It's the Fourth of July weekend, and movie studios want to capture as much money for their films as possible, even if they've already been in the theaters for several weeks. No matter what, though, Sony (NYSE: SNE)'s Hancock, starring the always excellent Will Smith, is set to be the financial superhero of the weekend. Already, as of this writing, the film has taken in about $24 million through Wednesday, according to Boxofficemojo. The movie had some showings on Tuesday before its official debut in the middle of the week. It was number one on Wednesday, followed by Disney (NYSE: DIS)'s Wall-E. The robot flick so far has a total tally of around $86 million.

Poor Marvel (NYSE: MVL) and its The Incredible Hulk project. Will anybody be interested in seeing the big green guy now that Hancock is in the marketplace? Indeed, Hulk took in less than a million bucks on Wednesday, and it ranked number seven for that day. Looks like the Hulk fever is winding down at the multiplex, and it looks like Marvel's stock has had its run for the time being. The stock closed on Thursday at $31.20, well away from the 52-week high of $37.41. I still hold Marvel shares, and although there are no big catalysts on the immediate horizon, I have a long-term outlook on the company. Still, the trader in me wishes that I had lightened up on the position back at the $37 level to book some gains.

Hancock should do well north of $100 million once the Fourth of July holiday period has passed. The marketing, in my opinion, is very compelling, and from what I know about the story, it's a smart idea that provides a nice balance to the frivolous plots of Iron Man and Hulk (I'm using the term "frivolous" here with affection). Sony's scored a hit, maybe even a new franchise (I haven't seen the film, so I can't say if a sequel is feasible or not within the confines of the concept), but it won't do much to move the company's stock. Those looking to play the Hollywood game might want to wait for Marvel to pull back further from current levels.

Disclosure: I own Disney and Marvel; positions can change at any time.

I love summer, not only for the weather, but also for all the movies making their way to the multiplexes. According to this article at Marketwatch, for the first six weeks of the U.S. summer box-office season, the total gross for theatrical movies hit $1.46 billion, a statistic that represents about a 5% increase year-over-year in the comparable period. You can thank hits such as Marvel's (NYSE: MVL) Iron Man and Viacom's (NYSE: VIA) Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull for driving the nice results.

Now, I don't mean to rain on this parade, but I'm afraid I find myself in a similar frame of mind in terms of a piece I wrote back in March about the 2007 movie-business statistics. You see, I always like to look at number of tickets sold as a barometer for the true health of Hollywood. The number of tickets sold increased 1.6% to 206.2 million. The average price of a movie ticket rose 2.9% to $7.08. Now, while I am glad to see an increase this time around in terms of number of tickets sold, I don't find a 1.6% increase terribly exciting. It tells me that the theater industry still needs to convince people that it's fun to get out of the house, away from the giant televisions and the snazzy home-theater systems, and chomp on overpriced popcorn in a dark auditorium. Going to movie theaters is something that, in my opinion, can't truly be replicated in the home. A lot of people don't share that opinion, however.

The challenge for Disney (NYSE: DIS), Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), Sony (NYSE: SNE), and General Electric's (NYSE: GE) Universal is to make people feel that waiting for the DVD shouldn't be the norm. The shared experience of a movie screening is a unique part of culture, and studios need to communicate this fact through their marketing campaigns. I do think there is more work ahead for Hollywood. Focus on the number of tickets sold, that's the big metric.

Disclosure: I own Disney and GE; positions can change at any time.

Whenever I write about media companies such as Disney (NYSE: DIS) and News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), there is a theme that I constantly go back to in regard to the profitability potential of these businesses. It centers on compensation of celebrity talent. I just don't get why so much money is thrown toward stars in the form of cash up-front and back-end participation. As far as I am concerned, content is always a gamble; one never knows what's going to be a hit and what's going to flop around like a dying fish on the boardwalk. And stars just don't seem to guarantee that anything will be a hit; likewise, a project devoid of stars can do gangbuster business.

That's why I utterly loved an article I read from The Hollywood Reporter. It's a lengthy expose on the correlation between box-office success and star power. This is truly one of the best pieces I've perused on the subject, and I just have to highlight it to those interested in the economics of Hollywood. Boiling it down to the essentials, it basically states that the youthful audiences of today care more about concepts than they do about stars, and authors Steven Zeitchik and Borys Kit collect some statistics to back their thesis up. Further, they point out simple existential observations that CEO's of media companies must take to heart; for instance, Tom Hanks might bring in the crowds for Cast Away, but he did nothing for The Ladykillers. Then again, was Hanks the reason Cast Away was such a hit? Was it the screenplay? Was it the premise? Could you have put the guy who plays Jigsaw from the Saw series in the starring role and have had as much success with him as you did with Tom?

There's no way to answer this question, unless you can invent a device to see what an alternate reality would look like. However, it seems reasonable to me that CEOs of Sony (NYSE: SNE), Viacom (NYSE: VIA), and General Electric (NYSE: GE) -- remember, GE owns Universal -- must finally relate star power to shareholder value. If they can get their studio heads off the cracklike addiction of chasing big stars with large deals, then profits at the studio divisions will surely increase. Budgets and marketing expenses are going through the roof, and something has to give.

This post is one of several on business heirs apparent. Let us know in the comments whether you think Colin Hanks can live up his father's legacy, and be sure to check out the other heir apparent posts.

I wonder if Tom Hanks ever stops to reflect on how lucky his career has been. I mean, I know this has been said before, but I still can't get over the fact that one of the biggest celebrity thespians of our era first came to prominence on a goofy sitcom called Bosom Buddies. If it wasn't for some species of divine intervention, Tom Hanks would have been just another deep footnote of the '80s. Although some might consider Bachelor Party a classic -- I'm not sure who that would be -- Tom Hanks' actual breakthrough role came in Disney's (NYSE: DIS) Splash (here's a bit of trivia for you: Splash was the first film released by Touchstone Pictures). Years later, he would go on to star in some of the most memorable movies of our time -- Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, Apollo 13, and The Green Mile. Yep, we all know Mr. Tom Hanks.

But have you ever heard of his son, Colin? He was the product of Tom's first marriage to a lady named Samantha Lewes (she unfortunately passed away in 2002). Colin Hanks may not be as famous as his dad, but, according to his page at IMDB, he is an actor in his own right, and has done a lot of television work -- he's worked on Numb3rs, The O.C., and he's been on many episodes of the sci-fi show Roswell. And he's not doing too shabby in the movie business. He's appeared in King Kong, two other movies starring the one and only Jack Black, Orange County and Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny, and the recent internet thriller Untraceable.

News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who! came in at number one over the weekend, according to early estimates at Boxofficemojo. The movie grossed about $45 million at domestic theaters. Even if that number changes a little, there's no chance that it will be knocked from the top spot, considering that Time Warner's (NYSE: TWX) caveman epic 10,000 B.C. is estimated to have grossed about $16 million, which was good for second position.

Seth Rogen, who is the new toast of Hollywood and who will probably try to weasel his way into a Tom-Hanks kind of career (i.e., steadily move away from goofy roles and get into some serious dramas), provided his voice to one of the characters, as did his "frat pack" buddies Steve Carell and Jonah Hill. Jim Carrey, of course, is the big name on the movie's credits, but believe it or not, I thought of Rogen first when thinking about this flick -- guess his brand equity is indeed on the rise. It's not a movie I'd necessarily see, but it had a pretty good marketing campaign behind it, so I can understand its success.

So here's the deal -- home theater systems are so popular these days that some perceive them as a threat to the movie business. But DreamWorks Animation (NYSE: DWA) CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg thinks digital 3-D is going to bring people back into theaters in a big way, judging by comments he made in Las Vegas at ShoWest. Katzenberg believes that current 3-D technologies are as revolutionary a technology as color television was when it first came onto the scene. He could be right.

Studios like Disney (NYSE: DIS), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), Viacom (NYSE: VIA), Sony (NYSE: SNE) and General Electric's (NYSE: GE) NBC Universal are certainly hoping he's right. As I mentioned recently, the actual number of tickets sold in theaters last year was pretty flat. So they want to do everything they can to get people excited about leaving their homes and justifying spending a ton of money on tickets and concession items (heck, in my local mall multiplex, a bottle of Dasani water sets me back well over three bucks!).

I don't think Katzenberg is overstating the issue, but it will take a lot of investment and effort by movie studios to ensure that the public really gets the value of the 3-D experience; some effective marketing campaigns will be in order. I should point out that I haven't seen a 3-D movie since the bygone days of my youth -- yes, I was there for Jaws 3-D and the great Friday the 13th Part III in 3-D, the latter of which was the first Friday to feature Jason con hockey mask -- and, to be honest, I don't relish going to one now. I'm not crazy about wearing glasses for my moviegoing experience. Nevertheless, I probably am unique, and I think once theaters are converted to a critical-mass point for digital 3-D, the movie industry will be better for it. And DreamWorks Animation will certainly attract a bigger audience to its cartoons when 3-D becomes ubiquitous.

Disclosure: Steven Mallas owns shares of Disney and General Electric; positions can change at any time.

According to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Viacom (NYSE: VIA) really wants to keep Steven Spielberg in its studio roster.

The media company is due to make some righteous bucks from Spielberg and his new Indiana Jones flick, which is set to hit theaters in a couple months. CEO Philippe Dauman wants to correct any missteps he made in his relationship with the extremely famous and powerful director after perhaps not singling out his importance as much as he should have in comments made at a conference last year.

I'm a big fan of Steven Spielberg; the man definitely knows how to make money. But, I do have to confess that, when it comes to chasing big, expensive stars, I think CEOs of studios must consider two things: 1) success in the movie industry is so random that every project represents extreme risk, no matter who is attached; 2) it is the deal that matters most; or, put another way, it is the return on invested capital that must be chased, not the celebrity of a certain individual. Say what you want about Disney (NYSE: DIS) and its movie-making ways, but keep in mind that the company does focus on ROIC, to its credit.

For those who love to follow the business of Hollywood -- count yours truly as one of the many -- the following Reuters article contains data of interest. It appears that 2007 was a banner year for Tinsel Town, according to numbers released by the Motion Picture Association of America. Revenues at multiplexes worldwide jumped 4.7% to $26.7 billion. In the United States, the growth was even better -- theaters at home took in $9.6 billion, good for an appreciation rate of over 5%.

But there's another side to the story. Ticket prices, you see, increased 5% in the U.S. This inflationary aspect is what essentially led to the domestic growth, for while approximately 1.4 billion tickets were sold, there was no rise in the number of tickets sold. That should be ultimately disappointing to studios at Disney (NYSE: DIS), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), TWX (NYSE: TWX), Viacom (NYSE: VIA), Sony (NYSE: SNE), and General Electric's (NYSE: GE) NBC Universal. Oh, and here's another not-so-impressive item: the average cost to produce a film and then promote it came in at nearly $107 million. This statistic represented an increase of 6.3%.

The New York Times reports that the writer's who have been on strike since November look like they're going back to work. But the strike probably cost the writers more in lost wages than they'll make from the new contract they signed. So, I don't understand the economic point of the strike.

How much did the strike cost? Los Angeles's chief economist estimated that the strike cost the area $3.2 billion; writers and production workers lost $772 million in wages; and businesses that serve the strike lost $981 million in revenue. And this doesn't count the cost to the economy from New York writers who were also on strike.

Ah, the writer's strike is coming to an end, as Douglas McIntyre discussed over the weekend. Media companies like Viacom (NYSE: VIA), CBS (NYSE: CBS) and News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) are probably happy to put this work stoppage behind them. And as a shareholder of Disney (NYSE: DIS) and the conglomerate behind NBC Universal, General Electric (NYSE: GE), I should be pleased.

Yeah, I suppose I am, for the most part, but there's a side to me that was really ticked off during this whole affair. To be completely blunt, I'm not sure that screenwriters have such a unique talent, and I'm not sure that they deserve residuals at all. Let's be honest -- when a studio puts up capital to generate a filmed entertainment product, the only entity taking on risk is the studio, plus any partner(s) that the studio has lined up to further distribute the risk. Writers aren't taking on any risk -- they're simply getting paid to do a job that a lot of people can do. You, sir or madam, reading this post, probably have the ability to write a script. I just don't buy the notion that studios have to shell out residual payments, above and beyond a flat fee, to screenwriters for their work. The Hollywood movie industry is risky enough as it is -- there's really no way that anyone from Michael Eisner to Bob Iger to Peter Guber to Harvey Weinstein, can predict what will be a hit and what won't. It just can't be done. Millions can be spent on the development of a script, only to see such a sum wasted when it doesn't translate to the big or small screen.

Hollywood awards ceremonies usually have plenty of drama -- who shows up with who, who's wearing what, celebrity feuds and, to a lesser extent, who actually wins the awards.

But the 65th annual Golden Globe awards slated for January 13th could take on a whole new level of controversy. As Hollywood's elite make their way onto the red carpet, there could be thousands of striking writers there holding signs, chanting and just generally making things very awkward. There is even speculation that the award show's broadcast could be canceled or shifted to a webcast. But labor officials say they would picket even a webcast version because Dick Clark Productions is set to produce the event.

According to the New York Times, "Panicked at the prospect of having to confront strikers as they waltz up the red carpet, celebrities have sent what Hollywood publicity executives describe as a near-unanimous signal: If striking writers show up, the stars won't."

Going for a classy private affair devoid of television cameras seems like a great way to go for the ceremony. Hollywood could avoid the potential disaster of a televised protest and an awards ceremony that isn't broadcast into every home would be kind of nice -- might actually restore some of the glamor and intrigue of the cinema.

This post was part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst of 2007 feature. Voting has now closed and readers have chosen Oprah Winfrey as the most overpaid celebrity of the year. Be sure to let us know in the comments if you are pleased with this result.

Oprah Winfrey returns to our Most Overpaid Celebrity category after having lost the title to Paris Hilton last year. For 2007 she is joined by overpaid celebrities Madonna, George Lopez, and Russell Crowe.

Winfrey, Madonna, and Lopez all made the Forbes Celebrity 100, a ranking of Hollywood players by pay, influence, and popularity. Winfrey, of course, comes in at number one, both in terms of pay and power. Madonna's earnings placed her at number nine on the list, while Lopez came in at number fifty-one.

Forbes estimates Winfrey's earnings at $260 million last year, and her net worth in the area of $1.5 billion, making her the nation's wealthiest African American. She'll be adding two new reality shows to her media empire, which already includes a blockbuster daytime talk show, satellite radio show, magazine, and Broadway musical, as well as stakes in hit shows by Dr. Phil McGraw and Rachael Ray. The school for girls she founded in South Africa has drawn much media attention this year, and she's recently endorsed Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Winfrey has been called the world's most powerful woman, the most influential woman in the world, one of the most influential persons of the 20th century, the world's first black woman billionaire, and the greatest pop culture icon of all time. Can any mortal person live up to all that hype?

In August, BloggingStocks' Kevin Kelly wrote about signs that the credit crunch could have a material impact on the ability of Hollywood to finance movie projects.

Sunday's New York Times writes about the recent emergence of special funds for investing in Hollywood productions, including the $600 million Gun Hill Road 1, a fund maintained by Gun Hill Road LLC. These funds are fueled by dollars from hedge funds and private equity firms

According to The Times, "All of the hand-wringing leads to a basic question: What if some of the hedge fund and private equity guys (and they are still mostly guys) pack their bags and head home to Connecticut? How bad off would the studios really be? One answer is this: A little less money might not be a bad development for studios and, heaven forbid, for moviegoers."

Apparently the willingness of hedge funds and private equity types to invest in these projects (I would speculate that many of these former high-school-nerd money managers invest in films not to generate a ROI, but rather to boost their EGO, and show those kids who made fun of their pocket protectors what's what) has lead to a movie glut, with a lot of sub-par, big budget movies getting financed that never should have. Doesn't that sound a lot like the last months of the private equity bubble?

In any case, maybe a decline in the dollars available for movie productions wouldn't be such a bad thing. Perhaps Hollywood can get away from its infatuation with special effects and big names, and focus more on creativity and art.

C'mon, take a chance -- what's a few hundred million between friends? Actually, Hollywood can be very unfriendly. Directors and producers like to take chances, stars love to explore their range, and everyone likes to work on something cool, but the truth is, most studios are run by attorneys. Risk adverse, bottom line, aggressive, egotistical attorneys. And if I was working for a studio, I would probably be getting chewed out right now.

Hollywood bets on success. So what to do? Take all your biggest hits and go for repeat performances. After all, it is the movie business, so sequels were the order of the day, or rather the order of the weekend, almost every weekend. That said, Hollywood had its best summer ever.

Pirates III, Harry Potter V, Fantastic Four II, Shrek III, Spiderman III, Bourne III, and Superman whatever laid the foundation for a HUGE summer run. Just last week, I posted Rupert Murdoch & Homer Simpson are winners -- look for sequels. While The Simpsons was not necessarily a sequel -- Homer chastises the audience for paying to see a television show at the movies -- we were essentially seeing The Simpsons #301 (after 19 or 20 years on television). The Mr. Bean movie and Jet Li's War might as well be sequels. Add to that some formulaic comedies and all was good in Tinseltown. The top 12 movies took in $90.2 million this weekend, up 7% from the same weekend last year, when Invincible opened at No. 1 with $17 million.

One charmer that was not a sequel, Ratatouille, continued Pixar's hit parade. Credit Pixar for continued originality, though I think it has developed its own elixir for success. Pixar is the Magic Studio to Disneyland's Magic Kingdom.

All told, the movie studios did quite well -- my colleague Jonathan Berr commented favorably on Disney (NYSE: DIS) earlier today (Disney (DIS), United Tech. (UTX) and other 'slacker' stocks). Not all shared in the glory, though: Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) did not see any noteworthy movement in its stock price, and is actually down for the year.

Next summer's scripts are being finalized now, budgeting is under way, talent is being locked up, and production will soon start. No doubt we will be seeing more of the same. Shrek IV has already been announced.

Disclosure: I own TWX stock as of today's date.

To verify my track record, including bad calls, read Chasing Value and Serious Money.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm.

According to Variety Magazine (subscription), Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) has purchased the rights to the 15 Oz (the fantasy land, not the prison) stories of L. Frank Baum from Ted Turner. In partnership with Village Roadshow Pictures, the company's Warner Bros. division plans to bring the world back to the big screen. Among those involved in the project are Todd McFarlane of "Spawn" and screenwriter Josh Olson.

The movie industry has found a great deal of success with franchises such as Batman and Spiderman, as well as Lord of the Rings, so reaching into the past for another iconic work seems like a shrewd move.

McFarlane and Olson are looking to bring the cinematic version closer to the tone of the original series, which were darker than the Judy Garland classic. Variety quotes Olson as saying "I want this to be 'Harry Potter' dark, not 'Seven' dark.

Not as dark, I hope, as the vision behind McFarlane's 2003 McFarlane Toys Twisted Land of Oz Action Figures, a disturbing reimagining of the world featuring Dorothy in bondage and other gruesome scenes and characters.

Nonetheless, I'm counting the days, my pretty, until flying monkeys return to the screen.

Thanks to SliceofSciFi for the lead.