[MatthewA]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...mgm_cable_sale

This article states that MGM is shedding its stakes in its cable holdings, from which it has made no money. They want to buy Vivendi Universal's entertainment assets except for its music division.

Edit: I wrote "film library," when I meant "music division," :b

[Jason Seaver]

I say General Electric/NBC... Universal is planning on charging them a billion dollars total for three years of each Law & Order series, and NBC is the only network not connected to a major studio.

What I'm really afraid of is Universal getting dismantled - the film library going to MGM, the cable channels going to Viacom, etc.

[Craig W]

I wonder how this is going to affect upcoming productions. The one that comes to mind right now is the Peter Jackson remake of King Kong. I knew Universal was in trouble and have been thinking that even though the project was announced it may not happen due the struggles of the studio.

I really want to see a new version of Kong with the advancement of film making technology, not that I don't love the original as well. I really want to see PJ make up for the 1976 travesty.

Hulk is not going to be the huge $200M+ hit they were hoping for. It will probably end up somewhere in the $150M range.

[Peter Kline]

Universal is made up of 3 main parts. The film company (with cable/home video interests), the record label and live attractions (parks). It will be parceled up and sold in pieces to different interests.

[Rex Bachmann]

MatthewA wrote:

Quote:

Who Will Buy Universal?

Let's hope it's not Marvin Davis. What he did to Fox . . . .

Jason Seaver wrote (post #2):

Quote:

What I'm really afraid of is Universal getting dismantled - the film library going to MGM . . . .

Which itself was reportedly on the block earlier this year or late last year . . . . Kirk Kerkorian is another flaky billionaire who never seems to be able to make up his mind whether he wants to be in or out of the game.


My recollection is that Universal Studios has always been a mediocre to bad movie company, run from the early sixties till just a few years ago, before the sale to the alky merchant from the Great White North, by Lew Wasserman (an ex-star-agent) and Sidney Scheinberg ("Mr. I'm-the-boss-around-here-just-let-me-prove-it"). It ran for many years on strong doses of Spielberg "blockbusters" and little else. Now little Stevie is gone down the block, so what can they do?

And, the music biz ain't what it used to be back when MCA (the music "division") bought Universal International (the "horror-movie factory").

Quote:

What I'm really afraid of is Universal getting dismantled - . . . ., the cable channels going to Viacom, etc. . . . I say General Electric/NBC... NBC is the only network not connected to a major studio.

Yeah, I'd say your assessment sounds 'bout right. The difference is, although, theoretically, that reduces the consuming public's chance for more entertainment outlets and more---[ahem!]---"diversity"---in reality, that's shot to hell anyhow in today's copycat trend-following Hollywood---, I won't be sheddin' any tears to see them go, if they do, in fact, end up being split up and parcelled out all over.

And, as deplorably incestuous as the present Hollywood system is, please, please, please let it not go to more "Hollywood outsiders" (Australians (or New Zealanders?), the French, the Canadians, etc.), who've had a (mostly) terrible record at playing the "movie-mogul" game. Only Rupert (Deep Pockets) Murdoch and the Sony people have had a good go of it, both because they've had a looooot of money to spend and because they've had the patience to take tremendous losses to get back into, and stay in, the game. Most "outsiders" aren't willing, much less able, to do this.

P.S.: I bet this is also having a profound affect on the home video programming releases on DVD that Universal HV forecast for this year.

[Rob Gardiner]

After Universal is sold, can we expect the new buyer to release more LAW & ORDER box sets?

[Patrick McCart]

DreamWorks would be the best choice.

They only have a 1997-present catalog...and they've had plenty of success.

[Jason Seaver]

But do they have $11 billion (what MGM is offering)? Likely not.

Quote:

The difference is, although, theoretically, that reduces the consuming public's chance for more entertainment outlets and more---[ahem!]---"diversity"---

Of course, the other side of that is that the vertical integration allows for higher production values. Arguably, if the same company controls broadcast, cable, home video, and syndication rights to a property, they can afford to pour more into it. Unfortunately, the only example I can think of for this happening is the last few Star Trek series, and it's tough to argue that they're evidence of a good thing.

[MatthewA]

Does MGM even have the capital they're offering? Their market capitalization is only $2,980,000,000.

[Rex Bachmann]

MatthewA wrote (post #9):

Quote:

Does MGM even have the capital they're offering? Their market capitalization is only $2,980,000,000.

It's not MGM itself, it's its flaky majority owner, Kirk Kerkorian, who's putting together a consortium which he will dominate in order to raise the $11 billion.

How he intends to fit the pieces together, if his bid wins, is anybody's guess.

[Dan Hitchman]

MGM is far, far worse about home video than Universal even though Universal has had its share of mistakes (Balto and some of their other pan&scan only titles, Jurassic Park DTS, E.T., Back To The Future, Jaws' full documentary being hacked up, etc.).

No DTS either if MGM takes over. That would really suck.

MGM is almost going the way of Artisan for how it treats a lot of its catalog titles. At least Universal went so far as to include DTS on some of their older titles, including Weird Science, The Money Pit, Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, etc.

This doesn't look good!

I'd much rather have Spielberg/Katzenburg/Geffen get an investment group together and have DreamWorks buy it. At least then you'd have two film lovers controlling Universal's archive.

Dan