MGM Midnite Movies "dead again" remark (1 Viewer)

[BradleyS]

I'm reading a lot of definitive pronouncements from folks who (I assume) lack any experience in home video sales or marketing. I have nothing against opinion and speculation, but let's admit that's all it is. I wouldn't necessarily assume that studios are being lazy or incompetent because they can't find a way to turn a profit on CURSE OF THE FACELESS MAN. We're talking about niche titles that appeal to a very small group of people. There isn't a marketing campaign in the world that is going to make people outside that niche buy films like this, especially these days.

Sometimes we classic film fans need to take a step back for some perspective. MGM's financial problems have pretty much nothing to do with their release (or lack thereof) of obscure older films on DVD. Catalog titles have always been a small percentage of overall DVD revenue, and now that the market is absolutely saturated and sales have slowed, many studios are cutting the number of classic titles they're releasing. Even WHV has slowed dramatically. The only thing we can do is keep supporting studios like Sony who are reaffirming their commitment to classic titles.

 

[JeffMc]

I've worked in home-video sales and marketing and I pretty much agree with your assessment of oversaturation and the limited appeal of these smaller niche cult films. The title I was referring to above that's in MGM's UA library is a Ken Russell film on Tchaikovsky starring Richard Chamberlain and Glenda Jackson. Classical music/Tchaikovsky fans alone would most likely put it into the black immediately, but I do know that it's still just a catalog title with a lot less financial potential than recent blockbuster releases. Anyway, we all have one title that we are waiting for, and "supporting Sony" is not going to get this MGM title out any sooner, unfortunately.

 

[Corey3rd]

Another issue with the Midnite Movies series is that MGM should have packaged these titles and syndicated them under the Midnite Movies banner to run them as a Friday or Saturday "midnight" series. Just sticking a box on the shelf isn't going to build up a following.

 

[JeffT.]

The best partnership with MGM was Warner Brothers and I honestly thought that Warners was ultimately going to buy out the remaining MGM-United Artists film catalogue and go it alone.

One advantage with MGM being in partnership with 20th Century-Fox Home Entertainment is that the latter included some its own titles in last year's bumper crop of MGM MIDNITE MOVIES releases which was most welcomed.

In addition to my previously suggested THE TIME TRAVELLERS (1964) and QUEEN OF BLOOD aka PLANET OF BLOOD (1966) doublebill single disc set I would also really like to see the United Artists 1950s SF films RIDERS TO THE STARS (1954) and GOG (1954) similarly released as a doublebill combo DVD utilizing fully restored and digitally remastered 35mm print negatives in addition to the inclusion of the original theatrical trailers.

This is what makes DVD collecting worthwhile!

Jeff T.

 

[Nebiroth]

The sensible thing to do would be to license the niche titles to smaller outfits who can more profitably work with them. A good example of this is the films that were licensed to Legend (who then promptly made a load of them exclusive to Best Buy, sigh).

A small label is far better placed to make the most of a niche title, which may be niche but does normally have a relatively small but pretty much guaranteed number of sales.

That would leave the big studios to do what they are good at, which is milking the next round of millions of sales from Spider-Man 3.

Of course, we now have Blu-Ray into the mix, so no doubt the execs are salivating at the prospect of being able to sell all those blockbuster titles all over again.:frowning:

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I may not have experience in home video sales or marketing, but I do have common sense and sometimes the decisions these companies make are downright baffling. Sometimes I think Bonzo the Chimp works in those departments. But here are some of my thoughts on this:

1.) It's a good idea to put something out on the market for everyone. This makes you more customers, keeps everyone happy.

2.) These studios need to stop expecting Home Runs all of the time, and should settle for the occasional Single now and then. They cannot expect something like CURSE OF THE FACELESS MAN to do the same business as IRON MAN (2008). But the execs are looking for constant big hitters. Ain't always gonna happen. They can still put out a few of their older titles in between their mega-blockbusters, and will still stay in business and surely retain their vast Empire$, even if it means they'll have to make some quarters along the way in between the dollars.

3.) There is a core niche audience out there at the moment for these older titles, but every year the companies delay, the older the films become and the more their potential core audience dies off. Doesn't it make more sense to squeeeeezzzzeeeeee whatever juice may be left in these older movies NOW rather than Later? People like me who are coming closer and closer to 50 (and those who are already 60) and who remember these nostalgic titles from old TV broadcasts and theaters aren't going to be coming back once they're gone.

4.) If - as these studios claim - there is no potential for these older niche titles, then why don't they just sell 'em off to companies who DO care and who WILL do something to preserve them while there's still a modest audience who cares about them? What have they got to lose if - as they steadfastly claim - "these titles won't sell well"...? At least they can make SOME type of cash rather than let them turn to ashes on their vault shelves.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Who on Earth ever said they expect CURSE OF THE FACELESS MAN to sell 10 million copies? No studio expects that but they DO expect for a film to make a profit.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

They want them to make a SUBSTANTIAL profit. They're not satisfied with less, especially a young exec who's trying to make a name for himself. They can get those substantial benefits from other blockbusters... from sure-fire titles like IRON MAN or the latest LORD OF THE RINGS release. Those older titles need not do as well. And if there's a loss in profits for two or three titles out of every 25 .. oh well. So it's a ham sandwich for lunch one afternoon instead of lobster. They won't go bankrupt.

But read the rest of the points I made. So if they can't turn a profit, why not sell it to another company? Bottom line.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

And thus it will always remain, to some extent. But does this mean everything old gets thrown out the window?

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

Substantial profit? All they expect is that the titles make a profit at all. From all accounts, the MMs last year LOST money

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

I think we are saying three things here...

1) MGM/20th Fox sat on titles so long for one reason or another that there was interest loss not only by the studio but also the buying public.

2) Fox tried to make up for lost time with a glut of titles - many of little real interest to even the diehard niche horror/sci-fi fans rather than listening to them for collector demand.

3) That MGM/Fox is expecting to make a profit no matter the title BUT they also should limit production of units because of those niche titles and not have hundreds of thousands sitting in warehouses but probably press only 10,000 units at first (if that many) and then see if they are selling reducing overhead and overstock. Don't they expect and do this anyway?

Eric

 

[Bryan^H]

I'm ordering everyone of the last wave of Midnite's soon. Hope it helps.

 

[BradleyS]

From the way Legend has been flailing about trying to squeeze any money out of the Paramount titles (including an exclusive deal with Best Buy, the ultimate sign of desperation), it seems unlikely that outside companies can make these films work either. Look at all the cult distributors that have gone out of business recently.

Maybe things will change when the economy improves, but the market just might be completely saturated right now. I'm guessing we will have to wait for downloads or on-demand before we can see some of these remaining films.

 

[Bryan^H]

Yeah, the over saturation is a big problem along with the economy.
I just read an article a while back that stated even new movies on dvd have dropped about 30-50% overall in sales. That's a huge disappointment for studios.

 

[AlanBrom]

I just wish MGM would have thrown us a bone this year, even if was just two or three classic horror or sci-fi titles instead of zip.

 

[Bryan^H]

Horror movies on dvd are huge. I'm sure Midnite movies will return someday.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

For fans of horror, yes, there is a huge fan base. But take into consideration that it has been years since there has been a blockbuster horror movie made. Horror in general receives little recogniton from the Academy unlike Sci-Fi. And when you look at the fact that all of these Midnite Movies are 'B' to 'Z' grade so only has a niche market. There would be low sales numbers anyway so why not keep releases and inventory to a minimum rather than releasing a dozen at a time?

Eric

 

[AlanBrom]

Perhaps with Universal releasing another big budget MUMMY sequel and their WOLF MAN remake next Spring, this will generate some interest in squeezing out some of our precious older horror titles on DVD.

 

[JeffT.]

Well I don't think that it is the MGM Midnite Movies banner itself that sells but the content and last year's batch which I generally appreciated may not have necesarily set well with the average "usual" Midnite Movies consumer out there.

I think that likely the most popular set was the UA 1950s B-film horror doublebill of THE VAMPIRE (1957)/RETURN OF DRACULA (1958). The others while technically not bad weren't necessarily consistently prime material that would have been in demand.

If MGM/20th Century-Fox Home Entertainment came out with prime stuff like THE MAGNETIC MONSTER (1953), THE NEANDERTHAL MAN (1953), RIDERS TO THE STARS (1954), GOG (1954), BEAST FROM HOLLOW MOUNTAIN (1956), SHE GODS OF SHARK REEF (1958), THE SCREAMING SKULL (1958), THE LOST MISSILE (1958), THE AMAZING TRANSPARENT MAN (1959), BEYOND THE TIME BARRIER (1960), MASTER OF THE WORLD (1961), BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS (1962), THE TIME TRAVELLERS (1964), VOYAGE TO THE END OF THE UNIVERSE (1964), TARZAN AND THE VALLEY OF GOLD (1966) and QUEEN OF BLOOD (1966), and there are most probably dozens of others I just can't think of right now, then I honestly don't think that there would be any problem with retail sales.

Jeff T.

 

[ahollis]

There has been a lot speculation concerning MGM. On June 8th there was a very detailed article on the recent history and viability of MGM. They had recently hired a new chairperson, Mary Parent for the film production and announced they were getting back into production of films and away from independent pick-ups.

It also detailed the stormy side of the home video market. Below is a quote from that article.

“After hiring Rick Sands, a former Miramax and DreamWorks executive, as his chief operating officer, Mr. Sloan outsourced filmmaking to independent producers. Mr. Sands, who resigned after Ms. Parent’s hiring, persuaded 20th Century Fox to commit to the five-year distribution deal for MGM’s library.

“We were looking at probably making a move to Warner, setting up our own unit, or joint venturing with CBS — a lot of possibilities,” Mr. Sloan says. “The guys from Fox came in and blew me away.”

Although the switch to Fox was a humiliating blow for Sony, Mr. Sloan said that it was necessary. “What was important was to rebuild the business,” he says. “The value of a static library is going to decline anyway, and on top of that you’re going to fall off a cliff if you’re only depending on the guarantee.”

Fox has lost $15 million on the guarantees, but made slightly more than that in distribution fees on MGM’s international releases, executives familiar with the deal said. On the other hand, outsourcing production to independents has been a disaster for MGM’s image and has done little for its bottom line.”


From not even having to read between the lines, they know they are sitting on a cash cow that needs to be nurtured. In reading the entire article, it seems that the company is again trying to re-invent itself and the loss of the Midnite Movie Series and other no shows (where is Cold Turkey?) might have just gotten caught up in all the mess. I believe that the MGM/Fox agreement has two years to go. Is MGM waiting for that to get over to start dipping back into the vault? I remember reading another article way back before the sale to Sony that the DVD sales were keeping the company afloat. At that time they were releasing at least a dozen catalogue titles a month. Maybe they should re-visit that model.