If MGM celebrates their 95th anniversary, can they collaborate with Warner Bros. to do it again? (1 Viewer)

[Filmfanatic10]

If MGM needs to celebrate not only their 95th anniversary but also their own legacy, can they collaborate with Warner Bros. on a publicity campaign (featuring a combination of movies and cartoons from pre-1986 MGM and a large batch of library titles currently owned by MGM) like they did in late 2009, instead of relying solely on their hodge-podge of a library like last time?

 

[Robin9]

I suppose if they make it worthwhile for Warners to participate, a collaboration is not impossible. There is no reason to imagine that MGM will want to do this. It would probably be extremely embarrassing for them to have people compare the old vintage MGM of the '30s, '40s and '50s with today's MGM.

 

[Filmfanatic10]

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/stephen-bruno-exits-netflix-mgm-1203169129/
https://www.thewrap.com/members/2019/03/21/mgm-names-stephen-bruno-as-chief-marketing-officer/
https://deadline.com/2019/03/mgm-stephen-bruno-chief-marketing-officer-netflix-1202580018/

I know you said the current MGM company isn't the MGM from the 1920s-1980s, but can this new Chief Marketing Officer of MGM license the studio's brand itself to Warner Bros. since he was said to promote and build the brand? WB needs to use it (under license from MGM) to promote its pre-1986 library, they haven't been connected with each other for over 20 years (after MGM and WB ended their home entertainment distribution deal and the latter began distributing the pre-1986 library themselves).

 

[Nick*Z]

The problem with MGM's management is that no one ever sticks around long enough to make a dent in long-term plans for the company. This short-sightedness has really crippled MGM since the mid-90's; not only in its ability to function as an enfeebled 'film company' and distributor of new theatrical product, but also, in its ability to have someone - anyone - really learn about the asset management of their 'hodge-podge' library. Were that this were the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer of Louis B. Mayer's era, magically transported into 2019, I have no doubt the studio would still be intact, the back lot preserved, the company thriving, and all of its pre-60's back catalog already out on Blu-ray.

The loss of rights to that catalog has been to MGM's dearth and Warner Bros. advantage. But WB has managed to make the least of those assets, dragging their heels on releasing a trickle of C-grade fodder via their archive while letting the bulk of their acquired embarrassment of riches remain unseen in hi-def. Even when they release a Blu-ray of something it is a 2K - rather than 4K remaster. In an age where 4K has become the norm, I am not at all certain what the point is doing 2K remasters (other than the fact they are likely cheaper to do). But it just means WB will have to go back - at some point - and redo everything they have already done, just to keep up with technology.

So, now we have Stephen Bruno - a marketing genius with ties to the defunct Weinstein Co. and Netflix - who likely doesn't have a clue regarding MGM's vast holdings or even a passing interest in 'vintage' product, but is looking merely to exploit 'assets' with clever re-branding. What will likely happen is that all of the assets deemed as 'legendary' by Bruno (and we can speculate these to include the James Bond, Rocky and Woody Allen pictures) will receive a refresher, possibly even in 4K, while deep catalog like The Alamo remains unseen in hi-def.

PS - there is no good reason for Warner to participate in another 'anniversary' marketing strategy. And anyway, it would again just be a rebranding of the handful of titles already available in hi-def; not an opening up of the floodgates to give us something new, something better, and something more - which is what we are craving.