…why doesn’t Warner Bros. even buy the MGM/UA studio?

[Nate Spidgewood]

Okay, I’m new to the forums as I was a cartoon fan, but I’m confused. Personally, there are so many news going on lately about MGM’s financial troubles and their creditors’ decision to cancel/delay the studio’s potential movies.

It would’ve been great news to see Time Warner/Warner Bros. acquire MGM, considering that they already own the studio’s pre-1986 library through Turner Entertainment, and that their New Line Cinema was co-producing Peter Jackson’s anticipated “The Hobbit” film series with MGM. In addition to that, WB owns the pre-1982 Orion Pictures library and tries to purchase MGM in 2004. Also, WB has distributed MGM/UA’s home video releases throughout the 1990s, even though Fox distributes them nowadays. Plus, Christopher Nolan (of Batman fame) wanted to make a James Bond movie.

So as long as WB purchases MGM, it would have made the combined libraries of said studios the largest film library in the world, with all of the Warner Bros., MGM, United Artists, Orion, RKO, PolyGram, Cannon, Samuel Goldwyn, New Line, Hanna-Barbera, Lorimar, Rankin-Bass, Castle Rock, Saul Zaentz, etc. catalogs combined.

But sadly, the top contenders for MGM now are Lionsgate, Spyglass and Summit (the latter known for the horrible Twilight series) which has got to be the worst thing ever. I’m sure Warner Bros. would step in and restructure MGM which would be the biggest win-win situation, but their $1.5 billion buyout offer will remain on the table, even though the creditors hated that bid, viewing it as "too low."

I was pretty excited back in March when I saw that WB had outbid Lionsgate and Access to buy MGM/UA for $1.5 billion. I mean, reuniting the MGM name with the studio’s pre-1986 library acquired by Ted Turner would make life less confusing for movie fans.

So anyway, I'm now surprised MGM wasn't sold to Warners. Why doesn't this happen?

[Lord Dalek]

Warner made the highest bid for MGM but it wasn't high enough (the consortium controlling MGM wanted $2B) to seal the deal. So MGM closed the auction with no takers.

[The Clown Prince]

There is a lot of potential use in MGM's other properties, but it was clear that the ones WB had their eyes on the most were The Hobbit and James Bond properties. Robocop is one that MGM tried to get up and running with a remake, but stalled and fizzled out because of the financial issues.

Basically it coms down to MGM valuing their property more than what others want to pay or what they think it's worth. So right now, things continue to get worse and worse. Apparently there is some internal pressure at MGM going on to sell The Hobbit rights outright to WB. There is a lot of movement with Peter Jackson and the studio right now with it. They've done all the pre-production work and are ready to film now. It's looking like Peter Jackson will direct, but the latest on that is he'll do it if they can fast track it and start filming this year for a December 2012 and December 2013 release. If something can be done and MGM will sell those rights, it'll happen or have to happen this year.

It's really sad this has to happen. The longer this goes on, the more chance the Daniel Craig continuing as Bond gets less likely.

[launchpad20]

But sadly, the top contenders for MGM now are Lionsgate, Spyglass and Summit (the latter known for the horrible Twilight series) which has got to be the worst thing ever.I would not be happy if Summit (AKA, The 'Twilight' Studio) gobbled up MGM. (I say Comcast should gobble up Summit since E! loves 'Twilight' to death.) I've always thought that Time Warner should grab the rest of MGM since they own half of their library.

[Nate Spidgewood]

I would not be happy if Summit (AKA, The 'Twilight' Studio) gobbled up MGM. (I say Comcast should gobble up Summit since E! loves 'Twilight' to death.) I've always thought that Time Warner should grab the rest of MGM since they own half of their library.

I agree. Heck, even Comcast should possibly merge Summit into NBC Universal which they recently elected to purchase! And yes, Twilight IS the worst series ever. Anyway, I've always been keeping an eye on the MGM sale, but I'm surprised Carl Icahn is going to merge his recently acquired Lionsgate studio with MGM which would be a worst case scenario. It would be even worse than Kirk Kerkorian's constant takeovers of the old MGM studio. I've always thought Warner Bros. is a perfect choice to buy MGM.


Also, WB has distributed MGM/UA’s home video releases throughout the 1990s, even though Fox distributes them nowadays.


By saying that, WB was a distributor for MGM's home entertainment unit since the MGM-Pathe merger in the early 1990s (even though 20th Century Fox was MGM's current home video distributor). If you look closely at the back cover of each MGM/UA video release, you can see a small text that says "Available exclusively through Warner Home Video," so it means Warner Bros. distributed MGM's releases on video throughout the 1990s.

[Daikun]

WB wouldn't buy MGM because the company poorly runs its finances. It has been through numerous buyers over the decades (it was even in the hands of WB's child Turner at a brief point), and each one had to sell it away because they were losing money like a vacuum. Even MGM's own sister companies suffered the same fate. (Remember Orion Pictures? I wonder why you don't see movies from them anymore...?)

WB couldn't buy MGM some years back because they were too busy with their AOL purchase, and that failed merger left them completely battered. If they tried to go after MGM like everyone else did, it'd just be another money drain.

[The Clown Prince]

Reading my post from above, I forgot to mention that the reason there is internal pressure going on within MGM to sell The Hobbit rights to WB is because right now there is no money coming in to help pay the creditors. The sale of The Hobbit rights would at least bring in some money and bring some kind of temporary relief.

Sony on the other hand is hoping to outright by the James Bond rights. They already have handled the foreign distribution for some time and their ties with the 'Bond' franchise already would make sense. Honestly at this point, I can't really see any other studio but Sony to get the 'Bond' franchise. However, unlike The Hobbit rights MGM knows that without 'Bond', no one else will really want to pony up the kind of money they're looking for to buy MGM. So I don't see them letting 'Bond' go anytime soon.

[TheVileOne]

Sony needs to make something happen with Bond already so we can get Daniel Craig back.

[Nephets]

My questions is,what would happen if say Sony bought the Bond franchise,WB got the Hobbit and say FOX obtained Robocop remake? What would happen to the other properties that MGM has? If Lionsgate bought the rest,would that mean certain releases under MGM that were released under FOX and WB be now under the control of Lionsgate? Or would say the special edition of Pumpkin Head be under distribution by FOX?

[Rick Jones]

Sony needs to make something happen with Bond already so we can get Daniel Craig back.
I totally agree.

[Nate Spidgewood]

Sony needs to make something happen with Bond already so we can get Daniel Craig back.

Sony is really keen on the 007 rights, of course, but the franchise was originally a property of United Artists, which was gobbled up by MGM in the early 1980s, so MGM controls the series. Also, when MGM/UA was sold to the Sony-led consortium in 2005, they begun making movies in conjunction with Columbia TriStar. These include the last two Bond movies with Daniel Craig.

[Daikun]

My questions is,what would happen if say Sony bought the Bond franchise,WB got the Hobbit and say FOX obtained Robocop remake?

Everybody wins. ;)

[BartWinkle]

Is there any chance that MGM will get any of its pre-'86 properties back, or does Turner-WB have the rights in perpetuity?

[Lord Dalek]

Is there any chance that MGM will get any of its pre-'86 properties back, or does Turner-WB have the rights in perpetuity?With a few exceptions, the latter.

[Nate Spidgewood]

Ok, my choice is if MGM fails to cure its financial issues, they'll shut down as a privately held studio and sell off its assets. They'd sell the MGM name, logo and library to WB along with the Hobbit rights, while Sony gets 50% of the James Bond rights (no joke), and Cruise and Wagner acquire United Artists under a group of private equity firms. We'd look forward to that, shouldn't we?

[BartWinkle]

With a few exceptions, the latter.
Just out of curiosity, what are the exceptions?

[Jeff Harris]

Just out of curiosity, what are the exceptions?The pre-96 MGM titles Warner Bros/Turner DOESN'T own are the only exceptions. Some are in the public domain. Turner/Warner Bros. doesn't own Guys and Dolls either. Others MGM just had limited distribution windows to like State of the Union, Blowup, Rock & Rule, Breakin', and Pink Floyd: The Wall, and international rights to some films like The Wind and the Lion and Network. Aside from Gilligan's Island and the a.a.p. library, they don't own United Artists' output of films and television shows either.

The Flipper television series, the Fame television series, Kids Incorporated, the newer version of Sea Hunt, and the 80s version of The Twilight Zone also aren't owned by Turner/Warner Bros.

But yeah, 98% of MGM's pre-86 library is and will always be owned by Turner/Warner Bros.

[Nexonius]

The pre-96 MGM titles Warner Bros/Turner DOESN'T own are the only exceptions. Some are in the public domain. Turner/Warner Bros. doesn't own Guys and Dolls either. Others MGM just had limited distribution windows to like State of the Union, Blowup, Rock & Rule, Breakin', and Pink Floyd: The Wall, and international rights to some films like The Wind and the Lion and Network. And they don't own United Artists' output of films either.

The Flipper television series, the Fame television series, Kids Incorporated, the newer version of Sea Hunt, and the 80s version of The Twilight Zone also aren't owned by Turner/Warner Bros.

But yeah, 98% of MGM's pre-86 library is and will always be owned by Turner/Warner Bros.

Turner/Warner Bros. does infact own some of UA's movies from MGM. I believe 2 or 3.

And 1976's Network was a MGM/United Artists production, long before they merged. So both WB and MGM hold rights to the movie.

[Jeff Harris]

Turner/Warner Bros. does infact own some of UA's movies from MGM. I believe 2 or 3.A few:

The Prisoner of Zenda (both of 'em)
Around the World in Eighty Days
Bugs Bunny: Superstar
The Lorimar-made films distributed by UA
The Saul Zaentz films distributed by UA (Warners own the Zaentz library)


And 1976's Network was a MGM/United Artists production, long before they merged. So both WB and MGM hold rights to the movie.I noted that earlier. That one is a strange case of ownership.

Warner Bros./Turner owns US rights, MGM owns international rights and assigning 20th Century Fox international home distribution rights and Columbia theatrical rights,

[Lord Dalek]

Warner Bros. owns Blow-up.

[Jeff Harris]

Warner Bros. owns Blow-up.Ah. Premier WAS MGM. My confusion.

[the greenman]

Wait, so owns the Pink Panther library? Seems like WB bought Tom and Jerry out from MGM, unless Hanna-Barbera bought them beforehand.

Anyway, at the very least, WB should buy the rights to MAD MAX. They already have the rights to the sequels, which doesn't make any sense. Then they could put out a trilogy boxset.

[Lord Dalek]

Wait, so owns the Pink Panther library? Seems like WB bought Tom and Jerry out from MGM, unless Hanna-Barbera bought them beforehand.UA released the Pink Panther shorts so they own them outright. The Tom and Jerry shorts along with all the other MGM theatrical shorts/characters are all in the library half Ted Turner acquired. As for Mad Max, well actually Warner does the own the rights to the the original in some territories (Europe for instance), just not the US and Australia.