I thought this was a great article. I think a Fox and TimeWarner merger would ultimately be a bad idea. There would be a lot of layoffs, but the combined company would have a lot more leverage during content negotiations. However, I think the merger would actually long term benefit Netflix and other new content creators because these mega content providers will demand too much money from cable companies, who will end up passing the fees on to their customers, Netflix on the other hand only charges $7.99 a month. I believe that consumers are getting sick of these large bills from cable companies and if people want to save money they will start getting their content exclusively from Netflix and other providers and “cut the cable cord”. $7.99 per month from Netflix or at least $40 per month (not including fees) from Comcast seems like a no brainer to me. It will be interesting to see who buys up TimeWarner. My hope is Apple or Google. NOT FOX. See Deadline article below…
Wednesday should be fun for those of us who can’t get enough of the Fox–Time Warner story. Both companies will release their Q2 earnings — and then hold their first public conversations with Wall Street analysts since word got out about Fox’s $80B offer for Time Warner, which the owner of Warner Bros, HBO and TBS rejected.
If history serves, then Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes will run his company’s call in the morning while Fox COO Chase Carey subs for CEO Rupert Murdoch in the afternoon. The conventional wisdom is that if they say anything about consolidation, they’ll probably limit themselves to comments about broad trends in the marketplace. There’s no reason to discuss deal specifics because, for now at least, there isn’t one on the table. They’ll probably get away with that. Analysts who want to stay ahead of the pack covet the one-on-one or small group meetings with CEOs where they can glean insights from a raised eyebrow or other form of body language.
Still, we can dream. Here are a few questions we wish somebody would ask.
For Time Warner
– Your stock is up 18% since the Fox offer became public, and you say its bid was too low. Why couldn’t you persuade investors earlier that Time Warner is worth as much as it is now?
– Investors value Netflix at about $25B, which seems to be a lot more than they value HBO at Time Warner. (The entire company, including Warner Bros and Turner, trades for about $75.5B.) Why not put a spotlight on HBO by selling a minority stake to the public?
– Are you opposed to selling Time Warner to anyone, or is there a particular reason to oppose Rupert Murdoch and Fox?
– There’s a lot of speculation that Time Warner might buy a company in order to thwart Fox. In retrospect, should you have been more aggressive about building Time Warner when prices were lower?
– Would HBO GO need to have Fox’s movies if you decide to compete head-to-head with Netflix?
– You say that you could save $1B in a merger from costs cuts and synergies. But just about everybody believes real savings could be twice as big. Did you low ball that number because people would be outraged if they knew how much you really intend to make from job reductions and cable channel price increases?
– One of Time Warner’s complaints is that you offered non-voting shares. If you’re so confident that your strategy is best for shareholders, why not offer voting stock — and also eliminate the super-voting shares that enable the Murdoch family to control 40% of the votes?
– You bought several properties including TV Guide, My Space, and Dow Jones at, or close to, the top of the market. With the stocks trading close to an all-time high, what makes you so sure you wouldn’t be buying Time Warner at the top now?
– One of the big attractions for Fox is the TV sports rights Time Warner controls including for the NCAA, MLB, and NBA. Why not just bid higher for those rights next time they come up?
– Hollywood is built on relationships. How can you be so sure that you’ll keep valuable talent as you try to consolidate two of the biggest movie and TV studios and so many networks?
Found this online and I had to share it…
http://www.ted.com Surgeon Anthony Atala demonstrates an early-stage experiment that could someday solve the organ-donor problem: a 3D printer that uses living cells to output a transplantable kidney. Using similar technology, Dr. Atala’s young patient Luke Massella received an engineered bladder 10 years ago; we meet him onstage.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, athttp://www.ted.com/translate.
Very moving video…
Definitely worth watching.
A film’s director is not just the person in the chair yelling “cut” or “action.” Director Michael Tanner Cusumano demystifies the position and breaks down the duties of this major position in film production.
Q: In general terms, what are the responsibilities of a movie’s director?
Cusumano: Put simply: Everything. A director ultimately oversees everything an audience sees on the screen. There are many aspects of production where he is directly involved and some details that he has a little less to do with.
Q: What are some of the parts that a director is completely involved in?
Cusumano: Most everything you see on the screen in the final product has the director’s stamp on it. This includes performances, editing, set decoration, and location as well as the actors’ dialogue and blocking.
Q: What might a director not have exact control over?
Cusumano: A film production can be a huge undertaking, and it may be beneficial that the director not micromanage the entire set. To that end, a director may not be specifically involved with individual crew members and even some technical aspects of getting the movie made.
Michael Tanner Cusumano is an award-winning filmmaker who attends Sierra Canyon School in Chatsworth, California. His latest film, Impetuous, premiered at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival and will be screened at the Phoenix Film Festival.
I have some old photos that I wanted to share that I found on a old hard drive. These photos and more can be found at tannercusumano.com!
The following photos are from the sets of Michael Tanner Cusumano’s films and stills from those films. The films included are Impetuous, Amanda, and Sage. Some of the photos are from behind the scenes of Michael Tanner Cusumano’s films and were not released until now. Please note these photos are copyrighted.