Taylor says Govt made The Hobbit possible

April 12th, 2013 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Hamish Rutherford at Stuff reports:

Weta Workshops founder Sir has hailed Prime Minister John Key at a gala dinner in Beijing, saying movie “was made possible, in no small part” by his government.

The last major showpiece event in a week long trade delegation, Sir Richard used his keynote speech last night to indirectly praise Key’s controversial decision to give Warner Brothers a special subsidy to ensure the filming stayed in New Zealand.

The Hobbit has recently opened in China, with Key saying embassy staff had successfully lobbied to have it as one of the 40 or so foreign films released here annually, but also just after the Chinese New Year, to maximise its return.

Box office takings in China had seen the movie gross more than US$1 billion, Warner Brothers told Key.

The Hobbit is now the 14th highest-grossing film of all time. Three of the top 15 were made in NZ.

Tags: ,

28 Responses to “Taylor says Govt made The Hobbit possible”

  1. kowtow (8,929 comments) says:

    And this guy says that film causes youngsters to smoke.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/252819/hobbit-film-promotes-smoking-children

    This govt is giving money to the Maori Party and changing the law to get smoking ‘eliminated”.

    When did we vote for that?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (14,161 comments) says:

    Credit where credit is due.

    Shame on the unionists, comrades and thugs of all colour who tried to harm the investment. That includes Labour’s Helen Kelly.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (14,161 comments) says:

    This govt is giving money to the Maori Party and changing the law to get smoking ‘eliminated”.
    When did we vote for that?

    We did not. It’s a sop, a concession to buy the Stone Agers support.
    Shame on Labour lite.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Jack5 (5,271 comments) says:

    The greatest State success in film making then, since Mosfilm’s hey-day?.

    Is our centre-left government goving to make a hobbit of subsidising industries?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. PaulD (97 comments) says:

    “Credit where credit’s due” Great way of diminishing the importance of the other local inputs.

    How long before there’s an Oscar for excellence in dodgy accounting and subsidy collecting?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. flipper (4,327 comments) says:

    Look, what we have here is Taylor quoiting Dept of Stats’ official figures (just released) and media beating the shit out of the story.

    Frankly, the GST concession (folk who call it a hand out are simply as thick as pig shit) is peanuts compared to the concessions made in just about every area of state activity (to one group or another, in one form or another). As sensible folk have pointed out, 15% of nothing equals zero. Giving up that 15% produced tax income tax gains left, right and centre, from businesses and individuals. The really big film industry earners will undoubtedly mitigate their tax liability. But there will, when all is said and done, massive economic benefits.

    Oh…and as an after thought…. what about all the income support and other benefits that were cut/eliminated as a consequence of Hobbit work?.

    To all the naysayers, I say “F*** off”.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (10,361 comments) says:

    If the film has been such a success, why did it ever need government intervention?

    I don’t care much about the union’s perspective, but as a taxpayer, I object to John Key forcing me to fund the entertainment industry.

    An leaving aside the compulsion, its an industry I don’t much like either.

    Full of commies and other rat types.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. mandk (1,028 comments) says:

    Jack5,
    Sorry, but you are a dimwit.
    Why don’t you understand that there is a difference between tax relief to retain a footloose industry, and subsidising something.
    By nurturing our film industry, using tax relief when necessary, the public purse benefits enormously.
    I say, good on Sir Richard and Sir Peter. Their activities are contributing vast sums of money to pay for our schools, hospitals, police, roads, defence, recreation services, and so on.
    They could so easily piss off to Hollywoood and make piles of money there. Just like Peter Weir, from Aus, did. And look where the Aus film industry is now.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. mandk (1,028 comments) says:

    Jack5, Redbaiter
    Dimwits to the left of us. Dimwits to the right of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. hmmokrightitis (1,596 comments) says:

    “Full of commies and other rat types.”

    Do you miss McCarthy much weddy?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    More confirmation of how this Govt got it right, and how destructive and wrongheaded the militant unionists are (in particular Helen Kelly – out of her depth and played like a fiddle). The importance of this Govt successfully securing the Hobbit films is hard to overstate.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Kovac (30 comments) says:

    @ Redbaiter : Because we need them more than they need us. They could have easily produced the films in some other part of the world and what company wouldn’t make the most appealing business decision?

    I’m not terribly fond of this type of subsidy but what alternative is there? Take a strong stand and lose the industry?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The actors were trying to get the best deal for themselves. How is that different from any business person that negotiates their contracts?

    Stick the word ‘union’ in front of it and everyone goes ape – its people looking after their own concerns – happens every day.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    kowtow (4,087) Says:
    April 12th, 2013 at 2:09 pm
    And this guy says that film causes youngsters to smoke.

    Is he calling for the books to be banned too or is he just being a wanker?

    “Hundreds of millions of children worldwide could have started smoking because of these books.”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    Judith (2,034) Says:
    April 12th, 2013 at 4:38 pm
    The actors were trying to get the best deal for themselves.

    No, some actors (bit part/extras) were trying to get a better deal for themselves, and some who had no involvement in it at all were trying to get a cut of the vig. The majority of those actually working on the films just wanted the meddling spoilers to fuck off and leave them alone.

    Stick the word ‘union’ in front of it and everyone goes ape – its people looking after their own concerns – happens every day.

    – that’s because unions are gangs trying to get more for their members at the expense of everyone else. By definition.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Yep, but if they were trying to get a cut of the vig – then they were trying to get something for themselves.

    That is no different to most business deals that go down every day – its just got different names for the players.

    Sorry but I don’t see any difference. This is a competitive economical environment – you do what you can to get the best deal for yourself – being a ‘manager’, a contractor or an ‘actor’ the motivation for the deal is the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    RightNow (5,127) Says:
    April 12th, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    that’s because unions are gangs trying to get more for their members at the expense of everyone else. By definition.
    -=————————

    how is that different from a group of contractors negotiating against other groups of contractors? It’s business.

    I’m sorry, but everyone is out to get the best they can for themselves – current or future. This is no different except that people see the name union as a threat.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    I don’t expect you do see the difference Judith, but then you’re admittedly a little flakey.

    Think of it like this: I have absolutely nothing to do with your business, but I want some of your money. I’ll organise a protest to stop you being able to conduct your business until you give in to my demands.

    It’s very different to the business deals that go down every day really, isn’t it? It’s actually extortion.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    “how is that different from a group of contractors negotiating against other groups of contractors? It’s business.”

    Not with reference to public sector unions, or unions that have elevated privileges over other “groups of contractors”.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    RightNow (5,130) Says:
    April 12th, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    ——————–

    I am flakey when it comes to who I vote for – don’t apply that to other things.

    I know what you are trying to say, but at end of the day they are all after exactly the same thing. My business frequently gets interrupted because of the ‘business deals’ of others. My internet is frequently disturbed because others in my building are having issues/ getting new installations etc, and the server has to be disconnect. That disturbs my business – please explain how that is any different?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Ross12 (1,483 comments) says:

    This knocking of the film industry by some in NZ is similar to the knocking of the mining industry in Australia –the same sort of people in both countries doing the stirring. I read the other day that BHP contributes through tax and royalties more to the Australian economy than they spend on education in Aussie. To think Gillard tried to add another tax to this “cash cow” for the country at a time when these corporations are deciding which country to invest in next. I say tried because the mining tax has turned out to be a massive failure.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Fisiani (1,051 comments) says:

    It is astonishing how every step of progress and growth in the New Zealand economy is objected to by the Labour/Green/NZ first Axis of Evil.
    If they were ever to be in government you can assume that, given their comments already
    1) no more film subsidies would be given , costing 30,000 jobs
    2) the construction of the roads of national significance would halt and half built roads to nowhere would litter the country
    3) prescription charges would drop to $3, like they were 25 years earlier taking 80 million/year out of the health budget
    4) partnership schools would be forced to close
    5) unions would control the ferries, the railways and all the power stations
    6) mining would stop
    7) the number of beneficiaries would skyrocket

    Too tired to go on.
    anyone care to add to the long list

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    “My internet is frequently disturbed because others in my building are having issues/ getting new installations etc, and the server has to be disconnect. That disturbs my business – please explain how that is any different?”

    It sounds like you’re in an office with shared services. Since you’re no doubt benefiting from a reduction of costs due to that arrangement then you’re getting what you pay for. Since you were once a new connection I expect you interrupted the service of others when you moved in.
    If it is impacting on your business (and this is an important point for you to understand) you have the choice to get a dedicated internet connection from another provider and implement your own infrastructure. Note that if you choose to do so your current internet connection isn’t going to call for a global ban on providing you with internet service.
    If you’re locked into a contract with either your current ISP or with the co-operative that constitutes your serviced offices then all I can say is you’ll know better next time.
    FYI there are a range of options for you that would suit your business, from ADSL through to fibre. Just guessing (that you’re a one, maybe two person business) but I’d investigate EUBA – it’s a direct connection from you to your ISP (using copper wholesaled from Chorus) that also provides for reliable VoIP – up to 6 lines if you choose your provider carefully.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. OneTrack (3,347 comments) says:

    Judith @5:09 – Yep, and someone had to stand above all the me-me-me of the unions and do what was right for New Zealand. And John Key did. I am glad you agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. freemark (649 comments) says:

    Judith, I suspect you are not flakey when deciding who to vote for, but who you vote for. At least you are less offensive than hamass etc, but your writing style & vocab shows remarkable similarities to a male username on another blog. Fess up, be honest, that is one of the differences between “righties” & “lefties” – it shouldn’t be, but when one side takes the moral highground on integrity they should walk the talk.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. pq (728 comments) says:

    We subsidise Peter Jackson tens of millions of dollars for incredibly profitable enterprise .
    Do we subsidise Fonterra, why not lets subsidise all big business corporate
    NZ First is right if the film make money pay the subsidy back to the taxpayer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. RightNow (7,014 comments) says:

    pq, I’m happy we give subsidies to ventures that actually bring in hundreds of millions of tax dollars, as well as billions to our economy.
    What is your opinion on subsidies to ventures that never show a net return, such as the NZSO?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    pq, you may define it as subsidies if it’s local industry. It’s really incentives if it’s attracting foreign investment, which in this case it is. fonterra is already here. We don’t need to subsidise them to get them here.

    It’s a no brainer. Yes we had to eat some crow to get them here. But a tax reduction is better then an absence of tax and industry in the first place.

    I cannot understand the wowsers who think it’s a bad deal.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote