With the recent completion of a pair of 1.2 billion dollar deals, the parent company of AMC has agreed to purchase Odeon and UCI Cinemas Group in Europe, and Carmike Cinemas here in the United States. The Dalian Wanda Group now owns the largest theater chains in China, Europe and the United States, making them the largest theater group in the world. If you are a member of the AMC Stubs program, there are now over 600 US locations where you can use your benefits.Read More
The Latest in Residential Renewable Energy Whether you are looking to save some money on your electric bill or preparing for a potential nuclear Trumpocalypse, a solar-powered home may be something that interests you. In the past there have been limited options for adapting your home to solar power – namely the unattractive panels bolted onto your roof or basic solar shingles since 2005. That is all set to change with the merger of #SolarCity and #Tesla. Starting around the 4th quarter of 2017, the combined company will start installing their new designer solar roofs. I am here to share with you some of the things I have learned, and maybe make your decision whether to go solar slightly easier.
Cost of a tradition roof and utilities: There are several different materials that you can currently use for your roof: Tuscan style terracotta, traditional asphalt shingles, and the long-lasting but pricey slate. The average home in the United States has a 3,000 square-foot roof, which means the average cost for materials and installation is $16,000, $20,000 and $45,000 respectively. The clay and slate roofing material has a lifespan that the solar roofs cannot begin to compete with now, but its 30-year warranty is on par or better than the common asphalt shingle roof. The warranty for them varies greatly based on the quality of the shingle, the climate you live in, and how many layers are on your home (the fewer the better). Warranties can be as little as five years and up to 30. We’ll be comparing asphalt singles and the solar roof for now, due to the popularity of asphalt.
If you have an asphalt roof that lasts 15 years, that means over 30 years you would purchase an asphalt roof two-to-one compared to the solar roof. That already brings a hypothetical cost up to $40,000. For the total price of the SolarCity roof needed to break even or make money, one must take the cost of utilities into account. In some areas of the country people pay over $1,700 a year just for electricity, reaching nearly $2,500 if you have all-electric appliances. You will want electric appliances in order to get the most out of your new investment. Otherwise, you will continue to pay to use your gas appliances instead of getting the power form the sun. A solar roof that meets all of your daily electrical needs could save you $1,700 a year; over 30 years that would total $51,000. The final cost of choosing asphalt over solar could cost you between $71,000 and $91,000, depending on the quality of materials you choose and how much electricity you use. If SolarCity wants to be truly competitive, they cannot start their pricing above $70,000, or it would be as if you were paying for 30 years’ worth of utilities upfront.
SolarCity Pricing: While they have yet to release the final price point for the new shingles (though we should know by mid-2017), we can make a few estimates for how expensive it might be. They suggest that to get the most use of the solar roof, you should install at least one of their new Powerwall 2.0 systems. Each power wall can store 14kW worth of energy. The average U.S. home uses just under 30kW of energy a day, so you will want at least two of these power packs to run everything in your house. Each Powerwall system will cost $6,500 installed, so before we even get to the roofing materials themselves, we are looking at a cost of $13,000, which is over 50 percent of the cost of a typical asphalt roof. So far this year, installing solar on your house is costing about $3 per Watt. If you want your home to produce enough energy to provide for all of your energy needs, it will be 30,000 Watts times the current cost per Watt or $90,000 (well over the $70,000 range I discussed earlier). This will total over $100,000 when you add in the cost of the Powerwall systems. I also imagine that there will be a different price point for the style of roof you chose. They currently plan to offer four styles. If I had had to venture a guess, the textured glass will be the cheapest and the slate style easily the most expensive. They are using a process called hydrographic printing, which uses ink in a water-based solution to dye each of the tiles in a unique pattern. No two tiles will look alike, so no two roofs will look the same.
I know that $100,000 can seem like a daunting number. Who has that much money laying around or can take on a loan that size? This is not where the conversation ends, however. Industry experts and SolarCity have said that they expect costs will eventually go down to $1 per Watt (installed price), cutting the current cost by two thirds. So now, we know the goal, and the current estimated price, but we do not know what CEO and Chairman, Elon Musk, will set as his initial price point. He has had a history of competitively pricing products. The Powerwall system, while being pricey, is 30 percent cheaper than its competitors are. I would not be surprised if the SolarCity roofs show the same kind of price disparity. If that is true, at the end of 2017 you could get a new roof and two Powerwalls for between $70,000 and $75,000, which is close to the figure I mentioned earlier. That may not seem worth it, but it isn’t the end of the road because there are some other advantages that will come with going solar sooner rather than later. Benefits to Going Solar:
The first major benefit is being able to claim the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for the cost of your installation. The ITC was signed into law on December 18, 2015. The bill extends the 30 percent Solar Investment Tax Credits for both residential and commercial projects through the end of 2019, and then drops the credit to 26 percent in 2020, and 22 percent in 2021, before dropping permanently to 10 percent for commercial projects and zero percent for residential projects. The way it works is by claiming the money you spent to install your roof. Say it costs $90,000 to install your roof. That means on your taxes you would get a credit for $27,000, on top of all the other money you paid towards taxes, which will increase the size of your return.
If that is not enough incentive, if your roof is producing more energy than you need, you can work with your local utilities in a process called net metering. This is where your electric meter acts as a two way street. It shows how much energy you pull from the grid and how much you put in. If at the end of the month, you have provided more than you use, they apply a credit to the next month and eventually provide a check. California public offices and schools will save an estimated $2.5 billion in electricity costs over the next 30 years using net metering.
One last benefit: If you decide to sell your home after having a solar system installed, it will increase the value of your home by an average of $5,900 per kW. At an installation cost of $3 per Watt, a kW will cost your roughly $3,000, so the value added to your home is nearly double in some cases.
Conclusion: As of now, a large start-up cost will inhibit most homeowners from being able to afford SolarCity’s new product and their vision for the future of a SolarCity roof on every house (and a Tesla in every garage). If it is something you can afford, I would highly suggest looking into it because of what it could provide for you going forward. Personally, I think I will wait a few years and see how things go, how far the price drops, and hope for a second extension of the ITC. I think I would being willing to splurge and live in the future, especially if TNP Studios hits it big and takes me along for the ride.
We are moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas: welcome to the Cloververse. For those of you that hate the trend of studios mostly backing blockbusters, micro-budget movies, and the remake/adaption culture, rejoice for you have a new champion, J.J. Abrams. I know that almost everyone knows who J.J. is, now that he has brought back Star Trek and Star Wars, but the man has done almost nothing wrong over the last 16 years. He had a rough start to his career with most of his work performing poorly, both financially and with critics. Once the 2001 movie Joy Ride was released, almost every project he has been involved with is golden. Since then, you can count his failures in TV and film on less than one hand. With the Cloververse, they are creating an anthology series unlike any we have seen before. There have been anthologies throughout the history of TV and film, such as The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, Creepshow and Tales from the Crypt. What makes this one different is that, instead of telling multiple stories in one movie or episode, they are connecting multiple movies in subtle ways that, in J.J.’s words, ‘will lead to something great if given the time.’
“We do have a big, fun idea that hopefully will get a shot to realize,” Abrams said over the phone. “But in the meantime, I think the easiest way to consider this is that it is something of an anthology. But it's also something else that we're playing with. Fingers crossed that we get to execute.”
Here are a few ways how J.J. Abrams, Bad Robot and Paramount could be changing the face of the medium budgeted movie universe:
Fan intrigue and interaction
Abrams’ Bad Robot team has mastered the art of keeping secrets in Hollywood and causing suspense and excitement among its fans. It all started with the release of the first Cloverfield movie. It took months for them to release its true title. The initial publicity material only referenced 01-18-08, as the movie release date and depicted a devastated New York. With the mystery came online forums, discussions, and websites where the studio and producers gave out clues and back-stories so fans could interact and unravel the secrets of what happened to New York. That trend continued with 10 Cloverfield Lane. Websites that were not active for nearly eight years started updating and sending out messages to fans. There were new clues for them to unravel and even a tie-in product. In the film, you see people drinking Swamp Pop, which it turns out is a real product that you could order and drink while watching the movie. If the trend continues, sometime around the first of the year we should see the website back at it, giving fans a couple of months to figure out how God Particle ties into the Cloververse, something one of its stars, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, doesn’t even understand at this point.
More important than their secrecy and fan involvement are the people that they have chosen to lead their projects:
The Nurturing of young talent
If you look at the three directors that have worked on Cloverfield films to this point you will notice that, while they have different backgrounds and came to this point in unique paths, they are all talented newer directors and may go on to much greater things.
Since directing Cloverfield, Matt Reeves has gone on to direct Let Me In, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and its sequel War of the Planet of the Apes, which will be released in 2017. Before Cloverfield, his most successful directing outing was the 1994 David Schwimmer vehicle, The Pallbearer, which no one has considered a hit. He is the oldest director of the group by almost a decade. He was 42 when Cloverfield was released, but he was still inexperienced when given the chance to direct Bad Robot.
Dan Trachtenberg is a 35-year-old that was best known for the Portal: No Escape short before getting his hands on 10 Cloverfield Lane. Since Working on that project, he has directed an episode of Black Mirror for Netflix and is currently writing Crime of the Century for Universal, which will be a heist film with a Sci-fi twist that is being produced by the writer of Fast Five. So here’s hoping they can top the safe dragging scene from that movie.
Next up is Julius Onah, a 33-year-old man from Nigeria, who until now has directed about a dozen shorts and one feature film, The Girl is in Trouble, which was almost fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. He is currently set to direct the adaptation of Brilliance, which has had Will Smith and Jared Leto in talks to star. It is the story of a gifted detective on the trail of another powered individual that is also a terrorist, continuing down the Sci-fi genre path of the previous Cloververse directors.
All three of them are moving on to bigger and hopefully better projects for other studios, so they must have done something right to convince another studio that they are worth the risk before their Cloververse project even hits theaters. They have surrounded these directors with great scripts and talented casts, making their job a little less stressful.
Great cast on a budget
Cloverfield was the most expensive movie of the three produced so far, with a budget of 25 million dollars. I know you might think that is strange, because the lack of famous people and being a found footage film. However, you have to remember it was effects heavy, especially compared to all but the final minutes of 10 Cloverfield Lane, and those costs have come down in the last decade. With a budget of 15 million, 10 Cloverfield Lane was able to do some good effects, but most of the money went into signing on its two main stars, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Goodman, giving a disturbing performance as Howard Stemper. The cast of God Particle is even more star-studded with David Oyelowo, Gugu Mbatha-Raw and Daniel Brühl, with only an estimated 10 million dollar budget. So far, they have done a great job of picking talented directors and well-written scripts that convince actors to take less than their normal paycheck to be part of something they believe in.
If Bad Robot continues down this path, it may become something great that other studios try to emulate, instead of trying to copy Marvel Studios. My biggest fear is that they will start to rush the process and stop putting out quality films, or raise the budgets to a level where profit is at a minimum, causing the Cloververse to collapse in on itself. So far, each of the projects have had multiple years to be realized and that may end with the recent comments of releasing one movie a year. Looking at IMDB to see what could be coming soon that would fit in this world, the obvious choice is the J.J. produced Half-Life movie. If you do not know what Half-Life is, then you need to listen to the Nerdpocalypse’s sister podcast Dense Pixels more often. The short explanation is that Half-Life is a video game where a portal opens at a secret research facility, allowing aliens into our world. The main character must fight to save us all. If that does not sound like a perfect companion to this series, then I don’t know what does. I am excited to see where things go and see how far they can take it, because after two movies, there is already more going on here than in the No Man Sky universe.
With the 2016 Presidential election quickly approaching, I wanted to look at each candidate and how they plan to support education and science, NASA in particular. Both of these topics are important to me on a personal level: I have a science degree and I married a teacher. This article will be broken down in to two sections, each with three parts. In each section, I will discuss the current state of the given topic and why I believe its support is important. After that, I will share each candidate’s point of view, and what that may mean for the country.
President Eisenhower established NASA on July 29, 1958. Of the world’s seven space agencies, NASA is just one of three, with Russia and China, which actually put a person in space. The funding for NASA hit a peak of 4.41% of the country’s GDP in 1966, three years before Apollo 11 made the first moon landing. While they are technically receiving more money than ever, the actual funding has dropped down to an average of 0.5% of the GDP over the last five years. The country benefits from a strong space program. NASA reinvests a large portion of its funding into grants and awards to education institutions and charities to encourage youth to look at careers in the sciences. Support of education is far from the only way the public benefits from the work done at NASA. From 1976-1984, the program was responsible for the creation of 352,000 jobs. The biggest benefit of NASA actually comes from their scientific discoveries. While they try to solve a problem related to space exploration, they will often develop products that can affect the world as a whole. Just look at this list of everyday things for which NASA is responsible and how many billions of dollars it has contributed to the economy:
Memory foam: Originally created for seat cushions in spacecrafts, it has multiple uses in hospitals; it is in NFL helmets and of course in some of the bestselling mattresses for the last 30 years.
Anti-corrosion coatings: Used to protect against the harsh nature of seawater during splash landings. It is now saving the country millions by protecting our bridges, pipelines, oilrigs and even the Statue of Liberty from corrosion.
Arteriovision: Software created to examine video sent back by space probes, is being used to diagnose heart disease in its earliest stages, saving lives and millions on health care costs.
Emulsified zero-valent iron: This chemical compound was designed to clean rocket fuel residue that was dumped onto the runway after a takeoff, and is now being used by chemical manufacturing and oil companies to clean up the toxic environments created by their businesses. Created in 2005, the chemical is so effective that in just 5 years it became the most licensed product ever created by NASA, earning the government millions in profit and protecting our environment at the same time.
Lifeshears: Used by NASA to separate the space shuttle from its booster rockets, and used by search and rescue groups to remove debris and find people trapped during 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, and numerous incidents in between and since.
In the first 11 years of its existence, the government gave NASA 25 billion dollars. By 1987, the government had made 181 billion off the products they created. With most of those inventions still being used, and more discoveries being made all the time, there is no doubt that NASA is worthy of increased funding.
Trump on NASA:
Trump has been quoted as saying that he thinks, “Space is terrific.” When he visits Florida, home of the Kennedy Space Center, he will lament the loss of jobs created by the decreased funding. However, when he goes anywhere outside of Florida the praise for NASA is reined in. The rest of the earlier quote is something to the effect that space is terrific but not as important as potholes. From my research, I could find no plan that would increase the budget that is provided to NASA but plenty of indicators that he may actually pull some of the funding and divert it to fixing our infrastructure or rebuilding the military. As previously stated NASA receives about 0.5% of the yearly budget while the military gets around 19%, I am not sure you could take an amount away from NASA that would benefit the military and not decimate our space program. We also know that essentially his goal is to privatize the construction and maintenance of our infrastructure, so the best-case scenario under a Trump presidency is that the funding will hold steady at 0.5%. That should allow NASA to continue with the goals it currently has laid out such as a mission to Mars and implementation of the space shuttle’s replacement and end our reliance on Russia for space transportation.
Clinton on NASA:
Clinton has stated that she plans to increase funding, but has not shared specifics on how much of an increase we would see. She has also stated that she plans on doing some restructuring of NASA and other unnamed organizations to improve collaboration and decrease the amount of time it takes the government to see a profit from the organizations efforts. This would be a much-preferred outcome for me personally but I know that there are people who feel space exploration is not that important and the innovations would eventually be made by another group or in the private sector. While that is probably true, it is impossible to tell how long it would delay the discovery of life saving technologies. If the innovation came from the private sector, the government would not benefit directly, only though taxes, costing us millions in revenue that could be reinvested in other areas to benefit us all.
The story of education in the United States in an interesting one. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an intergovernmental group that works to stimulate economic growth and world trade. The OECD is also responsible for the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) which tests 15 year olds every three years, the results of the 2015 exam are due out on December 6th. The most recent exam we have results for was conducted back in 2012 when the US ranked 27th in mathematics, well below average. Shanghai-China topped the list in math excellence in 2012 where it was determined that it would take the average US student three additional years of education to reach the same level. We scored close to the average in reading (17th) and science (20th) but even with an improved result in those categories it was determined that 26% of our children did not possess knowledge of the basics, the second worst among high income countries, while 8.8% of our test takers scored at the highest levels. The countries that perform better than us have a centralized education program, like the one the U.S. is trying to establish with Common Core. While that program has its faults and has been executed poorly so far, it is probably the best direction for us as a country if we want to move up in the rankings. You can read several reports about how we should only care about the percentage of kids who score high on the exam or that we should drop off the bottom 20% of performers then compare ourselves to other countries. To me that is a horrible idea because it continues the idea of the 1% versus the 99%, we need to give every child the best chance to succeed, if that means uniforms or the common core or higher taxes there is no choice but to invest in our future.
You may be thinking that these results are a direct result of schools being underfunded the answer is not quite so simple. The U.S. is in the top five of money spent per student, spending $12,000 on each full time K-12 student, it exceeds $15,000 if you include college and vocational training. The government funds 70 cents of every dollar spent on education, 25 cents come from the parents and the remaining 5 cents come from private sources, the average OECD government covers 84 cents of every dollar spent on education. Current funding for education for the most recent fiscal year could top 200 billion, 69.4 billion of that it is in a discretionary fund so it may not be used at all unless a worthy cause is presented. The mandatory budget for this year was 139.7 billion, well over the average 67 billion a year under the Obama administration, as they begin implementing the new Every Student Succeeds Act, which forces states to make accountability goals and to intervene in the bottom 5% of their schools. It is actually a step away from the centralized education plan but if the states continue to set and achieve their goals while improving the lowest performing schools we will see improvements when comparing ourselves to the rest of the developed world. If we were able to get all of our students to reach the baseline that the OECD has set, it would add an estimated $27 trillion to the national economy during their working lives.
Trump on education:
A good place to begin with Donald is that he hates the Common Core, though he will not say why, he wants it to be abolished which highly unlikely because it would take an act of Congress. His goal is to minimize government spending for education by doing his best to privatize it, he will supporting charter schools, and other non or for profit schools. For that reason he is a major supporter of the voucher program, he wants to put 130 billion into a state and federal voucher program. That would give students and their families choices between the regular public schools and all the newly founded privately run schools. My biggest fear is with an influx of privately owned schools that the students who can, will leave the public schools, with a mass exodus the public school funding would be crushed and those students, teachers and administrators left behind will suffer. This is about where his planning ends, he opposes adding STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Math) schools, he opposes Universal pre-school and opposes increased government funding for college, but other than the voucher program, he has offered little of substance. There is also no indication if that 130 billion is a one-time funding or an annual plan until the private schools take over. Charter schools have a history of many successes, mostly in urban settings, a few dramatic scandals and more than a few failures, nearly 2,500 charter schools closed between 2001 and 2013 and several more that never opened after approval. They are most successful in states with the strictest laws over them. If they are going to become more prevalent maybe there should be a nation board governing how charter schools run so they are all held at the same standard.
Clinton on education:
There is a lot more information to sort through here as she has had a lot more to say about where she wants to take the U.S. and its education system. To start she disagrees with Trump on the voucher program and has no plans to support it. Her biggest plan for our schools is to support the country with a computer science program. Over the next few years, there is an estimated 800,000 computer science jobs to be filled and at our current education standards, we will only be able to fill around half of them. She wants to train an additional 50,000 computer science teachers to prepare kids for the future and those other 400,000 jobs that will be available in the next few years. Some people have knocked her for being so focused on computer science but I think she has spotted a need and a weakness and is working to solve both of those issues.
She also supports the idea of universal pre-school for all kids 4 and older, which will get our kids in school earlier where they can learn, socialize, and be more prepared when they enter the public school system. This will also help families by limiting the number of years they have to pay for day care, it will be interesting if it will be a national program or if the states will be in charge. If the states are in charge there will be wide swings in what is available to families, some states cover a full week and others just 10 hours a week. She wants to help end the school to prison pipeline limiting school suspensions and hiring mediators and councilors to work with the children, their family and the schools. This would be a major improvement for people who live in poverty-stricken areas. After she defeated Bernie Sanders in the primaries, Clinton partially came around to his viewpoint on college, and wants to offer free in state college for most families (~80%) and free community college for all. No longer would people be limited in their ambition by what is in their bank account and no more crushing debt when you finally graduate. This is easily her most controversial education plan, many on either side of the isle and the public will oppose it because college is looked at as a luxury instead of the necessity that it is quickly becoming. The Clinton plan is expected to cost 350 billion over the next ten years, which would cost the average taxpayer nearly $250 extra in taxes per year. The average tuition cost of a public institution is approximately $9,400 a year or $37,600 for the average 4-year degree, so if you send one child off to college it would take 150 years before you paid more in this system then you would have for your son or daughter to attend an in state school.
In conclusion, to me there is a clear winner on both fronts. Nonetheless, no matter who you agree with, I encourage you to get out and vote on November 8, not just in the presidential election, but also in all of your state and local elections. Let them hear your voice and elect the people you believe in and who support the plans you feel will make your city, state and country the best it can be.
When filmmakers announce a new movie online, especially if it is an adaptation, sequel, or remake, it is a safe bet that among the first comments will be the statement, “Why are they making this? It does not need to be a movie.” I am here to tell you that those comments are incorrect and what the people actually mean is, “This does not interest me in the least and I don’t know why anyone finds it interesting.” That is a perfectly acceptable response. Not every film is for you, and that is ok, but just because you’re not interested, doesn’t mean the film should not exist.
Movies have been a major part of my life for as long as I can remember. When I was little my mom worked days and my dad worked nights, meaning we only had family time on the weekends. Weekends mostly involved four things: doing yardwork and laundry, and watching football and movies. My parents were not big fans of either board or video games, so our family activity for my entire life (until the death of my father) was to watch movies together. For those of you old enough to not only remember Blockbuster, but also remember when they first rolled out their rewards program in 1999, normally you had to pay yearly price for it, much like the Nerdpocalypse premium feed. When the program began, they told us that we’d earned a lifetime membership into the rewards program at the gold level because the previous year we rented the fifth most movies from their store. We averaged renting a movie and a half every day that year, usually two or three a night in the summer because I could stay up later. That may sound crazy, but you’d be surprised to know that Blockbuster was only one of three places we rented movies. At that point, the demise of video stores had yet to begin. The following is an obvious statement, but it must be made: Not all of the 600 or so movies we saw that year were very good. My mom would watch anything and I was much closer to her than my dad who had no problem calling it a night when some horrible movie was on. Now, like most people who lose a parent, I would give anything just to watch and discuss a movie with my Dad again, the way we used to.
Maybe every movie is not a masterpiece and worth recommending, but many movies can inspire someone or bring a family together for 90+ minutes. If movies were required to have an A+ screenwriter, actors, director and cinematographer (oh and don’t forget--a strong message or tale that needs to be told and hasn’t been), a great year would see maybe five movies being released. There are billions of dollars to be made in movies, so I doubt the number of films made each year will ever change much, since you are never going to convince people to give up their livelihood. On the contrary, with cheaper avenues to cash, like direct to video on demand, we may see the number of films actually increase to what it was in the past when the studio plan was not so feast or famine with their budgets.
The easiest thing to rail against is the current remake culture that is taking Hollywood by storm. There have always been and always will be remakes, but they do seem to be more prevalent than ever before. Maybe it has something to do with the attention span of our country. As the average attention span decreases, people may be less likely to go back and watch old films. Maybe that old film is a true classic and should be seen by everyone. When it comes to remakes, I believe it is fair to be disinterested in an original film’s style of filmmaking that died out before you were born, or preferring to have a movie populated by actors you recognize. One has to be careful when approaching a remake, because there are times when the remake is the classic, or just as much of a classic as the original, such as the following examples:
The Thing From Another World vs. The Thing
Infernal Affairs vs. The Departed
The Fly (1958) vs. The Fly (1986)
Scarface (1932) vs. Scarface (1983)
Ocean’s 11 (1960) vs. Ocean’s 11 (2001)
Judge Dredd vs. Dredd
Seven Samurai vs. The Magnificent Seven (1960) vs. The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Remakes and adaptations (of which there are more than a dozen left to be released before the end of this year) are like everything else: do not judge them too quickly or you may miss out on something special. Instead of rushing to say, “This movie is a waste of time and money,” I suggest being hopeful that the target audience loves it and keeping your mind open. If the trailer looks good, or all the reviews are positive, consider giving it a chance. If you think a movie is a bad idea, and it turns out to be a big flop, it is perfectly acceptable to offer a hearty, “I told you so,” to the people who were excited for it. Some movies are great, some are horrible, and most are somewhere in the middle, but all deserve and need to be made. All movies (independent of quality) generate numerous jobs (covering everything from craft services to actors to spending an average of 40+ million on advertising per studio movie), countless memories and just might inspire the next generation of great filmmakers.