Anyone think that MGM should join up with Warner Bros.? (1 Viewer)

[Nate Spidgewood]

I mean, both companies now have a new relationship ever since they co-financed The Hobbit movie trilogy and that their CEOs/chairmen are actually close friends, so I wonder if Warner Bros. should either buy MGM or sign a new distribution deal (i.e. theatrical, DVD and Blu-ray) for them. When it comes to home entertainment, MGM's distribution deal with Fox is about to expire sometime this year, so because Fox has poor DVD and Blu-ray sales and WB already owns MGM's pre-1986 library since the merger between Turner and Time Warner in 1996, they (WB) should team up with MGM itself and start handling the rest of their library and the other libraries that MGM bought over the years since WB has done a good job handling a lot of film and TV libraries, especially on DVD and Blu-ray. They should even begin using a license of MGM's logo/trademark for the pre-1986 library. So, does anyone think this might (or would likely) happen?

 

[Dick]

Warner Bros. does not need yet another pile of back catalog inventory to let collect dust, as the Paramount tiles already are. The company's Archives are providing us with fairly regular releases now, but with a few exceptions, they have cut way-y back on non-Archive catalog releases, so in the long run, WB Blu-ray releases (other than current stuff) have decreased overall. Plus, the Archive stuff does not yet include any Paramount films, so why throw in post-1986 MGM? They can't even handle what they already have!

 

[ahollis]

MGM has also teamed up with Sony on the Bond pics and has even teamed up Fox 2000 for Poltergeist remake.

MGM is not interested in the library, only in the next best new movie deal. The suits that run the company are deal makers, not movie makers. As most of the companies are now.

 

[Nate Spidgewood]

Warner Bros. does not need yet another pile of back catalog inventory to let collect dust, as the Paramount tiles already are. The company's Archives are providing us with fairly regular releases now, but with a few exceptions, they have cut way-y back on non-Archive catalog releases, so in the long run, WB Blu-ray releases (other than current stuff) have decreased overall. Plus, the Archive stuff does not yet include any Paramount films, so why throw in post-1986 MGM? They can't even handle what they already have!

Well, if you think it would clutter WB's home entertainment library, then would you think Fox should make a sub-licencing contract with MGM and WB to continue releasing select MGM-owned titles?

EDIT: I thought both MGM libraries should come full circle because WB owns the former.

 

[darkrock17]

WB, doesn't need anything else in their massive monopoly, MGM needs to stay as it is.

 

[ahollis]

MGM is doing rather well by sub-licensing their titles to Twilight Time, Shout, and Kino. There is no need for a new distribution agreement as they had with Fox. About five years ago when MGM was on the bankruptcy rail, Warner made a bid but was rejected as to low.

 

[Nate Spidgewood]

MGM has also teamed up with Sony on the Bond pics and has even teamed up Fox 2000 for Poltergeist remake.

MGM is not interested in the library, only in the next best new movie deal. The suits that run the company are deal makers, not movie makers. As most of the companies are now.

I know that. But I've seen that most of MGM's more recent pictures after the second Hobbit movie (If I Stay, Hot Pursuit, Max, Creed, How to Be Single, Barbershop: The Next Cut, Me Before You, and the new Tomb Raider) are with Warner Bros., although most of these are produced through New Line, which is more for genre and B-scale productions. Also, MGM's deal with Sony for the Bond movies just expired after the newest one.

 

[Nate Spidgewood]

MGM is doing rather well by sub-licensing their titles to Twilight Time, Shout, and Kino. There is no need for a new distribution agreement as they had with Fox. About five years ago when MGM was on the bankruptcy rail, Warner made a bid but was rejected as to low.

Well, as I said before, Fox's distribution deal with MGM is about to expire at the end of 2016. What would be next after that could be either a renewal, or a new agreement between WB in case Fox doesn't need all that library fodder anymore, unless Fox would be willing to make a sub-contract with WB to keep licensing select MGM titles just in case those would clutter WB's library too much.

I know WB tried to buy MGM but failed, but I heard the people who are currently in charge of both studios are close friends.

 

[Nate Spidgewood]

WB, doesn't need anything else in their massive monopoly, MGM needs to stay as it is.

Well, they lost one thing 30 years ago: Its entire pre-1986 library, which is in WB's hands now. Also, the current heads of both studio are close friends, which might result in a new distribution deal.

 

[ahollis]

Warner will not touch the MGM library. MGM has to many 3rd party contracts. Even Kino has indicated they will negotiate a new group of movies when they release the ones they have.

Since WB has a larger library than Fox, I most certainly would not want the MGM titles under the WB wing. They would become lost as Paramount and Goldwyn are.

The Fox deal is a distribution deal and not a library deal. MGM told them what they wanted to release. I do see it renewed, for MGM just needs a distributor for their Bond, Rocky, Pink Panther series re-releases and to release their newer product that they control the HV rights to. Fox is perfect for that.

 

[darkrock17]

Well, they lost one thing 30 years ago: Its entire pre-1986 library, which is in WB's hands now. Also, the current heads of both studio are close friends.

The pre-1986 was bought by Ted Turner in the late 80's, but the because of something the deal didn't go through and MGM kept their library in tact till around 1996-1997 when said library was then gobbled up by WB by them aborbing Turner Entertainment.

 

[ahollis]

The pre-1986 was bought by Ted Turner in the late 80's, but the because of something the deal didn't go through and MGM kept their library in tact till around 1996-1997 when said library was then gobbled up by WB by them aborbing Turner Entertainment.

At the time of the Turner purchase, Turner did not have a home entertainment division, so they struck a distribution deal with MGM Home Entertainment. That deal expired about a year or two after WB purchased Turner so they took full control of the pre-1986 titles.

 

[Nate Spidgewood]

Warner will not touch the MGM library. MGM has to many 3rd party contracts. Even Kino has indicated they will negotiate a new group of movies when they release the ones they have.

Since WB has a larger library than Fox, I most certainly would not want the MGM titles under the WB wing. They would become lost as Paramount and Goldwyn are.

The Fox deal is a distribution deal and not a library deal. MGM told them what they wanted to release. I do see it renewed, for MGM just needs a distributor for their Bond, Rocky, Pink Panther series re-releases and to release their newer product that they control the HV rights to. Fox is perfect for that.

I know it's a distribution deal, but the sales were going downhill. If you think MGM's current library would clutter WB's portfolio so much, then WB needs to make a sub-licensing agreement with Fox for select releases. Otherwise, they should obtain a license of MGM's logo/trademark to use it on the pre-1986 library.

 

[Nate Spidgewood]

At the time of the Turner purchase, Turner did not have a home entertainment division, so they struck a distribution deal with MGM Home Entertainment. That deal expired about a year or two after WB purchased Turner so they took full control of the pre-1986 titles.

Yeah, I know all that. That's one of the reasons I suggested this in the first place. I don't see MGM's logo anywhere on the WB covers, but only onscreen in the discs themselves. At least the covers still have MGM's name in the billing information on the back, but oddly enough, it isn't complete without the lion logo, just the WB logo.

 

[Dick]

This whole who-owns-the-rights-to-this-film-now business is a convoluted mess. I'm damned surprised there are people, even on this forum, who have the patience and fortitude to keep track of, say, what has happened over the years with the MGM library (one of the many reasons I love this site).

MGM has licensed a ton of its United Artists catalog to a multitude of distributors for release on Blu-ray these past two years, and I can't express how grateful I am for that. In fact, there are only about a dozen "must-have" titles remaining on my UA wish list, such as THE MIRACLE WORKER, ONE TWO THREE, THE DEFIANT ONES, I WANT TO LIVE, JACK THE GIANT KILLER, THE MAGIC SWORD, SMILE, MOBY DICK -- that last one apparently coming from TT -- which is pretty incredible considering that two years ago there were almost forty! But Warner Bros. does only very limited licensing, and they have the largest inventory of unreleased-to-Blu catalog titles of anyone. That includes their Paramount, & Goldwyn stuff, which has been paid very little attention to. Where are ROMAN HOLIDAY and RAGTIME and THE PARALLAX VIEW and THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH and ATLANTIC CITY and PRETTY BABY, WUTHERING HEIGHTS, the Danny Kaye classics, and WAR OF THE WORLDS and ....etc. etc. These are not titles no one would buy. They are titles a great many of us would buy. But WB is not not even giving these to us through the Archives (I made a suggestion that they do an off-shoot "Paramount Archives" collection, but that probably fell on deaf ears). We're getting a lot of MGM's and RKO's, but what about the remainder of their vast holdings? So, Nate, while I appreciate your ideas and suggestions, and respect your opinions, I just don't think it would be at all wise for WB to take on even more of an inventory it cannot, or would not be willing to, exploit.

 

[Nate Spidgewood]

This whole who-owns-the-rights-to-this-film-now business is a convoluted mess. I'm damned surprised there are people, even on this forum, who have the patience and fortitude to keep track of, say, what has happened over the years with the MGM library (one of the many reasons I love this forum).

MGM has licensed a ton of its United Artists catalog to a multitude of distributors for release on Blu-ray these past two years, and I can't express how grateful I am for that. In fact, there are only about a dozen "must-have" titles remaining on my UA wish list, such as THE MIRACLE WORKER, ONE TWO THREE, THE DEFIANT ONES, I WANT TO LIVE, JACK THE GIANT KILLER, THE MAGIC SWORD, SMILE, MOBY DICK -- that last one apparently coming from TT -- which is pretty incredible considering that two years ago there were almost forty! But Warner Bros. does only very limited licensing, and they have the largest inventory of unreleased-to-Blu catalog titles of anyone. That includes their Paramount, Goldwyn, which have been paid very little attention to. Where are ROMAN HOLIDAY and RAGTIME and THE PARALLAX VIEW and THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH and ATLANTIC CITY and PRETTY BABY, WUTHERING HEIGHTS, the Danny Kaye classics, and WAR OF THE WORLDS and ....etc. etc. These are not titles no one would buy. They are titles a great many of us would buy. But WB is not not even giving these to us through the Archives (I made a suggestion that they do an off-shoot "Paramount Archives" collection, but that probably fell on deaf ears). We're getting a lot of MGM's and RKO's, but what about the remainder of their vast holdings? So, Nate, while I appreciate your ideas and suggestions, and respect your opinions, I just don't think it would be at all wise for WB to take on even more of an inventory it cannot, or would not be willing to, exploit.

That's your opinion. The reason I suggested this is because Fox's home entertainment sales were going downhill, and that I thought not only that MGM's pre-1986 and post-1986 libraries would come full circle, but their current library would also bulk up WB's huge library (because it's also huge), giving them access to the United Artists library, the Orion Pictures library, the PolyGram library, the 1979-1997 Samuel Goldwyn Films library, and a bunch of independent libraries in addition to post-1986 MGM, and the Orion (pre-1982 and post-1982) and Castle Rock (pre-1994 and post-1994) libraries would come full circle under WB as well. But if that's still too much of a large library to handle, then maybe WB should just distribute the post-1986 MGM, United Artists, post-1982 Orion, 1979-1997 Goldwyn and (possibly) pre-1994 Castle Rock libraries and leave the distribution of the rest of the libraries (along with select titles from the MGM, UA, Orion, 1997-1997 Goldwyn, and Castle Rock libraries) to Fox.

 

[Dick]

Okay, but that's your opinion. The reason I suggested this is because Fox's home entertainment sales were going downhill, and that I thought not only that MGM's pre-1986 and post-1986 libraries would come full circle, but their current library would also bulk up WB's huge library (because it's also huge), giving them access to the United Artists library, the Orion Pictures library, the PolyGram library, the 1979-1997 Samuel Goldwyn Films library, and a bunch of independent libraries in addition to post-1986 MGM, and the Orion (pre-1982 and post-1982) and Castle Rock (pre-1994 and post-1994) libraries would come full circle under WB as well. But if that's still too much of a large library to handle, then maybe WB should just distribute the post-1986 MGM, United Artists, post-1982 Orion, 1979-1997 Goldwyn and (possibly) pre-1994 Castle Rock libraries and leave the distribution of the rest of the libraries (along with select titles from the MGM, UA, Orion, 1997-1997 Goldwyn, and Castle Rock libraries) to Fox.

I certainly agree that Warner Bros. should consider some very broad licensing arrangements with multiple distributors. It's the only way they will ever get even a minimally respectable number of their catalog holdings out to those many film aficionados who crave catalog titles (I am among them). I've never understood why WB made that deal with Paramount, only to neglect most of the titles they had the rights to release. How can that be good business?

 

[Nate Spidgewood]

I certainly agree that Warner Bros. should consider some very broad licensing arrangements with multiple distributors. It's the only way they will ever get even a minimally respectable number of their catalog holdings out to those many film aficionados who crave catalog titles (I am among them). I've never understood why WB made that deal with Paramount, only to neglect most of the titles they had the rights to release. How can that be good business?

Yeah, I think they need to either increase their licensing team, or make a sub-licensing agreement with Universal for select Paramount titles (since Universal pretty much handles international home entertainment distribution for everything Paramount now), and then another with Fox and/or Sony for select titles from MGM's library if a deal between WB and MGM were to happen.

 

[OliverK]

I certainly agree that Warner Bros. should consider some very broad licensing arrangements with multiple distributors. It's the only way they will ever get even a minimally respectable number of their catalog holdings out to those many film aficionados who crave catalog titles (I am among them). I've never understood why WB made that deal with Paramount, only to neglect most of the titles they had the rights to release. How can that be good business?

With Warner it sometimes may seem that the strategy is to grab hold of the rights of a movie and then sit on it. Of course things are more complicated but as you say their catalog is immense already and they could double their number of releases per year easily by just working off their own catalog. Regarding the proposition of this thread I consider it very unrealisitc to expect that Warner would create new assets for a notoriously cheap studio like MGM and then release Warner Archive quality releases for them and if it is not about that the currnt sublicensing model that MGM pursues will produce a bigger number of releases than going with Warner coul - just look at the Paramount and MGM catalog titles released in the last years.

 

[Nate Spidgewood]

With Warner it sometimes may seem that the strategy is to grab hold of the rights of a movie and then sit on it. Of course things are more complicated but as you say their catalog is immense already and they could double their number of releases per year easily by just working off their own catalog. Regarding the proposition of this thread I consider it very unrealisitc to expect that Warner would create new assets for a notoriously cheap studio like MGM and then release Warner Archive quality releases for them and if it is not about that the currnt sublicensing model that MGM pursues will produce a bigger number of releases than going with Warner coul - just look at the Paramount and MGM catalog titles released in the last years.

I thought not all of Warners' soon-to-be-possible MGM DVDs and Blu-rays are going to be barebones; I always think those releases are supposed to be packed with special features, similar to Warner's releases of it's own library (pre-1950 and post-1949), the pre-1986 MGM library, and the RKO library. Look at some of the late 1980s/early 1990s MGM/UA VHS's of the United Artists library; those have special features, just like MGM/UA's VHS releases of the Turner-owned libraries (pre-1986 MGM and pre-1950 Warner Bros.) and Turner Home Entertainment's releases of the RKO library.

And yes, MGM should keep their sub-licensing contracts with companies like Criterion, Kino, Olive Films, and Twilight Time; just because they're supposed to replace the Fox deal with Warners doesn't mean it'll hurt those contracts. I mean, Paramount has some sub-licensing contracts with those companies I mentioned, even with their library deal with Warners. Especially Olive Films (for the Republic Pictures library and lesser known Paramount films).