MGM's Distribution Deal with Fox has expired with Warner taking over! See Post#74 (1 Viewer)

[Filmfanatic10]

I think they will just license their cataloge titles out to independent companies, but will work with Sony or Warner’s on the Bond Films.

And maybe some of the other most prominent titles in their catalog. It should depend on which ones interest the main distributor the most while the smaller labels would also be responsible.

 

[MatthewA]

Actually, my vote would be that Warner does acquire it all -- though that attempt was made and failed years back.

Nobody does a better job with classic output than Warner Bros.

Whoever buys MGM also buys whatever debts go along with running it, not just the vast library. That may have been what dissuaded Time Warner from actually sealing the deal and why it ended up with a consortium.

I say let the smaller boutique companies handle them, because they are doing good work, especially with the UA titles. Kino even restored the original United Artists logo for A Fistfull Of Dollars and The Good The Bad and The Ugly, and I hope that happens more often. Would love to see the a new 4k reissue of Raging Bull done by Arrow or Criterion with the UA Transamerca logo restored.

That's my main disappointment with the current discs of a lot of UA musicals as well (Fiddler on the Roof, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, et al). Seeing the new owners make their mark on these films at the expense of the old ones who actually made them feels dishonest. It's like they're taking credit for other people's work.

And it's time to actually fix the Blu-ray of West Side Story, which never had a logo originally to begin with that I can recall outside of whatever MGM/UA/Pathe/whoever has tacked onto it over the year, with a real restoration. With a new version coming out that will also have Rita Moreno taking Ned Glass's place, there is no excuse to leave that stupid fade out in.

 

[Todd Erwin]

I may already be Universal. They distributed MGM's Operation Finale on Blu-ray last month.

That was a one-off where Universal handled distribution, similar to Warner on Tomb Raider.

 

[Todd Erwin]

Whoever buys MGM also buys whatever debts go along with running it, not just the vast library. That may have been what dissuaded Time Warner from actually sealing the deal and why it ended up with a consortium.

I don't think this thread is talking about MGM being up for sale. Currently, MGM has had a licensing deal with Fox to handle distribution of their home video product that MGM wants released under their name. Fox does not currently "own" the MGM film library.

 

[MatthewA]

I know, I just pointed out my theory as to why Time Warner didn't want it when they already had everything that M-G-M actually built its legacy on in the first place. Ted Turner almost went broke buying it out; TW buying him out in turn also enabled them to get back their own films that had already ended up with United Artists.

When I heard about the Fox/Disney merger, I wondered about the licensing deal, too. In fact, that was one of the first things on my mind. Frankly, they'd be better off with independent labels, since Criterion, Arrow, Twilight Time, and Shout! all seem to be doing fine with their respective shares of the library. But Disney proper also has licensing agreements with Kino Lorber and Shout! (just for Gravity Falls in the latter's case but there may be more to come). What is going to happen to Fox proper is what we should be watching. If Fox ceases to exist as a unit, then obviously the licensing deal would go away with them. But if it continues to function as a separate unit under Disney, then who knows? How long was this deal for in the first place?

 

[Todd Erwin]

I know, I just pointed out my theory as to why Time Warner didn't want it when they already had everything that M-G-M actually built its legacy on in the first place. Ted Turner almost went broke buying it out; TW buying him out in turn also enabled them to get back their own films that had already ended up with United Artists.

When I heard about the Fox/Disney merger, I wondered about the licensing deal, too. In fact, that was one of the first things on my mind. Frankly, they'd be better off with independent labels, since Criterion, Arrow, Twilight Time, and Shout! all seem to be doing fine with their respective shares of the library. But Disney proper also has licensing agreements with Kino Lorber and Shout! (just for Gravity Falls in the latter's case but there may be more). What is going to happen to Fox proper is what we should be watching. If Fox ceases to exist as a unit, then obviously the licensing deal would go away with them. But if it continues to function as a separate unt under Disney, then who knows? How long was this deal for in the first place?

Disney has also licensed most of their Hollywood Pictures output to Kino.

 

[MatthewA]

Disney has also licensed most of their Hollywood Pictures output to Kino.

After some of them had already gotten bare-bones Mill Creek releases. It's not that they don't want their movies on disc at all, it's that they want someone else to share the costs of actually pressing the discs.

 

[Filmfanatic10]

That was a one-off where Universal handled distribution, similar to Warner on Tomb Raider.

WB also distributed Every Day (an Orion Pictures release by MGM) on DVD, Blu-ray and digital, along with most of their co-productions with MGM (aside from Tomb Raider, which you brought up), whose co-productions with their other studio partners (Sony, Paramount, Fox and Lionsgate) were distributed on DVD, Blu-ray and digital by the said studio partners, excluding.

 

[Filmfanatic10]

I must bring this thread back to the top now that Universal and Warner Bros. are merging their North American physical home media distribution operations together in a newly-formed cost-cutting joint venture. Do you guys think that WB and/or Universal's home entertainment arms should sign deals with MGM and/or Paramount (or maybe the other way around) to distribute their library titles on physical disc and digital, with the Universal/WB joint venture handling sales, marketing and distribution of the physical disc products on behalf of their two partners?

 

[Garysb]

Are you asking if the MGM films should be acquired by someone like Warner Bros or if Warner Bros should just obtain the distribution rights? If Warner Bros just obtains the distribution rights, nothing would probably change. They would just distribute what they are given. Similar to when Warner Bros distributed some Paramount Pictures. We got some great double features but the same masters. Maybe they would chose not to distribute some films because of the condition of the masters but I doubt they would invest in new masters. Now if they obtained ownership of the films, they might be willing to invest in them. Of course as has been said, Warner Bros already owns many films in need of preservation so the MGM films would just become additional films in the cue.

 

[Filmfanatic10]

.

 

[Filmfanatic10]

Are you asking if the MGM films should be acquired by someone like Warner Bros or if Warner Bros should just obtain the distribution rights? If Warner Bros just obtains the distribution rights, nothing would probably change. They would just distribute what they are given. Similar to when Warner Bros distributed some Paramount Pictures. We got some great double features but the same masters. Maybe they would chose not to distribute some films because of the condition of the masters but I doubt they would invest in new masters. Now if they obtained ownership of the films, they might be willing to invest in them. Of course as has been said, Warner Bros already owns many films in need of preservation so the MGM films would just become additional films in the cue.

If MGM makes a deal with WB, I wish that WB would produce discs for MGM rather than merely reissuing older ones.

 

[StarDestroyer52]

If MGM makes a deal with WB, I wish that WB would produce discs for MGM rather that merely reissuing older ones.

I do hope, that MGM makes a deal with WB or is acquired by Warner I hope they still allow MGM titles to be released by the boutique labels since there are so many titles.

 

[battlebeast]

I say let the smaller boutique companies handle them, because they are doing good work, especially with the UA titles. Kino even restored the original United Artists logo for A Fistfull Of Dollars and The Good The Bad and The Ugly, and I hope that happens more often. Would love to see the a new 4k reissue of Raging Bull done by Arrow or Criterion with the UA Transamerca logo restored.

I’ve never understood why people care so much about having the original logos on films.

To me, as long as the film is uncut, and (hopefully) restored, I don’t care what logo is on it.

 

[DVBRD]

I’ve never understood why people care so much about having the original logos on films.

To me, as long as the film is uncut, and (hopefully) restored, I don’t care what logo is on it.

I agree to an extent, but I think it would be nice to have the original logos. It's not a deal-breaker for me though, and I feel that a lot of people on this site feel the same way. Though, if I recall, years ago I read that someone on this site wasn't going to upgrade their VHS of The Cardinal to DVD because the Columbia logo was cut out of the disc. I don't get why someone would sacrifice quality over a ten-second logo, but some people do have their quirks.

 

[DVBRD]

I must bring this thread back to the top now that Universal and Warner Bros. are merging their North American physical home media distribution operations together in a newly-formed cost-cutting joint venture. Do you guys think that WB and/or Universal's home entertainment arms should sign deals with MGM and/or Paramount (or maybe the other way around) to distribute their library titles on physical disc and digital, with the Universal/WB joint venture handling sales, marketing and distribution of the physical disc products on behalf of their two partners?

I feel that Universal would be a good fit for MGM because they're already distributing the more recent titles. I don't get why MGM and Fox agreed to renew their distribution pact a few years ago since barely any product was coming out through that deal. But apparently, it will expire this June, so we'll see, but I have my doubts that the MGM/Fox deal will be renewed, especially with Disney now calling the shots.

 

[Filmfanatic10]

I feel that Universal would be a good fit for MGM because they're already distributing the more recent titles. I don't get why MGM and Fox agreed to renew their distribution pact a few years ago since barely any product was coming out through that deal. But apparently, it will expire this June, so we'll see, but I have my doubts that the MGM/Fox deal will be renewed, especially with Disney now calling the shots.

Actually, Universal is only handling CERTAIN new movies from MGM on physical home media (distribution for the other recent movies went to MGM's other studio partners and Fox), and that's only because they've theatrically distributed those movies internationally (except Operation Finale) and that they're co-financing No Time to Die.

 

[Brian Husar]

I’ve never understood why people care so much about having the original logos on films.

To me, as long as the film is uncut, and (hopefully) restored, I don’t care what logo is on it.

I see your point, but in some cases the were special. The UA Transamerica logo had special music for Fiddler On The Roof and that one hasn’t been used since RCA Selectavision disc.

 

[ahollis]

Warner Brothers has way to many titles to take on another companies inventory.

 

[Dick]

Actually, my vote would be that Warner does acquire it all -- though that attempt was made and failed years back.

Nobody does a better job with classic output than Warner Bros.

Only caveat there...WB already has so-o many titles from the libraries they own now (WB, pre-1981 MGM, RKO, etc.) that adding yet another few hundred or a thousand movies to its inventory would spread them out even thinner. I'd hate to see them becoming what Disney is becoming/has become. These mega corporations really don't often improve on things. They simply begin skimping on quality and customer service.