Double Whammy From Uncle Sammy Means…

View from the Top banner

All the American Guilds (DGA, IATSE, WGA, SAG-AFTRA, and The Teamsters), together with the Motion Picture Association of America (made up of the major studios and streamers like Walt Disney Studios, Netflix, Paramount Pictures, Prime Video & Amazon MGM Studios, Sony Pictures, Universal Pictures, and Warner Bros. Discovery), have been lobbying heavily for a US federal screen tax credit.

Hollywood Special Ambassador Jon Voight and his team have been working hard on this, too.

The primary reason for all the effort: to draw runaway screen production back to the US.

And Trump is listening.

Added to this is the announcement from the various state attorneys general greenlighting the Paramount takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD).

To get this to happen, Paramount has, amongst other conditions, committed to:

    • Investing at least an additional $300 million in film production in the U.S. annually — for a total of $1.5 billion over five years, on top of what they spent in 2025 on filming domestically.
    • Releasing a minimum of 30 films annually for the first two years, increasing to 32 films per year for the subsequent three years.
    • Ensuring at least 20% of film production happens in the US, rising to 30% in the subsequent three years
    • Paying a penalty of US$30 million per missed film if they don’t meet their domestic production thresholds

Neither the federal tax credit nor the Paramount-WBD takeover has actually occurred yet. We all know how easily attitudes change in the White House. And there’s still plenty of opposition to the takeover. Should they happen, however, the volume of runaway production to offshore locations is going to lessen. This is particularly so if the federal tax credit can be stacked on top of state production incentives, as many there hope.

These are just the latest in a long list of threats, real or supposed, to attracting international productions to our shores. What this latest lot do, though, is highlight again the ongoing fragility of the New Zealand screen production industry, exacerbated by the difficulty in financing local production.

So what’s changed?

In the NZ screen industry, not a whole lot. Certainly on the domestic side. Especially in television. The total lack of any real strategic vision for the NZ screen industry’s future, and someone to drive it forward, has seen us floundering around for well over a decade now.

Sure there’s been some tinkering going on. Change the criteria here. Tweak the rebates there. Shuffle the diminishing funding around a bit. And more. But it’s all reactive. Not proactive.

We all share in the blame—government, broadcasters, funding bodies, screen orgs, screen businesses, and the individuals who make up the screen sector.

It’s time for a paradigm change. To take us to a better place.

 

Tui Ruwhiu

Executive Director

/by

Happy, Sad or Bittersweet?

View from the Top banner

Film researcher Stephen Follows’ latest piece of work examines the endings of films to see if the ‘Hollywood Ending’ still rules the day. What he found is that there are three types of ending: Happy, Sad and Bittersweet.

It got me thinking about the current New Zealand Film Commission review of core funding for guilds and associations.

But before I go any further, let’s look at who receives core funding and what their current financial position is, as stated in their latest financial accounts:

GUILDSCORE FUND.FIN. POS.LEGAL STATUS
1DEGANZ$100,000$72,174, EoY 25Incorporated Society/Union
2Equity NZ$100,000$119,562, EoY 25Incorporated Society/Union
3NZWG$100,000$20,332, EoY 24Incorporated Society/Union
4SIGANZ$100,000$166,224, EoY 25Incorporated Society
ASSOCIATIONS
5NAW$120,000$124,868, EoY 24Incorporated Society
6PASC$100,000($6,183), EoY 25Incorporated Society
7PISA$100,000$35,771, EoY 24Incorporated Society
8Script to Screen$100,000$120,043, EoY 25Registered Charity
9SPADA$100,000$575,410, EoY 25Incorporated Society
10WIFT$100,000$140,170, EoY 24Incorporated Society

 

Notes:
The financial position simply means that once all liabilities/debts are cleared on the final date of the fiscal year reported on, that is how much would be left in the bank.

The above numbers are a simplistic representation of each guild and association’s finances. They have other revenues streams as well outside NZFC core funding, and have different costs associated with their operations and activities.

As incorporated societies or charities, they essentially operate as non-profits.

The big question for NZFC is: Is core funding for guilds and associations the best and or most efficient use of their funds for industry support, at just over $1 million a year? The corrolary is: if core funding is good use of funding, who should get it and how much?

The big question for the guilds and associations is: Will we receive all, some or none of the funding after the review is complete and a decision is made? And the corrollary for the guilds and associations is: if we don’t get it, how will we survive and what will we do or not do if we can’t make up the difference?

Every guild and association can make its case that the work they do is vital to a healthy, functioning New Zealand screen industry.

For NZFC—and for NZ On Air and TMP as well—they need to figure out what makes a healthy, functioning New Zealand screen industry, and if guilds and associations fit within that. And if they do, what if any support, financial or non-financial, direct or in-direct, might they provide?

The answer is going to be happy, sad, or bittersweet, not just for each one of us guilds and associations, but also for the individuals who make up the screen industry as well. We expect to find out at the end of this year.

 

Tui Ruwhiu
Executive Director

 

/by

When Is a Levy Not a Levy?

View from the Top banner

Electioneering is in full swing as we head towards November.

It was just eight weeks ago that Reuben Davidson, Labour Spokesperson for Broadcasting, Media and Creative Economy, stood in front of the New Zealand screen industry at the Big Screen Symposium and said he was fully supportive of a streamer levy.

As recently as the Tāmaki Makaurau Screen Industry Network gathering at the beginning of this month, SPADA President Irene Gardiner was assuring everyone in attendance that all the parties in opposition were on side regarding the levy, except for Te Pati Māori, who hadn’t committed to anything.

Then, just over a week ago, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins flatly ruled out introducing a streaming levy if elected in November.

It just goes to show you that political expediency will always win out in an election year.

The fear word here is tax. National pitched the streamer levy as a tax. Just another tax from Labour, they cried. Labour wants it clear that there’s only one tax they are going to bring in if they win, and that’s a capital gains tax.

A levy is not a tax, though, but that didn’t matter to Hipkins, who said: “We’re not adding a levy onto everybody’s Netflix account.”

As if everybody has a Netflix account in New Zealand. I can’t imagine those who can barely afford groceries, rent, petrol and electricity are subscribing to Netflix or any of the other streamers.

Streamer subscriptions are a luxury, not a basic essential. But in an election year, you can’t make complex arguments for or against anything. Elections demand simple messaging. And Hipkins’ simple message was clear.

In the ensuing brouhaha around this, both Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Paul Goldsmith ruled out a streamer levy, too. So we’re stuffed on this front no matter who wins the election, it would seem.

That comment from Hipkins, though, is even more revealing, because it shows just how embedded Netflix and the other streamers have become here, even in the minds of the politicians we look toward to help protect and promote New Zealand’s domestic screen sector.

So where does the future of the NZ domestic screen industry stand now?

Clearly not in the hands of SPADA, as they seem fresh out of ideas, as Gardiner recently wrote: “If we’re not going with a levy as our form of regulation, then what are we doing, and when are we doing it? Perhaps our politicians think a quota/direct investment would work better for us than a levy. That could be great. But it’s time to do something. And please don’t treat a serious issue for us like a toy you’re playing with…”

Better starts now, Labour’s simple election slogan tells us. From a domestic screen industry perspective, hard to believe that.

 

Tui Ruwhiu
Executive Director

/by

Career Spotlight: Peter Roberts ANZSE

,

After half a century in the film and television industry, Peter has worked across drama, documentary, news, sport, music, commercials, corporates, theatricals, and broadcast. Despite all of the technical and exhibition changes over the years, he observes that the art of storytelling, at its core, remains the same. As an editor, Peter is committed to delivering a director’s vision and strongly believes in both the collaborative nature of filmmaking and that empathy is crucial to the creative act.

In his late teens, not enjoying his work as a soda jerk at Harrods, a girlfriend took Peter to meet her friend Vivien Kubrick at home, where Peter expressed his desire to be a director like her dad, Stanley. Mr Kubrick was between movies and said he couldn’t offer him anything but that it was best to start from the ground up as a gofer. A hundred or so letters to companies listed in the Yellow Pages—noting the great man as a reference—eventually secured Peter a runner’s job at Soho’s Picture Palace Productions. After helping out as a 99th assistant director, location hunter, and casting assistant, Peter realised that directing (or even being on set) wasn’t for him. He gravitated to the basement cutting room and soon found an editor to take him on as an assistant.

As a London freelance assistant and assembly editor, Peter worked on documentaries for Arena, Omnibus, Chronicle, and The South Bank Show, as well as commercials, children’s television, and some short drama. During this period, he learnt his craft from working with London editors, directors and producers, including Roy Baird, Franc Roddam, Alan Parker, Piers Haggard, Molly Dineen and Alan Yentob, among many others.

Peter later married a New Zealander and left the UK. Meanwhile, he travelled across the USA, Mexico, Japan, China, Scandinavia, Russia, Australia, and Aotearoa New Zealand, supporting himself through various odd jobs — photographing for music magazines and travel articles, editing trailers in LA, instructing students in the basics of sound editing at a Mexico City film school, and teaching English behind a bar in Japan.

In Australia, he spent a year cutting for the ABC’s Four Corners, Nationwide, and National News. He also took the opportunity to learn video skills at Sydney’s Channel 7 as the current affairs film editor for their last functioning film crew.

Peter eventually settled in Auckland in December 1985, uncertain whether there was even a film industry to work in. Not even a day later, Alison MacLean rang him and asked him to cut her first television drama, Rud’s Wife (1986). By the middle of 1986, Peter had been offered work with TVNZ as it amalgamated its film and video editing departments. His task was to work across all departments and help people understand that it was perfectly possible to be both a video and a film editor. As a result, he experienced almost every department, including Māori, children’s, sports, promos, drama, news, and documentary, as a kind of piggy-in-the-middle between the two editing groups. 

In 1992, Peter co-founded Broadway Post with Bill Toepfer and VTR Ltd, becoming the first in Aotearoa to purchase the state-of-the-art Avid editing system. This marked the beginning of a prolific freelance career spanning documentary, television, and feature film. Early in his career, he collaborated extensively with director Robyn Scott-Vincent, working together on more than two dozen television documentaries.

One of his most notable early projects was Stewart Mains’ God, Sreenu and Me (2000). The documentary took an unconventional approach to storytelling, creating a fictionalised love story within the documentary. His work earned him the Best Non-Drama Editing Award at the 2002 TV Guide Television Awards.

Peter moved into feature film editing with 50 Ways of Saying Fabulous (2005), followed by projects including The Most Fun You Can Have Dying (2012), The Dark Horse (2014), and Hip Hop-eration (2014). His work on The Dark Horse, directed by James Napier Robertson, was particularly significant. After the original editor needed assistance with the large volume of footage, Peter joined the project and helped shape the film, which went on to win six Moa Awards and receive international recognition.

His career has continued across both drama and documentary, with credits including Harry (2013), Cleverman (2016), Jean (2016), Savage (2020), The Panthers (2021), Stylebender (2023), and Pike River (2025). In the late 90s, he co-founded the Auckland post-production company RPM Pictures Ltd, which operated until 2022. Across more than three decades, Peter has established himself as one of Aotearoa New Zealand’s experienced and versatile film and television editors.

Peter was one of the first editors to join DEGANZ back when it was still called the Screen Directors Guild and was first extending its membership to editors. He quickly joined the board and spent a decade taking turns as an editor representative, Treasurer, and was the first editor to serve as President. Peter recommends that all New Zealand editors join the guild to gain strength in numbers.

He has also served a key role in the establishment of DEGANZ’s Aotearoa New Zealand Screen Editors (ANZSE) Accreditation, continuing his advocacy for recognising editors’ mahi on an international scale. Peter is one of three currently accredited editors and serves on the ANZSE committee.

 

/by

How’s Theatrical Doing?

View from the Top banner

The New Zealand International Film Festival kicked off last night with the screening of Big Girls Don’t Cry, directed by Paloma Schneiderman. A very accomplished and cinematic execution by a first-time feature filmmaker.

The programme has expanded from last year’s, with more than 130 films showing in Auckland. Prior to COVID, the number of films screening was over 200, which helps to illustrate how tough it has been for NZIFF to get back on its feet. COVID impacted the Melbourne International Film Festival just as severely.

With the changing viewer habits of audiences, along with the incredible growth of streamers and other online content channels like YouTube, it’s still proving hard to get people back into cinemas to pre-COVID levels.

The incredible success of Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey, which has taken close to US$700 million worldwide in just two weeks, seems to fly in the face of naysayers about the health of cinema. But it is Christopher Nolan, it is an event film shot on IMAX, and it has a swirling mass of controversy around it that clearly helps its marketing, together with the US$150 million or so that Universal has spent pushing it.

A more interesting perspective is given by Olivia Wilde’s The Invite; a ‘small’ film adapted from a play. While the budget is not known, it sold to A24 at Sundance in a bidding war for US$12 million for domestic (US) rights. A guess would put it in the US$10 – 20 million budget range. The Invite is a month into its theatrical release and has made US$32 million so far. Some reviewers have said that it’s the kind of Hollywood indie drama that wasn’t getting made anymore, so it’s proving surprising.

A look at NZ’s box office gross (US$) from the year prior to COVID adds additional insight:

 

Total Gross%± LYReleasesAverage#1 Release
2026$55,746,577–706$78,961Michael
2025$88,342,903+0.6%1,341$65,878A Minecraft Movie
2024$87,784,785-10.4%1,038$84,571Inside Out 2
2023$98,011,323+9.8%852$115,036Barbie
2022$89,227,396+37.5%737$121,068Avatar: The Way of Water
2021$64,881,995+0.4%737$88,035F9: The Fast Saga
2020$64,630,524-47.6%750$86,174The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
2019$123,284,717+6.7%656$187,934Avengers: Endgame

You could hazard a guess that 2026 will top 2025’s take, but it’s still a long way off 2019’s number. The No. 1 release for each year, though, tells you how important it is for Hollywood blockbusters to get it right, even if more films like The Invite get made. There is concern, however, that the Hollywood takeover by tech giants is going to negatively impact theatrical.

The tech firms, who for the most part see some value in theatrical, are much more interested in generating subscribers and revenue from their digital platforms. It’s pretty much accepted, therefore, that theatrical will continue to contract, but at what pace is uncertain.

In New Zealand, theatrical still has an important part to play for Kiwi filmmakers—it’s difficult to get NZFC funding without a commitment to theatrical distribution. The up to $500k grant and willingness to experiment around the $1 million mark provides wriggle room. But once you are over a million, it’s theatrical upfront or nothing for now. And that’s all there is as far as Christopher Nolan is concerned.

Nolan is renowned for refusing to work with streamers, saying that movies belong on the big screen. Thankfully for him, he has the talent and the ability to ensure that his movies show there. But not everybody is as fortunate.

NZIFF and other festivals provide a welcome opportunity for New Zealand and other independent filmmakers to get their films seen on big screens in front of an audience.

Long may they continue.

 

Tui Ruwhiu
Executive Director

/by