Comments (17)

• I don’t see anything wrong with it. Oh dear god, 2-3 studios want to work together to save money, how dare them! Gimmie a break.

  Comment by P Black — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 4:17pm PST  Reply to this post

• And now we begin to see why the studios have been so crappy to the Guilds – the major obstacle for such a move – with the Guilds like the WGA and SAG riven with internal strife, a united opposition is all the harder to mount. I always thought they had to have a secret endgame.

  Where are the anti-trust boys when we need them?

  Comment by anotherwgamember — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 5:35pm PST  Reply to this post

• Well, I’m sure the FTC will have no problem with this…
  They’d probably raise fewer hackles if they all just capitalized a holding company that bought the home ent divisions off the original companies, like how The Big 5 used to own nominally-independent theater chains, and would negotiate pooling with the partners to control distribution to theater chains. Of course, Paramount decision said that violated Sherman, but that was a pretty leftist court. Nowadays, who’s to say what they’d let slip by. It probably wouldn’t be an issue as long as they didn’t try to block-book DVD retailers, or demanding that Walmart or Best Buy agree to buy the consortium’s films sight-unseen, or in a formula deal where the retailer agrees to purchase a certain percentage of product. These are the sort of deals that got Microsoft in trouble (let alone 1940s MGM), but MS was able to engineer a solution without the Justice Dept. succeeding in breaking up their company.

  Comment by jamie — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 5:58pm PST  Reply to this post

• Mel Harris says, “They’re coming to Sony?”

  Comment by insideout — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 6:07pm PST  Reply to this post

• So, the story isn’t BS after all?

  Comment by Tim — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 6:10pm PST  Reply to this post

• anti trust – never gonna happen

  and did anyone notice the supreme court ruling on remote media storage?

  maybe people aren’t buying DVDs because of bad movies, shifting technologys and that the greed and incompetence of many home ent divisions have devalued DVDs beyond that of the peso

  Comment by Common cents — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 8:34pm PST  Reply to this post

• They may share/use the same physical production facilities, but by no means is it a merger between Par & Sony (and maybe Fox) in the business/economics sense. Garrahan from the Financial Times should not have used the word, “merger” multiple times. I’m sure Matt’s bosses are giving him caca for doing so (it makes the FT look like pathetic). And let’s not go into the anti-trust issues… Uhhh, no.

  Comment by Not Gonna Happen — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 9:32pm PST  Reply to this post

• The 1948 Paramount (at al) Consent Decree addressed monopolistic practices such as block booking, clearances, and collusion in the production, distribution, and exhibition of motion pictures. The divorcement that flowed from it arguably opened American screens to international, independent, and smaller film company fare, but did not address — as I think jamie means, though it’s hard to tell — blind bidding or the consolodation of distribution facilities. The Consent Decree has been pretty much gutted anyway, not because it was abrogated, but because today’s successors-in-interest to the original signatories are not generally bound by it. Indeed, the proliferation of co-productions belies much of its intent. Moreover, International distribution by such joint ventures as CIC (Cinema International Corporation, started by Paramount and Universal) are old news.

  I suspect that the word “production” in this context refers to manufacture/replication, not creating the product.

  Nevertheless, competition in the film business still deserves DOJ scrutiny. Favoritism is still shown to chains when theatrical engagements are settled; control of playing time and co-op advertising is up for grabs; questions might still be raised over whether changing auditoriums in a multiplex should be re-bid; and what about films that are warehoused until a favored exhibitor has an open screen while disfavored exhibitors go hungry?

  I doubt that Judge Edmund Palmieri, the jurist who supervised the Consent Decree, was liberal; he was acceptable to President Eisenhower as a district judge nominee after his service in New York. And Sherman itself was introduced by a Republican in 1890 and signed by President Harrison, also a Republican. It has more to do with free enterprise than party politics.

  And, anyway, DVDs are a transitional technology. The real power rests with whomever controls bandwidth.

  Reference: United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948)

  Comment by Santayana — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 10:34pm PST  Reply to this post

• Get Jon Dolgen on the phone, immediately!

  Comment by biondi — Tuesday June 30, 2009 @ 10:38pm PST  Reply to this post

• More collusion is right, the rich get richer and you leftists do nothing when a Dem is in power, it’s time to turn a blind eye. Hollywood is so far in the tank with Obama how can we expect anyone to look out for what’s right?

  Comment by jefCostello — Wednesday July 1, 2009 @ 6:39am PST  Reply to this post

• Lionsgate already has a similar back office agreement with Fox. Makes sense to keep replication costs lower. Technicolor is not doing so well financially and costs could be increasing there for lower volume runs. Smaller studios are always looking to do these deals because they are better to focus on marketing and sales of their content.

  Comment by NOT A BIG DEAL — Wednesday July 1, 2009 @ 7:17am PST  Reply to this post

• As the article states its more about manufacturing, distribution, back end office. Not marketing and sales. Also more about Paramount changing to Sony’s system, instead of Technicolor’s system of manufacturing the end product. If they can save money in the manufacturing of the end product it’s great.

  Comment by LSB — Wednesday July 1, 2009 @ 8:53am PST  Reply to this post

• Can you really call Paramount a major if they don’t have their own distribution anymore?

  Comment by Andy — Wednesday July 1, 2009 @ 11:09am PST  Reply to this post

• Not clear what the big concern is. MGM had their DVD with Sony, and now with Fox.

  Comment by ClearingStuffUp — Wednesday July 1, 2009 @ 5:12pm PST  Reply to this post

• The question is who’s running Paramount Home Entertainment? There hasn’t been a president of domestic since Meagan Burrows was laid off as part of the December purge, and Kelley Avery, PHE’s President of Worldwide Home Entertainment, was fired in May.

  The division that was once the cash cow of the studio is now a rudderless ship. What’s up with that, Rob Moore?

  Comment by An Observer — Wednesday July 1, 2009 @ 6:46pm PST  Reply to this post

• As digital increases, both the revenue and margin for the manufacture and distribution of plastic discs into retail stores is only going to get smaller over time. Smart for Paramount to recognize that now, and free its money up to invest better elsewhere.

  Comment by Justin — Saturday July 4, 2009 @ 11:37am PST  Reply to this post

• To remain competitive in the shifting retail landscape, capital investments in technology to manage inventory can run well into multiple millions. Fox made a significant 8-figure commitment to all the resources necessary to manage the entire home entertainment category at WalMart. Plus, they have a state of the art facility in Huntsville to manufacture and distribute.

  Par is smart to strike a deal like this that takes all the backroom stuff relative to physical media and farms it out. Fox already does this for Lionsgate and MGM (which ran away from Sony Home Ent distribution even though the company is a stakeholder).

  Yes, all will be digital eventually and Par will be better positioned for that reality by reallocating its operational resources toward building that business. And, Fox will make money every time they touch the product – going out and coming back.

  Even more interestingly, where this all to happen, Fox would rep about 35% of the marketplace to retail. Now that’s clout.

  Comment by 1moreindustryhack — Saturday July 4, 2009 @ 12:33pm PST  Reply to this post