MGM - How much more can they take this? (1 Viewer)

[MikeEckman]

After seeing the recent big budget disappointment of MGM's Windtalkers, how many more mega-budget flops can this studio handle? I mean, with the rumors of MGM being up for sale, does anyone think these recent theatrical bombs could adversely affect their home video division? I mean, within the last year and a half, MGM has given us some great SEs of movies like Hannibal, The Terminator, Killer Klowns, the upcoming Robocop and Dances with Wolves SEs, not to mention all the hundreds of quality budget releases. Im just afraid another bomb like Windtalkers, Hart's War, and Rollerball is going to put this studio in serious jeopardy and start to compromise their very successful home video division. Anyone have any opinions on this?

 

[Brian Kidd]

Well, WB owns the MGM video catalog (I think) so I doubt there's much reason to worry about that. That is unless the folks who run WB's home video arm completely take over MGM's product line. IMHO, MGM puts out much more quality discs than WB. I'm not 100% up on who owns who since it seems to change weekly.

 

[Jay E]

Well their next release is that Crocodile Hunter film, so I don't think it's going to get any better. I just hope that their DVD sales can keep them afloat as their theatrical division doesn't have a clue.

 

[Han]

I think aside from "Hannibal", Pierce Brosnan has single handedly kept MGM afloat in the theaters since 1999. If "Die Another Day" and "Red Dragon" (which is co-distributed by Universal, I believe) both fail, I think MGM will be down for the count.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Well, WB owns the MGM video catalog (I think) so I doubt there's much reason to worry about that.

Not exactly. MGM is operationally independent from Time-Warner. Warner owns the classic MGM library, but MGM owns the classic United Artists catalog (representing most of their pre-80s output on DVD) in addition to a few other odds and ends such as Orion, etc.

Regards,

 

[Damin J Toell]

Not exactly. MGM is operationally independent from Time-Warner. Warner owns the classic MGM library, but MGM owns the classic United Artists catalog (representing most of their pre-80s output on DVD) in addition to a few other odds and ends such as Orion, etc.

Just to build on this a bit: MGM still controls the video rights to just about every film they've released on DVD since 1999, which was when Warner began their control of the classic MGM library.

DJ

 

[R. Kay]

Bond, James Bond.

 

[Trace Downing]

MGM owns all of their films made since 1986, except for Stargate, which went to Live Entertainment (now Artisan) at the time the film was made, and WIllow, which MGM just distributed for Lucasfilm.
I remember reading an article that MGM's home video dept, was the division keeping the studio portion of the company afloat, because of DVD's popularity. Francis Ford Coppola has been brought on board last year or so to improve the studio's output. I don't think any of his films are finished yet though.
I think MGM will do just fine. I'm sure that their gambling takes from their 4-6 hotels in Las Vegas and Reno, more than make up for the losses of Windtalkers, and Rollerball.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Francis Ford Coppola has been brought on board last year or so to improve the studio's output. I don't think any of his films are finished yet though.

He Executive Produced MGM's Jeepers Creepers (one of the studio's financial highlights of 2001, along with Legally Blonde), No Such Thing, and the upcoming Pumpkin starring Christina Ricci. He also supposedly did the last-ditch final cut on Supernova.
DJ

 

[Jason Seaver]

Coppola seems to be behind the recreation of United Artists as a boutique banner - note that both the new James Bond and Pink Panther movies are under the MGM banner as opposed to UA - and trying to salvage stuff that's been on the shelf as unreleasable. So far, the jury's still out - there do appear to be people who enjoyed The Fantasticks, and the output from UA has been really hit-or-miss - apparently nobody liked No Such Thing, but I am looking forward to Pumpkin.

As to MGM itself - I've read that they're not doing any more big-budget movies other than established franchises any more (basically, Bond and Lecter), and that this decision was made around Rollerball's release, with Windtalkers and Hart's War already in the can. Of course, this being UPN, they'll get stupid as soon as Red Dragon does well.

 

[MikeEckman]

Well, this certainly is good news, cause in my opinion, we need as many big name studios as possible out there. I hope that things turn around for MGM theatrically, and most importantly, I hope their home video division is not hampered by poor theatrical performances.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Well their next release is that Crocodile Hunter film, so I don't think it's going to get any better.

You never know. Sure, it looks abysmal and I think it'll tank, but I felt the same way about "Scooby Doo", and obviously I missed the mark there. And think about this: according the IMDB, the "Crocodile Hunter" movie has a budget of only $13 million! Even mediocre performance means it'll make money. I can't imagine the movie WON'T suck, but financially, it looks like a good bet on the side of MGM, especially after the $70 million to $100 million budgets of their recent flops...

 

[Damin J Toell]

And think about this: according the IMDB, the "Crocodile Hunter" movie has a budget of only $13 million! Even mediocre performance means it'll make money.

Yup. With a budget that small and with name recognition that high, it's a guaranteed money maker from theatrical release, video releases, and television/cable broadcast contracts.

DJ

 

[JoshB]

Crocodile hunter is a relatively low budget release, so whether it hits or misses won't affect the company much.
The most recent Bond films have been big money makers, but the budgets keep them from being really big hits. The cost anywhere from $90-120 million to makes, and no Bond film has, at least in the US, topped $200 million. So they mostly manage to surpass their budget and make the rest in video, dvd, and video game sales.
The next Bond is due out in Novemeber, so that is a long time for MGM to hold out on a single film to bail it out, especially with some of the films due out later this year.
My DVD Collection

To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men.

 

[SteveGon]

I haven't seen Windtalkers, but it seems to me that MGM would have been better off releasing it in the fall. It doesn't really sound like a summer flick, despite John Woo being behind the camera. Bad management will get you nowhere, MGM.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Jason Seaver wrote:

Huh?!? What's "UPN" got to do with "MGM"?

 

[Jason Seaver]

Oops. I think I was planning an "MGM is the UPN of studios" comment; both of them have a history of poor decisions and over-reliance on pre-existing franchises.

I haven't seen Windtalkers, but it seems to me that MGM would have been better off releasing it in the fall.

It was already delayed from last fall, though. And just think - if it was to be released Fall '01, and MGM had delayed it to Fall '02... Well, studios don't finance these things with cash on hand, you know. What's a year of compounded interest on a movie budgeted north of $100M (I think)? It's got to be a non-trivial sum.

 

[Marc Colella]

Windtalkers failure in it's opening week may have more to do with the genre itself.
There have been way too many war films released in the last 3-4 years. Perhaps the public is tired of the genre... along with the fact that it's a suck-ass movie.

 

[Dan Brecher]

If "Die Another Day" and "Red Dragon" (which is co-distributed by Universal, I believe) both fail, I think MGM will be down for the count.

Bond will do fine, but what I think is interesting is that MGM are only handling the domestic side of this years 007 release. They've teamed up with 20th Century Fox who will handle the international distrubution of Die Another Day theatrically and on home video.

Dan

 

[GuruAskew]

MGM has nothing to do with "Red Dragon". The poster and trailers have made no mention of MGM, only the Universal logo appears. When the "Hannibal" novel was released, Universal got the rights to the novel and Lecter character, but MGM had the rights to the Clarice Starling character from when they aquired the Orion catalogue, which contained "Silence Of The Lambs". Since Hannibal Lecter had already appeared in "Manhunter", they didn't need MGM's participation to include him, as they originally aquired the rights from "Manhunter" producer Dino Delaurentiis. I'm not 100% sure if they had to make a seperate deal with Delaurentiis to get the rights to "Red Dragon" or if it was included with the "Hannibal" deal but in any case, MGM has no claim over any of the characters as none of them originally appeared in "Silence of the Lambs".