Netflix: The New HBO?

Netflix buys exclusive rights to Disney movies

In a "bold leap forward for Internet television," Netflix has acquired the sole rights to stream Disney movies off of their website, netflix.com. The agreement will begin in 2016 and last for 3 years. In the meantime, Netflix has immediate access to older Disney classics, such as Pocahontas, Dumbo, and Alice in Wonderland. On the losers side of this agreement is Starz, a premium cable network whose exclusive rights to Disney movies will end in 2016, the year Netflix will take the helm. As a result of this news, Netflix's stock rose 14% while Starz's parent company's stock fell 5%. Netflix also has nonexclusive rights to movies from Paramount Pictures, Lionsgate, and MGM. Subscription to Netflix streaming is a mere $8 a month as opposed to $13-$18 a month from premium cable giants such as HBO and Showtime.

This instantly caught my attention because it highlights the major shift from premium cable to "Internet" cable. Netflix acts as its own network, not only streaming movies but countless TV shows such as Mad Men, which accounts for 2/3 of the content that is watched by paying viewers. It also is ridiculously cheaper than premium cable, for which you have to pay the monthly fee plus the fee for cable/satellite/fiber optic network/etc. Also, Netflix can be streamed through numerous devices that can be hooked up to TVs and played, such as Blu Ray players, game consoles, and Apple TV. This makes it extremely advantageous compared to premium cable, and more Americans willingly buy it. The fact that Netflix wants to invest in the other large producing companies also proves that it is not going to back down, and that it is ready to take over the movie-streaming business. It's taking decisive actions to become a bigger, more profitable corporation, and it's working.

As a consumer, this increases my want for a Netflix subscription (and for Netflix stock (a week ago)!). I want to join something that will grow bigger and that will benefit me in the long run, and I think Netflix will be doing that very soon. As a future filmmaker, I find it fascinating how these companies negotiate and how the deals affect the industry as a whole.

There are some major questions that must be asked after reading this. Is this truly as big of an event as people are claiming? Will Netflix run premium cable companies to the ground? If so, how soon can they do it?

Will Netflix be the new HBO?

Seven Egyptians Sentenced to Death Due to Participation in Anti-Islam Film

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/egyptian-court-orders-death-sentences-over-anti-islam-film/

Seven Egyptians living abroad have been given the death sentence by a Cairo court. They have been charged for their alleged connection to the anti-Islamic film from America that led to riots in the extremely Islamic Middle East. However, the sentence cannot be enforced unless the seven return home to Egypt.

This instantly piqued my interest because I was surprised the anti-Islam film is still making headlines. It's fascinating to see how much of a lasting impact a film so controversial can have on the world. The fact that aggressive action is still being taken against the film is mind-boggling to me.

As a student, this teaches me the lasting effects of a historical event. This outbreak of terrorism due to the film will most likely end up in future history books. As a consumer, it is crazy to know that something I can watch has such an impact on the world. As a filmmaker, it teaches me to stay away from creating a film that is so controversial it causes violence.

Some questions I have about this article are: Will the men ever be able to return home? How much longer will the hysteria continue? Will there be more sentencings? Is the verdict correct or false? These will hopefully be answered in the future.

Three Scenes, One Movie

Sorkin's Steve Jobs Bio Pic to Consist of Only Three Scenes

Director the untitled Steve Jobs Bio Pic movie has revealed a shocking piece of information about the movie: there will only be three scenes. Each scene will last about a half hour of "real-time". They will all depict the launch of 3 different major Apple products in Jobs' career: the original Macintosh computer, the NeXT Cube, and the first iPod.

This caught my attention due to the headline advertising an extremely creative use of only 3 scenes for an hour and a half movie. I am intrigued by the idea of a film that is limited to that parameter. I did not know that anyone of this generation would attempt something so bold on a film that will be so mainstream.

As a student, this makes me want to look back into the history of Apple and find out how the movie will still captivate audiences' attention in only 3 scenes. Maybe looking back at the release day of these 3 products will give me some insight. As a future filmmaker, the idea of a movie with 3 scenes inspires me to continue to be as creative as I can be once I get into the industry. As a consumer, I am now excited to see this movie, whereas before I was planning on blowing it off. I cannot wait to see how this movie plays out.

This leaves me with a few questions for Sorkin. Is this method of storytelling actually effective? How will it continue to captivate audiences that are used to action-heavy, fast-paced Hollywood films? How long would this take to film? These questions will hopefully be answered in the future by the ingenious director.

Disney: At It Again

http://www.examiner.com/article/disney-to-buy-hasbro-magic-the-gathering-movie-and-theme-park-on-its-way

There are now rumors that Disney plans to buy Hasbro, the company in charge of many toy staples, such as G.I. Joe, Transformers, and, of course, Star Wars. This adds to the numerous acquisitions Disney has been eating up lately.

This caught my attention since Disney has been so active in acquiring various companies. It may lead to the government filing a monopoly lawsuit against the giant corporation which would be huge economically. This is just another fascinating display of Disney's power and strength.

As a student, this teaches me something important about economics: monopoly. Disney is using a form of vertical integration that I have studied in my history classes. As a future filmmaker, this tells me that there are going to be huge job opportunities in the Disney corporation soon. As a consumer, this may affect the way these toys are made or released to me and the quality of the toys.

Some questions this article raises are if this rumor is true or if it is false and if it does occur, what the consequences for Disney will be. Will the government retaliate? Will other companies suffer? These are all things to consider when looking at a future in the entertainment business.

Star Wars Episode VII

Disney Buys Lucasfilm for $4 Billion

In a rather unexpected move, Disney has proceeded to buy Lucasfilm, Skywalker Sound, Industrial Light and Magic, and LucasArts from George Lucas for $4 billion. They are paying Lucas half the price in cash and half in stocks. This makes Lucas the 2nd biggest owner of Disney stocks (other than the late Steve Jobs). Disney plans to release Star Wars Episode VII in 2015. Disney is also looking into starting a Star Wars TV show on their cable-satellite channel Disney XD.

This is probably the most important entertainment news I've heard for the past couple months. It is so amazing that Star Wars movies still have the potential to be created, especially since most thought that the franchise was done putting out new movies. It is a huge shift in the movie business and a major power move for Disney.

As a student, this piques my interest in how a business deal like this works. How does a shift in power this large happen? As a filmmaker, it is a great thing to know that there are many parts of the Star Wars franchise that will be renewed or started. It creates jobs in the industry that could potentially last a long time. As a consumer, nothing could please me more than to see my favorite movie franchise ever come out with another movie (especially one not written with Lucas's awful dialogue). I could not be more excited for 2015!!

I have many questions after reading this article. First, how good will this new Star Wars film be? Who is going to direct it? Write it? Act in it? What will the storyline be? Will it follow the books? How does the addition of all these companies affect Disney? What about George Lucas? I cannot wait to find out the answers to all these questions. For now, I will be waiting to hear any tiny tidbit of news about this fantastic deal between Disney and Lucasfilm.

To the Left

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/25/pro-obama-movie-to-get-anti-obama-ads/

Anti-Barack Obama ads will be played during a pro-Obama movie airing on National Geographic. The movie, which is a Weinstein production, is an overexaggeration of Obama's role in the murder of Osama bin Laden. The movie team was forced to cut part of the movie that showed Mitt Romney against the murder of this heinous criminal.

This caught my attention because it is more political lies on the left-wing side. Many are aware of what goes on on the right, but the same people are nearly oblivious to the fact that all the same things that happen on the right also happen on the left. It fascinates me how much politicians skewer the truth.

As a student, this helps me understand that neither political party is very satisfactory, and that I should be aware of corruption on both sides of the spectrum. As a filmmaker, this article tells me that biased work can still be made even if I personally disagree with it. As a consumer, it alerts me to the fact that I have to be wary of all the lies flung at me from both political parties.

A disconcerting question this article raises for me are how much integrity the movie business has. Are all films slightly biased, whether political, social, or otherwise? Another question I have is how involved Obama was in the creation of this film. Was it his intention to exaggerate the truth? Hopefully this last one gets answered soon.

Carrie Remake?

First Teaser Trailer for Carrie Remake: Watch Now

The teaser trailer for the remake of the infamous Stephen King based movie Carrie has been released. In the trailer, burning buildings are shown along with a blood-covered Chloe Grace Moretz, the star of the remake. The film is about a troubled young teen who realizes she has telekinetic powers. A series of events leads to inevitable bloodshed and destruction. The movie is set to premiere in 2013.

This is big news because the original book and the first film, which premiered in 1976, were both highly successful. This resurgence of a classic horror film will draw people young and old to witness the reinvention of the movie. It also shows the tendency for production companies to lean toward remakes of films.

I am thrilled as a filmmaker to see how director Kimberly Peirce recreates this epic horror film. Will she keep faithful to the old, or will she go out of her way to make it unique and different? As a consumer, I am also ecstatic to see a remake of one of my favorite horror movies of all time (and no, it's not just because they filmed a lot of it at my elementary/middle school). I want to see Chloe Grace Moretz shine once again. As a student, I look for things that enable me to do more things with new people, and going to see Carrie with some friends is a perfect way to socialize.

This article makes me wonder if it can live up to the standards of the first movie. Is it a mistake to make a remake of such an iconic horror movie? Are remakes in general mistakes? Just some things to ponder.

Even though I have some doubts, nothing will stop me from seeing this reinvention of Carrie!

"'The Dog Ate My Homework' Just Doesn't Cut It When You're Running For President"

Mitt Romney Declines to Participate in Nickelodeon's 'Kids Pick the President' Special

Is this really happening? Mitt Romney has once again offended the younger generation of Americans by declining the invitation to participate in the traditional Nickelodeon "Kids Pick the President" special. This is the second time a candidate has refused to answer the questions that were written by the kids of America, with the other candidate being John Kerry in 2004. This announcement came just mere days after Romney's pledge to cut PBS spending at the 1st Presidential Debate on Thursday, October 4th. On the other hand, the Obama campaign eagerly invited the Nickelodeon crew to the White House in order to have President Obama to answer the kid-written questions. When asked about their opinion on Romney's decision to skip over the special, the Obama campaign said, "It’s no surprise Romney decided to play hookey. Kids demand details, and I’m sure they want some answers on why Romney could increase their class sizes, eliminate their teacher’s jobs, raise taxes on their families and slash funding for Big Bird. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, ‘The dog ate my homework’ just doesn't cut it when you’re running for president."

This is significant because it influences the way the American public perceives Mitt Romney. If he had taken half an hour to answer these questions, he would not have gotten more criticism for his campaign. However, he did skip it, and now he is taking more heat for his poor choices in judgment despite his obvious win at the debate.

As a student and fellow kid invested in politics, I do not see why this was such a big deal for Romney to do, and I find it disappointing that he declined to do such a standard part of the presidential campaign. I look forward to the Nickelodeon special, and it's going to be hard for him to get the kids' usually spot on vote when he doesn't even participate in the special. As a filmmaker, I would want every part of each member's campaign on screen so I can see the facts for myself instead of hearing them from other people. As a consumer, I want to see as much as I can of each candidate's standpoint, even through something as simple as a Nickelodeon TV kids special. This was an important opportunity missed by former Governor Romney, and I think that it is something he will truly regret when he looks back on his campaign whether he wins or not.

This makes me ask the question of whether Romney takes the kids of America seriously. Does he believe that this TV special was not as important as other parts of his campaign? If so, why does he feel this way? I do not understand why he would skip something as simple as this. Hopefully, we will hear a statement from the Romney campaign soon about the reasoning behind this.

Politicans Making Contradictory Statements? Yawn.

Mitt Romney Says 'I Love Big Bird,' But Threatens PBS Funding Cuts in Debate

Mitt Romney declared that he wants to cut back government funding for the popular Public Broadcasting Service, or PBS, at the Presidential Debate on Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012. Whether it was intentional or on accident, this was a direct insult toward the moderator of the night, Jim Lehrer. Lehrer is most well-known for his former role as an anchor on PBS's NewsHour, a program that would be directly affected if Romney is serious about cutting the network's funding. After the blunder, Romney corrected himself by saying, "I like PBS. I like Big Bird. I like you too." This blunder was one of the few in the debate that went unfavorably for the Governor. On the contrary, most consider him to have won the debate against acting president Barack Obama, something that was unexpected and pleasing to some.

If Romney becomes President of the United States, this will have a profound effect on the PBS network. The lack of millions of dollars of funding for the channel will lead to its possible failure in the television world. The network has been around since 1970, and change to this standard channel will completely shift the television world. This news is extremely important for the future of network television.

As a former broadcast journalism student, I look towards NewsHour and other PBS shows as an example to better my journalism skills. Without these programs, part of my continued education will be ripped from me. As a filmmaker looking into television as a career, this could affect the options available to me when I enter the industry. I do not want to lose these opportunities, so the government cuts could have a significant effect on me if television is where I decide to go. Also, as a consumer, I do not look forward to losing shows like the NewsHour for me and Sesame Street for my 5-year-old sister.

This makes me wonder how much influence the government has on the film and television industry. Can they snap their fingers and make networks or production companies disappear? What would this mean for the future of some certain companies that depend on the government for money like PBS? My only hope is that PBS can continue despite this potential setback in funding for them.

Wait...20th Century Fox Still Has a Say in Marvel Comics?

Mark Millar Now Consulting on All Marvel Films at 20th Century Fox

Although Disney now owns Marvel, 20th Century Fox is not through with all of the productions they began before selling the franchise at the price of $4 billion dollars. 20th Century Fox has decided to hire a head for their final Marvel movies: Mark Millar of popular films Kick-Ass and Wanted.

Millar spent 10 years with Marvel writing comics earlier in his career, and in reaction to his promotion, he has stated, "As someone who has spent his entire life obsessed with both comic-books and movies, this is essentially my dream gig as it's a unique combination of both...I really like the Fox team, love this bold new direction they have for their franchises and am proud to be working alongside some of modern cinema's biggest talents. James Mangold is incredible, Matthew Vaughn's one of my closest pals and Josh Trank gave us, in my opinion, one of the greatest superhero movies of the last decade with 'Chronicle.' The invitation to join this crew was maybe the coolest phone-call I've ever had."

This surprises me because I did not know that 20th Century Fox could still make Marvel movies. Why weren't all their productions shelved when Disney took over the multi-billion dollar franchise? The ability of 20th Century Fox to finish what they began is something that I did not think the competitive movie industry would allow. It's fascinating to know that Disney is permitting 20th Century Fox to continue producing movies under the Marvel name. To me, it shows an altruism that I did not know existed in the Darwinistic world of film.

In the industry, this means that there is a significant change of hands in the 20th Century Fox Marvel world. Now that former CEO Tom Rothman is resigning and Millar is taking his place, the movies that are being made for the company may change significantly. Who knows if the actors, directors, writers, or anyone on the crew will remain the same? Maybe even the screenplay will be adjusted!

Reading this as the film student I am, it gives me perspective on how the industry works when a franchise such as Marvel switches hands. I did not know that something this large could be handled so humanely and effectively. From my filmmaker eyes, I know that Millar can pull off being the creative head of 20th Century Fox's Marvel. Kick-Ass was one heck of a film, and I would love to see more movies of that caliber, especially the Fantastic Four reboot. I am excited as a consumer to see these films now that I know the production is in good hands. Hopefully these final films from 20th Century Fox meet or exceed my expectations!

Ponzi Scheme in Hollywood?

State of California Sues Movie Producers Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme

The State of California is suing Windsor Pictures, Skylight Pictures, and other associated companies under the allegation that the production companies were running the infamous Ponzi Scheme and received $32 million dollars of unaware investors' money. The suit claims that the companies "targeted unsophisticated senior investors." The suit was filed by Jan Lynn Owen, California's corporations commissioner.

Apparently, the movie Not Forgotten, produced by Skyline Pictures and directed by its CEO, Dror Soref, was presented to senior investors as a "safe investment that would pay a higher return than the savings and investments [the investors] currently held".  The movie did horribly in the box office, only earning $54,000, and the investors lost millions of money for putting their faith in this horrendously bad turnout of a film.

Both production companies were disbanded in 2011 along with the checks that were sent out to investors. All of this evidence will be used by the state of California in order to get the $32 million dollars back from the frauds and criminals who ran Windsor and Skylight Pictures.

Why is this important? It proves the relevancy of the Ponzi scheme. To most today, the idea of someone running a scam that all know is doomed to fail seems preposterous, yet in this instance, it is shown that some still use mediocre ways of stealing money. The Ponzi scheme becomes more realistic to the readers now that they have heard of a current, real event that deals with this form of crime. This is definitely something to keep an eye on.

As a student, this article shows that the real world can be conniving and deceitful, and that I always must be on watch for those who try to con me or lie to me. As a filmmaker, this tells me that I must be wary of what company I choose to let produce any future films I might pitch. I would not want my ingenious idea to go to waste at the expense of something as silly as a Ponzi scheme movie production company. As a consumer, this also makes me want to be more cautious. I do not want to invest in something that will not deliver, especially something that I have been lied to about. I must always be on watch in order to not be another countless victim of fraud.

This raises the question of the integrity of the movie industry for many. How do we know who is not corrupt in this place called Hollywood? What can we do to shield ourselves from it? There is not a definite answer for either of those questions, but we still must find our own ways to protect ourselves (and our money) from falling into the wrong hands.

Maybe Hollywood isn't the golden world everyone dreams of. This is just one more piece of evidence to put on top of the growing pile of reasons why it's not.