It is unusual for governments and political figureheads to involve themselves in direct negotiations with companies or international organisations and, effectively, to be seen as "touting for business".
But it is not entirely unheard of, and parallels can be drawn between the Government's Hobbit intervention and the part the Clark Labour-led Government played in securing the Rugby World Cup.
Having become embroiled in the Warner Brothers-Hobbit saga, however, Prime Minister John Key had little choice but to play for keeps.
Negotiations to retain the $670 million productions in New Zealand had become a high stakes game, with kudos for the taking - and equally precipitous political pitfalls lying in wait.
Mr Key is not unfamiliar with such pressure-cooker situations and his experience and skill as an international money trader will have stood him in good stead.
But even he, by Wednesday night when the breakthrough was announced and the deal spelled out, showed telltale signs of strain beneath the evident satisfaction and pleasure of presiding over the "right" outcome.
There will be a story behind the story of how The Hobbit films came to remain in the country - and New Zealand cement its place in the world as the one true Middle Earth. But for now a number of factors would seem to account for the Government's brokering role.
What weight each should be accorded can only be guessed at, but it cannot be ignored that the project was mired in delay and complexity long before it ever arrived at this point.
The exchange rate cannot be dismissed either: a 10% or 15% swing alone over the preproduction period had the potential to sabotage the production, as did the blandishments of other countries offering more lucrative tax advantages.
More likely to have been at the heart of the matter - and to have drawn Mr Key and his colleagues into the controversy's ambit - was the potentially devastating blow the withdrawal of the movies could mean to our film industry with its cutting edge technology and world-leading intellectual property; and to the country's tourism industry, to which the Lord of the Rings phenomenon has arguably been priceless.
And then, of course, there was the bonus of assisting the union movement to achieve the bad odour in which it seemed determined to drape itself with its clumsy management of the situation.
Industrial relations have loomed large in the discussions and the subsequent resolution - to the point that the Government undertook to introduce, under urgency, legislation to the House yesterday.
This was to address the issue of the relative status of "employee" and "contractor", framed in the context of a recent New Zealand case which deemed that a person who had been employed in the film industry as a contractor was in fact an employee.
On the financial front, further tax breaks of up to $10 million per movie, depending upon the success of each, was granted to Warner Brothers, and $13.4 million to offset the company's marketing costs.
Estimates vary as to the total contributions towards the making of the films, but some place them in the vicinity of $100 million.
That, as is frequently pointed out at such times, is an enormous number of hip operations; but it can also be argued it is an investment in the future of an industry and will eventually produce several-fold returns.
Less easily disposed of is the objection to what is becoming a notable tendency - if not hallmark - of this Government: to change and create law at the drop of a hat-pin. Make law in haste, repent at leisure has been the experience of many previous administrations.
The common-sense pragmatism so effortlessly personified by the Prime Minister may make such concerns seem carping, but the exhaustive and detailed processes, including public submissions to the select committee stage which will be missing in this case, are the tried and tested pathway to lasting legislation.
Taking shortcuts has its dangers - typically the outcomes or obstacles that no-one, in their haste, saw coming.
Equally, if not even more questionable, is the matter of economic sovereignty: what is to be made of a Government that changes its laws and makes concessions to salve the commercial imperatives of a single foreign company? This precedent at the very least carries with it a degree of unease.
For all that, the Government and Sir Peter Jackson both appear to have played a peerless strategic long game.
The outcome is a good one - for both the country and the film industry. It goes without saying that it is also an excellent resolution for the respective personal, professional and political fortunes of Sir Peter and Mr Key.
