The Possible Implications Of Fox's Aquisition Of The MGM/UA Catalog - Page 2

Robert Crawford · 06-03-2006, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob_HD

But we are discussing the "possible implications" are we not

Speculation is implicit in such a discussion, is it not?

Actually, you're the one that is discussing possible implications by making certain assumptions that will carry over from Blu Ray to HD DVD. I along with some others aren't buying those assumptions because of the lack of factual information so we don't share in your optimism for HD DVD.

Crawdaddy

Rob_HD · 06-03-2006, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nils Luehrmann

A few problems with these statements.

Sony never had complete control of these titles, only a 20% stake in MGM, and distribution rights. After the switch from Sony to Fox as distributor Sony's stake and voting power remain at 20%.

Even without the switch, MGM had the right to release their titles on HD DVD, and if Sony was unwilling or incapable, with a majority vote, they could have switched to a studio/distributor that supports HD DVD.

So no, there has been no change in balance and it isn't more probable that MGM will now release on HD DVD. Perhaps had they switched to Universal as distributor you would have had a case - but they didn't.

As for whether or not your statement about a definite change in power was misleading or not... well not only did you fail to distinguish what you meant by power, but seeing as these threads and this forum are about the HD formats and not about who controls the most titles, then it isn't just an opinion that your statement was misleading - it's a fact proven by your clarification that you were not even talking about the balance of power between HD DVD and Blu-ray.

BTW: Thanks for that clarification.

Not "only did you fail to distingish"..... Well, I think anyone who can understand English understood what I meant...

You can do the "last word" to whatever I say - but it doesn't change what I said - which is that Sony has lost control, and MGM movies (all 4,000 of them) may now be more liklely to end up on HD DVD than before - whereas SONY would have "sat on them" for a lot longer.

My statement was exactly as stated - nothing "misleading" about it. You just don't want to admit that you have a difference of opinion, but would rather make it sound like a difference of fact.

HD DVD has a better chance of getting some of these titles, which represents a shift...

Love, etc, rdjam

p.s. Pretend nothing changed all you like - but the "truth stands behind you and shouts louder than you can talk" (from a wise man...)

Nils Luehrmann · 06-03-2006, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob_HD

Not "only did you fail to distingish"..... Well, I think anyone who can understand English understood what I meant...

Besides the fact that its a personal attack to suggest someone doesn't understand English, who clearly does... your decision not to admit you were being misleading, or at the very least vague is predictable.

Quote:

You can do the "last word" to whatever I say - but it doesn't change what I said - which is that Sony has lost control, and MGM movies (all 4,000 of them) may now be more liklely to end up on HD DVD than before - whereas SONY would have "sat on them" for a lot longer.

Yes, it doesn't change the fact that you said this... nor does it change the fact that you were proven to be wrong, and you do not have your facts straight. Or perhaps you have some evidence that proves Sony had total control over the MGM library and that they could have just sat on these titles. Oh yeah.. that’s right.. MGM just switched distributors so clearly Sony didn’t have any control.

Sony NEVER had the right to "sit on then". MGM has always maintained control over their titles, and with a majority vote could, and did change their video distribution. So once again, your facts are incorrect, and once again, you refuse to admit it. Ironic considering how only a few days ago you made this big declaration about how you are more than willing to admit your mistakes when making factual errors and misleading comments, and that you will even correct yourself.

Quote:

My statement was exactly as stated - nothing "misleading" about it. You just don't want to admit that you have a difference of opinion, but would rather make it sound like a difference of fact.

And yet you were misleading by your generalizations and misrepresentation of the facts and Sony's "control" over the MGM titles.

Once again... MGM has always and remains in control over their titles. Sony temporarily acted as the distributor, now Fox will be.

BTW: Just like Sony, Fox is not in control of MGM's library of films, they will only distribute them as long as MGM decides. Perhaps you were not aware, but this distribution deal that was with Sony and is now with Fox is extremely minor. The entire contract is said to generate only about $25 million dollars of revenue a year, considering distribution costs, the amount of profit from this deal will likely end up being much less. Fox and Sony have made more than that in one day from sales of one DVD title.

Quote:

HD DVD has a better chance of getting some of these titles, which represents a shift...

And yet they don't, because Sony was never in control of that happening, and neither is Fox. However, considering that MGM selected two of the strongest supporters of Blu-ray as their distributor suggests they are not even close to considering releasing titles on HD DVD, either that or they are not planning very far in advance.

Quote:

Love, etc, rdjam

Welcome to HTF rdjam. Please understand that HTF is a VERY different place than AVS, and the same kind of behavior you have exhibited there, wont be well received here, as evidence by the responses your posts have received.

Quote:

p.s. Pretend nothing changed all you like

If you feel it necessary to suggest anyone is pretending, I strongly urge you to reread your posts...

I’ve addressed the facts. You’ve either misrepresented them, or avoided them, and instead of supporting your statement, you make a personal attack as your defense.

OK, so I guess like your petition threads, you aren't going to support your statements with actual substantiated facts, and that you were mistaken about the type of and amount of control Sony had over MGM titles, and that instead of addressing these points your response is to suggest anyone that disagrees with you is simply pretending, and/or doesn’t understand English. If this is the case, then clearly you have no interest in a civil and rational debate based on actual verifiable facts.

Rob_HD · 06-04-2006, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nils Luehrmann

A few problems with these statements.

Sony never had control of these titles, only a 20% stake in MGM, and distribution rights. After the switch from Sony to Fox as distributor Sony's stake and voting power remain at 20%.

Even without the switch, MGM had the right to release their titles on HD DVD, and if Sony was unwilling or incapable, with a majority vote, they could have switched to a studio/distributor that supports HD DVD.

So no, there has been no change in balance and it isn't more probable that MGM will now release on HD DVD. Perhaps had they switched to Universal as distributor you would have had a case - but they didn't.

As for whether or not you statement about a definite change in power was misleading or not... well not only did you fail to distinguish what you meant by power, but seeing as these threads and this forum are about the HD formats and not about who controls the most titles, then it isn't just an opinion that your statement was misleading - it's a fact proven by your clarification that you were not even talking about the balance of power between HD DVD and Blu-ray.

BTW: Thanks for that clarification.

I've chosen to reply to your original, unedited post, to avoid going over any more of the personal stuff than necessary.

The fact that Sony had distribution rights "was" control of the distribution. This is the control that I have been talking about. It meant that they could choose which movies to release on home video, and how, and in which format. It doesn't mean that MGM couldn't express a desire for certain actions to be taken, but Sony was in de-facto charge otherwise.

This "distribution control" (which is a fact) was taken away by an MGM board vote, taking advantage of a one-year "underperformance clause" in the contract. Sony now does not have "control" over the library.

My statement was not misleading, nor has my behaviour in this discussion strayed into any grey areas which might affect the standards of the forum. All that I have done is weathered a substantial amount of flack over an apparently unpopular, but justifiable viewpoint.

I hope I meet Rdjam sometime, as this is almost becoming funny.

Robert Crawford · 06-04-2006, 06:56 AM

I hope I meet Rdjam sometime, as this is almost becoming funny.

I don't think it's funny and it would be best that you don't use it in your posts like this reference "Love, etc, rdjam".

Furthermore, I find this bickering not funny either and I'm sure plenty of our members feel the same way. I speak for the rest of the HTF Staff in saying that our patience with this type of posting activity and reported posts has just about run it's course.

Crawdaddy

Lew Crippen · 06-04-2006, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob_HD

...

This "distribution control" (which is a fact) was taken away by an MGM board vote, taking advantage of a one-year "underperformance clause" in the contract. Sony now does not have "control" over the library.

To me at least, it is not at all clear that being responsible for distribution means that either of the distribution entities is also responsible for any (or most) decision-making issues.

I have not been able to read in any of the information to which I have access, anything that indicated that either Sony or Fox will make significant, strategic decisions (such as which format is used, or which movies get preferential treatment).

This does not mean that it is not possible for Sony to have made those decisions and that Fox is now in control—only that there is no reason to suppose that Fox does anything other than distribute.

Mark Zimmer · 06-04-2006, 01:37 PM

What has changed, in other words, is not the extent of Sony's control, but our information about what that control was in the first place. We had been making our conjectures under the assumption that Sony had a majority interest in MGM's library, and that turns out not to have been the case, and it's only a 20% interest. That in itself has implications, but not the change in distributorship per se, so far as I see.

Rob_HD · 06-04-2006, 06:50 PM

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002577675

"While Sony will lose access to MGM titles that it can release on Blu-ray, its efforts to promote the technology will still be buttressed by the fact that Fox also is known as a strong Blu-ray supporter."

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2004/nf20040914_9402_db016.htm

"The MGM film library, which includes the James Bond, Rocky, and Pink Panther titles, will generate sales from pay-per-view video and DVD. And the combination of Sony's 4,000-title film library with MGM's 4,500-film library will give Sony control of 40% of the home-viewing movie market. "

http://dvd.themanroom.com/dvd-newsview.php?id=00122

"Fox to distribute MGM home video catalog
May 31, 2006
MGM has announced they are moving the distribution of their domestic home video catalog to Fox from Sony, whom had been distributing MGM titles for nearly a year after acquiring the company. Fox now gains distribution control of over 4,000 titles and roughly 10,000 hours of television series.

As of today, Sony still has plans to release MGM's "The Last Waltz" on Blu-ray later this month, as well as "Species" and "The Terminator" in late July. "Robocop" had been planned for a Blu-ray release but has mysteriously vanished from all Sony press materials. Whether Sony will relinguish control of these titles to Fox, a staunch supporter of Blu-ray, in the coming days remains to be seen.

Fox has yet to announce their first Blu-ray offerings, though rumors point towards a September or October debut."

LA Times article from the first page:

"The tensions between Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. and its studio investor resulted in a board vote Tuesday that will end the fabled company's reliance on Sony Pictures Entertainment as a distributor of its DVDs and television shows.

News Corp.'s 20th Century Fox Film Corp. will now release MGM's DVDs worldwide. Previously, Fox had split the distribution of MGM's home entertainment properties with Sony, which had handled the domestic sales.
...
MGM also has scratched Sony as the global distributor of its television shows and will once again handle sales in-house as it had as a stand-alone studio.

Sony, however, will release, as planned, MGM's upcoming James Bond movie "Casino Royale," scheduled for November. Also, Sony and MGM will co-finance and co-distribute the next Bond installment, with Sony handling the theatrical release and MGM controlling the television and DVD sales. The two companies are discussing partnerships on various other projects.

MGM was able to change its distribution arrangement by exercising a clause in an agreement signed in April 2005, when Sony Entertainment parent Sony Corp., Comcast Corp. and four private equity firms bought the historic studio for $4.9 billion from Kirk Kerkorian.

The clause gave MGM the right to drop Sony as a distributor one year after the purchase if certain performance goals weren't met.

In a phone interview Tuesday, MGM Chief Executive Harry E. Sloan did not deny the tensions between the two companies but downplayed their role in the board vote.
...

Sloan said it was only natural for MGM to control its own TV sales after returning to the business of theatrical distribution this year."