What's new

Filmfanatic10

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
52
Real Name
F
I've been waiting months since the former deal between MGM and 20th Century Fox came to an end on June 30th and the news broke on July 1st of Warner Bros. releasing the first half of Vikings' season 6 on DVD and Blu-ray and Amazon started listing several Warner-reissued MGM DVD and Blu-ray catalog titles originally distributed by Fox on that same month. The only news I've been seeing of what's going on with the two studios since then are news of staff cuts, employee layoffs, and film delays, postpones, suspensions or moves to streaming due to COVID-19, which is stupid. All the two studios worry about is that virus and not officially announcing their new home entertainment partnership and even inking a licensing deal for MGM's trademark to be used by Warners. What are they waiting for?
 
Last edited:

DVBRD

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
268
Real Name
Andy
I've been waiting months since the former deal between MGM and 20th Century Fox came to an end on June 30th and the news broke on July 1st of Warner Bros. releasing the first half of Vikings' season 6 on DVD and Blu-ray and Amazon started listing several Warner-reissued MGM DVD and Blu-ray catalog titles originally distributed by Fox on that same month. The only news I've been seeing of what's going on with the two studios since then are news of staff cuts, employee layoffs, and film delays, postpones, suspensions or moves to streaming due to COVID-19, which is stupid. All the two studios worry about is that virus and not officially announcing their new home entertainment partnership and even inking a licensing deal for MGM's trademark to be used by Warners. What are they waiting for?

It WAS announced, albeit quietly.


On top of that, the catalog titles have been released. I saw a DVD double feature of the 1976 and 2013 versions of "Carrie" at Target and it is a WB release.

Furthermore, MGM also has a pact with Universal on some new releases and a majority of catalog titles are being licensed to third-parties so this new MGM/WB pact isn't as important as you wish it to be.

And on top of that, physical media sales are declining which probably explains why the MGM/WB pact didn't get as much fanfare as you had expected.

And finally, "that stupid virus" is getting more media coverage because it's serious and affects all of us and is more deserving of attention than a mere licensing deal.
 

MatthewA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,412
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew
I knew it was a matter of time before this happened. WB didn't want it back in the mid-2000s when it was up for sale yet again because they were still in AOLTimeWarner mode and that turned out to be not such a great financial decision. They released plenty of pre-1986 M-G-M classics to disc without their help, even though George Feltenstein, the man responsible for their sterling reputation regarding the back catalog titles, came up the ranks through MGM/UA Home Video.

If you wish to remember Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer as it used to be: there's a thread for that, too.
 

Filmfanatic10

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
52
Real Name
F
Furthermore, MGM also has a pact with Universal on some new releases and a majority of catalog titles are being licensed to third-parties so this new MGM/WB pact isn't as important as you wish it to be.
Universal only released MGM's select recent films on home media because they handled international theatrical distribution for them (save for Operation Finale, which was a one-time pact for the home media release) as a result of the deal for No Time to Die.

And on top of that, physical media sales are declining which probably explains why the MGM/WB pact didn't get as much fanfare as you had expected.

Aren't Warners and Universal still planning to revive those sales since they announced their distribution joint venture back in January?
 

jcroy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
6,525
Real Name
jr
So far the only MGM stuff I have seen so far at local retailers, appear to be old Fox manufactured inventory where they just put a new "Warner" sticker over the old Fox information. For example, such as James Bond titles.
 

Thomas T

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
6,629
And finally, "that stupid virus" is getting more media coverage because it's serious and affects all of us and is more deserving of attention than a mere licensing deal.

Thank you! Someone had to say it. That "deal" just isn't newsworthy, even to collectors like us since the end result means zip as to "new" titles. However, our lives are impacted by that virus in one way or another. From the major (like losing one's job) to the minor (mail delays). Stupid, indeed! :angry:
 

B-ROLL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
3,319
Real Name
Bryan
Thank you! Someone had to say it. That "deal" just isn't newsworthy, even to collectors like us since the end result means zip as to "new" titles. However, our lives are impacted by that virus in one way or another. From the major (like losing one's job) to the minor (mail delays). Stupid, indeed! :angry:
Cue Dudley Manlove :
1608321531345.png
:D!
 

DVBRD

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
268
Real Name
Andy
So far the only MGM stuff I have seen so far at local retailers, appear to be old Fox manufactured inventory where they just put a new "Warner" sticker over the old Fox information. For example, such as James Bond titles.

That "Carrie" DVD had brand-new packaging and thus had the WB shield alongside the MGM Lion on the back cover.
 

DVBRD

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
268
Real Name
Andy
Aren't Warners and Universal still planning to revive those sales since they announced their distribution joint venture back in January?

It's not going to increase physical media sales. It's a sign that WB and Universal see the end coming for physical formats and a merger will prevent both parties from getting out of that business sooner.
 

jcroy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
6,525
Real Name
jr
That "Carrie" DVD had brand-new packaging and thus had the WB shield alongside the MGM Lion on the back cover.

This will happen once all that old Fox manufactured inventory is sold out or "liquidated" outright (ie. becomes $2 dump bin fodder).

If I were to waste more cash on James Bond, I might pick up a Warner re-released set where the blurays are redone by Warner/MGM and not encoded with the BD+ drm. (Fox used the BD+ drm on all of their blurays from 2008 to 2017).
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
20,313
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
It’s more likely that Warner will repress the existing disc rather than reauthor, even if it contain’s another studio’s logo. MGM isn’t likely to foot the bill to redo the discs just for the logos. When Warner was distributing Paramount, they repressed the extant disc with all the old menus and logos. And previously going into ancient history, for a brief while it appeared that Sony would distribute MGM in 2006 and the Bond Ultimate DVDs were authored with Sony disclaimers and logos - and then Fox wound up with distribution and they didn’t change the discs.
 

Todd Erwin

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
6,572
Location
Hawthorne, NV
Real Name
Todd Erwin
It’s more likely that Warner will repress the existing disc rather than reauthor, even if it contain’s another studio’s logo. MGM isn’t likely to foot the bill to redo the discs just for the logos. When Warner was distributing Paramount, they repressed the extant disc with all the old menus and logos. And previously going into ancient history, for a brief while it appeared that Sony would distribute MGM in 2006 and the Bond Ultimate DVDs were authored with Sony disclaimers and logos - and then Fox wound up with distribution and they didn’t change the discs.
Correct, and the few discs that Warner did author for Paramount, Paramount used those same discs when rights reverted back to Paramount.
 

jcroy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
6,525
Real Name
jr
It’s more likely that Warner will repress the existing disc rather than reauthor, even if it contain’s another studio’s logo. MGM isn’t likely to foot the bill to redo the discs just for the logos. When Warner was distributing Paramount, they repressed the extant disc with all the old menus and logos. And previously going into ancient history, for a brief while it appeared that Sony would distribute MGM in 2006 and the Bond Ultimate DVDs were authored with Sony disclaimers and logos - and then Fox wound up with distribution and they didn’t change the discs.

In the case of Fox/MGM blurays, the question is whether Warner/MGM is still willing to pay for the royalties per disc on the BD+ drm.
 

jcroy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
6,525
Real Name
jr
Though what is still unknown with Fox/MGM blurays, was who exactly was paying directly for the BD+ drm.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
20,313
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I would imagine that the cost of reauthoring and repressing discs would exceed whatever licensing fee there would be for using the existing discs.
 

jcroy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
6,525
Real Name
jr
I would imagine that the cost of reauthoring and repressing discs would exceed whatever licensing fee there would be for using the existing discs.

I'm thinking of what might happen, once all the old Fox manufactured inventory is sold out.

For most of the existing MGM evergreeen catalog stuff that is still in-print, it would seem dumb destroying/liquidating all the old Fox manufactured inventory. All they have to do it just put a Warner sticker over the old Fox information, on already existing inventory.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
20,313
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
That’s pretty much what happened when Warner started distributing Paramount years ago; they put a new UPC sticker over the shrink wrap with a “distributed by Warner” in tiny print under the new barcode.

Catalog is such a low volume business these days that it just doesn’t pay to redo the work in the majority of the cases. Even with popular titles like the Bond films - they’ve been repackaging the same discs since 2012 and each time it gets reissued the price comes down, which probably means that while it’s a reliable seller, it’s not doing gangbusters either and they’re just trying to entice the hold outs and the impulse buyers now.
 

jcroy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
6,525
Real Name
jr
That’s pretty much what happened when Warner started distributing Paramount years ago; they put a new UPC sticker over the shrink wrap with a “distributed by Warner” in tiny print under the new barcode.

Catalog is such a low volume business these days that it just doesn’t pay to redo the work in the majority of the cases. Even with popular titles like the Bond films - they’ve been repackaging the same discs since 2012 and each time it gets reissued the price comes down, which probably means that while it’s a reliable seller, it’s not doing gangbusters either and they’re just trying to entice the hold outs and the impulse buyers now.

A minimal "passive" bluray reauthoring, would be to use almost exactly the same iso filesystem as the old Fox manufactured version, but with an updated current aacs MKB encryption keys and NOT encoding the BD+ part at all.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
346,459
Messages
4,779,368
Members
141,809
Latest member
Zombies
Top