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

[Randy Korstick]

Remember Warner only has a limited licensing deal with Paramount they do not own their catalog and cannot order Paramount to make HD masters for blu rays of catalog titles. When Paramount finishes a master it is available for Warner to release if they want to release it. They have no control over this other than releasing an available title or not releasing it. Making lists of Paramount titles not released that have no blu ray master from Paramount and then blaming Warner for not releasing something that Paramount has not created is silly.

 

[Alan Tully]

A big NO. Warner have enough on their plate.

 

[Dick]

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.

Not everything, Nate. Only the earlier Paramount titles belong to Universal. It's Warner Bros. alone who is holding up Blu-ray releases of post-1940's titles, and they should be ashamed. I am sure Mr. Feltenstein is going nuts trying to get these titles out.

 

[ahollis]

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.

Your not going to see the MGM logo on the covers of of the Warner owned MGM titles. I don't see a need for it for as you say it's mentioned in the credits and the lion still roars before the movie.

What would be the benefit to adding the logo?

Also Warner does now have a licensing agreement with the Samuel Goldwyn estate and have had it for about two years when MGM choose not to renew.

And as for Fox sales declining, that's a statement that is true for all companies. Moving MGM to Warners would not increase their sales.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

It is my understanding that Warner bid, and lost that bid on obtaining MGM titles a few years ago.

I know that Warner wanted that library. It was at a time that we were still waiting for restorations of MAD WORLD and THE ALAMO.

Had the library gone to Warner, I am confident those restorations would have been done.

So, really, the best thing that could have happened to the MGM library is to fall under Warner's hands. They have the money, the knowledge of the library, and the needed care to take care of films that MGM/Fox would never do on their own.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Given the current state of home media, I think such a deal is very unlikely.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Given the current state of home media, I think such a deal is very unlikely.

Yeah, probably.

But, remember, out of any other studio out there, Warner has the most knowledge about the MGM film library, and puts the most care into their releases.

With people like George Feltenstein at the helm, I can't help but think he would be salivating over the opportunity to obtain the rest of the MGM library. I only bring his name into this because I know he's a man that is knowledgeable and caring.

However, George is not the man in charge. Again, I know Warner bid for the library a few years back, but everything has changed so much over the past couple of years.

 

[Ed Lachmann]

How about Warner Brothers partnering up with MGM, or better yet, just loaning out a large part of their library to folks like Kino, TT or Olive? Maybe then the thousands of masterpieces locked away and forgotten in vaults rotting will have a chance in hell of getting a blu-ray release for we fans. Woody Allen once wrote about God that the one thing you could say about him is that he's an underachiever. That's an understatement as it applies to WB.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

If WB were to buy MGM and put George in charge of the library, I'd be interested. George's knowledge of the MGM library is encyclopedic.

 

[battlebeast]

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!

The archive has released some paramount films.

 

[Robert Harris]

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?

The problem that one gets into, is that WB, not being a typical sub, has little interest in putting out second class product from a quality perspective.

And a great percentage of the MGM library are as good as orphan films.

The only difference being that some orphan films find good parents.

 

[JoeDoakes]

Remember Warner only has a limited licensing deal with Paramount they do not own their catalog and cannot order Paramount to make HD masters for blu rays of catalog titles. When Paramount finishes a master it is available for Warner to release if they want to release it. They have no control over this other than releasing an available title or not releasing it. Making lists of Paramount titles not released that have no blu ray master from Paramount and then blaming Warner for not releasing something that Paramount has not created is silly.

Didn't know that. Thanks!

 

[Robert Harris]

It is my understanding that Warner bid, and lost that bid on obtaining MGM titles a few years ago.

I know that Warner wanted that library. It was at a time that we were still waiting for restorations of MAD WORLD and THE ALAMO.

Had the library gone to Warner, I am confident those restorations would have been done.

So, really, the best thing that could have happened to the MGM library is to fall under Warner's hands. They have the money, the knowledge of the library, and the needed care to take care of films that MGM/Fox would never do on their own.

Fox has nothing to do with the archival / mastering end of MGM. They distribute MGM product.

If Fox were, the world would be a better place.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Fox has nothing to do with the archival / mastering end of MGM. They distribute MGM product.

If Fox were, the world would be a better place.

I think Ron understands that and misspoke in his earlier comment.

The one thing I do take issue with Fox is their MOD program stinks in comparison to WAC. It might be just DVD's, but it's still video product being sold to us, the consumers.

 

[Nate Spidgewood]

Not everything, Nate. Only the earlier Paramount titles belong to Universal. It's Warner Bros. alone who is holding up Blu-ray releases of post-1940's titles, and they should be ashamed. I am sure Mr. Feltenstein is going nuts trying to get these titles out.

Actually, this Universal/Paramount deal is true.

 

[Nate Spidgewood]

How about Warner Brothers partnering up with MGM, or better yet, just loaning out a large part of their library to folks like Kino, TT or Olive? Maybe then the thousands of masterpieces locked away and forgotten in vaults rotting will have a chance in hell of getting a blu-ray release for we fans. Woody Allen once wrote about God that the one thing you could say about him is that he's an underachiever. That's an understatement as it applies to WB.

Could be both. But about WB partnering up with MGM, do you mean "WB distributing MGM's product" or the other way around?

 

[Nate Spidgewood]

Your not going to see the MGM logo on the covers of of the Warner owned MGM titles. I don't see a need for it for as you say it's mentioned in the credits and the lion still roars before the movie.

What would be the benefit to adding the logo?

We all know those movies are made by MGM, and they're famous for starting up with the roaring lion. Seeing the WB logo in place of the lion logo on the covers is misleading to the point where people mistake them for WB movies.

 

[Robin9]

How about Warner Brothers partnering up with MGM, or better yet, just loaning out a large part of their library to folks like Kino, TT or Olive? Maybe then the thousands of masterpieces locked away and forgotten in vaults rotting will have a chance in hell of getting a blu-ray release for we fans. Woody Allen once wrote about God that the one thing you could say about him is that he's an underachiever. That's an understatement as it applies to WB.

I think you've put the cart in front of the horse. The key factor in a film being released on Blu-ray disc is that first, a high definition transfer must be made. Warners' standards are high. They will not send out a low quality transfer. Once a transfer has been made, why would they lease it out to someone else? They'll release the disc themselves.

Warners do not release huge numbers of Blu-ray discs because their top management has not allocated an adequate budget to restore vast numbers of films. It's not that Warners don't know they have these films or that they don't care. That's why major films like High Society, Seven Brides For Seven Brothers and Raintree County don't get restored. It's also why uncelebrated films which don't require expensive work, like Susan Slept Here, are released on Blu-ray disc.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Warner owning the remainder of the MGM library would be good for the physical preservation of the assets - it's been reported time and time again that Warner is among the best, if not the best, at preserving what they have in house. Where they are not the best, in my view, and with lots of reasons to justify it, is putting that material out. They understandably have a policy of not releasing Blu-rays that are basically anything less than perfect. Which is fantastic when you're a fan of the films coming out, but less fantastic if the movie you really like isn't in great condition at the moment. I have a lot of good titles from the later MGM library through labels like Fox, Kino, Olive, Twilight Time, and Criterion that frankly probably would not have met Warner's standard for Blu-ray release, and therefore just would not be released. I'm at the point where having something is better than waiting for perfection. If Warner were in charge of another library, I feel there's a chance that a lot of titles I might be interested in purchasing (and would be willing to take at good but not pristine quality) simply wouldn't come out.

I would also argue that the general public doesn't really care that much about which label or studio is responsible for a release. If there are any customers that are upset that they thought they were watching a Warner movie, but then discovered it was actually MGM, and felt like their money had been wasted and their evening ruined as a result, it has to be a very small minority. The other night I watched Warner's disc of the 1935 version of "Mutiny On The Bounty" which was a movie I had not seen before. The credits on the packaging clearly stated that it had been made my MGM, so regardless of whether the lion logo was on the package, the package did properly identify the studio that produced the film originally. We're past the era where specific studios had distinct in-house styles, and where their films were only exhibited at theaters they themselves owned, where it really meant something to say "I'm going out to see the MGM" vs. "I'm going out to see the latest Warner". While you could argue that specific studios or sub-studios are still genres onto themselves (like Disney, or their subsidiary Marvel), that's not really the case anymore for studios at large.

 

[MCCLOUD]

Just my opinion, but I am glad that Warners did not get the MGM films. Warners owns too much that it hasn't released on Bluray yet. Until Warners releases MCQ, Chisum, Big Jim McLain ,Trouble Along The Way, on Bluray I prefer for Warners not to get any more films. It appears Warner is releasing McQ and Chisum on Bluray in June. Let us hope that is the case!

Take Care!

Robert