User login

Shout Box

There are no shouts to view.
Login or register to post shouts
All Shouts

Recent comments

Who's new

  • Acma
  • nxkwwwblazerod
  • translatornauseating
  • fidelisadjei
  • baronfake

I want to watch some good movies




So I'm infatuated with epic movies. Grand battles, courage, bravery, the salvation of humanity--they are the reasons why I've watched Lord of the Rings more than 20 times and I'll be watching it again tonight:) All this made me wonder, can't the film-makers amongst us try to make some movies in this genre? The closest movie I've seen like this about African heroes is Shaka the Zulu but even that was told from the British point of view. I mean, anyone who has seen Braveheart, the Last of the Mohicans will agree that you don't need the protagonist to win to have a feel-good movie.

There are few historical battles I'd like to see made by Africans--
the Yaa Asantewa vs the British War (circa 1900)
the Mau-Mau rebellion
the liberation of Ethiopia (circa 1946?)
the liberation of Rwanda (circa 1994)

I'm sure there are more movie ideas best made by Africans that Blockbuster won't mind stocking:) Some historical movies will be a refreshing change from the typical soap-opera movies coming out of Nigeria:)

Nigerian movie makers, what say you?!
African movie makers, what say you?!


Anonymous (not verified)

dokunoo ne fish, o bro!

dokunoo ne fish, o bro!

GhanaThink Managing Executive abocco

I saw a great Ghanaian movie!

Oh, so I saw a great Ghanaian movie recently, titledA Touch of Love
The picture and sound quality was excellent (much better than what's coming out of Nollywood and the production was quite professional.
The soundtrack was made up of previously released hiplife songs which excited me but was kinda saddened by the way they were used and the lack of originality in using new songs that could come out with the movie. The movie was scored by Hammer of the Last 2 and the video production by Gerald Ogee Gyimah (Phamous People) who does a lot of the good hiplife videos these days.
You should try see it sometime.

Anyway, the movie's plot was excellent till the end when they tried to make it too dramatic. However, the movie's story was quite modern, set in the present day 'abuskeleke' and 'city life' but with some great secondary school scenes.
Shouldn't give the movie away... but Ghanaian movies ain't made in bulk these days and this one that I saw made a good impression on me.

The destiny of a nation at any given time depends on the opinions (and actions) of its young men and women.


Obaa Pa

I watched Obaa Pa and I lmao. Obaa Pa is in Twi and Agya Koo is the main actor. If you want some good comedy and drama, you should watch it. Like every African movie, there's part 1& 2. I was surprised to find out that Haitians are big fans of Nigerian & Ghanaian movies even when the Ghanaian movies were in Twi (with English subtitle).


  • r

    film finance ideas

    Yaa Asantewa would indeed be an interesting film to see. As ever, how can such a project be financed.

    Film fans need to put their money where their mouth is, so how is the following for a suggestion.

    A leading film producer (no idea who are the most successful sales wise) should compile a budget and then seek however many private investors (maximum individual contribution US$10). Thus if the budget is 100k then 10 000 investors would be required. I suggest US$10 maximum contribution, to spread the risk.

    When the budget target is reached, the producer then has to deliver the final product! After many films have been produced this way, hopefully, their sales will be greater than their production costs, creating capital. Eventually, such film companies should be floated, to enable retail investors the opportunity to realise capital growth.


    film finance: Why $10 maximum

    Mr. r, why $10 maximum; why can't people who willingly want to contribute (or invest) more be free to do so?
    Gyasi K Dapaa


    film finance maximum contribution

    The first reason, as previously mentioned, is to minimise risk and therefore persuade more contributors. The mindset is "it is only US$10, so why not?".

    Secondly, larger contributions tend to attract undue influence. Naturally, the person who invests US$90 000 in a 100k film project is bound to have both intended/unintended influence in the final film product. An equal amount is suggested to minimise risk and give the film producer finance with total independence of any influence.

    If you are so desperate to donate US$100, give 90 to a charity. :)


    film finance: I beg to differ and these are why!

    Chief r, I am afraid your finance idea might not yield the desired results, and these are why!
    First of all, I am impressed you were able to defend your $10 cap but I hate to say your defense crumbles with little scrutiny.
    Would your $10 cap be a good-way to enforce risk-sharing?Possibly. But should we enforce risk-sharing? Nope! Having read most of your contributions on this site, i could safely infer your literacy in Economics. But I think you may have somehow forgotten the golden rule that the free market should not be interrupted unless there is a market failure (i call it a market disease). This golden rule would become clearer if you find time to read "The wealth of nations" by Adam Smith, father of Modern Economics. In simple language, you should allow rational agents to decide for themselves. Notice that people vary in their love for risk (we have risk-loving, risk-neutral, risk-averse agents). Hence if a risk-seeking donor wants to invest $1000, he should be allowed to do so. Notice it would be a bad idea to force people to eat rice instead of gari because some people might actually prefer the latter. All a policy-maker has to do is to provide the choices (gari, rice, millet, etc) and let consumers select their favorites!
    Secondly, a $10 would indeed require a large amount of investors; however, I am struggling to understand why a large number of investors is necessary. Let me ask you a question. Would you prefer to be dying in the presence of a multitude or in the presence of just a single individual (Hint: It's a trick question). Answering this question would be facilitated with familiarity with what psychologists call "the bystanders/onlookers problem" (you may google it). I prefer to call it the curse of dimensionality problem because confusion blows up with size of contributors. I'll elaborat further:
    Apart from risk-reduction, you argued wrongly , in my opinion ,that a larger size of contributors would decrease interruptions with the project. What you seem to have overlooked is that, since everyone has equal say in the group, everyone wants his/her idea to be incorporated into the project. Every contributor in this case plays a marginal role: Kwame thinks the project would be incomplete without his $10 so he would want his voice to be heard; so does Ama, yaw and kwadwo.
    If you however allow people to contribute freely, the few people who contribute the most could be decision makers or, in the MBA man's lingo, be the controlling share-holders (MBA peeps, please correct me if i am wrong). If you think a little bit about this, you would see that the people who contribute the most may have relatively higher valuation of the project and so it may even be a remarkable boon for the project if they make the decisions. What do you think?
    Gyasi K Dapaa


    the joy of the dismal science

    Your opinion is precisely why economics is doomed to remain the dismal science ! :)

    I don't consider the maximum contribution some sort of "enforcement". After all, as you correctly say, in a free market the investor is totally free not to invest in the project. Each film producer is free to dictate their terms of receiving monies. So, in a free market, film producer 1 can accept payments under "my" model and producer 2 can choose "your" model! Problem solved; moreover, we can observe over time which business model is likely to be more successful. Of course, I believe my idea is more superior, hehehe...

    As for the increased populace/increased interruption model, I shall cheat and refine my idea further: all equal donations are submitted with a full waiver of seeking influence.

    The idea of investors valuing a project of greater value than US$10 is interesting. In reply, I would say that the investor should wait for preferential shares in the flotation of the film producer's film production company. Over to you!