, but he didn't, and not only did he stay in NZ to make movies, it is mostly because of him that other big budget movies have been made here.

I say well done to Sir Peter Jackson, I won't be going to the Hobbit myself (not a fan of Tolkien), but I have a great amount of respect for what PJ has done, and I am very glad that the movies were made here, and yes I was a little excited with the Premiere, and went down to Courtenay Place to share in the excitement. :)

Keeping Stock said...

Why do you keep banging Helen Kelly's drum and going on about "facts" bsprout? Kelly was at the very heart of this matter, and cannot possibly make objective comment, therefore her opinion is strongly diluted. And please desist from repetitive linking; once for any of your blog-posts is sufficient (and some would suggest once too often :-) ).

Keeping Stock said...

I couldn't agree more Missy. Helen Kelly's faux outrage about The Hobbit was all about mitigating the damage done to the cause of the union movement by the MEAA's attempted hijack of the movie, and its global boycott call. Quite why an intelligent bloke like bsprout (who is usually quite sensible) continues to defend her baffles me.

Graeme Hill said...

"Why do you keep banging John Key's drum and going on about "facts", Keeping Stock? Key was at the very heart of this Dotcom matter, and cannot possibly make objective comment, therefore his opinion is strongly diluted."

pdm said...

Graeme Hill = troll!!

Keeping Stock said...

The irony of your comment could not be more pronounced Graeme. Dotcom openly encourages people to steal the intellectual property of people such as Sir Peter Jackson. Jackson is a go-getter who makes things happen; Dotcom pays people to steal others' ideas and creativity. I know who I support.

Graeme Hill said...

We know who you support too, Keeping Stock. My point is, your claim against Helen Kelly is spurious, as demonstrated by replacing her name with Key's and shifting the issue.


Keeping Stock said...

You're more than welcome to hold that view Graeme, just as I am to hold an opposing one. You'll possibly be interested in the post I'm working on for tomorrow morning then :)

bsprout said...

KS, I have referred to independent analysis of the Hobbit dispute which largely supports Helen Kelly's version of events. If you have factual information that contradicts those events than say so. You can't continually just dismiss Helen because she represents the CTU.

I rarely link to my posts and only repeated this because you seem to refuse to read anything but one sided opinion. Read the analysis from the Employment Journal and debate the facts for goodness sake, Helen's role was mediating between genuine actor concerns and an employer that totally refused to act in good faith.

What is being claimed here is largely that Jackson is beyond criticism and actors should just be grateful for anything that they get even if their basic terms and conditions are ignored. I can't think of any other job where an employer is able to import someone from overseas without following usual immigration law to do a job that local people can do well.

Even the fact that Jackson himself told the Government in an email that the actors actions would not influence the location of the filming seems to be ignored here.

I probably won't comment further on this because objectivity seems completely absent here regarding this topic.

Callous Callum said...

Objectivity, bsprout?
You were hoping for that here?
You're a wag!
Objectivity's an anathema to KS and his followers (look it up, pdm - o.b.j.e.c.t.i.v.i.t.y. - means engaging your brain).

Keeping Stock said...

Go away Guyton; you know that you aren't welcome here.