Feeling this...

I'm feelin' this...

Reminds me of blink 182

Life is good.

Still thinking about the book I read up in Chico.

Sorry mostly read

My Mom finds the best books

We share that. We both love to read books

We both love the study and quest for knowledge and wisdom.

I have the same blood type as my mom? Could the be related?

Is the world that weird? That connected

Everything is related and connected

Everything is Anything

Anything is Everything

Anything does not equal Everything

What is Everything?

Everything is ALL there is, comprehended and not; 100% of matter and energy

This dimension and every other dimension

Anything usually denotes one thing, of the everything

These 'things' are sort of a thing

Things are ideas. Realities. Systems vibrating together.

Its so basic. So simple. Yet so beyond comprehension

Can a creation ever truly know its creator?

Is there a Creator and what does that mean?

I always want everything to mean something

I think it's because I'm a very positive person

I feel everything has meaning and purpose

I feel I have a place in this world, this system of life

This dynamic macrocosmic quantum relative energy

It's all in your head

ALL of it is inside your own mind.

The outside world is essentially in you

Can you feel it?

Favorite Movie Quotes

REPOST: Via "Favorite movie quotes" thread on a LinkedIn Group.

• Someone asked a similar question a short while back (or perhaps it was just one's favorite quote), but this is such a great question. I've numerous quotes that I incorporated into the materials I use for a law school course that I teach on entertainment financing - they're not from films, but about the film industry, and too good for me not to share (sorry to be so long, but I hope you'll all enjoy them):

“I always thought the real violence in Hollywood isn't what's on the screen. It's what you have to do to raise the money.” - David Mamet

“Law students have taken over Hollywood. To them it's all about making money.” - Tobe Hooper

“Hollywood held this double lure for me: tremendous sums of money for work that required no more effort than a game of pinochle.” - Ben Hecht

“If people don’t want to go to the picture, nobody can stop them.” - Samuel Goldwyn

“If I knew what makes a movie catch on, then I'd make hit after hit.” - Jerry Bruckheimer

“When you overpay small people you frighten them. They know that their merits or activities entitle them to no such sums as they are receiving.” - Ben Hecht

“I went to Paramount because I wanted protection. Directing a picture and being responsible for whether there was toilet paper in the bathroom was too much for me.” – Ralph Bakshi

“Studio executives are intelligent, brutally overworked men and women who share one thing in common with baseball managers: they wake up every morning of the world with the knowledge that sooner or later they’re going to get fired.” – William Goldman

And the ever-popular: “Nobody knows anything.” – William Goldman, Adventures in the Screen Trade

And as for actual film quotes, Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson) in "Sunset Boulevard": "I AM big. It's the pictures that got small."

“Here's the Remains of the Day lunchbox. Kids don't like eating at school, but if they have a Remains of the Day lunchbox, they're a lot happier.” - “Waiting for Guffman”

By
Peter Levitan
Entertainment/Film Lawyer - finance & production specialist
Greater Los Angeles Area

Via Linked in.

RAW MILK!

Subject: Raw Milk

Hello-PR contact for Organic Valley
I am one of the Northern California raw milk consumers who has been affected by Organic Valley's recent decision.

I have a few thoughts to share:

1. Organic Valley has a lovely Website and I have spent some time going through it. I "met" the farmers, I read the Mission and GOALS professed. Well done.
To make a point let me repeat a few of your Goals, copied and unchanged from your website.
I believe you must see that are moving backward not forward toward these and many other of your stated goals.

PROMOTE a respect for the diversity, dignity, and interdependence of human, animal, plant, soil, and global life.

Please note that we here in California do not feel respected for our diversity.

...another goal says...

ENABLE a healthy human livelihood by providing quality employment, cooperation, organic education and community growth.

Please note that we in California are not enabled - but in fact have been Disabled by your board's decision. It is due to cooperation, education and community growth that Organic Raw Milk sales have been increasing. You have tremendously marred the success of this goal.

...another goal says...

ENCOURAGE a farming future emphasizing ecological and economic sustainability.

Please Note- that here in California Your decision is DIScouraging a farming future which has been proving successful in meeting this Goal.

2. Why move backward and this crucial crossroad. The success of your model is Outstanding, and now perhaps a bit outdated. Why not stay at the forefront and take your successful model to the next level. These are a few ideas:
* Why not incorporate the Cow Share model into Organic Valley. THINK ABOUT IT,
I would pay Organic Valley a price higher than that of pasteurized milk for it to be left in the tank at my LOCAL Dairy. There would be more paid for this milk and less cost incurred in transport; pasteurizing; packaging etc... NOT TO MENTION the positive P.R. in the sustainable, ecologically LOGICAL, GREEN as Grass, public eye,,,etc
Imagine..... this cow share venture has been so successful with zero promotion that you have to cancel the sale of milk to consumers.... Imagine if it were consciously directed with GOALS such as you already have in place.
Start with us here in California!!!- If it isn't Organic Valley supporting the Raw Milk and Local Economy, the Sustainability and future in GRASS FED beef and Dairy that is only beginning to take hold...If it isn't Organic Valley, it will be another Dairy Coop.
Why let this error in judgement Weaken your previously successful model.
Take the Leap. Jump In. We in California are ready and waiting for the opportunity to hugely support THE GOALS of Organic Valley.
Don't Let us Down. Don't Let your Farmers Down.
If your board does not see this as an opportunity to become stronger, Your farmers eventually will.
Don't Blow It. And if you should not revise your decision, please do Revise Your Mission and Goals.

With Sincere Hope ,
Teresa
Chico California

Film School

When it comes to film school, you get out of it what you put into it.

If you go and just expect to become a pro and jump right into the biz after you graduate, you will likely be sorely disappointed. But if you go to film school, and network, use the resources, talk to people, get internships, focus, learn about film making, study the history of film, the direction the film/media business is going, and make films, then it will certainly not be a waste of time or money.

It is definitely true that you do not need to go to film school to be successful in the film business. Working in production I have met a lot of people who flat out state how they hate "film school people" -- usually because they never went. But if you know you are one of those people that is truly die-hard into film then film school WILL help you. Most of the top film makers -- the best ones -- are well versed in film history.

I went to UCSB and I loved the Film Program. It focused more on writing and film theory -- which I loved -- and not as much on production; which some did not like. Production was done on your own time, and as elective classes. But this was perfect for me (and others) because you can learn production in the field -as you go- but you will not learn the history of film working on film sets or offices. And when you hear big producers/directors talking about Goddard and the 'French New Wave' or Felini's 8 1/2 -- recently loosely remade as '9' -- or Film Noir (Blade Runner) and Neo-realism (Slumdog Millionaire) you know the historical context of the styles/genres and what that means in terms of look and feel, you will know and be able to contribute thoughts when asked. I've had Producers ask me about films, and it felt really great that I knew what they were talking about, and they loved that I actually was able to offer opinion/insight into films they were talking about and what they were looking for in terms of their next project idea. It totally helps pitch ideas, and know what you are talking about.

That was when I knew film school was totally worth it.

Not to mention that half of the jobs in the film biz -- agency and business side -- require that you have a four year degree. If you don't want to limit yourself, and know how to utilize resources, and actually want to contribute to film history > I say go. Learn. > Make/write/producer great films.

You don't have to go to culinary school to be a great chef, but if you do go, and learn about all kinds of food and cuisines you will absolutely be a much better chef, and know what kind of food you like.

It's the same with film.

Media Derivatives 3

Here's a much better explanation of Film Future Trading:

http://jeremyjuuso.blogspot.com/2010...-cycle-of.html

****

A very detailed article wasn't it?

I was talking to a friend of mine about Media Derivatives and the MPAA and they were saying one of the reasons the studios are against it, is that it would force more transparency in determining how much films actually make.

It's no secret to anyone that the studios can make Avatar look like it barely broke even. So I can understand why they would not be interested in 'Wall Street' or outside businesses trying to pry into their business model and practices. No one would want that. There may be many other reasons as well, some of which could be good; I really don't know. I am simply fascinated by the whole thing.

It is very interesting to watch how this unfolds, the more that I look into it, the more that I realize there is that I don't know about it. Derivative markets are highly complex, and boggle the mind when you try and figure them out -- hence computers! -- but that doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose. They are essential in many aspects of the economy.

My initial thoughts were that it would encourage film production -- people would fund films -- because they would want to 'bet' or buy and sell futures on them, to make money. You can't sell futures if there are no films. So even if the movies don't make money at least SOMEONE did, and thus they would be willing (or should be required) to fund more films. Right?

The MPAA might say "well we wouldn't make money when the film flopped, and we are forbidden from trading in the futures because that would be classified insider trading."

True. Fair enough. But it seems like the logical solution is to allow the studio to buy 'special' futures/derivatives/insurance at the inception/funding of the film -- from the exchanges --that would insure that if the film does flop, they would at least not lose their capital investment. The studios would be allowed to hedge their risk under certain rules, and non-investors in the film "speculative bet-makers or traders" would be governed under separate rules. This would have the effect of the studios never actually losing money, and not worrying about the trading of futures. They could simply focus on making the best --or most profitable-- films possible. They would do their best to make money, by making good, appealing and even risky film ideas. Like farmers and their crops, they don't usually get involved -- as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong -- in the futures markets of their crops, they just focus on growing the best and most that they can, and if the crop fails (for whatever reason) at least they don't go bankrupt or lose the farm. Better luck next year. But if the crop is great, they make a nice profit.

In my mind it's also like betting on Football or basketball games. The team players and coaches don't get involved in the betting, they just focus on winning -- doing good -- and collect their money/bonuses when they win big. They can't be stopped from betting for or against their team, but if they don't play well, they will be benched/fired for sure.

Maybe they could just require a tax/fee on Media derivative to go into financing films, or to the studios 'Art film fund', or too film student scholarships. Or the taxes on film futures/derivatives profits could fund the winning script of screenplay contests -- more to bet on. In this way, artsy films or big risk ideas -- Avatar, Star Wars types -- would be made. These films are also the best fodder, being the most speculative and unknown quantities, to trade futures and derivatives on, so it feeds into the system > putting more people to work, allowing more traders who take risks to make big money.

I think the MPAA should work with the box office futures and media derivatives exchanges, find a way to structure the exchanges so that it's a win-win for both. This is entirely possible, it seems.

I don't really know though. I could be way off.

I just hope someone figures out a way to get more artistic and original ideas funded and into production. More people working and making money!

Right?

The debate rages on!

Think Global > Act Local

Dear Governor,

My name is Julian Tyler, I grew up in Chico.

The recent news about the spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the toxic mess it is causing got me thinking about our local environment. I recently visited Upper Park, and Butte Creek and noticed how beautiful it is, but also that there is pollution in the water -- beer, urine, other chemicals --, trash and other graffiti in areas of the park.

My question is: What is being done to preserve, clean and restore the beauty of the local parks of my home town -- Upper Park and Butte Creek -- and all other places of natural beauty and resource like them?

I currently live in Southern California and I love the growing movement I see towards acting locally and thinking Globally.

I think that every CA county and city should set up an Agency / Group / Body to study the current state of their local natural resources, with the idea of:

1) Identifying problems/pollution

2) Learn where the pollution coming from, how to fix, stop and solve it

3) Create a plan for restoration and preservation

4) Begin to clean up, raise awareness and promote the beautification and sustainability of the parks and resources

I truly believe that the entire state of California should be doing this. Every city. Every resource. We need to find out what is polluting, find out how to stop it, and make our state -- city by city, county by county -- the most clean and beautiful as it can possibly be.

This will create jobs. Involve volunteers.

This will create richness > food, health, beauty, tourism

This will allow us to make sure that the parks and nature is better than ever, every passing year. Rather than worse!

We have the resources. The people. The ability.

The state can help. The schools of all grade levels. The universities. We need as many people as possible to know that it is time to bring it back to the way it naturally was -- CLEAN, full of life -- before it is too late.

If we did this in every state, America will become the most clean, beautiful, healthy and prosperous nation in the world. We can do this. It is ENTIRELY possible.

It starts local.

Best,
Julian Tyler

I love the natural beauty of California, but I know it needs help. It's time to give it.

Media Derivatives 2

When it comes to Media derivatives, if Hollywood does not get on board, get involved, then they will miss the rescue boat, and go down with the sinking ship.

I think it's funny, when people are like "it's just going to lead to people wanting films to fail, or betting against them." >> This happens already!

The point is, good or bad, it would encourage and fund film production. Media Derivatives will get films funded and made >> Get people working again. So regardless of the success or failure of the films (artistically or financially) all the working class people at the ground level would be employed and once again making money.

People working and making money = more people buying entertainment

By getting people working again you will get people going out to the movies again and spending more money on entertainment. Its basic economics, once you get the snowball rolling it will get bigger and bigger. It will get the economy growing again.

Media Derivatives will encourage the betting on artistic projects that currently Hollywood is ignoring as 'high risk'

High risk = High $ potential >> Wall Street loves that

One thing I find interesting is the how people are caught up on 'Box Office' and media derivatives. The media derivatives contracts could be based not on the box office, but on gross receipts for the first year (or five years) of the revenue of a film. In the Old Hollywood, 'US Domestic Box office' was the best indicator of how much a film will make in its lifetime. This is changing so don't get too caught up in box office.

With that in mind it becomes much harder to sabotage a film. Someone who places 'put options' on a film -- wants it to fail -- would have to work very hard to make it fail all over the world, TV and the internet, if it would otherwise be promising and artistically viable to the global entertainment consuming world.

People also worry about sneaky producers (or studios) who will 'bet against' films they are working on, try to make them fail, so they can make money. This is easily dealt with by making sure all producers/funders have more interest -- more to gain -- from the success of a film. A simple way to fix this >> Only allow certain types of insurance/derivatives/put-options to be placed by those with proven investment in the film. Pay producers in "shares' of the film -- cutting upfront costs -- this way, they will win more by the film succeeding then they would by it's failure; however should it fail, or not meet financial expectations they will not be bankrupted.

Remember how betting works, someone has to win, and the 'jackpot' is only created by people ON BOTH SIDES taking opposite stances. So there will always be people rooting for a film, wanting it to succeed and make money, in order for anyone to make money by wanting it to fail. Just like boxing or sports teams. Why would a basket ball or Football player bet against his own team? It happens, but when it does, people can tell, they will ask why, and then that player, referee or who ever will be outcast. Banned from play.

TRANSPARENCY IS THE KEY >> A transparent market will not allow cheaters to hide

Another exciting thing I am personally looking into is setting up films like a Silicon Valley upstart. Getting Stars and people on board as a package, offering it as an IPO on a market exchange, creating a product and a marketing team, pay top employees and talent with shares of the film/company and then traveling the world promoting and selling the film. We could pay dividends to stock holders, people could sell their stock in the project, Studios could even buy shares in the project as part of a distribution deal... It's all very exciting!

'Hollywood' no longer has a monopoly on the film making process, and if they try and fight the 'New Wave' -- rather then embrace it -- they will surely lose. I think Wall Street is on team 'New Wave' : )

I am already talking to like minded people up in NorCal about ways to get projects I have ideas for funded and made. There are many skilled film makers all over the world, so the sky is the limit. If 'Hollywood' continues on the path it's on -- shunning new talent, 'Big ideas' and creative minds -- it's future is not bright. It will lose some amazing talent that will not wait around for it to come to it's senses.

Media Derivatives?

I've been reading a lot about media derivatives and am curious what people think about it?

The Studios are opposed to it I hear, and I am trying to understand why that is. For me it seems like the best idea ever.

Media derivatives have the potential to jump start film production in a big way.

I think about it as comparable to Horse Racing and betting. The films would be the horses and the race is the amount of money it makes. People would be betting on how much a movie will make essentially.

People groom and breed their horses in the way that Agencies groom and recruit their stars and 'packages'. But the odds don't seem to matter as much as you would like once the race starts -- or the film is released.

Media derivatives also allow for whole new structures of funding and financing films and media products. You could essentially sell 'shares' in movies (like an IPO) and even pay top stars and talent in shares. This would encourage them to go out and make the film a hit. But in case it's not a hit, the investors who put $100 million up for it, could buy insurance on their investment to mitigate the loss...

Right?

The other thought I had was offering people the chance to invest in a film that they would want to see.

The Studio shares the risk of funding the movie by selling shares or CDOs of the film to thousands of 'Joe Moviegoer' or businesses, or even the crew of the films themselves.

So if I invests $1000 in the film. Once the film hits say $100 million I get my $1000 back, if it makes $150 million I get $1100 -- you get the idea.

If I was a partial owner of the film, I would work much harder to promote it!

In essence the studio shares the risk of the film by teaming up with everday people, the crew and other potential investors. The studio itself could potentially never lose any money in making films if it can structures the deals such that they get all their invest back first...

"There are many ways to skin that cat"

...if the studio is really afraid, or puts up a lot of money itself, it could buy derivatives -- insurance -- on it's own portion to further hedge it's own risk.

Just thinking of ways to get more film production going!

What do you think?

The New Hollywood

The current Hollywood model is totally melting away, and the problem is that no one knows what the new model will look like, and the least likely people to figure that out -- the ones INSIDE the melting model -- are the ones trying to. They are failing. Most will go down with the ship...

In Hollywood, the "Old Guard" has all the money, and is more interested in back scratching than they are interested in making powerful, meaningful film and "movie going experiences". Or they simply don't know how to any longer... a sad thought.

"What if we put like 10 movie stars in one film together!"

The solution of: "Lets just remake old stuff. If it worked before it can work again right?" is fast becoming another failing model. People can see right through it, it's not worth a box office ticket price, much is not even worth Netflixing!

Because of things like Netflix and the web people are watching all the old movies, and thus many film buffs reject the idea of a remake, especially if they liked the original. Because people are also going backward into older films, the desire to go 'forward' -- to the theater -- for unoriginal films becomes less practical or appealing.

For me to go see a movie in the theater, I want something original. I want to be wowed with not just effects, but with story. I want to have my mind blown and my "reality and possibility" foundations rocked. At least for a couple hours.

I also feel that many old guard writers have peaked in what they can offer, but they, and their agents and managers have no interest in stepping aside for new writers, new voices and original stories. So they scratch backs and make crap, literally trying to cram it down the throats of the world audiences.

Karate Kid = Really? Jackie Chan is Chinese! Karate is Japanese! It's all a big joke. I feel like either they think the audience is just a bunch of pigs that will eat whatever trash they dump in the trough, or they themselves are just idiots, blinded by Nepotism and greed. "We'll just use the name of 'Karate Kid' because it was successful, we don't even need the Karate. Oh and we can just invite the cast of the original franchise to give it street cred." It's like making Godzilla, but instead of a Giant reptile, it's a Polar Bear! 'Karate Kid (2010) is major low point in cinema if you ask me. A perfect case study in how Hollywood is currently (not) working. Even if it did open at 54 million...

Bottom line is Hollywood is changing fast. Faster and faster by the day. And if the studios don't wake up to this fact, to the reality of the global film markets and what they want, to the new talent out there bursting with potential, then the (new) wave of change will sweep them all away...

Media Derivatives have the potential to be 'Hollywoods' 'Napster' but also create a huge boom in global film production. If Hollywood doesn't get ahead of the curve real fast they will end up like the record labels. Still there, but mostly stripped of their power and prestige.

Media derivatives could also place the ring of power in the hands of the agencies like CAA who are already in the biz of arranging financing. I see this trend as potentially taking off, the Studios could find themselves as merely renters of studio space.

If I was a Hollywood studio exec. I would be looking for a mind blowing story, with built in global appeal, able to utilize rapidly advancing 3-D technology... Concepts based on religion, cutting edge science, speculation... topics that already have universal appeal and recognition...

Scripts like the one I wrote!