477 replies to this topic

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I really hope it doesn't end up at Lionsgate, as they have their own issues to deal with right now:

http://www.theglobea...article1499654/

[danslittlefinger]

http://www.ft.com/cm...f...com/home/us

Time Warner in $1.5bn bid for MGM
All-cash offer expected for owner of James Bond franchise

Published: March 23 2010 00:25 | Last updated: March 23 2010 00:25

Time Warner will bid $1.5bn (£993m) in what is expected to be an all-cash offer for the assets of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, owner of the James Bond film franchise.

The owner of CNN and Time Inc magazine group controls Hollywood’s largest film library and is seen as placed to generate strong returns from MGM’s assets through its distribution network and relationships with pay TV companies.

Icahn ups ante in Lions Gate fight
Carl Icahn has raised the stakes in his battle to take control of Lions Gate Entertainment by extending a tender offer to all available shares in the independent Hollywood studio.

The activist investor has built a stake of about 20 per cent in Lions Gate, which produces television shows such as Mad Men and Weeds and will shortly release the Kick- film.

[danslittlefinger]

http://www.variety.c...content=Twitter

Lionsgate responds to Icahn's letter
The studio fires back at the financier


Lionsgate issued the following response to Icahn's open letter:


Mr. Icahn is simply attempting to distract shareholders from the obvious--his offer price is woefully inadequate. Contrary to Mr. Icahn's statement, Lionsgate's Board and management team are focused on leading the Company and are committed to building value for all of our shareholders.

Our track record of successful growth over the past 10 years is evidence that we continue to move Lionsgate in the right direction:


Motion Pictures:

Lionsgate has created one of the only motion picture businesses with a significant presence in the horror/action genres, independent and prestige segments of the market.

Our theatrical business typically acquires, produces and releases approximately 12 to 15 films a year under a disciplined financial model. In addition, Lionsgate has been successful in releasing highly regarded hits such as the Oscar winning films "Crash" and "Precious" and in creating long-term, valuable franchises such as the "Tyler Perry" and "Saw" franchises. Our upcoming slate highlighted by the films "Kick ," starring Nicolas Cage, Aaron Johnson, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Chloe Grace Moretz and Mark Strong; "The Expendables," starring Sylvester Stallone, Killers, starring Katherine Heigl and Ashton Kutcher; Tyler Perry's "Why Did I Get Married Too," starring Janet Jackson, Jill Scott and Tyler Perry; and "The Next Three Days," starring Russell Crowe, typifies our diversified portfolio approach focusing on large niches where we have a track record of proven success.

We have achieved profitability on approximately 70% of our film releases over the past ten years -- one of the highest success rates in the industry.


Television:

Our television business has grown from annual revenues of $8 million in 1999 to approximately $350 million this year. We have been focused on financial discipline in developing new television product. Our hit shows "Mad Men," "Weeds" and "Nurse Jackie" are leading shows in the television business and have achieved critical acclaim, a devoted fan base and economic success.


12,000-Title Library:

Through a series of successful acquisitions and additions from recent television and theatrical productions, Lionsgate has built a premier, 12,000-title library that has generated an average of $267 million in annual revenue for the past three years.

Throughout the past year, Mr. Icahn has repeatedly changed his stance on Lionsgate and his intentions with regard to the Company:

In May and June 2009, Mr. Icahn had several discussions with management regarding Lionsgate's interest in a potential acquisition of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., (MGM) including his potential participation in providing financing for the transaction. Now he is openly criticizing Lionsgate for its interest in acquiring libraries.

Last year Mr. Icahn was openly critical of the acquisition of TV Guide Network and TVGuide.com, going as far as saying that the transaction "borders on recklessness."(1) Since then, however, Mr. Icahn praised Lionsgate's management for many of its decisions, including the acquisition of TV Guide Network and TVGuide.com.(2) Notably, Lionsgate believes that TV Guide Network and TVGuide.com are worth more than what Lionsgate paid for it a year ago and expects them to generate $75 million in EBITDA within three years.

Lionsgate is a strong and diversified company with a proven strategy to generate value for our shareholders. We are confident we can better serve our shareholders by continuing to execute our strategic business plan.

[Qwerty]

Len Blavatnik's Access offers plan to cut MGM studio debt

Turmoil over troubled James Bond studio home continues

[zencat]

Lionsgate is OUT.

http://www.deadline....er-lowball-bid/

[scissorpuppy007]

Glad to hear Lionsgate is completely out. Didn't fox drop out as well?
If so GREAT NEWS, the two worst (creativly) studios are out.

My wish would be Sony gets bond, and WB gets MGM. Probably won't happen that way.
If I had to choose I'd go with WB. MGM needs to be back with all the films it was once known for. Even if all it becomes is a logo, that logo will officially be back on the classic films. Not worried about Bond at all in WB hands, EON is there to keep them in check. WB has had a pretty good track record in the past 6 years. Cannot say the same for Fox.

[Mr. Somerset]

Never felt that strong about Lionsgate anyway. I'm thinking SONY as well for Bond. We'll see. I like Warners too, one of my all time fave studios.

[jaguar007]

I just hope something happens soon. I really want production of Bond 23 underway by early next year.

[Mr. Somerset]

I just hope something happens soon. I really want production of Bond 23 underway by early next year.

Indeed. Probably be a January shoot. Who knows? Still plenty of time for that I would think.

[Napoleon Solo]

One bidder drops out:

http://hmssweblog.wo...dder-drops-out/

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Just stumbled accross this in the LA Times:

http://latimesblogs....ing-fix--3.html

Lions Gate won't roar at MGM. Lions Gate, the little indie studio under siege from activist investor Carl Icahn, said it was pulling out of the bidding for MGM. Lions Gate had bid between $1.3 billion and $1.4 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal. That leaves Time Warner and billionaire investor Len Blavatik's Access Industries as the remaining bidders. The Los Angeles Times notes that MGM, which was put up for sale in November, could likely opt for a restructuring or stand-alone plan rather instead of a sale.

I'm still a little unclear about what that last part means - "...could opt for a restructuring or stand alone plan" instead of a sale.

Does this mean that MGM may just limp along indefinitely the way it has been for years now?

I really hope it just ends up at Warners.

Edited by Rufus Ffolkes, 26 March 2010 - 06:17 PM.

[RivenWinner]

Rufus,

I do believe that's what that last part there says. Since the beginning of the auction several months ago, one of the various options MGM listed was the possibility of remaining as a standalone entity. News Corp even stated that they were willing to inject cash into the company in exchange for equity.


One thing I'm not entirely clear on, as I don't know much about all this financial mumbo jumbo, perhaps someone can answer this: In 2005, when MGM/UA was purchased and brought private by a consortium of investors (Providence, TPG, Comcast, Sony, etc), it took upon itself a massive debt of some $3-4 billion. Why was this debt not assumed by the consortium?

And perhaps a better question--what in the hell was Harry Sloan's thinking to try and reduce this debt? He essentially stalled production at the studio and focused on distributing films (for the Wenstiens--all bombs basically). We are just now seeing the first bunch of films (starting with Hot Tub Time Machine) that Mary Parent's group has put together--and they had very little resources or time to do so.

Edited by RivenWinner, 27 March 2010 - 04:37 PM.

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

MGM lenders to meet after underwhelming bids

Disappointing bidding process for James Bond studio home

[zencat]

Oh, come on! Another extension. May 14 now.

Just die already. DIE!

[Goodnight]

I'd buy it if I had the money

[Trident]

And the beat goes on...

[jaguar007]

Oh, come on! Another extension. May 14 now.

Just die already. DIE!

Looks like MGM will live to die another day

[Skudor]

At least it's starting to look like they'll start selling the bits off and end this. Looks like the creditors prefer to keep things out of the bankruptcy court as long as possible or at least until every other avenue has been exhausted.

Anyway, I'd be ok with Sony buying the franchise off them.

[DamnCoffee]

Oh, come on! Another extension. May 14 now.

Just die already. DIE!

I agree. I'm tired of this.

[Mr. Somerset]

Another extention......I guess we won't get any official B23 news until after May 14th, then.

[Qwerty]

Access Industries said to weigh quitting MGM studio auction

Len Blavatnik's company waiting on response from James Bond studio home

[zencat]

Latest from Nikki Finke (who is really the only source on this worth paying attention to).

http://www.deadline.com

(for some reason I can't post the direct link. Getting message: "You have entered a link to a website that the administrator does not allow links to")

[Trident]

They expect another billion?

Has anybody thought about some of the creditors perhaps being in a thight spot themselves? It's not as if these folks routinely stuff their fireplaces up-to-the-chimney with banknotes and light the dosh, just because they like the smell of burning currency so much. There's a fair chance, there isn't another billion available. Maybe not even another few hundred million. At least not for that open fireplace...

[Quantumofsolace007]

i believe the "stand alone' option is the only way bond 23 would be able to come out in 2011 am i wrong.

though weith a smaller budget the film will most likely be darker more suspenseful and more quality time spent at fewer locations which is good.

[Trident]

I have some difficulty seeing that happen in this stand-alone way for MGM. You wouldn't want to build a house with an ailing company, would you? Neither will anybody want to produce a film with a partner you'll each morning sweat blood not to show up in the headlines with the words 'financial disaster' and 'imminent bankruptcy'. And I don't really see how that stand-alone plan would change anything with that regard.

A possibility might be for MGM to sell their rights for BOND 23 (if they didn't do that already) seperately to someone EON agrees with, that might just open the door for a running production. But a rushed small-scale production just so MGM gets some good money thrown into its jaws after tons of bad money? Why ever should EON do that???

[jaguar007]

A possibility might be for MGM to sell their rights for BOND 23 (if they didn't do that already) seperately to someone EON agrees with, that might just open the door for a running production.

I agree. I think at this point, selling off chunks of MGM might be the only option since nobody wants to pay for MGM as a whole what it's creditors want.

[RivenWinner]

I'm down for a lower budget Bond film. I feel the past few films have had really bloated budgets, and honestly, if you look at various independent, smaller movies, a lot of the same quality and location shooting is done on a fraction of the cost.

I think one thing MGM could consider, (and I'm surprised that hasn't really been done before with Bond) is attempt to raise financing for Bond 23 through various European studios. A lot of the films shot and produced in Europe are financed through various studios and partners to help increase the film's budget but for it remain relatively small for each individual studio. Just a thought.

[SecretAgentFan]

Budgets are bloated these days, of course. Yet, I don´t get the feeling that EON is guilty of that. They appear to act very cost efficiently and effectively. And I don´t know whether a Bond film really can manage to cut down on the budget and still work as a worldwide mass entertainment. The budget cuts on LTK did not help that otherwise good film and elicited complaints about the "too unspectacular for Bond"-action.

Generally, MGM will probably hold onto Bond as long as they can, understandably so, since Bond is their biggest asset. I find it strange however, that a studio in so much debt, cannot be forced by bankers to sell off Bond just to improve their financial situation. But the legal situation surely is so overcomplicated that simple solutions are not on the table. That´s what I really love about the contractual legalese of our modern times...

[Trident]

I think one thing MGM could consider, (and I'm surprised that hasn't really been done before with Bond) is attempt to raise financing for Bond 23 through various European studios. A lot of the films shot and produced in Europe are financed through various studios and partners to help increase the film's budget but for it remain relatively small for each individual studio. Just a thought.

But that wouldn't help the situation very much. Everyone investing into the project will want to get his quid back with interest, cutting down the possible result for MGM and their creditors. And as even a successful production can't perform magic and turn to gold, there is only ever so much money a film can reasonably expect to earn a studio. So even if MGM would find a way (i.e. a bunch of fools willing to trust them) to get their funds for BOND 23 in Europe, they still will want to get their investment back, and creditors surely will not want to share, all the more so as their own interest is overdue for some time now.

[The Shark]

Budgets are bloated these days, of course. Yet, I don´t get the feeling that EON is guilty of that. They appear to act very cost efficiently and effectively. And I don´t know whether a Bond film really can manage to cut down on the budget and still work as a worldwide mass entertainment. The budget cuts on LTK did not help that otherwise good film and elicited complaints about the "too unspectacular for Bond"-action.

To be honest, Quantum of Solace costed nearly $200 million when adjusted for inflation, was apparently the tenth most expensive film of all time (according to some sources), yet I just don't see all the money on the screen.

True, there were many locations in the picture (most filmed on location) yet they only last for a short fraction of time on screen, before our man jet-sets to another. Of course, there were a large number of CGI effects shots (according to production diaries) but none of them are particularly impressive, especially compared to other blockbusters from 2009. There was certainly a ridiculous preponderance of short action sequences, yet few stunts, and was there really anyone in particular who demanded a large salary?