Have you checked News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) stock price lately? It's pretty close to the 52-week low. Last Thursday, before the Fourth of July holiday began, News Corp.'s shares closed at $14.76. The 52-week low is $14.58, and the 52-week high is $24.95. As can be seen, it's had quite a fall. And what about competitor Viacom (NYSE: VIA)? The company's stock closed on Thursday with a price of $29.70. That was, in fact, the 52-week low. The 52-week high for Viacom is $44.95. Again, a pretty big dive.

Is it time to enter these two names? From a valuation perspective, considering their growth prospects, the stock prices do make one pause for consideration. They seem cheaper than colleagues Disney (NYSE: DIS) and Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) from certain angles, although the latter two media businesses do have higher dividend yields. But with the big decline in the stock prices, traders certainly have to be looking at them as perhaps candidates for a bounce-back in the second half of the year, especially if the oil situation improves.

I think that's the big problem here. With oil and financials acting in negative ways for the economy, the entire market is one huge growling bear in a bad mood. And that has made me very reticent about initiating a trading position in either News Corp. or Viacom, though I really, really am interested in doing so. I think value trades like this might very well simply be tests of patience at this point. I sense that both these stocks will be higher by the end of the year, but so what? These stocks will probably merely move along with the rest of the major averages, and that movement could be in the downward direction. And News Corp. has been having issues with MySpace.

The Financial Times reported last week that representatives for The Beatles, Activision Inc. (NASDAQ: ATVI), and MTV Games, a division of Viacom Inc. (NYSE: VIA), are in talks about developing Beatles-themed video game versions of Guitar Hero and Rock Band "in a move that could pave the way for a broader licensing of the Fab Four's catalog." Although the final deal would eventually be worth several million dollars, it would have to win over both Apple Corps and the EMI Group, the two companies that oversee the band's business interests and the master recordings.

The Beatles have been one of the major artists to resist any move into the digital world, but if such a deal were to occur it would likely happen simultaneously with any move by The Beatles into digital stores and the digital market. In the past year and a half, numerous rumors have appeared that cited 2008 as the year that would see the move, including comments made by Olivia Harrison, George Harrison's widow. Unfortunately, no such appearance by the band into stores like Apple Inc.'s (NASDAQ: AAPL) iTunes or Amazon.com Inc.'s (NASDAQ: AMZN) MP3 Store has happened even with a new management team led by former Sony BMG executive Jeff Jones.

Any deal would send a massive shockwave through the music industry and no doubt come with numerous marketing and advertising techniques that have become popular and successful in recent years. Although many Beatles purists and fans might be put off by an iTunes-themed commercial featuring The Beatles and the band's music, the exposure provided by such a method would increase awareness of the band to younger and newer audiences.

There's good news and bad news for shareholders of Disney (NYSE: DIS). The good news, according to data published in this Hollywood Reporter article, is that the latest Disney Channel movie, Camp Rock, achieved better ratings than the first High School Musical movie. Rock attracted 8.9 million eyeballs while the first Musical brought in about 7.7 million viewers. The bad news is that Rock unfortunately couldn't match the success of the second Musical project, which captured the attention of over 17 million viewers.

This movie is extremely important. Disney execs want to find out if they truly know the formula for creating new fads for the kids. This is definitely a strong start, although I thought the movie's ratings might come a little closer to the second Musical film since all we've been hearing about lately is how hot the Jonas Brothers act is right now. It at least should have brought in over 10 million viewers.

I don't know, maybe it's me, but I just don't feel the same kind of buzz for this project as I do for the Musical franchise. Here comes the interesting part: Can Disney grow the movie from here? That will depend on how fickle the Disney Channel audience actually is. Don't fool yourself, the powers that be at Disney are under pressure to form a suitable pipeline of intellectual properties to replace the aging Musical and Hannah Montana brands. Make no mistake, they are aging quickly, as these kinds of things don't have terribly high half-lives.

Shareholders will want to see the Jonas Brothers and Camp Rock really grow into a merchandising phenomenon in the coming months. No matter what, though, the cable channel is a great asset, and it is a strong competitor of Viacom's (NYSE: VIA) Nickelodeon network.

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

I didn't think Get Smart was going to come in at number one, but that's exactly what happened, according to Boxofficemojo. The film, distributed by Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), took in an estimated $39 million at domestic theaters. The film, quite frankly, looks horrible, and I don't get the fascination people have with Steve Carell's supposed "comedic talents." I don't really find him funny. Doesn't matter, though, because moviegoers have crowned Carell king of the box-office weekend whether I like it or not.

I'm actually more concerned with the race for second place between Marvel's (NYSE: MVL) The Incredible Hulk and DreamWorks Animation's (NYSE: DWA) Kung Fu Panda. Both are estimated as of this writing to have booked a little more than $21 million in ticket sales. I'm concerned about this because I own shares of Marvel, and I'm disappointed in the movie's box-office performance. As of now, the new Hulk has about $96 million in terms of total gross. The fact that it hasn't scored over $100 million by now, coupled with it experiencing a 60% drop for this weekend compared to its debut weekend, leaves me less than satisfied.

Viacom's (NYSE: VIA) The Love Guru bombed. Looks like you can't always count on stars to deliver the important opening-weekend audience. Are people getting sick of Mike Myers? (Jonathan Berr wondered the same thing.) He was only able to conjure up about $14 million for Viacom shareholders, bringing his film to a fourth-place debut. That's embarrassing for Myers, but unlike Steve Carell, he is genuinely funny (although maybe not so much in this particular film, it seems). News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) M. Night Shyamalan movie The Happening grossed around $10 million and came in fifth.

Steven Spielberg's DreamWorks baby is preparing to leave Viacom (NYSE: VIA). That sounds bad, doesn't it? I mean, Viacom should, in theory, be freaked out about losing the star asset.

Yet, an analyst working at JP Morgan has a different take on things. According to Bloomberg, Imran Khan thinks that DreamWorks may be perceived as an expensive business asset. He pointed out that the expenses associated with DreamWorks helped drive a 22% decline in operating income for Viacom's film division in 2007. He further pointed out that films with more modest budgets will aid in generating better returns and will, in fact, reduce the risk of investing in the movie business.

Khan is absolutely correct on his call. I've been talking about the need to reduce film budgets for a long time now, probably to the point where people are sick of me, so I'm always glad when I read an opinion such as this. Only problem is, will the studios listen? Well, they should. Disney (NYSE: DIS), Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), and Sony (NYSE: SNE) would all benefit from increased financial restraint when it comes to the business plans of their respective film units.

Viacom Inc.'s (NYSE: VIA) Paramount studios, which has scored big at the box office with "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and "Iron Man," and Time Warner Inc.'s (NYSE: TWX) Warner Bros, which is behind "Speed Racer," can't win them all. For example, take "The Love Guru" and "Get Smart," which open this weekend.

Reviews for Paramount's "The Love Guru, which stars Mike Myers, are not just scathing, they are acidic. A.O. Scott of the New York Times said, "To say that the movie is not funny is merely to affirm the obvious... No, `The Love Guru' is downright antifunny, an experience that makes you wonder if you will ever laugh again." At the Los Angeles Times, Jan Stewart argued that the movie was filled with "low blows and elephantine misfires." Mike LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle is slightly kinder saying, "There are whole sections when watching the movie is like being locked in the mind of a 10-year-old boy."

Critics weren't much kinder to Warner Bros.' "Get Smart," a remake of the popular TV comedy from the 1960s. Newsweek's David Ansen dismissed it as distressingly generic, comments echoed by Claudia Puig of USA Today. To be sure, the movie has its fans, including Roger Ebert, who said Steve Carrell makes an "infectious Maxwell Smart."

Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) wants to see if the attention span of its YouTube users can be stretched a bit. According to this Fortune article, YouTube seems to think that short clips might not necessarily be the backbone of long-term growth. Instead, longer videos might make the site more valuable. Why is this? Well, the article intimates that the founders of the site, Chad Hurley and Steve Chen, think there's a market out there that might want something more than simple, user-generated content that focuses on the banal side of life for about three minutes per clip.

I see the point here. Google wants to figure out, once and for all, the best way to monetize its YouTube investment. This isn't the easiest thing to do, since users of YouTube are, in theory, only interested in seeing short content as fast as possible. They don't want to be burdened by ads. But YouTube is betting that maybe, just maybe, by going against theory and putting on longer material of better quality, the eyeballs will become more intrigued and will perhaps be willing to view a greater quantity of videos. It all comes down to the quality of the content.

Before the bell: Futures lower ahead of FedEx, Morgan results, oil supply

TD AMERITRADE Holding Corporation (NASDAQ: AMTD) said Tuesday its metrics -- including client trades per day and total client assets -- for May have improved, and that third quarter earnings are expected to be at or near the high end of the prior guidance range. Shares were up nearly 2% in after-hours trading.

Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) said Wednesday it has acquired Navic Networks, specializing in emerging forms of television advertising technology, to optimize the delivery and placement of TV advertising. Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Meanwhile, China has begun an anti-monopoly investigation into Microsoft with possibility that lawsuits from local companies could follow.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Reliance ADA of India might provide high level executives at DreamWorks, including Steven Spielberg, with financing, enabling the media company to part ways with Viacom (NYSE: VIA)'s Paramount Pictures.

MAJOR PAPERS:

• Steven Spielberg and his DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc (NYSE: DWA) partners are close to signing a deal with India's Reliance ADA Group for between $500M and $600M that would provide financing to the company as it prepares to leave Viacom Inc's (NYSE: VIA) Paramount Pictures this year, the Wall Street Journal reported. DreamWorks will seek to obtain an additional $500M in debt financing to make about six new films a year.
• The Wall Street Journal also reported that at an investor update yesterday, The Hershey Company (NYSE: HSY) CEO David West said the chocolate-bar maker would boost spending on marketing about 20% this year and next, and slightly increased the company's long-term annual sales targets. West offered little detail on how Hershey will address its reliance on the U.S. market for revenue.

OTHER PAPERS:

• The Economic Times reported that India's Maneesh Pharmaceuticals, a mid-sized company, bought a 51% stake in U.S.-based Synovics Pharmaceuticals Inc (OTC: SYVC). The terms of the deal were not disclosed.
• The Economic Times also reported that General Electric Company's (NYSE: GE) GE Money Financial Services, which was seeking a parter for its personal and home loan portfolios, may have called off the process after it was unable to get the right valuation.
• Bob Nardelli, the chairman and CEO of Chrysler LLC, sent a memo to employees warning them of worsening U.S. sales, the Detroit News reported. The e-mail did not indicate the auto maker would look to soon further cut production or lay off staff, a person familiar with the matter said.

Steven Spielberg and his high-powered friends at DreamWorks may have found financing to leave the Paramount division of Viacom (NYSE:VIA). According to The Wall Street Journal, Reliance ADA of India "would provide Mr. Spielberg and company with $500 million to $600 million in equity."

About a year ago, Viacom management said that DreamWorks was not a "material" part of Viacom. From a financial standpoint that may or may not be true. But, there are not many stars in the movie business with the credentials of Mr. Spielberg, who has made some of the most successful movies in the history of film.

The potential departure from Viacom of some of its top talent is telling. Large media companies are now so significantly challenged by competition, especially from the internet, that the idea of keeping big names at a price may no longer have much appeal.

In the age of user-created content and sites like YouTube, who needs movie stars to get eyeballs? The audience for video is moving away from movies which cost $200 million to make.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Marvel's (NYSE: MVL) movie The Incredible Hulk was incredibly disappointing (to me at least). No, I'm not talking about the quality of the movie. I didn't actually see it. But Boxofficemojo is reporting that it has grossed an estimated $54.5 million at domestic theaters over the weekend. While that was good enough for first place, it wasn't good enough for shareholders. The movie bombed, plain and simple.

Why am I being so hard on a number-one movie? It's not so difficult to understand. The awful Hulk movie that was released back in 2003 grossed $62.1 million in its opening weekend. There's no way to spin this. We've had five years of inflation between that terrible flick and this new iteration. Simply put, it should have grossed at least $65/$70 million, especially on the heels of Iron Man. I'm a shareholder of Marvel, and I don't like the fact that the success of Marvel's first movie of the summer didn't synergize a little better with the angry green guy.

Focusing on the positive, Marvel was able to beat DreamWorks Animation (NYSE: DWA) and its Kung Fu Panda project. The cartoon took in about $34 million and came in second. M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening, distributed by News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), did okay by coming in third with a gross of around $30 million. Some analysts thought that the horror flick would do a little bit less than that number. Personally, I thought it should have come in second place considering Shyamalan's name, but I guess people aren't as excited as they used to be about his exercises in cinematic twists (the fact that it was rated R also inhibited its blockbuster potential). Sony's (NYSE: SNE) Adam Sandler comedy You Don't Mess with the Zohan did in fact get messed with yet again, dropping two spots to fourth place, grossing about $16 million. I've heard bad reviews on this one. Viacom (NYSE: VIA) and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull were daring enough for fifth place. Everyone's favorite archaeologist has now breached the $275 million level. Great to see a favorite character of mine from the past doing so well.

Another strike for the entertainment industry. And, it comes just as a recession threatens to cut into TV ad revenue and movie ticket sales. That is not good news for companies like CBS (NYSE: CBS), Viacom (NYSE: VIA), and Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), which already trade near 52-week lows.

Investors are understandably worried that consumer concerns could hurt entertainment spending. Who has extra money to see "Spider-Man XII"? Marketers often cut budgets for costly broadcast TV ads when the economy looks grim.

Now, the Screen Actors Guild may go on strike when its contract runs out on June 30. According to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), "The two sides have made little progress on key issues including compensation for actors when their work is used on DVD or new media such as the Internet."

Once again, the internet comes up as the one thing entertainment companies should fear. It has been used for illegal downloads of music and movies. Many younger people would rather hang out on YouTube than watch pay-per-view movies online. Now, actors want a portion of internet revenue.

If the actors are not careful, while they are on strike and the entertainment world is shut down, the internet will eat the whole industry.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Yesterday, I wrote about my nervousness over Marvel's (NYSE: MVL) The Incredible Hulk. Today, I'd like to talk about how I wouldn't be so nervous if the Iron Man sequel ended up being directed by someone other than Jon Favreau. There are two excellent articles on The Motley Fool discussing this issue, one by Nathan Alderman and one by Marvel expert Tim Beyers. At the time those articles were published earlier in the week, it had seemed that Marvel was reticent about ponying up a higher compensation package for Mr. Favreau on the heels of the awesome success of the first movie starring Robert Downey, Jr. David Maisel, chairman of Marvel Studios, apparently wants to be very conservative about the company's above-the-line costs. Alderman thinks Marvel should give Favreau the requested raise, while Beyers understands the Hollywood dynamics going on and can see why both sides are doing what they are doing.

By the time my own piece is published, it's possible Favreau may be confirmed as the director of the second Iron Man (as I write this, there are rumors that a deal has been offered). Regardless of what happens, I'd like to offer my opinion on whether or not Favreau is an absolutely necessary component for an Iron Man sequel.

He isn't. And if shareholders think he is, then they had better rethink their investment in Marvel. What shareholders must ask themselves is this: Is it the director that is responsible for the ultimate success of a Marvel film, or is it Marvel management and the intangible value of the Marvel intellectual-property portfolio? Which element adds more equity? As far as I'm concerned as a shareholder, I'm investing in Marvel. I'm not investing in Jon Favreau. Any investor who believes that any one director is indispensable is going to be in for a stomach-churning ride, because when the day comes that a Jon Favreau or a Sam Raimi (he directed the Spider-Man flicks) decides that Marvel is no longer paying them what they're worth and jumps ship, the stock could easily see an overreaction sell-off.

I knew Disney (NYSE: DIS) was an awesome licensor of its content. Still, I was pretty happy when I read the following Hollywood Reporter piece about the Mouse and its success at growing retail sales of its merchandise. Disney is looking at revenues of $30 billion at retail channels based on products bearing its logo and characters to be booked by the end of its current fiscal year. That would represent a magical double-digit growth rate of 12% if the figure is reached.

Merchandise sales based on characters and intellectual properties owned by companies such as Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), which licenses heroes such as Batman, and Viacom's (NYSE: VIA) Nickelodeon, which has had great success with SpongeBob SquarePants, don't compare.

The article rightfully reminds readers that the total amount generated in retail sales is only an indication of how seemingly popular a company's brands are in the marketplace. It does not point to the amount of revenues or profit a company books on the sales (Disney will only receive a small percentage of those sales, perhaps between 5% and 15%).

The important thing I take away from this as a shareholder is that Disney is doing a reasonably good job of milking its franchises. As one might expect, the usual suspects were cited as drivers: Hannah Montana, High School Musical, the Jonas Brothers music project, and Disney Princesses are doing the heavy lifting for Disney's consumer-products division, along with a property that continues to surprise me: Cars. Amazing that the latter remains a popular seller in the boys category.