The First Movie About the Rescued Chilean Miners Has Arrived

Wow. We all knew that a film about the rescue of the trapped Chilean miners was totally inevitable, but who would have guessed it would take even less time than the rescue itself? Antonio Recio’s The 33 of San Jose started shooting five days after the Miners’ rescue and is currently being sold at the American Film Market. According to Recio, he and writers J J Barrios and Jacobo Bergareche began penning the script just days after news of the miners’ plight broke.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the film’s ultra-happy ending features “extensive news footage obtained via an exclusive deal struck between backers Spanish broadcaster Antenna 3 and Chilean channel 13, who helped gather much of the footage watched by the world.” The film’s cast includes 32 Chilean actors and Bolivian star Cristian Mercado (Che: Part 2, Undertow).

Remembering the fact that 33 characters are involved begs the question of how they chose which miners get the screen time. And how many of these actors just stand in the background decked out in mining gear? Or will this movie be eight hours long? Apparently, sales agent America Video Films is in conversations with “a major studio” to take theatrical rights to the film, so maybe we’ll find out soon.

In any case, Hollywood had better start moving a little faster on their inevitable big-budget version. If they’re having trouble figuring out who should direct, we’ve got that covered.

· EXCLUSIVE: Tale of Trapped Chilean Miners Heating Up AFM [The Hollywood Reporter]

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Conan O'Brien Won't Allow Jay Leno on His New Show and 6 Other Stories You'll Be Talking About Today

Also in today’s edition of The Broadsheet: James Bond will return… Spider-Man close to finding its Aunt May and Uncle Ben… David O. Russell continues to make weird career choices… and more ahead.

· Here’s a total surprise: Conan O’Brien said he would never allow Jay Leno to appear on his new talk show! Well, almost never. “He can come as the musical guest, because that I want to see; no one knows he has an operatic range,” O’Brien said in an interview with Playboy before adding, “No, there are certain things I will not do, regardless of the price.” Too bad. If only Leno had another way to appear on television. [Reuters]

· James Bond will return! Maybe. According to MGM’s bankruptcy papers, the studio is planning on releasing a new Bond movie in November of 2012, with subsequent sequels following every other year. The best laid plans of mice and men… [Bloomberg]

· When we last checked in on The Hunger Games — better known to you as “The Next Twilight — Gary Ross had moved in front of contenders like Frances Lawrence and Sam Mendes on the list of directors. Now it appears Ross is the list. The Seabiscuit helmer was at AFM with Lionsgate to talk up the film adaptation of Suzanne Collins’ bestseller. [Variety]

· The Spider-Man reboot might get even more classy. Martin Sheen and Sally Field are in talks to portray Uncle Ben and Aunt May in Marc Webb’s new film. In case you’re wondering who to add in your movie star fantasy league, Sheen is further along in the talks than Field. [THR/Heat Vision, THR/Heat Vision]

· Speaking of Spider-Man: Julie Taymor’s musical has been delayed yet again and won’t reach the Broadway stage until January at the earliest. [NYT/ArtsBeat]

· Make their day, etc. David O. Russell and Ice Cube are reportedly teaming up for a Dirty Harry-like possible franchise at New Line. For Russell, this comes on the heels of Old St. Louis and video game adaptation Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune, which is a crazy grouping of films, but at least shows that the talented director is actually working again. [Deadline]

· If you’ve been watching the Pirates of the Caribbean series and thought to yourself, “Needs more Judi Dench,” then get excited. The Great Dame will reportedly film a cameo in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. File this under, “Thanks for nothing, Internet.” [Daily Mail]

Tagged: conan, conan o'brien, gary ross, jay leno, johnny depp, judi dench, julie taymor, marc webb, martin sheen, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, sally field, spider-man, the hunger games, the tonight show

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

How really feel about China, part II: Joint Ventures. We love them and we hate them.

Error deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9091.

This is part II of our relatively new series setting forth how we "really feel" about the issues that have generated controversy on our blog over the years.Part I dealt with guanxi and the comments to that post alone have made it a great read.

We started this series because "we have taken many strong positions over the years, but in some cases those positions have been at least somewhat misunderstood and this new (and irregular) series will aim to clean up misconceptions."

We have developed quite a reputation for not liking joint ventures and that is not really true. Wary would be a better word for how we feel about them. I am always bothered when a client or potential client calls about their proposed joint venture and starts out by saying "I know you don't like joint ventures." Are we losing business because of this reputation, or maybe we are getting more because people believe that if we give the go ahead on theirs, it really is as good as they think it is.Of course, we will never know, but we can at least try to clear the air. We like the appropriate and necessary joint ventures; We just think it is a big mistake to consider joint venture as the default method for entering China.

All the China legal work done by my law firm, our work setting up and dismantling Of joint ventures is probably my favorite and certainly one of the most lucrative. We charge a flat fee for probably 90% of our China work, purpose for forming joint ventures, we always charge hourly. We charge hourly because setting up China joint venture can range from fast and easy to difficult and contentious. It is the rare one that is fast and easy.

A joint venture consists of two independent businesses, one foreign and one Chinese, going into business together.That alone ought to tell you how they can be difficult.The most difficult questions usually center around control.Which of the two companies will control what and what really needs to be done to ensure control and to ensure that no
one company gets out of control?

It is this complexity and its waiting fees, that we love.

For more on what is involved in the forming of a joint venture in China and when China joint ventures make sense, check out the following:

Chinese Joint Ventures - The Info for The Chinese Government Does Not Want You To Know
Avoiding Mistakes in Chinese Joint Ventures
Love The One You're With. When China Joint Ventures Make Sense.
China Joint Ventures.Who's Your Partner?

Just to be clear, we love forming joint ventures, but only when they truly do make sense.

We also love taking apart China joint ventures that have gone wrong.Again And we love doing this not in any way for because it is a good thing for our customers, who usually are in say straits when they come to us with their joint venture problems, but because resolving joint venture disputes is like a chess game, aim at our hourly rate.

The problem with China joint ventures is not China-specific; It is a joint venture specific. Joint ventures simply tend too often to be a bad way to conduct business.My firm has seen this with Russian joint ventures, Vietnamese joint ventures, Mexican joint ventures, Korean joint ventures, Japanese joint ventures, even a Gambian joint venture.I was going to try to explain why this is the case, but I came across a Seth Godin post that does so better than I ever could. Godin posits the following in his post "Why joint ventures fail so often":

There are two reasons joint ventures fail. The joint part and the venture share.

All ventures are risky because they involve changes and the unknown.We set off on a venture in search of something, or to make something happen - inherent in the idea of a venture is failure.It's natural, then, for fearful people on both sides of a joint venture to back off when it gets scary.When given a choice between risk and a sure thing, many people pick the sure thing.So any venture begins with some question marks.

The joint part, though, is where the real problem arises.Pushing through the dip is the only way for a venture of any kind to succeed.The dip separates projects that begin from projects that finish.It's easy and hopeful and exciting to start something, but challenging and often painful to finish it. When the project is a joint one, the pressure to push through the dip often dissipates."Well, we only have a bit at stake here, so work on something else, something where we have to take all the blame."

Because there isn't ain't one boss, one deliverable, one person pushing the project relentlessly, it stalls.

Every joint venture involves rallies, and meetings are the pressure relief valve.Meetings give us the ability to stall and to point fingers, to obfuscate and confused.If a problem arises, if difficulty needs to be overcome, it's much easier to bury it at a meeting than it is to deal with it.

In my experience, you're far better off with a licensing deal than joint venture.One side buys the right to use an asset that belongs to the other.The initial transaction is more difficult (and apparently risky) at the start, but then the door is open to success.It's a venture that belongs to one party, someone with a lot at stake and an incentive to make it work.

Only one person in charge at a time.

He is, of course, absolutely right.

For more on the downside of entering into a joint venture in China, check out the following:

WFOE v. JV
China's joint Venture Jeopardy(an article I wrote for the Wall Street Journal)
China - Damn The Joint Venture
Beware The China Joint Venture
Beware The China Joint Venture, But Do Not Ignore It Completely

What do you think?China joint ventures, good, bad or no consequence?

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Fallujah's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here