trajan
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,198
- Real Name
- lar
Saw this on another forum. News is is Warner rejected offer. Interesting news. Would someone please buy Warner?
Anybody interested in buying Warner has bigger plans for that company than what catalog titles are being released on BD.cineMANIAC said:I hope it's someone who likes movies, not just another investment fund.
Robert Crawford said:Anybody interested in buying Warner has bigger plans for that company than what catalog titles are being released on BD.
Almost 50 years ago, Jack Warner sold the studio to a parking company.cineMANIAC said:I agree, I just hope it's not a car manufacturer or a company that makes blow dryers. It would be nice if the company that buy them at least has a background in the industry.
Former owner: He got my team. The son of a bitch got my team.Advisor to former owner: What kind of pressure did he use, Milt? Former owner: All I asked was sixty-seven million, and he said "okay." Advisor to former owner: Ruthless bastard.
That''s way-y-y too much power for any man to have. Good luck, humanity! It's only gonna get worse, unless we all pay close attention, which we are NOT doing.FoxyMulder said:I don't want Fox and one media mogul ( Rupert Murdoch ) owning too much, it would not be good for anyone.
I'd rather someone bought MGM and restored The Alamo and gave most of the Bond titles new 4K film scans and of course the rest of their catalog. Nah the last thing i want is Rupert Murdoch owning two film studio's, not good.
Yeah, it's the same with the record companies. All those labels that UMG have bought up, I don't even think that they like music. It's a strange old corporate world we're living in these days.Thomas T said:Those aren't movie lovers buying up studios, they're businessmen!
Fox Corporate is not a car lot or insurance company. However their Archive program is a disaster.cineMANIAC said:I hope it's someone who likes movies, not just another investment fund.
I'm not sure I agree 100% with that. True, a lot of the indifference towards niche catalog titles has gotten worse since 1985 (and don't get me started on the malignant neglect of their pre-Simpsons, non-M*A*S*H TV library and how much of it can only be seen in masters that were good enough for cable in the 1980s but don't cut it today), but even so, they haven't been totally negligent; I was in awe of some of those 70mm reprints from the early 2000s, making me wish they gave a hoot about making decent 35mm prints available. They can do good work when they want to. Still, Fox's archival woes didn't start with Murdoch by any means. Let us never forget the even worse crimes against preservation prior management regimes committed. They threw out their nitrate negatives and most of their outtakes during the 1970s when they were still independently owned.Thomas T said:Be careful what you wish for! Some of us are old enough to remember what happened when Kirk Kerkorian bought MGM and gutted it. Most of the problems with Fox's lack of interest in restoring its catalog can be laid at the feet of Murdoch.