MGM: Hollywood's Tiffany Studio (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

Looks like MGM is replacing their MGM lion logo with a all CG logo. "Leo the lion is dead, long live Leo the CG lion".

MGM's iconic roaring movie lion replaced by an all-CG logo

That's certainly a shame in terms of history but it made me wonder when was the last time that I even saw a new movie from MGM.

 

[Nick*Z]

MGM doesn't really 'make' movies anymore so much as they do negative pick-ups on movies made by other indie producers on which the Leo the Lion logo is then tacked on like the proverbial lipstick on a pig, to add cache and prestige. That's about all MGM has anymore, a good name and a reputation inculcated for nearly a half century by Mayer and Thalberg, and then the slow sad decline as detailed in Peter Bart's fascinating account: Fade Out.

The props and costumes were all auctioned off to the highest bidder in the mid-70's in a notorious liquidation sale so that Vegas financier, Kirk Kerkorian could build his plywood palace, the MGM Grand, which even more notoriously burned like a stick of kindling on Nov. 21, 1980, killing 85 guests. No one was ever brought to justice for the fact the casino and hotel were built of flammable materials and the air ducts lacked the proper dampers to prevent smoke from funneling into the hotel rooms to asphyxiate the guests. But I digress.

In the wake of the auction, the backlots were also leveled for some quick cash to build condos and then, in a final insult, Kerkorian sold the studio to Lorimar Television Pictures and the film assets to Ted Turner, which was a blessing since Turner understood their value and helped to preserve the history on home video and cable TV. Culver City is now owned by Sony Pictures.

I remember Charlton Heston once suggesting Kerkorian was a "...good guy, but his interests are not in picture-making". My point, "What the hell would he want with an ailing studio then, except the name for his hotels and airlines?" ...something he probably could have licensed from the studio anyway, because MGM in the mid-sixties was in a very bad way and likely would have been ready to barter on their past to ensure their future. It's too late now.

Some studios like Paramount or Warners can at least boast to having hung on to their real estate, even if their outputs have morphed and dwindled over the years. MGM? It's gone, and never coming back. They are a holding company now, and not even in possession of their own library, but of the UA catalog which was acquired when Turner, in an attempt to resurrect the old regime and make pictures, amalgamated UA with MGM and, for the briefest wrinkle in time, was sold the studio - lock, stock and barrel - by Kerkorian, only to realize the crushing debt virtually stifling any and all his plans to kick start that renaissance.

Sad. Really sad, actually. Because out of all of the latter day management that came and went after Dore Schary, I truly believe on Turner actually cared about Metro's future. Had be been just a little richer back then he might have kept Leo's legacy afloat. T'was not to be.

Need proof of how negatively impacted MGM still is today? They can't even afford to launch into a restoration of John Wayne's The Alamo, a production acquired in the bait and switch trade off with UA in the early 80's, and one on which they continue to sit, without virtually any interest or funding to make a full-blown remaster a possibility. Mercifully, MGM's legacy proper now remains in the hands of Warner Bros., a studio that continues, with varying degrees, to reinvent itself and remain afloat and relevant in the ever-changing 21st century. More important for film lovers, they continue to reinvent their Warner Archive, a repository on DVD and Blu-ray for that myriad of treasures of old. So, the movies - for now - are safe, and loved and being upgraded with new masters for future generations to enjoy.

That's something. That's everything, in fact. History should never be allowed to fade away, be rewritten by those who believe they know best now, or merely to be allowed to molder with the past until no resurrection of it is possible. That's the obscene fate of the Paramount catalog; Paramount, having sold the rights to virtually all of its pre-50's features to television, later to be acquired by Universal, who really hasn't done right (on the whole) in their archival efforts of that devastatingly important film legacy - too much of it gone, or merely out there in a quality that is low to non-existent.

Film preservation needs a shot in the arm these days. It really does. I sincerely hope it gets it, from the likes of movie lovers like Martin Scorsese, the Film Foundation, and, of course, the AFI and AMPAS. The fate of the past rests in their future endeavors. Let's pray, someone is getting all their ducks in a row.