MGM and Warner Bros....when will they announce an official distribution deal? (1 Viewer)

[Filmfanatic10]

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?

 

[DVBRD]

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.

https://d20qidnmpnrwiu.cloudfront.net/cdn/ff/6JmGPNAv-9qNX5xAK5uYFF12m62glYVtdG_7rG6V9yg/1597354452/public/2020-08/Q2%202020%20Financial%20Report.pdf

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]

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]

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?

 

[ahollis]

Keep in mind that this is just a distribution deal and only what MGM wants to be released will be released and that would appear to be only their big sellers and new films and TV series. It’s just like the Fox deal.

This deal is not as important as it may appear concerning catalogue titles.

 

[jcroy]

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]

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!

 

[B-ROLL]

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!

Cue Dudley Manlove :

!

 

[DVBRD]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Though what is still unknown with Fox/MGM blurays, was who exactly was paying directly for the BD+ drm.

 

[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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[ahollis]

You would need a new UPC sticker to get credit for the sale. But that’s all you need.