
Can ‘The Hobbit’ Wait For MGM Decisions?
EXCLUSIVE: Now that Spyglass has emerged as the favorite to steer MGM’s future fortunes — although Summit insists it’s not out of the running yet and Lionsgate is in merger talks — more details are emerging about MGM’s possible future. Insiders tell me that the Spyglass plan would transform MGM into a pure production company and close down its marketing and distribution divisions. That would certainly cut costs in the short run. Coupled with the equity that Spyglass would bring to the table, a streamlined MGM would lower its debt and have a shot at raising new funding to finance its own pictures. That would let Spyglass partners Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum do what they do well, which is to lower risk by making domestic and offshore distribution deals.
But I see the downside of this plan. MGM would have to pay others to distribute and market its films — and those fees could be comparable or higher than the monies saved on overhead. I’m told that rival Summit and Lionsgate proposals would maintain MGM as a studio because both companies have distribution divisions. The Spyglass move would mean yet another morphing of MGM over the recent past. Under Harry Sloan, the revived studio started off as a distribution rental system for films by financiers like Sidney Kimmel and The Weinstein Co, a strategy that didn’t work. Then it had a short-lived stint as a production-distribution and marketing company under Mary Parent and Michael Vollman, with Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner running United Artists with a planned $500 million Merrill Lynch revolving fund. Well, UA didn’t make enough movies to keep that money rolling, and insiders say it dried up and went by the wayside.
So what’s happened to MGM’s slate? It halted when the recession hit and the credit noose tightened. The regime’s first effort was Hot Tub Time Machine, followed by the Kevin James film The Zookeeper. The latter film was reassigned to MGM’s partner on the picture, Sony, which promptly moved it to a high-profile Summer 2011 slot after the film tested well. A remake of Red Dawn and The Cabin in the Woods, written by Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard who’s directing, are in flux. The rest of the slate stays frozen, including The Three Stooges, Robert Ludlum’s The Matarese Circle, a Robocop reboot, and others.


“MGM would have to pay others to distribute and market its films — and those fees could be comparable or higher than the monies saved on overhead.” – Should be interesting to see how distribution costs and channels change over the next 5-10 years. So many more ways for a company to distribute and monetize content, while at the same time more challenging to create buzz and market interest. In the end, I’d rather have great content vs great distribution channels since great content will find a way to the market.
yeah, but would Spyglass be able to make “great” content? funding content is easy, making it – not so much. Leap Year anyone?
sp, that’s a wildly uninformed comment. If it were true, Mark Cuban would still be in the movie business. Distribution is EVERYTHING. The studios are releasing Billion Dollar franchises; the startup costs of that are organic in order to see decent return.
Yes, wildly uninformed since I’m referring to 5-10 years out. Things are changing rapidly with netflix, redbox, streaming, hulu, epixhd, etc. Today, distributors have you by the balls. I’m just not sure that will also be the case.
MGM UA. Not since it glory days has this company been taken seriously. Moreover,it has been mistreated, reamed, steamed and dry cleaned. It’s assets were leveraged, sold and then resold. Distribution and Marketing is everything perhaps it’s time for the two Lions to merge. Perhaps, it will give birth to a new era! A pure production studio is a bad idea. A Lions Gate MGM UA merger makes for an interesting play. I would then resurrect the UA brand with a focus on independent and emerging filmmakers, foreign films to facilitate the company’s investments in international cable and satellite channels. Lions Gate Management Jon F & Micheal B have the balls and know-how to lead. The merger would streamline both company’s operations and lot’s of talented people would lose there jobs, but the end result will best for the MGM debt holders, and LionsGate shareholders.
I’m also a little leery about them giving up on their own marketing and distribution. Spyglass is already production company, you’d think they’d want their own distribution and marketing, as opposed to paying for it from other studios who’d most likely jerk them around over every nickel and dime.
Then there’s all sorts of complications that arise from being dependent on a competitor to get your movies into theaters.
The more I think about it, the less I like it.
ask any floating pure-play production entity in town how they like it, and you’ll get the exact same answer – it sucks. you have no control over your destiny. when you pay other studios to market and distribute your content, you play second fiddle to their homegrown content, you get the leftovers from their trailer placements, from their media value-addeds, from their publicity opportunities. unless you pick and stay at a home (DWA, Imagine, Bruckheimer), you are screwed. nothing like making an expensive movie to have it be treated like the ugly stepchild.
If MGM becomes just a Production Company, how is this that different than Spyglass in its current incarnation? What does Spyglass get from the equation, other than a new name for their production company and access to remake films from the library (assuming the library titles with remake rights aren’t sold)?
MGM should never give up their distribution division. MGM has one of the biggest libraries of films in the world (if not the biggest). The James Bond series alone is worth a couple billion dollars. The fact that the company is bidding so low only shows that no one with any balls is stepping up to take the reigns. The studio can never go bankrupt because there is a clause in the Broccoli agreement that in the event of a liquidation all rights to the James Bond series will revert to the Broccoli family. So all of you creditors out there, breathing down MGM’s neck, take that into account. You won’t get jack squat if MGM files for Chapter 11.
What you people need to do is bight the f-ing bullet and hire a major studio head to guide the studio in the right direction. Capitalize on the giant library. Gone with the Wind, Ben-Hur, Wizard of Oz, good lord the list is long and prestigious.
What the hell is going on? Get a business man up in that schwinn and snap some whips!
“Art for art’s sake!”
“Gone with the Wind, Ben-Hur, Wizard of Oz, good lord the list is long and prestigious.”
None of these is with MGM now – almost everything made before 1986 is currently owned by Warner.
The current MGM library is far from “one of the biggest libraries of films in the world (if not the biggest)” – it is quite big, but the titles are mostly crap from former independent companies, with the occasional UA gem.
Typo: “bite the f-ing bullet.”
Thanks so much.
Turning MGM into a production company without a distribution arm would be like buying a stud horse and turning it into a gelding.
This is the dumbest idea in Hollywood in 2010.
But the year is still young.