Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo
- - - - -

Press Release: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Celebrated 90 Years of Extraordinary Filmmaking

MGM

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#61 of 69 OFFLINE   Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    captveg



  • 7,739 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted January 24 2014 - 11:12 AM

Fanboy talk. Fox humilated them last year with the vast of catalogue titles released on blu-ray. They were beaten up on their own anniversary! :lol: Warner sucks :thumbsdown:

 

Fox was playing catch-up to Warner. Warner released far more classic titles from 2007-2012. But let's just ignore everything they released prior to 2013 for a convenient yet incomplete narrative...


"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932


#62 of 69 OFFLINE   JoHud

JoHud

    Producer



  • 3,055 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 11 2007
  • Real Name:Joe Hudak

Posted January 24 2014 - 11:34 AM

Again, it seems WB isn't allowed to use "MGM" or "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer" branding on their products because MGM is still a registered trademark.  That's why many of there MGM sets use more roundabout ways for advertising them, like the "Dream Factory" collections and so-forth. 

 

Throughout most of the '90s, Warner Brothers was allowed to use the MGM branding and trademark, such as when they went about making a documentary miniseries called MGM: When the Lion Roared, because Warner Brothers had struck a deal with MGM/UA that allowed MGM's home video department to release the WB-owned MGM classics, which lasted up until 1999.

 

As to why they don't work together anymore, my guess is that MGM's current arrangements with 20th Century Fox make it a sticky proposition.

 

 

Fox was playing catch-up to Warner. Warner released far more classic titles from 2007-2012. But let's just ignore everything they released prior to 2013 for a convenient yet incomplete narrative...

 

And let's not be too quick to forget Fox's 75th anniversary in 2010.  Compared to the other anniversaries that have popped up since, it was one big dud.



#63 of 69 OFFLINE   Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    captveg



  • 7,739 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted January 24 2014 - 11:38 AM

Warner did license the Mad Max BD from MGM for the recent US Trilogy release. They were also able to license The Terminator in 2012 for the Anthology box (and even more amazing, Terminator 2 from the extremely difficult to license from Lionsgate).


"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932


#64 of 69 OFFLINE   ahollis

ahollis

    Producer



  • 6,110 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2007
  • Real Name:Allen
  • LocationNew Orleans

Posted January 24 2014 - 12:15 PM

The best way for MGM to celebrate their 90th anniversary is for High Society and Three Little Words to be released on blu-ray. I doubt that the general population cares about who currently owns the rights to the films as long as they are released. Warners should help them celebrate.

That will never happen. Why should they help? Warner would not share profits in order to release them and MGM would not allow then to use their trademarked logo on titles they have no monetary interest in. Yes I know the lion is on all the pre 1986 MGM films but there was agreement to allow the Leo to stay on all elements when Ted Turner purchased them. I used to have an aversion to the anniversaries that use so much of past films that another company made, such as Warner using MGM and RKO or Universal using Paramount, but I came to realization that those titles belong to them and are now a part if their history and the anniversary is about the company, not the films.
"Get a director and a writer and leave them alone. That`s how the best pictures get made" - William "Wild Bill" Wellman


#65 of 69 OFFLINE   JohnMor

JohnMor

    Producer



  • 3,920 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2004
  • Real Name:John Moreland
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted January 24 2014 - 01:18 PM

I used to have an aversion to the anniversaries that use so much of past films that another company made, such as Warner using MGM and RKO or Universal using Paramount, but I came to realization that those titles belong to them and are now a part if their history and the anniversary is about the company, not the films.

 

True.  Plus, anything that gets the films released is a good thing, regardless of whether it's under the banner of its original studio.



#66 of 69 OFFLINE   Osato

Osato

    Screenwriter



  • 2,474 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 07 2001

Posted January 26 2014 - 09:58 AM

My understanding is that it's just GB&U and that the other two are the same previous discs, similar to the new Rocky set.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

 

Has this been confirmed???



#67 of 69 OFFLINE   MatthewA

MatthewA

    Lead Actor



  • 6,682 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000
  • Real Name:Matthew
  • LocationSalinas, CA

Posted January 26 2014 - 10:55 AM

I just want the films out and I want them to look as good as they possibly can. I couldn't care less whether or not they're part of some "collection" that's basically just an excuse to bundle up second-rate movies with the first-rate ones people actually want to buy (i.e. the Disney direct-to-video sequels on Blu-ray strategy).


Enough is enough, Disney. No more evasions or excuses. We DEMAND the release Song of the South on Blu-ray along with the uncut version of Bedknobs and Broomsticks on Blu-ray. I am going to boycott The Walt Disney Company until then. And while you're at it, PLEASE stop dropping DVD/laserdisc extras from Blu-ray releases of other films.


#68 of 69 OFFLINE   Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    captveg



  • 7,739 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted January 26 2014 - 12:04 PM

I wouldn't call A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More second rate in the likes of Disney DTV sequels by any means.And no, nothing has been confirmed yet.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932


#69 of 69 OFFLINE   JoHud

JoHud

    Producer



  • 3,055 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 11 2007
  • Real Name:Joe Hudak

Posted January 26 2014 - 12:33 PM

I wouldn't call A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More second rate in the likes of Disney DTV sequels by any means.

 

I certainly wouldn't in regards to the first 3 "man with no name" films.  Not even Rocky (well, most of them...)

 

However, I did feel that way about the Magnificent Seven sequels.  I think it took a full year for the original movie to be available as a standalone.  Though now that full collection is almost as cheap as the standalone, so it's a great deal all-around.

 

I'm more annoyed at this TGTB&TU because it's a complete double dip with only one film likely to receive an improvement.







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users