477 replies to this topic

[DLibrasnow]

That company leased or sold the name and logo to a new production entity in the 80s, who then acquired UA, etc, and continued making movies under the MGM name. This is why the library of this MGM only goes back to the 80s.

The pre-1970 MGM library was sold to Time Warner in the mid-1990s.

You may recall that Cubby Broccoli took MGM to court in the 1990s to prevent the early Bond movies from being part of that deal. It's the primary reason why there was a six-year break in the series from 1989 to 1995.

[Joe Bond]

That company leased or sold the name and logo to a new production entity in the 80s, who then acquired UA, etc, and continued making movies under the MGM name. This is why the library of this MGM only goes back to the 80s.

If that's the case then how was this MGM able to sell the pre-1970 MGM library to Time Warner in the mid-1990s?

You may recall that Cubby Broccoli took MGM to court in the 1990s to prevent the early Bond movies from being part of that deal. It's the primary reason why there was a six-year break in the series from 1989 to 1995.

Actually I believe Ted Turner bought MGM back in the 1980's and then subsequently sold MGM not long after that but when he sold MGM he kept the pre-1985 MGM library, which included The Wizard of Oz, North By Northwest, and Gone with the Wind, but MGM kept the UA library which included the Bond films. Then when Ted Turner sold Turner Entertainment to Time Warner the pre-1985 MGM library was part of the deal and is now owned by Time Warner.

[RivenWinner]

Joe Bond is correct. Ted Turner bought MGM and owned it for all some 70 days. Yeah. He got in, got what he wanted, and got out. Didn't care one bit about the company or its future.

Turner took with him MGM's pre-1986 catalog, which itself is quite extensive, and used it to start up his cable tv empire. Turner Entertainment used these films as the backbone of networks like TNT and TBS. I'm sure most of you remember how they used to give tons of classic films.

Course, when Turner Entertainment was bought by TimeWarner, the catalog rights just transferred. That's why today you'll see many MGM films on DVD/Blu-Ray released as Warner Bros DVDs. So like Joe said, Wizard of Oz, North by Northwest, Clash of the Titans, Poltergeist, Gone with the Wind, etc. I think in almost cases, the MGM logo is retained int the films, and MGM is still the credited studio on the back cover credits, as it should be, obviously.

The fact that TimeWarner already owns a good portion of MGM's library alone makes them a primary candidate to purchase MGM. Take in mind also that their New Line Cinema division is co-producing "The Hobbit" films with MGM.

and lastly--TimeWarner came very close back in 2005 to purchasing MGM, but backed out at the last minute, and then that's when the current consortium of investors bought the company----for what I'm not sure, because they were supposed to fix the studio, and obviously, things have gone wayyyy worse.

Edited by RivenWinner, 13 November 2009 - 09:42 PM.

[Gobi-1]

Warner Bros buying MGM seems like the biggest win-win situation. It puts the MGM library back together again, gives Warner Bros the full rights to The Hobbit, and gives Bond a stable studio.

[singleentendre]

Please let Sony pick up the pieces.

Just for the sake of the blu-rays, please don't let it be Warner or Paramount: the two stingiest, suckiest HD distributors so far.

[Qwerty]

For sale: MGM Studio

Studio home of James Bond officially on the block

[mister-white]

Lets hope Lionsgate doesn't get far with their interest, I say this cause the company that releases their titles up here in Canada, Maple Studios, is simply awful, especially when it comes to DVD and Blu-ray. When Lionsgate announces a title, they act as if the Canadian release will be day and date, then at the last minute delay it to an "unknown" date that's weeks later, and then limits the retailers who carry it.

Now, there's a number of studios who I can see getting it, and here's my preference:

1. Sony (obviously, and the best for Bond, as they were the ones who got the films restored and helped make CR the best Bond in decades)

2. Warner (they had bought a large part of MGM catalog a while ago, I think everything pre- 1980s except for Bond, and they made a bid a few years back)

3. Comcast (they had bought a small portion of MGM a few years ago, and just recently I heard they're close to buying Universal, so imagine a Bond film with a Universal logo)

4. Fox (had made a rumoured move a few weeks back, they own the current rights for the DVDs/ Blu-rays, so a natural fit?)

[scaramunga]

For sale: MGM Studio

Studio home of James Bond officially on the block

Hurray!

Let's get this done so we can move on with Bond 23 and the other 9 Bond films on blu ray!!!

[Bucky]

this is exciting

[Joe Bond]

Joe Bond is correct. Ted Turner bought MGM and owned it for all some 70 days. Yeah. He got in, got what he wanted, and got out. Didn't care one bit about the company or its future.

Turner took with him MGM's pre-1986 catalog, which itself is quite extensive, and used it to start up his cable tv empire. Turner Entertainment used these films as the backbone of networks like TNT and TBS. I'm sure most of you remember how they used to give tons of classic films.

Course, when Turner Entertainment was bought by TimeWarner, the catalog rights just transferred. That's why today you'll see many MGM films on DVD/Blu-Ray released as Warner Bros DVDs. So like Joe said, Wizard of Oz, North by Northwest, Clash of the Titans, Poltergeist, Gone with the Wind, etc. I think in almost cases, the MGM logo is retained int the films, and MGM is still the credited studio on the back cover credits, as it should be, obviously.

The fact that TimeWarner already owns a good portion of MGM's library alone makes them a primary candidate to purchase MGM. Take in mind also that their New Line Cinema division is co-producing "The Hobbit" films with MGM.

and lastly--TimeWarner came very close back in 2005 to purchasing MGM, but backed out at the last minute, and then that's when the current consortium of investors bought the company----for what I'm not sure, because they were supposed to fix the studio, and obviously, things have gone wayyyy worse.

Thanks for posting some of the details of it. To me I would personally like to have Time Warner purchase MGM since Sony has experience with releasing Bond films but they do a decent job at releasing classic catalog titles on DVD/Blu-ray while WB is hands down the best. The Bond Blu-rays are well done but I am referring to some of the not as popular MGM titles like The Big Country which needs another remaster and the more popular The Magnificent Seven still has not had an absolutely great DVD. No doubt if Warner got their hands on MGM they would come out with a Blu-ray release for The Great Escape that MGM has still failed to release.

[zencat]

Prediction: No matter what happens to MGM, Sony will somehow end up with Bond. This is based on nothing more than my sense that Eon has a good relationship with Amy Pascal and would like to continue making Bond with her. Eon tends to get what they want in the end.

[MajorB]

Whoever ends up with it, they're guaranteed a huge profit as soon as Hot Tub Time Machine hits the big screen.

[col_007]

Whoever ends up with it, they're guaranteed a huge profit as soon as Hot Tub Time Machine hits the big screen.

that is so true it's going to be the movie event of the year

[The Shark]

Preferably WARNER BROTHERS. Anyone but SONY and LIONSGATE.

Edited by The Shark, 15 November 2009 - 10:26 PM.

[RivenWinner]

I prefer TimeWarner as well. Which ever studio or company does purchase MGM/UA, I hope will keep the studio up and running. I would imagine they would, seeing that the MGM logo/brand is one of the most recognizable across the globe. I hope both MGM and UA stay together.

What I don't want to happen is a piece by piece sale off of the studio's library, franchises, etc, which could be possible given the situation.

[DaveBond21]

Prediction: No matter what happens to MGM, Sony will somehow end up with Bond. This is based on nothing more than my sense that Eon has a good relationship with Amy Pascal and would like to continue making Bond with her. Eon tends to get what they want in the end.

I hope you are right.

[dinovelvet]

Prediction: No matter what happens to MGM, Sony will somehow end up with Bond. This is based on nothing more than my sense that Eon has a good relationship with Amy Pascal and would like to continue making Bond with her. Eon tends to get what they want in the end.

Interestingly, Sony just put out a brag/press release about how they had a record international box office year.

Sony flush with cash + MGM/Bond for sale = ?

[RivenWinner]

Interestingly, Sony just put out a brag/press release about how they had a record international box office year.

Sony flush with cash + MGM/Bond for sale = ?

Possibly. TimeWarner is also sitting atop a lot of cash, after having recently spun off its cable company.

[The Shark]

Let's hope TimeWarner gets there first before the bastards at Sony.

[Qwerty]

Variety: What's next for MGM?

Struggling James Bond studio sits on the auction block

[Tybre]

Let's hope TimeWarner gets there first before the bastards at Sony.

I dunno, I think Sony's that bad. Sony was involved with CR and QoS, easily two of the best entries in a while, and Sony (although a different division of the mega-parent corporation) was behind The Spectacular Spider-Man, which was by far and large the best Spider-Man series made, and for the recourd that's counting everything, spanning from the attempt to make a live action series decades ago (60s I think, maybe 70s) to the actually pretty well lauded 1990s series. Alas Disney bought out the Marvel properties and Sony dropped their control of that series, so who knows what will happen to it. Anyway, a big part of why SSM was such a damn good series is because Sony pretty much said "Go to town. Do whatever you want with it." And from what I've heard round here and elsewhere, that's pretty much what Sony's attitude was with CR and QoS. Now, sure, that has the potential to lead to flops, and I'm sure Sony has produced pieces of in the past (surely every company has) but Sony doesn't seem that bad of an option. If nothing else it's better than a Lionsgate acquisition.

[The Shark]

Let's hope TimeWarner gets there first before the bastards at Sony.

I dunno, I think Sony's that bad. Sony was involved with CR and QoS, easily two of the best entries in a while, and Sony (although a different division of the mega-parent corporation) was behind The Spectacular Spider-Man, which was by far and large the best Spider-Man series made, and for the recourd that's counting everything, spanning from the attempt to make a live action series decades ago (60s I think, maybe 70s) to the actually pretty well lauded 1990s series. Alas Disney bought out the Marvel properties and Sony dropped their control of that series, so who knows what will happen to it. Anyway, a big part of why SSM was such a damn good series is because Sony pretty much said "Go to town. Do whatever you want with it." And from what I've heard round here and elsewhere, that's pretty much what Sony's attitude was with CR and QoS. Now, sure, that has the potential to lead to flops, and I'm sure Sony has produced pieces of in the past (surely every company has) but Sony doesn't seem that bad of an option. If nothing else it's better than a Lionsgate acquisition.

I consider CR and QOS to be primarily EON's decision and their creative choice. I consider the fraudsters at Sony to be the ones behind the choice of Jack White and Alicia Keys, boring lifeless photoshopped Bond posters and DVD covers, and ripping us of with every Bond film by providing a shoddy release with terrible special features, and a "special edition" a year later.

I don't give a damn about Spiderman or any of their other franchises, I know how Sony function.

Edited by The Shark, 17 November 2009 - 03:52 AM.

[jaguar007]

and ripping us of with every Bond film by providing a shoddy release with terrible special features, and a "special edition" a year later.

Sony is hardly the only studio to do that. Almost EVERY studio has released a movie on DVD only to release a "collectors edition" a year later. At least Sony gave us both CR and QOS on DVD and Blu Ray 4 months after release, where most movies take closer to 6 months. Also the Blu Ray's of both CR and QoS were some of the best mastered Blu Ray (pq/aq) to be released. Sony does not release poorly mastered Blu Rays on the market like some other studios do.

[MattofSteel]

Sony also cut those ridiculously awesome trailers prior to CR's release. And the totally satisfactory ones that preceded QOS.

But the QOS print campaign certainly was dreadful. I'll give you that.

[scaramunga]

Sony also cut those ridiculously awesome trailers prior to CR's release. And the totally satisfactory ones that preceded QOS.

But the QOS print campaign certainly was dreadful. I'll give you that.

Here, here!!

Hopefully MGM / SPECTRE is sold very quickly to WB. Let's get on with the other 9 films on blu ray and Bond 23.

[danslittlefinger]

http://www.theage.co...91121-irvk.html

Murdoch's News among possible MGM buyers

News Corp., Time Warner, and Qualia Capital are interested in buying the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer film studio, owner of the ``James Bond'' franchise, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

The companies haven't examined the studio's finances and their level of interest will depend on price, said the people, who declined to be identified because the talks are private.

Burdened by about $US4 billion ($4.4 billion) in debt, Los Angeles-based MGM said last week it is weighing options, including a possible sale of the company. Creditors are hoping to get at least $US2 billion, from a single buyer or by selling the assets separately, the people said. Matthew Harrigan, an analyst at Wunderlich Securities, says MGM is worth $US1.6 billion to $US1.7 billion.

``It's hard to see it pushing to $US2 billion,'' Harrigan said in an interview.

Sony Corp. may also be interested in all or part of the studio, people familiar with the situation said. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. expressed interest in purchasing MGM at a Nov. 12 conference in New York, and Liberty Media Corp. Chairman John Malone said his company would take a look.

``It's highly unlikely that we'll make an offer to buy the company,'' Malone said in an interview. ``We may take a position in the debt.'' Liberty Media is based in Englewood, Colorado.

Teri Everett, a spokeswoman for New York-based News Corp., declined to comment, as did MGM's Susie Arons and Jim Kennedy, a spokesman for Culver City, California-based Sony Pictures Entertainment. Also declining to comment were Ed Adler of New York-based Time Warner, and Melissa Zukerman, a spokeswoman for Qualia, a closely held media and entertainment investment company with offices in New York and Santa Monica, California.

MGM assets

Closely held MGM is controlled by Providence Equity Partners Inc. and TPG. Comcast Corp. and Sony each own 20 per cent, while DLJ Merchant Partners holds 7 percent and Quadrangle Group holds 3 per cent. Led by Providence, the group bought MGM for $US5 billion in 2005. Sony and Comcast have written off their investments.

Created in 1924, MGM holds a controlling interest in the Bond franchise, has a co-production deal in the upcoming film ``The Hobbit'' and owns a 4,100-title library, including franchise films such as ``Rocky'' and ``The Pink Panther.'' The studio's television library includes the science-fiction TV series ``Stargate.''

Loan forbearance

Lenders have allowed the studio to delay making interest payments on its debt until Jan. 31, MGM said last week. MGM's $US3.7 billion term loan is trading at 65 cents on the dollar, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

MGM may be broken up if a single buyer isn't found, said Dan Murphy, of Chicago-based Pentwater Capital Management LP, one of MGM's creditors.

``I think it's going to be people interested in the individual parts,'' Murphy said in a telephone interview.

The library generated about $US500 million in cash flow in the fiscal year ended March 31, down about 5 percent, a person familiar said earlier this year.

MGM's only new release this year, a remake of the 1980 film ``Fame,'' generated $US41.7 million in worldwide ticket sales, according to Box Office Mojo, a researcher based in Sherman Oaks, California. A new James Bond film is in development and slated for release in 2011. According to Michael Wilson, the producer of the Bond films, there is currently no production scheduled for the film.

``MGM has done such a poor job of refreshing the library. It's a wasting asset apart from the Bond franchise,'' said Harrigan.

Logical buyers

Major Hollywood studios are logical buyers of film libraries, Imran Khan, a New York-based analyst with JPMorgan Chase & Co., wrote in a Nov. 12 research note.

``However, the purchase price has to be based on realistic revenue forecast,'' Khan wrote.

US traded shares of Sony fell 18 cents to $US26.80 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. News Corp. Class A fell slid 46 cents to $US11.98 on the Nasdaq Stock Market. Liberty Media -- Capital, a tracking stock tied to the company's investments, declined 37 cents to $US23.11.

Time Warner lost 66 cents to $US31.64, while Lions Gate, based in Vancouver and run from Santa Monica, retreated 6 cents to $US5.07.

From another report:
http://www.bloomberg...id=acl5dop5rqng

A new James Bond film is in development and slated for release in 2011. According to Michael Wilson, the producer of the Bond films, there is currently no production scheduled for the film.

[Qwerty]

Time Warner, News Corp reported interested in MGM

Studio's price will determine level of interest

[Double-Oh Agent]

So, in short, the likely bidders for MGM are Time Warner (Warner Brothers), News Corp. (20th Century Fox), and Qualia Capital and possibly Sony Corp. (Columbia Pictures), Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., and Liberty Media Corp.

Let the mayhem begin!


If I had to rank them according to where I want the James Bond franchise to go, I would put them this way:

1. Sony / Columbia
2. Time Warner / Warner Brothers
3. News Corp. / 20th Century Fox



4. Lions Gate

Forget Qualia Capital and Liberty Media Group



I'm fine with any of the big three studios getting Bond. Interestingly, each of them has a prior 007 connection (Sony with co-distributing CR and QOS, Warner Brothers with distributing NSNA, and 20th Century Fox with releasing the CBS/Fox Home Video videos of the series in the eighties). However, my preference would be for Sony since they helped do such a great job on Casino Royale.

[tdalton]

I can't say that I'd be all that upset if MGM/Bond ended up at Lionsgate. They're not a terrible studio by any stretch, and they're certainly miles better than FOX.

My preference:

1. Sony
2. Lionsgate

[large gap]


3. Warner Bros.

[very, very very large gap]

FOX

[Mr. Somerset]

I guess it doesn't matter to me which studio buys MGM. I just don't like the part that says there is currently no production scheduled for the film.