logo
Swimming with Sharks: Behind the (underwater) lens

Swimming with Sharks: Behind the (underwater) lens

American Press6 hours ago
Dan Beecham is a British underwater cinematographer who specializes in shooting wildlife sequences for documentaries. In this photo Beecham took, he films Bertie Gregory for his latest show, 'Sharks Up Close With Bertie Gregory.' (Dan Beecham / National Geographic)
Patience is a crucial virtue for a cinematographer — in particular for underwater cameraman Dan Beecham.
Beecham was part of a team of divers and cinematographers who followed National Geographic explorer Bertie Gregory on a cage-free mission to film the great white sharks off the coast of South Africa.
The film, 'Sharks Up Close With Bertie Gregory' premieres at 9 p.m. today on National Geographic and will stream starting July 6 on Disney+ and Hulu as part of the channel's 15 days of 'Sharkfest' presentations.
'What's nice in this film is it did give quite an honest representation of what wildlife filming can be like,' Beecham said in a Zoom interview with the American Press. 'It can be a lot of sitting around in a boat, in the rain, everyone getting kind of fed up because things aren't happening. But the reality is at any moment the next 10 minutes could be what makes the film.'
Beecham said it only takes minutes for the water's visibility to change, for the wildlife sought to appear, and for the magic to happen.
'You've got to stay a bit frosty all the time and even when for weeks on end the thing's not happening — as you see in the film — you just have to pretend it is going to happen at any moment, really,' Beechum said.
The team spent five weeks in Plettenberg Bay, South Africa, searching for the elusive white shark. Some days involved diving as long as five hours at a time.
'Every morning when 5 a.m. rolls around and you're getting up to get out to sea for sunrise, and you haven't dived in weeks, you've got to pretend everything is going to happen — the gears are ready, the batteries are charged, everything is perfect on the camera because the universe knows when you let your guard drop, that's when it all happens,' he said. 'We've had to learn that the hard way.'
Beecham said the job can have its drawbacks — like being away from home quite often, moving in and out of airports, and experiencing extreme temperatures — but it's something he adores doing.
'It often looks like more fun than it is, but we all love those moments when the really big thing happens that we might not have ever seen before,' he said. 'We might know no one else has seen this on TV before and you're looking down at the monitor seeing something amazing on screen and you know it's going to be on a big screen one day. That's an amazing buzz. That's a drug that's impossible to replicate. As a cameraman, it gives you such an adrenaline hit.'
Underwater, there's no script and surprises happen.
Though the film's focus is the white shark, playful seals followed the cameraman around, popping up to examine his monitors. He also captured footage of a mother whale sleeping as her calf rode her dorsal fin.
'We never would have guessed that would happen on that shoot,' Beecham said. 'Just by spending the time out there, having the right approach with the animals — myself and Bertie have both worked with whales a lot in different parts of the world — and with a very cautious manner, that's what gets you those encounters.'
No two dives are alike. Beecham said he learns something new each time — either about himself or the world around him.
'Especially in South Africa where the weather changes so much, the ocean changes so much. Everywhere you go these days people say the weather is different, the weather is changing more. That makes shoots very difficult to plan and predict because the conditions are so unpredictable. That means you have to be ready for anything at any time. Each thing that happens you have to take as a gift because it might not happen again.'
The ultimate message of the film is how humans and sharks can share the ocean together. By entering their domain, Beecham said the team quickly discovered the challenges sharks are facing on this rapidly changing planet.
'It's a bold topic to go towards with the film because the two attacks there that happened where very shocking for the town. It was pretty horrific attacks,' he said. 'We're certainly not making light of those by going and diving with these animals. We do it with the upmost respect. But it's an important topic to shine a light on and talk about and it's good for Bertie to go and speak to all of the stakeholders — the shark spotters and all the different parties that are involved there — and get an understanding from an outsiders' point of view. There's a line Bertie says in the film, 'You can't manage sharks, but you can manage people,' to make it to where sharks and people can co-exist. That's a great way to sum this up. That's what has to happen, basically.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Body shots and age-gap relationships: New 'Bachelor in Paradise' season promises intrigue
Body shots and age-gap relationships: New 'Bachelor in Paradise' season promises intrigue

USA Today

timean hour ago

  • USA Today

Body shots and age-gap relationships: New 'Bachelor in Paradise' season promises intrigue

NEW YORK – The beaches of ABC's "Bachelor in Paradise" are nearly open, and host Jesse Palmer isn't ruling out a summer of inter-generational love. The show, a popular spinoff of "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette," for the first time will feature contestants from the original dating franchise alongside cast members from "The Golden Bachelor" and "The Golden Bachelorette." New additions under the "Bachelor" umbrella, the "Golden" shows follow senior citizens as they search for second-chance romance. "Obviously, we have two different generations," Palmer said at a July 2 cocktail party celebrating the show's upcoming premiere (July 7, Mondays at 8 ET/PT; streams next day on Hulu). "I'm not in a position to tell anybody who they're allowed to love," he said. "I just encouraged everyone to stay in their generational lane and not make it weird." That advice may be welcome for fans of the franchise, popularly dubbed Bachelor Nation, who reacted with raised eyebrows when an intergenerational cast was first announced. The crew: 'Bachelor in Paradise' cast reveal: Find out which 'Golden' cast members have joined The consensus seemed to be: Are we really about to watch an alcohol-fueled sandy romp into age-gap relationships? Not quite, Palmer assured, but he wouldn't rule it out. "Listen, I can't sit here and say it didn't happen. But that was at least the instruction that was given," he hedged. "But everybody's on the beach single and they have free will, so I'll just leave it at that." As for the alcohol portion, the "Golden" contestants could drink the young 'uns (and Palmer himself) under the table, he revealed. "When the Goldens show up, they got 'Paradise' lit," he joked. "They got there at 10:15 in the morning, surprised the younger cast, and at 10:19 they were doing body shots off each other in the pool." Keith and Jack from the "Golden Bachelorette" can hold their liquor the best, he revealed, a fact former contestant and series bartender Well Adams attributed to the fact that they opt for no-frills beverages like whiskey neat over sugary margaritas. Kathy from the "Golden Bachelor" is a close third, Palmer said, joking she could "drink me under the table." 'Bachelorette' star Hannah Brown to join 'Bachelor in Paradise' cast Jesse Palmer downplays new 'Golden Bachelor' Mel scandal The prospect of mixed-age couples comes at a precarious time for the "Golden Bachelor," after the series' newest star, Mel Owens, landed in hot water over comments made on a podcast earlier this month. Owens, 66, told host Jon Jansent on the "In the Trenches" podcast that he would "cut" women over 60 who wound up on his upcoming season, due in September. "We had lunch with the executive producer. I said, 'You know, if they're 60 or over, I'm cutting them,'" Owens quipped. The producer's response? "Oh Mel, you can't, you know, this is not the 'Silver Bachelor.' It's the 'Golden Bachelor.'" Owens said. "He goes, but they're going to be hot, don't worry about it. Don't worry about it." The profession presented an immediate PR snafu for ABC, whose pitch for the show relies on the idea that it's never too late for love. For a program with a primarily female fan base, the optics of a lead tilting into a well-worn stereotype of an older man unwilling to date women his own age were precarious. But Palmer shrugged it off. "I've seen the headlines … I haven't heard the podcast," he said. "I haven't spent a ton of time yet with Mel, we haven't started filming 'Golden' yet. I will say the limited time I've been with him, (he) seems like a good guy. I'm sure that's something that him and I are going to talk about."

Disney: a "Value" Story Waiting to Be Heard
Disney: a "Value" Story Waiting to Be Heard

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Disney: a "Value" Story Waiting to Be Heard

Disney's financials were able to tell me a fascinating story, just like many of its movies and TV series. The story begins in 2019 with a deterioration that seemed not only drastically degenerative but also unfixable; then, with a surprise twist, it suddenly changed course over the past two years. The protagonist? The entertainment segment, specifically, DTC. Initially seen by the market as the villain of the story, precisely due to the unpredictability of its results; a factor that had previously scared off major investors like Buffett himself. Specifically, I wonder: how will Disney succeed in integrating its MOATs into the new entertainment vehicles? Well, in my view, there is one that gives it an incredible advantage here too. But first... Warning! GuruFocus has detected 7 Warning Sign with DIS. I immediately bring Buffett into play, and the stories shared by the Oracle of Omaha, always a cornerstone in my investment style. First, I'd like to mention that Disney has some of thoseunique and diverse qualitiesrequired to clear the first filter of a value investor, you will grin when I tell you that, at that point, Buffett himself had decided tosell out from DIS ... with regret. The reasons? The usual ones: unpredictable returns. And in this, his lifelong colleague Munger also finds justification, whose reasoning will help enrich the risk section of this article (we'll see that soon). Similar to Gayner, known as the mini Buffett, with Markel Gayner Asset Management Corp. Same uncertainties, but two different periods. The first ones, the uncertainty lay in the transition to cable TV with a volatile model. And for today's investors, From cable TV to the new DTC services. Since 1997, when Buffett was deciding whether to sell or hold DIS, Disney has changed. It is no longer just an entertainment vehicle, but a legacy conglomerate. From the 10-K we know that about 46% comes from the main segment: entertainment. Then the second source of income is experience (38%), followed by sports (ESPN and similar) at 19.7%. This is net of intersegment eliminations. 50% of the entertainment segment's revenue comes from DTC, which includes the streaming service. Here, it competes through Disney+, and partly also with Hulu, with around 186 million subscribers, behind the giant Netflix in this regard, which has over 260 million subscribers, not to mention it is also the most expensive platform. Disney holds a 4.6% share of the DCT segment, Netflix 8.5%, YouTube (11.1%). DIS's financials tell a story, and it's a pleasure to listen to it. You can feel a rising climate of tension from the statement that started in 2019; you wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the CEOs from that period. If you followed the events, both Bob Iger and Bob Chapek were criticized in turn: First for the acquisition of 21st Century Fox, then for the pandemic, dragged down by closed parks, empty theaters, and Disney+ running at a loss., empty theaters, and Disney+ running at a loss. And if it's true that numbers speak, at the time a value investor would indeed have had reason to be afraid. But let's bring some order to it. Here's a TLDR: from 2019 to 2023, revenue and EPS collapsed, and total debt doubled with the FOX acquisition; cash burn increased steadily, and no new cash was being generated. ROIC fell below WACC, weighed down by macro conditions. The market fled from DIS stock. Now it's worth taking a look at these indicators: Net income grew by 111% in 2024 year-over-year, and TTM results already show a 411% increase. The CFO is breathing again, up 41% YoY, confirming a significant upward trend also in FCF, both levered and unlevered grew by nearly 30%. All three business segments are recovering, but what I liked the most was the strong rebound in the entertainment segment, with income up 171%. A major contributor to this was the reduced loss in the DTC segment. The DTC segment has reached breakeven; and if it were to maintain its current margins, there would be a potential operating margin of 5.5% (considering $336 million in operating income on $6.118 billion in revenue), even though this projection is not confirmed by the guidance. Considering the negative role it has played in DIS's financials over the past years, in my view a new scenario is opening up for Disney, one that the market may begin to price in. The operating margin of the DTC segment in the 10-K was 142/22,776, approximately 0.63%; while in the FY2024 10-Q, it stands at 5.5%. And I ask myself: if we extend the time horizon to 10 years, is it really unreasonable to assume that DIS could maintain the FY24 Q1 operating margin? In my view, not at all, especially considering that Netflix operating margin is around 20%. And this is feasible given that Disney has one of the strongest MOATs in the entertainment landscape: the Disney Characters. Animated characters don't age and don't renegotiate contracts, leveraging a cross-generational appeal that remains valid for decades (natural loyalty), which other platforms don't have. And with the expansion of its IP base through Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, and 20th Century Fox, Disney will be able to keep its MOAT alive over the years, while also reducing competition in other sub-markets (like live-action). And this translates into the numbers through improved pricing power: it's no coincidence that the increase in prices (ARPU) and advertising revenues have driven the recovery of the DTC segment. So, what would a 5.5% operating margin contribute to DIS's overall EPS? Projecting the $6,118 million from the 10-Q across four quarters gives $24,472 million in annual revenue. At a 5.5% margin, that's about $1,346 million in operating income. Assuming only 26% of that becomes net income (as per total estimates), we get $350 million in incremental net profit. Considering that $4,972 million was reported in 2024, the DTC segment alone would generate a 7% increase in total net income. And this doesn't even factor in potential positive impacts on the other two segments, Experience and ESPN. But we can take it a step further: the FCF/Net Income ratio is about 1.5x. So the EPS increase generated by the DTC segment would translate into an incremental FCF of 7% 1.5 = 10.5%. This is the real reason why it might become attractive again to value investors. Over the past 10 years, FCF growth has been around 5%, but if that's the case, it wouldn't be so far-fetched to imagine it rising to at least 1015%, especially considering that entertainment is Disney's least capex-heavy segment (only 18% of the entertainment segment's FCO went into CAPEX, according to the latest 10-K). We now have the data to build a solid valuation section: If we assume that the DTC segment continues to contribute positively to FCF, and we apply an FCF/Net Income ratio of 1.5x, the EPS growth rate would reach 10% (i.e., 15% FCF growth 1.5). With a 10-year time horizon, that results in EPS10Y = 3.06 (1 + 0.10)? = 7.94 dollars. So, the forward P/E at 10 years would be 14x. Attractive. Using a simple DCF calculator from GuruFocus, I get a margin of safety of 33% with an 8% WACC, based on 10-year adjusted assumptions and an optimistic FCF growth rate of 15% over the next decade. Keeping the WACC fixed at 8%, which I consider reasonable, but lowering the FCF growth rate to a more conservative 10%, the model still yields a margin of safety of 5.78%. Would Buffett and Munger see more clarity in today's Disney? And would the mini Buffett be justified in holding it? In my opinion, Munger would disagree. To prove it, I refer to the Discovery case, appreciated by Munger because it lacked live-action content; a component that in theory represents Disney's MOAT. And that's a problem because it would erode the compounding effect generated by cash flows from the DTC segment, the very engine that supports my thesis. To quantify the risk, I follow an unorthodox but practical method, the Star Wars method: compared to Star Wars: Episode VII, the average budget for the following two films increased by +29%, while ROI dropped from 8x to 4x (from the reading of box office data). Film Budget WW Box Office ROI Episode VII (2015) $245M $2.07B 8.4x Episode VIII (2017) $317M $1.33B 4.2x Episode IX (2019) $275M $1.08B 3.9x This is a pattern not seen in other animated series, like the classic Toy Story, which maintained a ROI close to 5x with more linear budgets. While I recognize this doesn't depend solely on actor costs, on average, live-action films tend to see production costs increase progressively by around 20% (in line with these figures), and this directly impacts ROI. What if this cancels out the incremental EPS growth estimated for the DTC segment? In that case, EPS would grow by only +4.18% over the next 10 years. As a result, the forward P/E at 10 years would be 25x,which would be excessive, even compared to today's forward P/E distribution. In essence, the price would become congested. And that's a risk. I find it fascinating to see how Disney's management has been able to navigate the complications that emerged after 2019. And although the market hasn't fully caught on yet, the financials clearly reflect this recovery, and between the lines, a segment emerges: DTC. This could become the engine for a new level of cash generation and profit. With the right time horizon, Disney's unmistakable MOAT, which I identify in the Disney Characters, will once again play a decisive role, and in my view, DIS stock prices will have to adjust to these new prospects. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.

Brad Pitt, Whom So Proudly We Hail
Brad Pitt, Whom So Proudly We Hail

New York Times

time4 hours ago

  • New York Times

Brad Pitt, Whom So Proudly We Hail

So many norms and institutions are broken in these too-often-divided United States. But as we celebrate our nation's 249th birthday, let's also salute one thing that still works: Brad Pitt. Conventional Hollywood wisdom has it that movie stardom is a thing of the past. Of course there are still famous performers who are paid a ton of money to act onscreen, but their hold on audiences has waned. Previous generations of movie fans would turn out for the new Bette Davis picture or the new Clint Eastwood or the new Julia Roberts, the highly paid star serving as a reliable brand, a sexier version of Kellogg's. Contemporary audiences are thought to be more readily drawn to franchises; it's the role, the underlying intellectual property, that has currency now, not the actor. As Anthony Mackie, who plays The Falcon in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, put it somewhat morosely several years ago: 'Anthony Mackie isn't a movie star; The Falcon is a movie star.' Or maybe neither is? Mr. Mackie and The Falcon sputtered to a disappointing (by Marvel standards) $200 million gross for their February release of 'Captain America: Brave New World.' But the actor's larger point has been borne out: The two movies with far and away the biggest domestic grosses so far this year, each at well over $400 million, are 'A Minecraft Movie,' based on a video game, and 'Lilo & Stitch,' a live-action remake of a 23-year-old Disney animated film. The latter picture had a cast largely of unknowns, unless you count voices of Zach Galifianakis and Courtney B. Vance, used for CGI characters. The former picture's grosses weren't hurt by casting Jack Black and Jason Momoa, but the primacy of the underlying I.P. is attested to by the very title: The producers didn't need to call it 'The Minecraft Movie.' The indefinite article — this could be any old Minecraft movie — was enough. Anyway, I'm not here to dispute conventional wisdom. I'm here to celebrate the old-school triumph of 'F1: The Movie,' the Brad Pitt racecar vehicle (sort of literally) that debuted last weekend with upwards of $145 million at the worldwide box office, the best opening of Mr. Pitt's career. True, there's underlying I.P. here, too: F1 is Formula 1; the title is even trademarked. But this is a sport way down on most viewers' lists. The sell here is Brad Pitt in a fast car. Vroom! Pedal to the metal! The carbon footprint is all-American! I wouldn't say the success is all on Mr. Pitt: The race sequences are genuinely thrilling. But the surprise of 'F1' is that it's a rare contemporary movie that knows how to use a movie star, and Mr. Pitt is one of the rare contemporary movie stars who knows how to be used. He's content to bathe in the camera's rapturous gaze, understanding just how much to give and never overdoing it, exuding confidence as both character and performer. He smiles but rarely grins, mostly keeping his lovely teeth to himself, always just a little bit wary. In opposition, he doesn't glare, just tilts his head back skeptically. He's not soft. Rather, he's got the tensile stillness of Steve McQueen, and the movie even gives him some McQueen shtick: bouncing tennis balls against a wall the way the older actor did in 'The Great Escape,' the epitome of flippant cool. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store