Since General Electric (NYSE: GE) is reeling from the financial crisis that's currently gripping Wall Street, there's no doubt that a little Hollywood magic might be in order, something to take its corporate mind off reality for at least a little while.

Well, according to The Hollywood Reporter, that might happen. Steven Spielberg needs to move his DreamWorks company over to a new studio, and it looks like NBC Universal is at the front of the pack in the race to secure his business.

The pairing of Spielberg and Universal would be logically sound. He certainly had a better time over at that lot than he did at Viacom's (NYSE: VIA) Paramount. There is, however, one other studio that is in the running. The article seems to imply that Disney (NYSE: DIS) has a shot with Spielberg as well, although the way I read it, the Mouse is a distant second in the contest. Disney wouldn't be a good fit. As much as CEO Bob Iger would love to hold meetings with the most famous director in Hollywood (and the world, for that matter), a DreamWorks distribution deal just doesn't make sense since the company is really into getting a lot of bang for its capital buck.

Earlier in the month, I caught an interesting article from on Reuters about Disney (NYSE: DIS) and its movie division. The president of Disney Studios, Alan Bergman, speaking at a conference, stated that profit margins have jumped five-fold at the studio. The reasons behind this success include an aggressive attack on costs and a streamlined film slate. Instead of releasing a whole boatload of features, why not focus on Disney-branded flicks? That's what Disney has been doing, making bigger bets on a smaller number of projects. Things have been going so well that Bergman said that it was conceivable that the Mouse might not need to seek partnerships with funding entities to spread a portion of the risk. What this means is that, instead of offering up a percentage of celluloid profits to a funding corporation in exchange for an investment in the budgets, Disney will just pay for its movies itself and not transfer any risk. There's an obvious reason for this: Disney then gets to retain all profits instead of sharing them.

Well, it should be stated that Disney has not said that it will definitely do this. According to the article, Bergman just mentioned that it's possible that Disney could do this if it wanted to. My opinion? End outside financing. Hey, if I want to go and make a film, I'm going to have to use other people's money, I have no choice. But Disney? The company is big enough to not need any help in financing. The problem here is that human nature comes into play. When a studio division is doing poorly, then co-financing seems attractive. When a studio division is firing on all cylinders, then becoming risk-averse doesn't appear so fetching. Well, I think any media company producing films these days should really stop and try to understand the movie business for what it is. It's always going to be a risk. Doesn't matter if you have a huge star in a picture or not. It might fail either way. But when the windfall comes, when that big hit is found, you want to own 100% of the profits. This not only goes for Disney, but it applies to others such as Viacom (NYSE: VIA), General Electric's (NYSE: GE) Universal, and Time Warner (NYSE: TWX).

Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX) will be more conservative in the number of movies it produces in a 12-month period, according to this piece at The Wall Street Journal. As movies are becoming so expensive these days, and studios are becoming increasingly averse to taking on risk in the fickle world of celluloid, the thinking is that fewer investments in theatrical projects will concentrate funds on only the best concepts. These concepts will, in theory, be tentpole productions like The Dark Knight, ones that have enormous franchise potential to spawn sequels and merchandise windfalls and that oftentimes will be based on valuable source material, such as iconic comic-book characters. Sounds great, right?

Only problem is, it's wrong. I've argued this point in the past, and I'm here to argue it again. There's no question that studios such as The Walt Disney Company (NYSE: DIS), Viacom, Inc. (NYSE: VIA), News Corporation (NYSE: NWS), General Electric Company (NYSE: GE)'s Universal, and Sony Corporation (ADR) (NYSE: SNE) put precious capital at risk every single time they greenlight a project. But there's a huge illogicality at work here. Why would you want to put out less concepts as opposed to more? If the movie industry is such a gamble, wouldn't it be prudent to send more pictures to the marketplace?

Lions Gate Entertainment's (NYSE: LGF) stock rose nearly 5% in after-hours trading on Friday after the movie studio issued its Q1 report. In fact, the stock hit $11 per share. What drove this reaction? Well, Wall Street was figuring on a loss for the company, somewhere around $0.05 per share, according to the AP. However, management fooled everyone by delivering a $0.06 per-share profit. Last year's Q1 saw a net loss of $0.45 per share. The top line was also awesome, rising 50% to $298.5 million. This also went beyond expectations.

These numbers are impressive to a certain extent. Management reported a nice backlog of revenues derived from movie projects that should be recognized in later quarters. There was a lower amount of expensed-costs related to distribution, an element that helped things out a great deal.

Cash flow, however, was an entirely different matter altogether. Lions Gate reported a much wider use of the green stuff this quarter. In fact, the metric more than doubled to nearly $150 million. Changes in working capital affected the cash flow, including increased investments in content productions and a larger booking of participations and residuals. Negative free cash flow also expanded, coming in at roughly $110 million this quarter versus $82 million one year ago.

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 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.

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."

I just came back from an advanced screening of Marvel Entertainments (NYSE: MVL) Incredible Hulk and it surpassed my expectations as did Iron Man before it.

The preview Wednesday night, two days ahead of the premier scheduled for Friday the 13th, is probably too scary for little tykes but it is a superb blend of movie technology magic and the passion of the cast and crew.

It's all in the eyes. Unlike the glib Tony Stark character in Iron Man, played fittingly by Robert Downey Jr., Edward Norton is the emotionally gamma ray charged green powerhouse that only roars, and must communicate his feeling though his eyes. This is the case when the Hulk's temper rages and when he is expressing his affection for Dr. Elizabeth Ross, played by to perfection by Liv Tyler.

All the drama on Wall Street these days -- from the credit crunch to the housing slump, everything from runs on the bank to rogue traders -- had the Hollywood Reporter wondering recently why Hollywood isn't cashing in on the fun. Given how well most of the serious Iraq War/War on Terror movies have done lately, perhaps moviemakers will be searching for greener pastures. Heck, Gordon Gekko is scheduled to make a reappearance next year in a Wall Street sequel tentatively called Money Never Sleeps.

Until then, with a little help from the Internet Movie Database, here is a list of some of Hollywood's best takes on Wall Street so far.

• American Psycho (2000). Christian Bale stars as a soulless investment banker with a taste for violence and kinky sex. Based on the bestselling book by Bret Easton Ellis.
• The Bank (2001). This award-winning Australian film is set in a corrupt corporate bank, and like Pi features a maverick mathematician who may have found a way to accurately predict stock market fluctuations. Stars Anthony LaPaglia.
• Barbarians at the Gate (1993). This Emmy-winning made-for-television movie is based on the leveraged buyout of RJR Nabisco in the 1980s. James Garner won a Golden Globe for his portrayal of the company's CEO.
• Boiler Room (2000). A college dropout joins a small brokerage house and discovers that his new career isn't all it's cracked up to be. This film has been compared to both Wall Street and Glengarry Glen Ross. Stars Giovanni Ribisi and Ben Affleck.

Today's trading activity and major market move can be attributed to one thing and one thing only: The Federal reserve added another $100 billion to the monetary system. What made it so powerful is that the Fed also is allowing AAA/Aaa rated "private label" mortgages rather than just conforming loans to tap the funds and it included all primary dealers rather than just member banks.

What's even more amazing is that the market actually strengthened through the end of the day. The market cheered with huge gains as seen below:

• DJIA 12,156.81 (+416.66; +3.55%)
• S&P500 1,320.65 (+47.28; +3.71%)
• NASDAQ 2,255.76 (+86.42; +3.98%)
• 10YR-T-BOND 3.596% (+0.158%)

Of the Money Center banks, Wachovia Corp. (NYSE: WB) rose the most of all with a gain of 13.7% to $29.78. lululemon athletica Inc. (NASDAQ: LULU) shares soared a monster 20% to $25.15 after the stock was raised to Outperform at Credit Suisse. Imagine how well it could do if they'd properly capitalize their name (see TOP 10 Pre-Market Calls).

A small company called Access Integrated Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: AIXD) saw shares surge by almost 17%, after being up almost 30%, with a $2.92 close after it announced a major deal with four of the major studios for in-theater upgrades over the next 3-years.

Despite a strong day, there were several stocks that rode into 52-week lows. Of the DJIA components, Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) was the only one of the 30 components that saw shares close down for the day. Maybe protesting that huge air fuel tanker contract wasn't the best choice.

Watch out for World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (NYSE: WWE) as Jim Cramer will host CEO Linda McMahon on CNBC's MAD MONEY tonight. Will she give him a smack-down?

Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX) is making all sorts of moves to cut costs here and there on a selective basis. The media conglomerate plans to consolidate its movie studios by absorbing New Line Cinema into Time Warner Entertainment.

The move will cut costs and increase profitability, as well as give New Line access to Time Warner's international and digital distribution contracts. If you have been following the transition, this is the first formal unit consolidation restructuring by new CEO Jeff Bewkes in an attempt to boost Time Warner's profitability and ultimately the share price.

New Line has distributed blockbusters such as The Lord of the Rings and has Sex and the City: The Movie and The Hobbit set for release. This move will cause some Hollywood pain initially, but ultimately the need for multiple studios under a company that already is a conglomerate seems unnecessary. New Line will still operate somewhat differently, but as more of a subsidiary.

Time Warner stock was down 16 cents in mid-morning trading to $15.86 in a very weak stock market. The 52-week range is $14.64 to $21.97.

Walt Disney Co. (NYSE: DIS) executives were probably ecstatic last night after the drama "No Country for Old Men," which its Miramax unit co-produced, won the best picture Oscar. Today, they must be depressed because a record-low audience witnessed the company's triumph.

Ratings for the Oscar telecast, broadcast on the company's ABC network, were probably the lowest of the decade, according to the New York Times. The telecast drew about 33% of people watching television, a steep decline from last year's 42%, the paper said.

This isn't a surprise. For one thing, as the paper notes, the leading movies weren't exactly crowd pleasers. Moreover, viewers got into the habit of not watching television thanks to the recent Hollywood writers' strike. Once media habits are established, they are hard to change. Perhaps, people have got enough on their minds with the faltering economy to watch overpaid celebrities pay homage to other overpaid celebrities.

Disney ad sales executives may be forced to give advertisers so-called make goods because of the ratings shortfall for failing to meet guarantees for viewership. ABC may be forced to give free advertising time on popular TV programs such as "Desperate Housewives" to appease angry advertisers. That may negate some of the benefit to the bottom line from "No Country's" Oscar triumph.

--Freelance writer Jonathan Berr edits the blog Ketchup and Eggs.

I love movies about business tycoons and Paramount Vantage's (NYSE: VIA.B) latest one, There Will Be Blood, is no exception. Daniel Day-Lewis solidifies his title as the world's best actor in a tour de force performance of the merciless oilman, Daniel Plainview and director Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights, Magnolia) proves to be capable of tackling new genres with surprising deftness.

With surprisingly little violence or blood and a very worthy supporting cast, the film details Plainview's rise to oil royalty and his not so gradual descent into madness over the course of 30 years. Yup, very Citizen Kane-esque, another superior biographical epic I wholeheartedly urge you watch on DVD, now remastered courtesy of Warner Brothers Video (NYSE: TWX).

From the opening scene, you will understand Plainview's utter devotion to this craft, that being finding oil and getting rich off it. The starkness of the surroundings combines with some truly memorable cinematography to paint a rather complex portrait of ambition, greed and the beginnings of the oil drilling industry.

In the wake of her divorce from ex-98 Degree hunk Nick Lachey and the disappointing box office showing of Dukes of Hazzard, a noteworthy debut for her latest movie, Blonde Ambition, was just what the former pop princess needed.

But this was not what the doctor ordered. The movie was thought to be headed for direct to DVD release but they decided to give it a shot in Texas theaters. It grossed $384 in its opening -- $48 per screen, 6 people per showtime, and a total of 48 viewers.

Ouch. They could blame the fact that the movie has been available for illicit download online for weeks, but that only garnered 6000 viewers -- who could watch it at home. On their computers. For free.

Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL)'s iTunes just got a new video partner in News Corp (NYSE: NWS)'s Fox movie studio. The deal is the first of its kind, allowing iTunes subscribers to download Fox movies and watch them for a limited period.

According to The Wall Street Journal, "sales of video through Apple's iTunes Store have failed to grow at the same pace as the site's music downloads, analysts say." So, perhaps offering rentals will be a better model than selling content outright.

But the theory makes little sense. Short-term rentals are unlikely to trump sales. Movies sold on iTunes cost as little as $9.99, a visit to the Apple site shows. How much less can a rental be? And what is the incentive for having something that can only be used for a few days?

Nice partnership, but no reason it will increase video revenue at iTunes.

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