Dark Knight, the Batman movie starring Heath Ledger, did boffo box office: $158.3 million, according to Defamer. But this blockbuster will not just benefit Warner Brothers and DC Comics, which share parent Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX) with BloggingStocks. There are at least six companies that will benefit from Dark Knight's success. According to Seeking Alpha, these companies include:

• Time Warner -- through its Warner Brothers and DC Comics subsidiaries are profiting most directly.
• Comcast Corporation (NYSE: CMCSA) partnered with Warner Bros. to offer "behind-the-scenes footage, trailers, and mini movies on demand"
• Verizon Communications, Inc. (NYSE: VZ) and Nokia Corporation (NYSE: NOK) collaborated in creating the Nokia6205 The Dark Knight Edition. Seeking Alpha reports that "This batphone targets superfans, with bat wallpaper, voice tones, screensavers, and the film's trailer pre-loaded."

On RottenTomatoes.com, recent Warner Brothers release Fool's Gold earns a rating of 10% (out of a possible 100%) and a consensus review: "Full of humorless gags, a predictable storyline and flat performances." Nearly 750 users of The Internet Movie Database give the stock a grade of 4.8 on a 1-10 scale.

And still, the romantic-adventure led by Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson (and featuring Malcolm-Jamal "Theo Huxtable" Warner) scored big at the box office, drawing nearly $22 million to nab the number-one spot for the typically slow weekend. With Valentine's Day on Thursday, the Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) unit is hoping Fool's Gold continues to lure couples into the theaters this upcoming weekend (unless they place a lot of weight in Internet reviewers).

Box-office expert Paul Dergarabedian told The Wall Street Journal that the release date is shrewd marketing indeed. "A great marketing campaign, two appealing stars, and reviews be damned... heading into Valentine's week, it's sort of a natural."

Elsewhere on the charts, Martin Lawrence vehicle Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins opened at number 2, pulling in $17.1 million. In its second week, The Walt Disney Company (NYSE: DIS)'s Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert (phew) took in $10.5 million, moving into third place after topping the box-office charts last weekend.

And in case you missed it, The Hottie and the Nottie, starring Paris Hilton, was released in 111 theaters and earned an average of $225 per site, for a pitiful total draw of $25,000, according to estimates. Write your own joke here.

Beth Gaston Moon is an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.

This post is part of our Money Face-Offs feature. Let us know who you think comes out ahead in this head-to-head match-up, and check out our other Money Face-Off posts.

As executive producers and hostesses of America's Next Top Model and Project Runway, respectively, Tyra Banks and Heidi Klum have proven that they are much more than just the pretty faces that catapulted them both to fame and fortune on the runway and in the pages of fashion magazines. On the former show, contestants long to hear their mentor, "Miss Tyra," tell them they are "still in the running to become America's Next Top Model." Runway contestants are informed that "You're either in ... or you're out" and cringe if they hear German-born Heidi eulogize: "I'm sorry, you're out ... auf wiedersehen."

The 33-year-old Banks -- featured on Time magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people in 2006 and 2007 -- certainly keeps busy, hosting her own syndicated daytime eponymous talk show in addition to her efforts on Model, an addictive primetime competitive reality show that airs on The CW network -- a collaboration between CBS Corp. (NYSE: CBS) and Time Warner's (NYSE: TWX) Warner Brothers Entertainment Unit.

Spoiler alert – if you have not yet read the conclusion to the Harry Potter saga, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, you may want to skip this post, in which the ending is discussed.

For companies such as publisher Scholastic Corp. (NASDAQ:SCHL), the US publisher of the books, Time Warner (NYSE:TWX), whose Warner Brothers Studios produces the hugely profitable Harry Potter movies, and General Electric's (NYSE:GE) Universal Studios, which will open a Harry Potter theme park in 2009, the seventh and final Harry Potter book must have come as a great relief.

Despite rumors to the contrary, the title character did not die, and thereby cast a pall on the series and its offshoots. Rather, as I expected, Harry prevailed, and in general the core cast lived happily ever after. Even Snape, as I predicted, achieved redemption, but at a mortal cost.

In the coda to the novel, Harry Potter and his wife, the former Ginny Weasley, watch their children depart for Hogwarts. Also placing their children on the Hogworts train are Harry's best friends, the married couple Ron Weasley and Hermoine Granger.

This final scene, nineteen years after the climax of the book, will no doubt inspire a great deal of conversation, as it keeps open a couple of possibilities for future novels in the Potter universe. Harry is still young enough to have more adventures, perhaps as he takes on the role of the era's greatest wizard, much as Albus Dumbledore was in Potter's youth. Rowling could also, should she decide to continue the series, reboot the series with the next generation of Hogwarts students.

I don't expect her to return to the Potter storyline for a long time, if ever, but the lure will always be there; a huge, thirsty audience ready to demonstrate their devotion with their pocketbooks.

More Harry Potter news

Tom Barlow: The Harry Potter Finance Quiz
Gary E. Sattler: New York Times bestseller list leaves Harry Potter out
Tom Barlow: Harry Potter ending: A water cooler cheat sheet
Zac Bissonnette: With Harry Potter done, is it time for Scholastic to sell itself?
Zac Bissonnette: Is the last book the end of Potter mania?
Tom Barlow: Harry Potter and the Pots of Gold
Barry Summerlin: Harry Potter doesn't even need Muggle marketing
Julie Tilsner: Not even Harry can save bookstores from their fate
Peter Cohan: Harry Potter and the Pot of Gold
Tom Barlow: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Will Rowling kill off Harry?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by JK Rowling is scheduled to be published by Scholastic Press (NASDAQ: SCHL) on July 21, and some fans are speculating that Harry will die. I am quite confident in telling you that he won't, for several reasons.

1. The artistic.
Experienced authors will tell you that a satisfying ending is one that, after it happens, readers will see as inevitable, even if they didn't see it coming. For example, the ending of Sixth Sense, while a shocker to many (including me), worked because it neatly tied up loose threads we'd momentarily lost sight of. The ending completed the Bruce Willis' character arc.

Rowling has not established the need for someone to sacrifice his life so that Voldemort might die. In fact, she has already given Harry's parents and Dumbledore to the cause. Harry's death would be gratuitous, and, most importantly, inconsistent with the rest of the saga. Harry is the viewpoint character, and it is our vicarious enjoyment of his overcoming obstacles that gives the series such impact. It's hard to enjoy the denouement of a dead character.

Most importantly, though, Harry is not a flawed character seeking redemption through sacrifice. He is an innocent predestined to conquer the wicked AND LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER.

2. The practical.
If Rowling were to kill off her hero in the final book, it would not only diminish sales of this volume, but horribly impact the future sales of the series. Knowing that Harry was to die, (and who on Earth would not know of this plot twist?), would change the reader's experience, robbing each bit of conflict of its gravitas. Plus, fans would revolt. Arthur Conan Doyle learned this lesson when he tried to kill off Sherlock Holmes -- some plot reversals fans will simply not accept.

3. The financial.
With two more films on the planning board (including Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, due for release July 11th by Warner Brothers, a division of Time Warner, NYSE:TWX) and a theme park in development, I can't believe these companies would invest so much in a closed-end storyline. And while Rowling may have all the money she needs, keeping the tale open-ended is a much shrewder business decision.

So I'm not worried about Harry. My prediction -- he'll defeat Voldemort with Snape's help, assume Dumbledore's position as head of Hogworts, marry Jenny Ginny and stand as best man at Ron and Hermione's wedding.

Harry Potter can't die. Trust me.

More Harry Potter news

Tom Barlow: The Harry Potter Finance Quiz
Gary E. Sattler: New York Times bestseller list leaves Harry Potter out
Tom Barlow: Harry Potter ending: A water cooler cheat sheet
Zac Bissonnette: With Harry Potter done, is it time for Scholastic to sell itself?
Tom Barlow: Rowling safeguards Potter empire
Zac Bissonnette: Is the last book the end of Potter mania?
Tom Barlow: Harry Potter and the Pots of Gold
Barry Summerlin: Harry Potter doesn't even need Muggle marketing
Julie Tilsner: Not even Harry can save bookstores from their fate
Peter Cohan: Harry Potter and the Pot of Gold

Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX ) has been selected as the "undervalued stock of the month" by Paul Tracy, in his StreetAuthority Market Advisor.

The advisor explains, "We think the company's days as an industry laggard are over and we think the company is well-positioned to leverage its valuable assets and unlock shareholder value in the years ahead."

For those unfamiliar with the company's operations, he explains that Time Warner is the largest media conglomerate on the planet. First, he notes, there is AOL, which has built a powerful network of highly-trafficked web sites. He explains, "Its ubiquitous instant messenger service is used to send 1.8 billion messages every day."

Then, he adds, there is Time Warner Cable Inc. (NYSE: TWC), which has grown to become the nation's number two cable provider with a massive base of 15 million customers -- roughly half of whom have signed up for premium services such as digital video or high-speed internet.

The film business, he points out, includes Warner Brothers and New Line Cinema, and has "raked in billions" in global box office revenues from blockbuster hits like Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings.

In fact, he says, Warner Brothers is planning to bring the Harry Potter world to life, unveiling plans to collaborate on a new theme park based on the "wildly popular" series.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Blockbuster Inc (NYSE:BBI) will support the Blu-Ray DVD format in their 1450 stores, dealing a crushing blow to its technological rival, the HD DVD format.

While the battle to buy Blu-Ray or HD DVD disks have baffled Americans for the past year, Blockbuster has made the decision to stick with Blu-Ray after consumers were choosing the technology more than 70 percent of the time.

The decision may have been made for Blockbuster already, since all major studios except Universal Studios, which is owned by General Electric Co (NYSE:GE), release films in Blu-Ray. That means no Miami Vice, Evan Almighty, Knocked Up or The Bourne Supremacy for Blu-Ray.

Boo-hoo.

But don't worry, The Walt Disney Co (NYSE: DIS) will release its films exclusively in Blu-Ray. Warner Brothers, a unit of Time Warner Inc (NYSE: TWX) and Paramount Pictures, owned by Viacom Inc (NYSE: VIA) will make films in both formats.

Regardless of which company uses Blu-Ray or HD DVD format, both are incompatible on standard DVD players, although standard DVD's will be able to play on a HD DVD or Blu-Ray player. You'll have to pay up to watch too, both formatted DVD players aren't cheap.

By the power of Greyskull! Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX)'s Warner Brothers is teaming up with toymaker Mattel (NYSE: MAT) to bring a live-action version of He-Man, along with all of his Masters of the Universe friends and foes, onto the big screen.

Joel Silver, the producer of The Matrix, has signed on for the project, along with screenwriter Justin Marks.

Casting has not yet started on the project, but it is certainly fun to speculate. Steve Buscemi as the evil Skeletor? Heath Ledger or Ryan Phillippe as He-Man? Claire Danes as Teela/She-Ra?

The film, which will simply be called Masters of the Universe, will hopefully be more successful than the 1987 live-action attempt, with Dolph Lundgren as the protagonist. That attempt essentially bombed at the box office and scored a dubious Razzie award nomination.

Beth Gaston Moon is an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.

Last year I previewed the big-budget summer movies, giving you a look at ten interesting films that were on the docket for the summer of 2006. This year I'm back with an even longer list (bloated like these films' budgets) of 15 movies you may want to escape to -- or possibly run screaming from.

Of these fifteen movies, Spiderman 3 and ten others are sequels, which in itself indicates something about the state of the industry (And I didn't even include Rush Hour 3 in this list, because, honestly, who wants to see that?). Two of the remaining four movies, Transformers and The Simpsons, are based on animated television shows, leaving only two original ideas in the whole lot -- Knocked Up and Ratatouille. Please, don't shoot the messenger.

Anyway, here is the list, chronologically, of the movies that Hollywood's brain-trust believes you will shell out your cash to see in the air-conditioned darkness of your local movie-house, along with my opinion of how they'll fare. The first on the list, Spider-Man 3, is already out in Asia, but will not be released here until May. All release dates below are for the U.S.

5/04 - Spider-Man 3, Sony Corp's (NYSE: SNE) Sony Pictures
Being the first blockbuster of the summer almost guarantees a successful open, and the popularity of the franchise seals that guarantee. One problem, however, is that "success" measured by any normal means won't be enough, as this movie had an estimated budget of $258M.

5/11 - 28 Weeks Later, News Corp's (NYSE: NWS) 20th Century Fox
The highlight of the horror/zombie genre for the summer, this follows the surprise success of Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later, which reinvented the zombie film with faster zombies and smarter characters.

5/18 - Shrek the Third, Viacom's (NYSE: VIA) Paramount Pictures
One of the only cartoon franchises that has held its own against Pixar (Ice Age being the other), the draw of this fairytale romp is that while kids love the story, there are enough winks at the adult audience to make parents happy to take them.

5/25 - Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Walt Disney (NYSE: DIS)
Money in the bank for Disney, and since it was shot simultaneous with the second Pirates installment, it wasn't even as expensive to make as this summer's other budget hog, Spider-Man 3.

Warner Brothers' Studio's animated Happy Feet was clearly in a position to show a large profit within a couple of weeks of its debut. Through the weekend finishing December 17, the movie has brought in almost $150 million after only five weeks. According to Box Office Mojo, the film had a budget of about $100 million.

It is clear that Warner is not going to be so fortunate with Blood Diamond, a film starring "Titanic" glamor-boy Leonardo DiCaprio. The film also had a budget of about $100 million, but after two weeks it has grossed a little over $18 million.

Warner's weak results have not helped parent Time Warner Inc. (NYSE:TWX) much over the last two quarters. Cable and network operating profit have had to make up some of the poor performance from the studio. The company needs a decent performance from its movie arm to bring home fourth quarter numbers that will support Time Warner's rising stock price.

The studio needs a little Christmas gift. With sports drama We Are Marshall coming out in a few days, Warner may have one last chance in 2006.

Douglas A. McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.

Paramount Picture's recent decision to cut loose Tom Cruise may be just the opening salvo in an upcoming battle between Hollywood studios and high-priced, high maintenance celebs. While overall movie receipt totals for this summer were up, the increase was driven by higher ticket prices, not increased attendance. Moviegoers are increasingly likely to be videoviewers instead. More than 1 million viewers have downloaded the video clip of a young man mixing Diet Coke with a mint and spewing the resulting concoction out of his mouth. Even more odd, 400,000 viewers have downloaded a clip of rabbits munching on vegetation.

Memo to viewers: GET LIVES! Seeing this image on the wall, AOL's strategy to become a premier video viewing destination begins to make a great deal of sense.

Movie production costs continue to skyrocket, with no assurance that money spent on production will be recouped at the theatres. By contrast, the number of no or low-cost video and video clips grows exponentially every week. As well, hundreds of hours of TV programming and thousands of movie titles are added to an increasing number of video-on-demand channels. With its recent purchase of GameDaily, Userplane and Truevo, AOL Video is moving to capture audience eyeballs. AOL also concluded a deal to distribute movie titles from 20th Century Fox, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, Universal Pictures and Warner Brothers Home Entertainment Group.

Currently, AOL's business model allows viewers to access some ad-supported TV programming on demand free of charge. AOL plans to charge $9.99-$19.99 per movie download. For this fee, howwver, viewers will NOT own the movie. Purchasers may not burn the movie onto a DVD, though the movie may be played repeatedly over a period of days on several different Windows-supported devices. It remains to be seen whether consumers wil pay this fee for short-term ownership only.

Warner has decided to launch a line of direct-to-DVD movies. No stopping at the theatre, no passing go. They're planning to launch some 10-15 of these low budget titles a year. That's more than one of these things a month!

There are already a great deal of straight-to-DVD groups. To stand out, Warner is looking to make prequels and sequels to movies that Warner has already made. This way, Warner reasons, a prebuilt audience will be waiting out there for these straight to DVD movies. One of the very first will be a sequel to The Dukes of Hazzard.

One of the thoughts behind this is that it will be easier to obtain profits without the considerable marketing expense of a theatre release. But really, the reason you put out straight to film releases is that you hope one of them is quirky enough, indy enough, or surprisingly good enough, that it takes off. Word of mouth will spread, and you'll make a mint off a cheaply made film. But will a cheap once-a-month DVD really do anything more than take up real estate on already cluttered shelves? These films, in throwing us a few bones, sadly seem as if are already set up for failure.

[photo credit CathyK]

Warner Bros., the television-and-movies subsidiary of Time Warner, is stepping up efforts to cash in on the big-money, low-budget industry of Reality -- reality television, that is. The company intends to launch a TV production unit, called Warner Horizon Television, to produce even lower budget reality television programs.

And how does Warner Horizon Television plan to lower the cost of the already pathetically cheap reality television shows?

Well, according to Peter Roth, President of Warner Bros. Television, the studio will limit taping days, shooting locations and "talent" pay. This new production model will reduce costs to about $500,000 less per episode than what a "traditional" (read: watchable) TV show costs per episode.

If you're interested, Warner Horizon, I have a couple of ideas for some very low-budget reality shows:

Forget about taxi drivers, muggers, Christo installations, and/or Matt Lauer. There's a new reason to avoid New York: Broadway's newest vampire musical.

"Lestat" -- which has been uniformly savaged by the Washington Post, the New York Times and even the mighty Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey -- was supposed to be Warner Brothers' challenge to Disney's many successes in the Broadway musicals ("The Lion King," "Tarzan," "Aida" and others). 

Coming in on the heels of two other failed vampire musicals -- "Dance of the Vampires" (2002) and "Dracula, the Musical" (2004) -- "Lestat" is based on Anne Rice's vampire novels, and it boasts otherworldly powers that would make the undead blush: a reported bankroll of up to $12 million and songwriting by Elton John.

Unfortunately, neither deep pockets nor the powerhouse behind "Crocodile Rock" could help. Ben Brantley, in the New York Times, called it a "musical sleeping pill" ... and his review was charitable by comparison. 

"I vant to suck your blood" is a line for old-school vampires. "I vant to suck the life out of this production" is apparently how the new generation of vampires rolls.