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

[Dick]

The archive has released some paramount films.

If I'm not mistaken, none of them are on Blu-ray...so far.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

If I'm not mistaken, none of them are on Blu-ray...so far.

I think that's correct. And as far as DVD goes, I think most if not all of the Paramount titles in the Archive are titles that Paramount released on DVD that went out of print, and now it's just a DVD-R of the same disc that used to be pressed - nothing wrong with that, but I don't think Warner is bringing a lot out of Paramount titles that had never been released before.

 

[BRAD1963]

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 WB distribution with Paramount ended at the end of 2015. There will be no New Paramount catalog titles coming from WB at this point.

 

[battlebeast]

If I'm not mistaken, none of them are on Blu-ray...so far.

Oh, well, if that's what you mean, then yes, that's true.

 

[battlebeast]

So Warners made a deal with Paramount, released next to nothing, and the deal expired. So why do it in the first place?

 

[ahollis]

So Warners made a deal with Paramount, released next to nothing, and the deal expired. So why do it in the first place?

The deal was to release for Paramount what they had ready for Blu-ray and did not want to release themselves and to re-release OOP titles through Archives.

Per a post from Mr. Lime a couple of months ago the agreement has been renewed and is ongoing now.

It is basically the same type of agreement that MGM has with Fox. Here's a remastered title, now go release it.

 

[Nick*Z]

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!

Second this in spades! When Warner, either via the Archive or their mainstream video distribution can get busy releasing such iconic fare as The Great Ziegfeld, Around the World in 80 Days, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, The Brothers Karamazov, The Student Prince, Silk Stockings, High Society, Million Dollar Mermaid, National Velvet, The Prisoner of Zenda (1936), Romeo & Juliet, Marie Antoinette, Red Dust, Idiot's Delight, Mildred Pierce, Humoresque, Now Voyager, The Star, Mrs. Skeffington, The Red Badge of Courage, Holiday in Mexico, Mrs. Parkington, Weekend at the Waldorf, The Philadelphia Story, Bringing Up Baby, Pat and Mike, Adam's Rib, Babes in Arms, Babes on Broadway, Strike Up The Band, Girl Crazy, Till The Clouds Roll By, Words and Music, Three Little Words, For Me And My Gal, Good News, The Harvey Girls, The Wreck of the Mary Deare, plus a slew of golden oldies I'll not bore any further with the details, and, rescue Topper, and, Meet John Doe - two of the best movies trapped in MIA purgatory - then, and only then, would I champion Warner acquiring more back catalog they have neither the time, money or interest in releasing to home video as yet.

MGM's post-86 catalog could be done right aligned with Fox, if only Fox didn't already have its own issues in releasing deep catalog and doing justice to it. MGM can't go it alone, alas. A very sad state of affairs. They might have more success partnering with an indie organization dedicated to film preservation, like The Film Foundation. I'd settle for 5 to 10 deep catalog releases per year from MGM done with quality transfers, than the utterly spotty track record they've had thus far farming out less than great transfers to everyone from Twilight Time to Kino Lorber, hoping the consumer won't notice. Bad idea, folks. We're not at the infancy of hi-def any more. Quality will out. The rest are just Frisbees or coasters for your drink while you're watching other properly mastered catalog at home!

 

[battlebeast]

The deal was to release for Paramount what they had ready for Blu-ray and did not want to release themselves and to re-release OOP titles through Archives.

Per a post from Mr. Lime a couple of months ago the agreement has been renewed and is ongoing now.

It is basically the same type of agreement that MGM has with Fox. Here's a remastered title, now go release it.

Good news.

 

[MCCLOUD]

MGM has had plenty of their films released on Blu Ray! Kino Lorber has released lots of MGM titles. Also Twilight Time and Shout Factory have released MGM films on Blu Ray. No need for Warners to get involved with MGM. MGM is getting its films released on Blu Ray by Kino, Twilight Time and Shout. Warner Brothers has too many of its own films that need to be released on Blu Ray to acquire the rights of MGM or any other studio!

Take Care!

Robert

 

[Josh Steinberg]

So Warners made a deal with Paramount, released next to nothing, and the deal expired. So why do it in the first place?

Warner picked up distribution for a number of existing Paramount titles. They also repackaged a bunch in combo packs that were very good deals.

I got their Casablanca (Warner) / African Queen (Paramount) combo pack for $8.99. I got the Ten Commandments (Paramount) / Ben-Hur (Warner) combo for $7.99.

Warner, via Paramount, also brought "Vanilla Sky" to Blu-ray for the first time with new bonus features. They also brought out "The Odd Couple" and other titles that Paramount hadn't gotten around to releasing on their own.

It might not have been the most expansive, mindblowing deal ever, but it kept a lot of titles in print, and made some great combo pack deals possible.

 

[battlebeast]

Warner picked up distribution for a number of existing Paramount titles. They also repackaged a bunch in combo packs that were very good deals.

I got their Casablanca (Warner) / African Queen (Paramount) combo pack for $8.99. I got the Ten Commandments (Paramount) / Ben-Hur (Warner) combo for $7.99.

Warner, via Paramount, also brought "Vanilla Sky" to Blu-ray for the first time with new bonus features. They also brought out "The Odd Couple" and other titles that Paramount hadn't gotten around to releasing on their own.

It might not have been the most expansive, mindblowing deal ever, but it kept a lot of titles in print, and made some great combo pack deals possible.

I didn't know about those combo packs; I did know about some of the box sets (nutty prof.)

But now I hope Warners will release more great titles... Say, ORDINARY PEOPLE or HEAVEN CAN WAIT, etc.

 

[Ray_Rogers1979]

Based on what Warners is releasing through their WAC line-up currently, even the regular WB branch, I believe 2016 will be a quite solid year for catalog releases. Some unexpected, some excellent, and some which are safe ones.

Just wishing MGM would release more catalog titles onto Blu-ray.

 

[Nate Spidgewood]

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.

Okay, now I'm confused...what library did you say that MGM isn't interested in? Their own pre-1986 in-house library as if they've given up their remaining rights to it altogether since 1999 (after 75 years), or their current hodge podge library of UA movies and several independent movies?

 

[ahollis]

Okay, now I'm confused...what library did you say that MGM isn't interested in? Their own pre-1986 in-house library as if they've given up their remaining rights to it altogether since 1999 (after 75 years), or their current hodge podge library of UA movies and several independent movies?

Their current hodge podge of a library MGM/UA have owned since the sale to Turner in 1986. They are not interested in these titles except to license to a third party. The current owners are only interested in the art of the movie deal.

The titles that Turner purchased, the pre !986 ones, of course they have no interest in those titles, they don't own them.

From 1986 to !999 MGM/UA only licensed the titles that Turner owned because Turner did not have a Home Entertainment Division to release them himself. Turner also only bought the titles to run on his networks. He ended up preserving the titles to make sure he had content for those networks.

 

[Nate Spidgewood]

Their current hodge podge of a library MGM/UA have owned since the sale to Turner in 1986. They are not interested in these titles except to license to a third party. The current owners are only interested in the art of the movie deal.

The titles that Turner purchased, the pre !986 ones, of course they have no interest in those titles, they don't own them.

From 1986 to !999 MGM/UA only licensed the titles that Turner owned because Turner did not have a Home Entertainment Division to release them himself. Turner also only bought the titles to run on his networks. He ended up preserving the titles to make sure he had content for those networks.

Yeah. I know all that. I know you say that Gary Barber is only interested in movie production deals, but hasn't he ever heard about MGM's history and legacy? From what I know, he tried to rewrite MGM's history two years ago by only promoting its 90th anniversary with titles from their hodge podge library. I mean, the 90th anniversary trailer only has clips from that library, no clips from the Turner-owned library whatsoever. (Well, unlike the 85th anniversary one from 2009, which indeed does have clips from both MGM's current in-house library and the Turner-owned library.)

 

[ahollis]

Yeah. I know all that. I know you say that Gary Barber is only interested in movie production deals, but hasn't he ever heard about MGM's history and legacy? From what I know, he tried to rewrite MGM's history two years ago by only promoting its 90th anniversary with titles from their hodge podge library. I mean, the 90th anniversary trailer only has clips from that library, no clips from the Turner-owned library whatsoever. (Well, unlike the 85th anniversary one from 2009, which indeed does have clips from both MGM's current in-house library and the Turner-owned library.)

They can't include the clips from Warner owned MGM titles. They would have to license them at a cost from Warners, which they won't do. Another reason is the 90th Anniversary trailer is nothing more than a sales tool.

Some where around 2001 or 2002 I attended a MGM/UA event in which they rolled out their new moniker WE'RE THE NEW MGM. They made a point that they would not look back at the past and the future was bright. They showed a trailer that included many titles that they owned, The Alamo being one of those. Then proceeded to announce a slate of new films. But as we know the new MGM has since filed for bankruptcy twice. And sold both times.

Today's MGM/UA only sees its history as what it's titles are, not what they don't have and the way they allow their library to languish and do only what they possibly need to in order save what they have, there is no love there. In their mind, any money used for restoration, is money they can't use to make a production deal.

Would I like the library to be in other hands, in hands that care for each title and show love for the title, absolutely. I just don't think Warners is the right company. Warner has too much on their plate. The best chance the library had was the two or three years Sony controlled it between a couple of bankruptcies. I wouldn't mind that happening again.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Sony control of MGM library under someone like Grove Crisp? Perfect marriage!

 

[Stephen_J_H]

It could do a lot in terms of rehabbing Sony's reputation after the whole email leak fiasco. "Sony rescues UA library titles from oblivion" or something like that.

 

[Nate Spidgewood]

With all this heat going on over whether MGM should team/partner with Warner Bros.'s home entertainment division or not, should any of you guys consider contacting WB through their website and asking them to sign a broad range of licensing deals with companies like Criterion, Image, Kino, Twilight Time, Olive, and Shout! Factory so that these said companies will license and release the titles that WB has been sitting on (Paramount and Goldwyn titles included)? These companies should give those titles from such a huge, cluttered and half neglected home entertainment library what they deserve. And if that would be likely to happen, then it'll be possible if MGM moving from Fox to WB and making both MGM libraries (pre-1986 and post-1986) come full circle can be a good idea.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I do not think there is any heat going on about this topic in the greater world, and as such, I would not be interested in contacting any of the studios regarding this. Additionally, as Warner has stated it is their general policy not to license out titles, me as a private citizen contacting them and asking them to change that policy would not have any impact. Also, Warner almost certainly cannot license out titles they have themselves licensed from other parties.

Without wanting to repeat myself, as I said in my earlier comments, I do not believe the MGM library being under the control of WB would be good for consumers. It may be good for the preservation of the physical film assets, as Warner does a top notch job of preserving what they have, but it would not lead to an increase in releases. If anything, the opposite would be more likely. Warner has much higher standards for Blu-ray releases than Olive, Image, Kino, Twilight Time, and Shout. I've gotten many MGM titles I enjoy on Blu-ray through those companies. If Warner were in charge of the catalog, those titles wouldn't be available for licensing, so those labels wouldn't be able to continue putting out such titles. Additionally, because those titles are not in the condition that Warner generally demands for Blu-ray releases, those titles would simply not come out anymore. I would much rather have a good but not perfect Blu-ray of MGM titles from Olive, Image, Kino, Twilight Time and Shout than no Blu-rays at all, which would be the likely result of Warner picking up the catalog.

I agree with everything that Allen has previously posted about why MGM's priority is new releases and why they do not place an emphasis on their catalog titles. This is unlikely to change, period.