Which company do you think MGM should move to if Disney absorbs Fox's home entertainment division?

Which company do you think MGM should move to if Disney absorbs Fox's home entertainment division?

  • Warner Bros.

    Votes: 18 46.2%
  • Sony

    Votes: 3 7.7%
  • Universal

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • None; they need to stay at Fox.

    Votes: 3 7.7%
  • None; they need to stay at Fox/Disney.

    Votes: 5 12.8%
  • Fox/Disney (for some titles)

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Shout/Criterion/Kino/etc.

    Votes: 13 33.3%

  • Total voters
    39

Worth

Producer
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
3,545
Reaction score
2,600
Points
4,110
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
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.
It's not a deal breaker by any means, but I like to see a film as closely as possible to the way it looked in its first run, and the logo is part of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aPhil

Lord Dalek

Producer
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
4,620
Reaction score
1,609
Points
4,110
Age
34
Real Name
Joel Henderson
Warner Bros. is pretty bad with logo preservation themselves so its not like you're guaranteed to see the Transamerica T on most 70s UA films even if they did had that rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MatthewA

Garysb

Producer
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
3,286
Reaction score
1,532
Points
4,110
With the logos things can change. When Universal first obtained the Hitchcock owned films like Vertigo, Rear Window, and Rope, they removed the logos of the original distributors, Paramount and Warner Bros and replaced them with the Universal logo. They did, to their credit, keep the original score under the logo. This was done on the Universal theatrical release of the films and their first home video releases. Later, while the films still open with the Universal logo, the original distributor logo has been restored. Restoration work on the Hitchcock films didn't begin until several years after the films were acquired by Universal. The logo restoration was a small part of the film restoration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: battlebeast

Lord Dalek

Producer
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
4,620
Reaction score
1,609
Points
4,110
Age
34
Real Name
Joel Henderson
With the logos things can change. When Universal first obtained the Hitchcock owned films like Vertigo, Rear Window, and Rope, they removed the logos of the original distributors, Paramount and Warner Bros and replaced them with the Universal logo. They did, to their credit, keep the original score under the logo. This was done on the Universal theatrical release of the films and their first home video releases. Later, while the films still open with the Universal logo, the original distributor logo has been restored. Restoration work on the Hitchcock films didn't begin until several years after the films were acquired by Universal. The logo restoration was a small part of the film restoration.
That's not 100% true actually. The original Paramount logos were intact on first VHS's of Psycho and Trouble With Harry, Rear Window got its back in a 1985 pressing (which wasn't restored).
 
  • Like
Reactions: MatthewA

Garysb

Producer
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
3,286
Reaction score
1,532
Points
4,110
That's not 100% true actually. The original Paramount logos were intact on first VHS's of Psycho and Trouble With Harry, Rear Window got its back in a 1985 pressing (which wasn't restored).
Psycho was not part of the deal that lead to Rope, The Trouble With Harry, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and Vertigo to become available to view after years of being withheld by Hitchcock. It was sold separately to MCA/Universal in 1962 or 63 along with his TV series in exchange for MCA stock per the attached linked article. Psycho was not unavailable to view as the other pictures were. I don't know if the Paramount logo was ever removed from Psycho. I would guess the reason the logos were removed was a Universal decision and not the original studios. This is unlike the 1950's when studios such as Paramount and RKO insisted their logos be removed when they sold their old pictures to others primarily for TV broadcasts.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/74977/when-hitchcock-banned-audiences-seeing-his-movies
 
Last edited:

MatthewA

Lead Actor
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
8,884
Reaction score
2,530
Points
9,110
Age
37
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew
Warner Bros. is pretty bad with logo preservation themselves so its not like you're guaranteed to see the Transamerica T on most 70s UA films even if they did had that rights.
They put the 1980s Warner Bros. logo on two John Waters movies formerly owned by New Line Cinema that would have been anachronistic even if they had been made by WB when they were actually made!
 

DVBRD

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
129
Reaction score
108
Points
10
Real Name
Andy
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.
I should have been more clear in saying that not all of MGM's newer titles have been handled by Universal. However, I still think that the Fox/MGM pact won't be renewed because of MGM obsessively licensing most of their catalog titles (which has been their biggest asset) to the independents and Disney focusing less on physical media.

At this point, they have three other choices:
  1. Self-distribution. (Highly unlikely.)
  2. Stay with Disney, but MGM will pay for everything, like what they did in the '90s when Warner Home Video distributed their titles. (Possible.)
  3. Buy half of another video company and operate a joint venture a la MGM/CBS. (Unlikely, but more likely than the first idea.)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
29
Reaction score
11
Points
11
Real Name
F
I just read MGM's latest financial report on their website, and look what it says in the "Home Entertainment Distribution" section:

"Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment (“Fox”), a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company (“Disney”), provides our physical home entertainment distribution on a worldwide basis (excluding certain territories) for a substantial number of our feature films and television series, including Spectre, Skyfall, Death Wish, RoboCop, Child’s Play, The Prodigy, Vikings, The Handmaid’s Tale, Teen Wolf and other titles, and Fox performed certain EST distribution functions for our feature films through June 30, 2019. Our physical home entertainment distribution agreement with Fox expires on June 30, 2020, and we expect to have a replacement distributor in place immediately thereafter."
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarDestroyer52
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
29
Reaction score
11
Points
11
Real Name
F
new
I just read MGM's latest financial report on their website, and look what it says in the "Home Entertainment Distribution" section:

"Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment (“Fox”), a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company (“Disney”), provides our physical home entertainment distribution on a worldwide basis (excluding certain territories) for a substantial number of our feature films and television series, including Spectre, Skyfall, Death Wish, RoboCop, Child’s Play, The Prodigy, Vikings, The Handmaid’s Tale, Teen Wolf and other titles, and Fox performed certain EST distribution functions for our feature films through June 30, 2019. Our physical home entertainment distribution agreement with Fox expires on June 30, 2020, and we expect to have a replacement distributor in place immediately thereafter."
If I must respond to what I said earlier today, I'm sure if Warner Bros. replaces Fox as MGM's new physical home entertainment distributor as far as the library, television content and select new movies, they may allow MGM to continue licensing any necessary library titles to third-party distributors and Universal to continue distributing on home entertainment the MGM movies that they released or plan to release theatrically outside of the US. Just like the case with MGM/UA Home Video and CBS/Fox Video in the 1980s, when CBS/Fox was still allowed to distribute select post-merger MGM and United Artists films including new James Bond and Rocky sequels in addition to most of the pre-merger United Artists library under license from MGM/UA; the rest of the stuff including the other MGM titles and the other pre- and post-merger United Artists titles stayed with MGM/UA Home Video.
 
Last edited:

DVBRD

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
129
Reaction score
108
Points
10
Real Name
Andy
new

If I must respond to what I said earlier today, I'm sure if Warner Bros. replaces Fox as MGM's new physical home entertainment distributor as far as the library, television content and select new movies, they may allow MGM to continue licensing any necessary library titles to third-party distributors and Universal to continue distributing on home entertainment the MGM movies that they released or plan to release theatrically outside of the US. Just like the case with MGM/UA Home Video and CBS/Fox Video in the 1980s, when CBS/Fox was still allowed to distribute select post-merger MGM and United Artists films including new James Bond and Rocky sequels in addition to most of the pre-merger United Artists library under license from MGM/UA; the rest of the stuff including the other MGM titles and the other pre- and post-merger United Artists titles stayed with MGM/UA Home Video.
I think that may have been due to a prior contractual agreement between Fox and United Artists in the early-80s before the MGM acquisition. Allegedly, the agreement was later amended to cover half of the titles MGM/UA released per year. There were hints that MGM wanted out of the agreement, and with some exceptions (like the James Bond movies and A Fish Called Wanda), most of the movies MGM licensed to CBS/Fox in the later years were B-movies that MGM/UA Home Video could do without; titles like Spellbinder with Mark Hamill and Lisa with Cheryl Ladd. Eventually CBS/Fox caught wind of this and sued MGM.

However, this new pact is supposed to expire this summer, and I doubt that Disney is going to continue doing business with MGM. After all, as it's been said before, MGM has been licensing titles to any company willing to bite and Fox really didn't seem to care.
 

Garysb

Producer
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
3,286
Reaction score
1,532
Points
4,110
I am a bite confused as to what difference it makes to MGM who releases it's films if they are not releasing any films themselves. If leasing films in groups of several hundred to a company like Kino derives more revenue why sign with Fox to distribute most your films. Why not make several deals with boutique companies. As I think it was mention by me and others before I don't think Warner Bros or Sony are going to invest in restorations of MGM owned films like they do with their own films so I don't think it makes much difference who releases MGM films on media unless that someone purchases MGM. Warner Bros didn't invest in Paramount Pictures films it distributed for the short time that deal was in effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas T

Josh Steinberg

Executive Producer
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,395
Reaction score
22,785
Points
9,110
Age
37
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
MGM will likely seek a distributor for new films that they co-produce with other entities, and for their remaining big ticket items like the James Bond movies, West Side Story, etc. I’m sure they’ll maintain relationships with boutique labels too but they won’t be looking to Kino to do UHD discs for 007.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
29
Reaction score
11
Points
11
Real Name
F
I am a bite confused as to what difference it makes to MGM who releases it's films if they are not releasing any films themselves. If leasing films in groups of several hundred to a company like Kino derives more revenue why sign with Fox to distribute most your films. Why not make several deals with boutique companies. As I think it was mention by me and others before I don't think Warner Bros or Sony are going to invest in restorations of MGM owned films like they do with their own films so I don't think it makes much difference who releases MGM films on media unless that someone purchases MGM. Warner Bros didn't invest in Paramount Pictures films it distributed for the short time that deal was in effect.
Well, at least WB and Universal announced a domestic joint venture back in January for physical home entertainment sales and distribution, right? I know it's not approved by the Justice Department yet, but I heard it's going to be led by the president of Universal's HE arm and managed by executives from WB and Universal, so I'm sure they'll handle WB's sales and distribution better. If WB were to become MGM's new HE distributor starting in July, why not just start with some of MGM's biggest/best known library titles and TV series and then when the joint venture becomes official, add any others that apply later?
 
Last edited:

Thomas T

Producer
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
4,485
Reaction score
4,300
Points
4,110
If WB were to become MGM's new HE distributor starting in July, why not just start with some of MGM's biggest/best known library titles and TV series and then when the joint venture becomes official, add any others that apply later?
As others have noted, Warners can barely keep up with the demand for their own product (which consists Warners, pre-1985 MGM and RKO), why in the world would they take on another company and give their titles priority?
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
29
Reaction score
11
Points
11
Real Name
F
As others have noted, Warners can barely keep up with the demand for their own product (which consists Warners, pre-1985 MGM and RKO), why in the world would they take on another company and give their titles priority?
Don't they have active deals with Shout, Criterion and Mill Creek? I saw that some of their titles were released by them.
 

Thomas T

Producer
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
4,485
Reaction score
4,300
Points
4,110
Don't they have active deals with Shout, Criterion and Mill Creek? I saw that some of their titles were released by them.
Who is "they"? MGM or Warners? If you mean Warners, does it make good business sense to take on the extra load of another company and then siphon it off to other labels? As far as I know, Warners has no "deal" with Mill Creek but only selected titles of Warners owned product have been licensed to SF and Criterion. If they signed a deal with MGM as a distributor, it's improbable they would then license the product to other labels. When they had a "deal" with Paramount titles for a limited time, they didn't license those titles to a third party.
 

ahollis

Lead Actor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
7,772
Reaction score
3,387
Points
9,110
Location
New Orleans
Real Name
Allen
I expect it would either go with Paramount or go with the Warner/Universal deal when MGM’s deal is up with Fox. After all we are only talking about their franchise titles like James Bond and their 6 to 8 new features they release each year. The Fox deal was never really about their older catalog titles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Josh Steinberg
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
29
Reaction score
11
Points
11
Real Name
F
Who is "they"? MGM or Warners? If you mean Warners, does it make good business sense to take on the extra load of another company and then siphon it off to other labels? As far as I know, Warners has no "deal" with Mill Creek but only selected titles of Warners owned product have been licensed to SF and Criterion. If they signed a deal with MGM as a distributor, it's improbable they would then license the product to other labels. When they had a "deal" with Paramount titles for a limited time, they didn't license those titles to a third party.
I *am* talking about Warners' deals with Shout, Criterion and Mill Creek (I read about that on Wikipedia).
 
Last edited:

StarDestroyer52

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
93
Reaction score
152
Points
10
Location
Eastern Maryland
Real Name
John
I *am* talking about Warners' deals with Shout, Critereon and Mill Creek (I read about that on Wikipedia).
Unless I'm missing something, what deal with Mill Creek?
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
343,629
Messages
4,685,380
Members
140,965
Latest member
RebeccaLawrence