Written By: Jonathan Rayos | Category: News | Comments : 0 comments
Economies expand or shrink. They are never static. Creating a creative-friendly economic and cultural environment for filmmakers in Michigan and other arts has many long-term benefits to the locality where movies are shot. One of these is the possibility to change how we see ourselves, as well as how others from other regions perceive us. Rightly or wrongly, perception often becomes reality, economic as well as cultural. As one of the leading influences in modern civilization, film has been proven to have cultural value, cultural association and cultural impact.
Not only do we need to continue to change the perception of being merely a State that just makes cars for the bi-coastals to belittle, but we need to continue proactive measures so that our own talented young professionals in every industry, (this includes green energy, electric battery manufacturing)–have an increasingly positive view of their home region and themselves. Our talented younger generations need continued encouragement and reinforcement for staying here in Michigan to contribute here, and not to move off to either the West or East Coasts or the Sunbelt.
Seeing our State emerge as a leader for major motion picture productions is a great psychological reinforcement to our collective self-esteem. Otherwise, we risk “a talent drain” and the loss of many dollars in a variety of industries if our best and brightest decide rightly or wrongly that we are second-rate. Again, it’s about perception, and perception eventually becomes reality.
The irony of the film industry is that while it is all pretend, it still has very real impact in the real world of dollars and cents, and not just where the creation of the film is concerned. Because economics and film both deal with psychology, because ultimately wealth is not just the possession of dollar bills, but an expression of psychological value that we assign to various goods and services, film and economics are related. And in a greater and more profound way than has been discussed here heretofore.
Choices have consequences, and this includes our economic choices, our emotional and economic support or lack thereof. And this includes our tax incentives or disincentives. The old axiom is again indeed true in the film industry as with any and all industries, “If you want less of something, tax it. If you want more of something, subsidize it.”
Apparently, despite the best efforts of many talented people in Michigan, primarily from the Detroit areas to Grand Rapids, there is still much work to be done for us to, at last, close the gap of awareness and appreciation for film that early producers had to face and overcome by moving geographically. (Hollywood early on moved from New York City in the early 1920′s to Los Angeles; and when Walt Disney moved from Missouri to California due to the cultural indifferences to film making and arts.)
Michiganders and it’s leaders should make the 21st century an era in which the Motor City and the Great Lakes manufacturing region invest in the future Walt Disneys, Steven Spielbergs, and Warner Brothers. So that they won’t have to move away and bless other regions in order to success financially as they bless the entire world with their creative spirit and genius.
Again, economics and economic decisions by our leaders do have consequences. A new 21st century Michigan Renaissance is possible IF we have the vision, the courage, the deliberate intention and the right economic formulas and incentives to make it possible!
Written By: Jonathan Rayos | Category: News | Comments : 0 comments
If anyone has been following theangry rants of Christian Balevery closely since the first time I heard of it, and something doesn’t feel right.
It started with the video (well, audio, conveniently video-dubbed and posted on YouTube for maximum exposure) of the actual rant. Then, all possible angles of the event were explored by the thousands of tireless minds over at Digg, Reddit, and other social media sites. We learned about an “objective” view of the incident, we were introduced to the other party involved, director of photography Shane Hurlbut, and so on.
Wanna bet what we’ll start to see next on social media sites, at an increased pace? Terminator 4 hype, and lots of it.
Consider this. Christian Bale is a cool guy. That rant sounds a bit too embarrassing. Is it impossible that Christian Bale was hired, by spin doctors, to act out the rant? We know he can act, and once he dismisses the stunt as fake, he’ll get his coolness back instantly (and perhaps even earn some more.) Is it impossible that the entire thing was staged to create a huge amount of hype for the upcoming movie?
We’ve seen attempts at corporate viral marketing before, but they were relatively easy to spot. However, perhaps Hollywood has gotten smarter. Perhaps they have a social media spin doctor division now. Perhaps these spin doctors are really good.
I’m not claiming that this is what actually happened on this occasion; but I am claiming that in the future, the line between truth and fiction (with the help of social media) might become so blurred that no one will be able to tell the difference. Do you think it’s possible?
Written By: Jonathan Rayos | Category: News | Comments : 0 comments
It’s kind of sad that Mark Boal and Kathryn Bigelow, The Oscar winning writing & directing masterminds behind The Oscar winning Best Picture ‘The Hurt Locker‘,couldn’t muster up the courage to re-team with Nicolas Chartier, The Oscar winning financing and sales mastermind behind The Oscar winning Best Picture “The Hurt Locker“.
Instead, the Untitled Black-Ops picture that should be a glorious first reunion of this super-creative duo, is having to be leaked to the press to drum up financial support. This is sad and ill-timed. The project, which is still unnamed, is being pitched around town as a Hurt Locker-esque low budget black-ops pick that they’ll be able to bang out before Paramount’s ‘Triple Frontier’ (a project that is actually worthy of their reunion.) What’s not being asked in the press is why this team who has overwhelmingly proven themselves in the military genre, is not able to slam dunk this project. The first reason is Voltage Pictures. The other reason is the demise of gap funds.
The key piece that’s missing from this black-ops puzzle is Chartier. In 2007, when Hurt Locker came together, money was falling out trees. The major studios and mini-majors were all flush with hedge fund cash that was being hauled in by the boatload. Next came the super-gap funds. Hundreds of millions of dollars poured out of Wall Street and into the coffers of anybody who could crank out a Monte Carlo simulation (a fancy spreadsheet used to show that if one finances enough expensive films of a certain type of genre, then the investors can’t lose.) Naturally, these simulations are readily for sale — you only needed to be able to answer one key question: “What result are you looking for?” Answer: “Profit.”
That said, 2007 already had a surplus of Iraq war movies, most of which were bombing. (No pun intended.) Add to that the fact that Hurt Locker was not a conventional script. Despite these obstacles, through passion, piss and vinegar, Chartier and his team pushed this project through to the foreign buyers, somehow got the backing of gap financier Grosvenor Park (which was backed by mega-fund Fortress Investment) and ultimately willed it into production.
The rest is history. Hurt Locker was awesome. It deserved all the press and accolades it received, including toppling the Avatar leviathan. It was by all accounts the ultimate underdog success story…except financially. While that may not be apparent to the public at large, their principal financier Grosvenor Park is still not fully recouped. Grosvenor has gone the way of so many other gap funds that cropped up in the late 2000′s but subsequently withered away in the great financial famine of 2008.
Chartier has parlayed his success into growing out the production side of his top-tier sales company, Voltage Pictures. Meanwhile, Bigelow and Boal have smartly parlayed their success into the big budget, star studded, studio feature Triple Frontier. As they should. Very good move. But while waiting for that ship to leave the harbor in Fall 2011, they’ve apparently grown impatient and decided to go back onto the indie frontier to crank out another Hurt Locker. Except this frontier is a dried up ol’ ghost town, and they be pitchin’ to crickets and wolves. They don’t have a script, they don’t have a double-down from Grosvenor Park, and (most importantly) they don’t have Chartier to push this through, which means they don’t have time for foreign pre-sales, which means they don’t have collateral, which means they don’t have lenders. {Deep Breath}
What they do have is their own creative talent, but that is being offset by the finite amount of time they have to write the script, close the financing, prep the movie, get it shot, and deliver the directors cut — all before the mandatory stop date, when they have to start working on Triple Frontier. You can’t put 9 women in a room and make a baby in a month. So unless somebody is going to write a check for 10 million dollars, this film is not getting off the ground and that could put a big dent in their stock value. I can’t think of a worse way to follow up an Oscar sweep.
Just to be clear, I think Bigalow & Boal are both great filmmakers, and would gladly work with them; if they want to do a film on the fly, that’s fine too, but given their recent success, they would have been wiser to pitch it to a few financiers and then retire the idea until after Triple Frontier, instead of going to the press looking for a handout. The moral of this tale is that if you ever find yourself catapulted into big budget, star studded, studio pictures, don’t try to parlay that ahead of time; go on vacation until it’s time to be on set, and then parlay it while you’re in post.
Written By: Jonathan Rayos | Category: News | Comments : 0 comments
What We Learned at AFM 2010
As Predicted: Indie Distribution Is Alive And Well – The upward trend in the distribution business that we saw at Toronto continued at this year’s American Film Market (AFM) presented by the Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA). The 31st edition, which was held at the Loews and Le Merigot hotels in Santa Monica, indicated that the dog days of 2008 are behind us. It also proved that AFM is still one of the two major venues for worldwide sales, as projects were held back from Toronto and Pusan for the November event. While the film business took a major hit from the international financial crisis through 2009, business was brisk. The buyers tracked even with last year and had inventories to fill. They were focused and knew exactly what they were looking for. “The positive feeling in the halls is a direct result of production levels that are now in balance with marketplace demand,” said AFM Managing Director and IFTA President Jonathan Wolf. Attendees, whose numbers were up 25%, filled the seminars. There were 427 films from more than 36 countries screened during the market, including 43 world premieres, 306 market premieres and 21 films screened in 3D. Attendees from countries in the European Union made up the largest block, with 28.72%, while 24.56% were from Asia and 21.45% from North America.
Movie Theaters Are Here To Stay – Theaters still are the engine that drives profits for most films big and small. I have been accused of not seeing the future. After all, I am one of those “oldies” who remembers 1955 when television was supposed to kill movie theaters. Then in 1976, VHS (you may remember that from pre-2007) was supposed to do the same thing, as was DVD which was able at least to kill VHS. Nevertheless, the worldwide screen total remains around 150,000 with many cinemas still catering to independent films both large and small. Of course, anyone with a $65 million film is likely to get a theatrical release, but so will many low-budget independent films. Many of those buyers at the market are capable of bringing back reasonable revenues for your $2 million film.
Digital May Be The Future – Yes, I know that not all films will get a theatrical release. That is why there are many sales agents that specialize in nontheatrical releases, including the new technologies. However, even after 22 years in this business, it is hard to determine what your film may be worth in direct-to-home video or foreign much less iPhones, iPads, game consoles and, potentially, my microwave. We still have only anecdotal reports as to whether filmmakers get much. Take a lesson from Director Ed Burns. There is a reason his current films aimed at the new technologies have budgets of $25,000.
Presales Haven’t Died – The word “death” is greatly overused in this business. Presales definitely hit a low in 2007 through 2009. I miss the chart that a member of IFTA used to put together on likely dollars paid by various countries. In 2008 and 2009 there were at least percentages offered. This year, nothing. Big-budget films with major stars always will be worth some prepays. The amount of those dollars serious deteriorated in recent years; however, I find it hard to get a real feel from the “people in the halls” at the Market as to what that can mean for individual films. Perhaps, it is due to the fact that the current swing in dollar amounts makes it hard for them to determine in advance. In addition, some major markets, like Japan, have been far less influential in the last couple of years while Russia seems to have become more important. For lower budget films, presales always have been problematic. While speakers and distributors differed on their opinions of presales from “dead” to “healthy,” they seemed to be in agreement on one factor. Most distributors want to take films that have all the international territories in tact. Your best bet is to resist selling a territory on your own, no matter how small, to get production money.
The Best Budget Range Depends . . . The trades do a good job of letting everyone know about the big commercial films with top stars that are doing business. If you look at the lists of what exhibitors are selling, they have films of all sizes with people you know and those who are relatively unfamiliar. The word is out that studios are going back to focusing on tentpole films, as if they ever left that market. The larger production companies have discovered there is business to be done in the $10 to $40 million range that studios left years ago. I also agree that the $8 to $15 million range is a good budget for experienced filmmakers. If you are making your first low-budget film, these budgets don’t apply. Newbies are better off making a first film in the $150,000 to $2 million range. Success depends more on the quality of film and less on having known stars. Sometimes they aren’t a good idea for a low-budget film. An “A-list” (whatever the means these days) star may overwhelm the character in a specialty film. And, as we have seen from Sundance, having one doesn’t guarantee success.
Dramas Sell – I talked to filmmakers at the market who heard that dramas don’t sell. They were planning on pitching their films as films action/adventure or thrillers when they were not. Such a practice can be very dangerous. Don’t assume that the V.P. of Marketing or Acquisitions will be so bowled over by your script that they will forget being lied to. You may have thrown away your one chance to begin a relationship with a good company. Besides, it appears that no one remembered to tell a lot of the sellers at the market that dramas don’t sell. Browsing the The Hollywood Reporter’s AFM seller’s guide which generally lists only one genre per film, I found 88 films listed as dramas. In addition, searching for dramas with completion dates of 2009-2010 in the database for IFTA’s “The Film Catalogue,” I found 543 films listed as dramas. Of course, many were multi-genre films ― comedy, horror, romance, action-adventure ― while an estimated 50% were simply listed as dramas. Being long time professionals, I presume those sales agents know what they are doing.
“Found Footage” Is Being Overdone – It took only 10 years after The Blair Witch Project for Paranormal Activity to give other filmmakers the idea that “found footage” is a terrific idea for a plot. I’m not saying don’t do it, but this year’s market was a bit overwhelmed with the genre. Roland Emmerich’s $5 million The Zone sci-fi flick based on alien footage was shut down; and Warner Bros. put the script Dark Moon into turnaround, although Joel Silver’s Dark Castle productions picked it up. With several other films opening this year or being planned for 2011-2013, it might be best to think of your own plot.
Learn To Network – Networking at festivals and markets is an important skill. What will you say if you and Ryan Kavanaugh are the only two people in an express elevator from the 1st to the 7th floor? Stranger things have happened. Treat the probability the same way that I treat winning the lottery: Just in case, what will I do? Take advantage of any learning situation that comes along. This year AFM had free seminars on “How to Work the Market” at the beginning of both halves, as well as a Pitch Me! seminar as part of their conference program. In addition, a Facebook-type social network was new this year. Called MyAFM, it was open to those who had passes. Being able to meet people who had gone down those corridors before was useful for first-timers. It also eased connecting with “pros” in advance. Selling a film is not everything. Networking allows you to start relationships with people, learn what they will expect and just learn more about how the business works. In my case, I was able to connect with filmmakers and company execs from other cities that I have met over the years. The short course for attending any market or festival is: be prepared, aware, inquisitive, succinct and polite. With all the people milling around hotel lobbies and exhibition halls, at all times be cautious. Listen carefully, take cards and verify the facts later.
Louise Levison is the author of Filmmakers & Financing: Business Plans for Independents and publisher/editor ofThe Film Entrepreneur: A Newsletter for the IndependentFilmmaker and Investors. Her business plan clients have raised money for low-budget films such as The Blair Witch Project, the most profitable independent film in history, and for companies raising as much as $300 million. She takes you through the steps to present the essential information to investors.
Written By: Jonathan Rayos | Category: News | Comments : 0 comments
There really is no benefit to seeking letters of intent from actors (or their reps). Producers hate asking for them, reps hate writing them, and financiers ignore them. They’re usually out of date. They’re not binding, nor are they conditional to anything that’s relevant. And yet, they still rampantly persist within indie producing and packaging.
PRODUCER: Hey Jon, I’ve got a great project with Hugh Jackman attached.
JON: Sounds good — who can I call to confirm his attachment.
PRODUCER: I’ve already taken care of that for you – here’s a letter of intent from his manager.
JON: Hmm, how old is this? There’s no date on it.
PRODUCER: Not that long ago, and besides, the point is Jackman is VERY interested in my script.
JON: You don’t need a letter of intent for that.
PRODUCER: Why not? I don’t understand.
Actors are paid to act; any agent can tell you that the script is the least important part to them. When it comes to the principal cast (which the sales and financing are predicated), unless I can call the agent or manager directly myself and verify, there is no real attachment. The exception being a Spielberg or a Scorcese whose stature in the industry could reasonably facilitate any star interest.
I had a project recently where the director was lifelong friends with a break-out star, who had committed to doing the film. The agency was non-committal. Why? Because the agency didn’t want to tie-up a month of the actor’s time for a measly million bucks, when they could be getting 5-10x that from a studio for the same time slot. At the end of the day, a lot of money and time was spent pre-selling territories and shoring up the financing, only to have the star drop out.
I also had a project that was setup via a star’s producing partner (which is a slightly safer bet, but still not definitive); however, when a co-financier that I had sent it to called the agent to confirm, the agency denied it and ultimately killed the deal. Agencies and management companies can wield tremendous influence and pressure over celebrities who in most cases are insecure about their careers.
I completely understand the smoke-and-mirrors dance producers have to perform to bring all sides to the middle, but when it comes to key talent attachments, if it’s not verifiable, it doesn’t exist. Bottom line, ditch the letters of commitment and let us pick up the phone and verify Mr. Jackman.
Written By: Jonathan Rayos | Category: News | Comments : 0 comments
Importance of Cash Flow Projections in your Film Business Plan
Most film business plans I see do not contain a projection of cash flows. What are cash flows? They are literally the cash that flows into and out of your film project. Early on they will chiefly consist of cash flowing out of your investment vehicle (typically an LLC) in order to pay for production. Later on, if you are lucky, they will consist of money being received by the production entity in return for another entity exploiting the film.
The problem with projecting them for a film is that cash flows are highly dependant on the nature of the distribution strategy and the concomitant contracts signed. It is, quite frankly, impossible to completely predict them for a project.
So what is the point of including such projections in a business plan? It demonstrates that you have a thorough understanding of when and how money flows back to a film. Frontloading your DVD revenues (as opposed to spreading them out over several years), accounting for delays in the delivery of distribution payments, and timing the receipt of VOD payments demonstrate to a potential investor that you have the business sense to be trusted with other people’s money. An investor will have much less fear that he or she is handing money over to a gaggle of artists with no clue as to how the movie industry functions.
Of course, in all likelihood, you will never face the cash flow situation projected in your plan, and you must let your potential investors know this in no uncertain terms. In reality, you may be offered a giant advance, no advance, or some situation in between. You may decide to DIY your entire release or fractionalize only some of your rights. Or you may never return a dime of your principal. However, once these facts are made clear to an investor (and no, not solely through some silly risk statement at the beginning of the plan), you can let the power of a thorough cash flow projection take root.
It will help push an investor’s focus off your business acumen and place it more squarely on whether they like the project and can share in the passion required to invest in it. And this becomes critical, since a film investment should never be made or sold on the lure of financial gain, but only on the lure of an emotional one.
Written By: Jonathan Rayos | Category: News | Comments : 0 comments
SEC Insight into Film Crowdfunding Via a Public Securities Offering
Before I begin, let me remind you that I am not an attorney. So, if you have legal questions or would like to act on something you learn from this posting, please consult with the appropriate attorney first! Thank you.
Onward…
Crowdfunding in film finance is the idea of raising money over the internet from numerous individuals who each contribute a small amount of funding in return for something.
The chief limitation to it in the United States has always been, and continues to be, securities laws. Securities laws must be followed whenever promising a financial return on investment to an investor who takes a less-than-active part in generating that return. (Even the use of active investors requires the services of a skilled securities attorney.)
Generally, if one wants to legally avoid securities restrictions in a crowdfunding scenario, financial returns cannot be offered. As a result, most crowdfunding efforts offer limited enticements (e.g., signed copies of a limited edition DVD, dinner with a cast member, etc.) that yield limited results well short of financing a fully-fledged feature.
Thus, it appears the only way to utilize crowdfunding to its full effect would be through a public offering.
A public offering is basically the raising of money from investors and registering this raising-of-money transaction with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Washington, DC. Due to the expense (typically many tens of thousands of dollars) such offerings are often eschewed by indie filmmakers in favor of private offerings, which do not incur the expense of an SEC registration, but cannot be utilized in a crowdfunding scenario.
However, in digging through the SEC’s public database, I recently discovered a production entity attempting to crowdfund via the public offering route. The company’s name is Audience Productions, Inc. (API), and they are attempting what appears to be a crowdfund of $8.0 million through their website.
This is far and away the largest attempt at crowdfunding I have heard of, and it deserves mentioning, not only for this fact, but for the fact that we are able to gain some insight into the regulatory issues API has had to deal with by examining the SEC’s public records. Following link to U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=0001474227&action=getcompany)
Written By: Jonathan Rayos | Category: News | Comments : 0 comments
In this Fall 2010 Session: Rob Hummel – CEO, Prime Focus
Seth Shapiro – Principal, New Amsterdam Media LLC
Warren Littlefield – Former President of CBS Entertainment
Lisa Farries – Founder of CMO, Inc.
Kris Brown – VP, Warner Home Video
Moderator– Larry Gerbrandt – Principal, Media Valuation Partners
Here are some notes from this session. It is all from the panelists listed above.
We are spending a lot of time of the 3D convergence.
We have been so focused on the money making aspects of 3D, but we should also focus on the customer experience.
Parallels between 3D development and HD development. 3D has a slight advantage.
It is difficult to introduce new technologies – Larry Gerbrandt
Standards usually get quickly resolved out there in the marketplace. We already know that 3D has been adopted. Some people might say that 3D movies are fad – but it is going strong and consumers are still paying for them.
How quickly will consumers adopt this technology?
In the last three years – 5 billion dollars in 3D receipts – it is not a fad. It is here to stay. 3D theatricals woke up the industry. We are rapidly finding that this experience can be brought to the home. The MLB playoffs costs another 500 to 600 thousand dollars to produce in 3D – but they felt it was worth it. It is expensive. It will come down eventually. This is a significant task to get the 3D product. We are going to need more 3D product to be created to take care of the new channels coming up. 3D needs more than unicorns and rainbows – something that worked for HD just because people wanted to watch. – Warren Littlefield.
3D golf is an amazing experience. 3D works well in wide shots that don’t move a lot. That is golf. You have a separation of the player from the background. – Larry Gerbrandt
Great expectations for passive TVs. I think there is a challenge for active TVs. I am not sure that people are going to want to spend the money for all the glasses. All these new TVs coming that are magnificent. You have that wonderful experience and it is such an immersive experience. I believe that prices will come down. There are a little under 5million 3D TVs in homes worldwide right now. – Lisa Farries
There is incredible potential with 3D. For TV, we did a 3D CGI and they only had the 2D renders and it came out good. It is more difficult to create for TV rather than for theater. 3D TVs boost the illumination of the show. It is not cheaper to make things for TV but we have studios that are willing to pay the price to get this accomplished. One studio will not spend more than 1 million dollars on a title to convert to 3D. It takes a lot to convert to 3D and is not for low budget movies. The things that are going to take the lead are sports in 3D. Other titles for movies – it costs 6-7 million dollars to convert to 3D. If you do it right 50-100K dollars a minute to do right. People want us to do 3D lite – something cheaper. This is not possible. 3D on the TV is more magical than 3D in the theater.. – Rob Hummel
The tools available today for the 2D to 3D conversion is like 15K/min to 15K/hour. – Warren Littlefield.
Prices are coming down for the hardware.Majority of HD TVs will have 3D capabilities. We will all be getting 3D TVs whether we want them or not. We know that we have an excellent product. TV, Games, Sports – we know the demand is there but the base is small. The base is enthusiastic. They are willing to pay a premium. We have a steady and increasing amount of revenue. – Kris Brown
We converted, you are creating a new copyright . – Warren Littlefield
The more you become used to 3D the more you expect quality. In the beginning, when you first see it – you love the crap – Rob Hummel
Another backing can come from cable and satellite companies.Unlike theatrical, we have a number of companies that have steady revenue streams. The greatest box office is the one in your home. These companies don’t have to do a lot to supply 3D content to the house. These companies have a vested interest in supplying content to these customers. – Seth Shapiro.
Is there a positive ROI for an independent producer to do original 3D productions?
Discovery is going to launch their 3D network shortly.
TV is going to dwarf movies in this arena.
There is a huge opportunity for people – BTW – ESPN intermingled 2D with their 3D shots as they couldn’t get 3D from every angle.
As the sales go up there will be more demand. As the costs go down then the independent producers can get more involved. The cameras are going to need to get smaller and smaller. it is in the future – we are not quite there yet – Warren Littlefield.
Shooting in 3D is better than converting – due to costs – Rob Hummel
Need to look at the range of distribution – there isn’t one 3D commercial planned right now. There are other opportunities right now. Theaters are looking for alternative opportunities for 3D as they have bought this equipment. – Lisa Farris.
Bundles are good for the market (bundling titles with hardware). We have a hardware company buying a window. It makes it more likely that more content will be produced.
3D is the killer app for BlueRay. – Warren Littlefield
Lisa hopes that if a movie is completely converted that there is something telling the consumer that it has been converted.
Rob Hummel stated that there were 47 shots that we actually filmed in 2D for Avatar that were converted to 3D and that it wasn’t a good idea to inform the end user of this.
Once we see commercials in 3D then we will know that 3D is really here to stay.
3D is a slang word – should be stereoscopic conversion. – Rob Hummel
Rob thinks it should be left to the critics. Some 3D convergence can be good and some can be bad.
There will be a lot of 3D experiences for the end user. CBS offered the NCAA basketball tournament – and people paid for the tournament to be viewed in the theaters. CBS did it because they wanted feedback from the consumers. They didn’t just sit there, they were out of their seats cheering. We will have better and better 3D experiences.
When will be see primetime drama in 3D?
It will come very very soon – Warren Littlefield
When Battlestar Galactica did their offering in HD – then everyone had to have it. The name brand product does 3D, that is when we will see that this will drive the home 3D experience. – Warren Littlefield
TV Graphics are challenging in how 2D and 3D each handle graphics differently.
3D will have a major impact on the BlueRay market. BlueRay is performing extremely well. When you see a major feature like 3D – then buy rates are going to go up. -Kris Brown
Written By: Jonathan Rayos | Category: News | Comments : 0 comments
In the spirit of the 2010 Ryder Cup golf matches in Ireland, I would like to introduce the FilmEmerge Hollywood version of a Ryder Cup Team based on the history of filmography for the sport of golf.
Captains: Clint Eastwood – playing himself; and a Pebble Beach Golf Club owner;
Assistant Captains: Carl Spacklar – played by Bill Murray; George Lopez – as recommended by his BFF, the legendary Lee Trevino; Samuel L Jackson – a golfaholic, who has clause on all his contracts that he gets two rounds of golf per week, but would take on this Ryder Cup role instead.
Honarary Captains:
Rodney Dangerfield – Al Czervic – played by Rodney Dangerfield; and Judge Smails – played by Ted Knight
Now for the Hollywood Ryder Cup Team:
Leading off for the FilmEmerge Hollywood Ryder Cup Team:
1. Shia LaBeouf – playing Francis Quimet “The Greatest Game Ever Played” 2005
2. Matt Damon – playing Runolf Junuh in “The Legend of Bagger Vance” 2000
3. James Caviesel – playing Bobby Jones in “Bobby Jones Stroke of Genius” 2004
4. Kevin Costner – as Roy ‘Tin Cup’ McAvoy in “Tin Cup” 1996
5. Chevy Chase – as Ty Webb in “CaddyShack” 1980
6. Don Johnson – “Tin Cup” 1996
7. Michael Okeefe – as Danny Noonan in “CaddyShack” 1980
8. Will Smith – as Bagger Vance in “Legend of Bagger Vance” 2000
9. Steven Dillain – playing Harry Vardon in “The Greatest Game Ever Played” 2005
Matt Damon and Bruce McGill in Dreamworks’ The Legend of Bagger Vance – 2000
10. Bruce McGill – playing Walter Hagen in ”The Greatest Game Ever Played” 2005
Captains Picks was tough, as we had to select actual actors with their real home course handicaps. The selections were:
Jack Wagner (+2 handicapper, Bel Air Country Club)
Don Cheadle (+5 handicap – Bel Air Country Club)
Dennis Quiad (+8 handicap – Bell Air Country Club)
In honor of the Ryder Cup Opening Ceremonies, we have our ‘Hottie Wife/Girlfriends nominees:
Charlise Theron in “Legend of Bagger Vance” 2000,
Claire Forlani in “Bobby Jones Stroke of Genius”
Rene Russo in “Tin Cup” 1996
Finally, the Top Caddy goes to Cheech Marin in “Tin Cup”.
So there you have it, Hollywood golf fans. This is the 2010 FilmEmerge Hollywood Ryder Cup Team.
But even if you multiply Sean Penn by Miley Cyrus by Demi Moore by Sigourney Weaver (to mention a few of the film stars in the area this month), the state Senate Fiscal Agency says the cost of luring movie stars — and film productions — here is a net loss to Michigan.
The nonpartisan agency determined the state’s film subsidy program, which rebates up to 42 percent of costs for local movie production, isn’t breaking even. If you believe the fiscal agency, it could cost the state as much as $90 million this year.
How much is that worth? Economists have ways of measuring intangible benefits. They use the term “existence value” to describe public assets that can’t be measured in dollars and cents. That’s usually environmental resources — the Grand Canyon, say — but perhaps it might help describe our movie biz quandary.
“The subsidies may be too large to justify from a strict economic development standpoint,” says Steven Hackett, a Humboldt University economics professor, who has written about economics and social dilemmas, “but there can be other benefits that might be more speculative.”
Louise Levison is the author of 
Most film business plans I see do not contain a projection of cash flows. What are 
Before I begin, let me remind you that I am not an attorney. So, if you have legal questions or would like to act on something you learn from this posting, please consult with the appropriate attorney first! Thank you.
