As the big production houses and their armies of risk averse MBA’s rush to film everything in 3-D, the biggest revolution is happening right underneath their noses. Perhaps they are not taking note because it doesn’t include them.
The phone rings at 6:30am and a booming voice comes across the line,
“Let them know we have done over $300 million dollars in gross profits at the box office. I want this film to be affordable for any investor seeking to partner with our track record.”
On the line is the producer to many of the top family comedy films of this decade. He’s talking to Jimmy DeAngelis, a former trader and an expert in precious metal investments.
Hollywood has been known to seek private offerings before, but hardly on the scale we’re seeing now. Citing hit films like “The Blair Witch Project,” Which grossed over $248 Million Dollars on a $22,500 investment and director Oren Peli’s 09’ low budget smash “Paranormal Activity.” Individual investors are taking note and production companies are all to eager to escape the yoke larger funds put on creativity.
Is the democratization of film finance leading to a renaissance of low budget big profit thrillers? Hollywoods largest directors who are familiar with the situation have said. “We’ve never seen so much young talent breaking out as fast as today.” Talent like Greg McLean who’s debut “Wolf Creek” in 2005 grossed a healthy $22 million on a small budget offering.
As the big production houses and their armies of risk averse MBA’s rush to film everything in 3-D, the biggest revolution is happening right underneath their noses. Perhaps they are not taking note because it doesn’t include them.
This new era of democratization in film finance includes normal people like retired lawyers, market traders, small business owners and retirees who now have a chance to partner with some of the largest Box office offerings through people like Deangelis. The result is an increase in employment and a chance to be a part of culture, creativity and reap massive profits.
No one can tell what film will be the “next Rocky Balboa” and profoundly effect culture, but there’s a good chance it won’t be coming from major production houses like the past. It might just come from people like Jimmy Deangelis and other private investors like you.
LOS ANGELES, May 23 (Reuters) - Following are the top 10 movies at the North American box office for the three days beginning on May 21, led by the new release “Shrek Forever After,”
1 (*) Shrek Forever After …….. $ 71.3 million 2 (1) Iron Man 2 .. $ 26.6 million 3 (2) Robin Hood .. $ 18.7 million 4 (3) Letters to Juliet ………. $ 9.1 million 5 (4) Just Wright . $ 4.2 million 6 (*) MacGruber … $ 4.1 million 7 (7) Date Night .. $ 2.8 million 8 (6) A Nightmare on Elm Street .. $ 2.3 million 9 (5) How To Train Your Dragon … $ 1.9 million 10 (*) Kites ……. $ 1.0 million
Iron Man 2 … $251.3 million How To Train Your Dragon …. $210.9 million Date Night … $ 90.7 million Shrek Forever After ……… $ 71.3 million Robin Hood … $ 66.1 million A Nightmare on Elm Street … $ 59.9 million Letters to Juliet ……….. $ 27.4 million Just Wright .. $ 14.6 million MacGruber …. $ 4.1 million Kites …….. $ 1.0 million
”Shrek Forever After” and “How To Train Your Dragon” were produced by DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc (DWA.O), and produced by Viacom Inc’s (VIAb.N) Paramount Pictures. Paramount also distributed “Iron Man 2,” which was produced by Marvel Studios, a unit of Walt Disney Co (DIS.N). ”Robin Hood” was released by Universal Pictures, a unit of General Electric Co (GE.N). Universal also released “MacGruber,” which was financed by closely held Relativity Media. ”Letters to Juliet” was released by Summit Entertainment, which is closely held. ”Just Wright” and “Date Night” were released by 20th Century Fox, a unit of News Corp (NWSA.O). ”A Nightmare on Elm Street” was released by Warner Bros Pictures, a unit of Time Warner Inc (TWX.N). ”Kites” was released by released by Reliance Big Pictures, a unit of India’s Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group.
WEST POINT, N.Y. (AP) —The U.S. must shape a world order as reliant on the force of diplomacy as on the might of its military to lead, President Barack Obama said Saturday as he outlined a foreign policy vision that repudiated the go-it-alone approach forged by his predecessor, George W. Bush.
Addressing nearly 1,000 graduating cadets at the U.S. Military Academy, many of whom will likely head to war in Iraq and Afghanistan under his command, Obama said all hands are required to solve the world’s newest threats: terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons, climate change and feeding and caring for a growing population.
The U.S. military is the “cornerstone of our national defense,” but Obama said the men and women who wear America’s uniform cannot bear that responsibility by themselves. “The rest of us must do our part,” he said.
“The burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone. It also cannot fall on American shoulders alone,” the commander in chief told graduates in gray and white uniforms seated on the field at Michie Stadium.
Diplomacy and muscle must work together, he said in calling for “renewed engagement” from diplomats, along with development experts, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and first responders.
Obama acknowledged that the U.S. is “clear-eyed” about the shortcoming of the international system, but he said America had not ever been successful by “stepping out of the currents of cooperation.”
“We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice, so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities and face the consequences when they don’t,” the president said.
Bush’s “my way or the highway” approach alienated some allies and damaged U.S. standing around the world. Obama has promised to restore America’s reputation, and he said Saturday that he aimed to do that by forging new alliances, maintaining old ones and helping to shape stronger international standards and institutions.
At the same time, Obama said the U.S. will fight to protect “those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding” and will lead by example by staying true to the rule of law and the Constitution, “even when it’s hard, even when we’re being attacked, even when we’re in the midst of war.”
“We should not discard our freedoms because extremists try to exploit them,” he said in an apparent reference to policies sanctioning torture and domestic spying that Bush adopted after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001
“President Obama Delivers Commencement at West Point”
The Air India plane was carrying 165 passengers — including four infants — and went down around 6:30 a.m. (9 p.m. ET Friday) near the Mangalore International Airport, CNN’s sister network reported, citing an airline spokesman
Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul believes that the federal government blurred the lines between public and private property when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.
Paul explained his views on “The Rachel Maddow Show” Wednesday, just one day after walloping his opponent in Kentucky’s Republican primary.
Paul told Maddow that he agrees with most parts of the Civil Rights Act, except for one (Title II), that made it a crime for private businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Paul explained that had he been in office during debate of bill, he would have tried to change the legislation. He said that it stifled first amendment rights:
Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that ‘We don’t serve black people?’
Paul: I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.
But I think what’s important in this debate is not getting into any specific “gotcha” on this, but asking the question ‘What about freedom of speech?’ Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things that freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it…
Paul argued that Maddow’s questions weren’t practical, but were instead abstract. She asked Paul to tell that to protesters who were beaten in their struggle for equal rights:
Maddow:… How about desegregating lunch counters? Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says ‘well no, we don’t want to have guns in here’ the bar says ‘we don’t want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.’ Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion…
Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen’s lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.
