MGM....... a second rate studio. (1 Viewer)

[Michael Reuben]

Michael, it was also Ken that pointed out how MGM is more at risk with those guesses though.

Yes he did, along with many other things. I thought it was an intelligent and balanced overview. What's your point?

M.

 

[Paul_D]

Yes he did, along with many other things. I thought it was an intelligent and balanced overview. What's your point?

Obviously I can't speak for Seth. But I think that his point was to remark that Ken was going along with the general consnsus of the thread, and not challenging it. Your post thanking Ken reads like you think his points swing the thread into a new direction, while all he's saying is that MGM aren't protected in their bad decision making. MGM's vulnerability is all the more dangerous for them, given the fact that they are standing alone, without the benefit of a much larger corporate father-figure for protection. If anything, what seems worrying for MGM, is that Columbia is not thought of as a weak studio, even though its mdae some bad decisions lately. Whereas MGM ARE thought of as a weak studio. At this point in time, they've built up an incredibly unstable corporate image. And a few buckets of water over the side (Legally Blonde and Jeepers Creepers) ain't gonna save a sinking ship.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Your post thanking Ken reads like you think his points swing the thread into a new direction

I don't think this thread has a direction that's well enough defined to be swung. My appreciation was simply for his writing something thoughtful and coherent.

M.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I actually cheer for MGM to succeed moreso than the other studios. It bothers me a little that in an industry where studios were forced to divest themselves from theater chains to avoid conflicts of interest and unfair competition some decades ago, companies are now allowed to own several television networks as well as significant interests in software delivery technologies in addition to movie studios. The fact that MGM has not been swallowed by a giant media conglomerate (yet) seems somehow respectable.

Regards,

 

[Seth Paxton]

Paul said what I took your post to read like. I thought you were saying "See, MGM's not so bad, others fail too".

But no one was saying MGM was alone in that area. They are saying MGM is alone in being at such high risk. They seem to be by far the weakest of the majors right now.

I am rooting against them making more "Rollerballs" but I am not against them in general. But if I was investing in studios, my money would not be going to MGMs team at this point. At least CTS can recover from a flop or two.

Then again, look where Fox had to come from to get where they are now.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I'm just curious, but isn't MGM also the studio that loves to butcher OAR? I've heard somewhere (this isn't hard fact, but just a faint memory of mine) where they only do anamorphic picture releases for DVD if the AR was 1.85:1 ? And if the AR was anything else, they'd "crop" or "matte" the image so the DVD release was anamorphic? Just curious...

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

MGM almost never does anamorphic for 1.66:1 films. The only 1.66:1 films that I know for sure they cropped to 1.78:1 were the first three Bonds. I'm not sure if this constitutes butchering the OAR any more than the US theaters who probably showed them at 1.85:1 when they were released, but in any case, MGM usually does 1.66:1 non-anamorphic. One recent exception may be "The Howling". It was previously on laserdisc at 1.66:1, but is anamorphic 1.78:1 on their DVD. I'm willing to bet a nickel that Joe Dante was OK with that, though.

Regards,

 

[Malcolm R]

They seem to do few anamorphic releases. I was going to pick up "A Fish Called Wanda" at BB this weekend for $7.99, but it wasn't anamorphic. Of course, that's also one of those releases that touts the "collectible booklet" as a disc special feature. :rolleyes

 

[Michael Reuben]

A Fish Called Wanda is an earlier MGM release, before they got with the program. In the last year, most of their DVD releases have been anamorphic. But this is really a different subject, one for the Software forum.

M.

 

[MatthewA]

I like the idea of not releasing any new movies (except maybe a few indie films) and just rereleasing old ones to theatres. They should do:

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (pending success on the restoration)

West Side Story

the 1971-1991 Woody Allen films

the early Bond films

Some Like it Hot (45th anniversary in 2004)

There are others I would love to see.

I believe they own the Samuel Goldwyn Company library, from which I would like to see:

Porgy & Bess

Oklahoma! (restored 70mm version)

South Pacific (restored to original premiere length)

Though I think the Gershwin estate owns P&B, I think MGM holds distribution rights. The 2 Rodgers & Hammerstein films are copyrighted by the R&H Organizations, but MGM may own distribution rights.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Actually, Fox owns those two R&H films.