MGM Swings To Q4 Profit With Help From ‘Skyfall’ And ‘The Hobbit’

COMMENTS (13)

• MGM is a joke in town. This statement is meaningless since MGM had really nothing to do with either of these projects (other than putting up some dough). They’re merely riding coattails and hedging bets until the inevitable IPO (hoping it comes during the “profitable years” of The Hobbit).

  Comment by Sucker — Monday March 18, 2013 @ 3:25pm EDT  Reply to this post

  • …and even then, they couldn’t have put up much if any money for the Hobbit. They were one of the “rights-holders” in the tangled web of that movie and all they got in the end was something like “international TV broadcast rights.” The success of Skyfall is strictly due to the good stewardship of Eon/Danjaq (the property is theirs and they call the shots – including hiring Mendes and casting Craig in the first one) and the marketing muscle of Sony. Crediting MGM with the success of Skyfall is like crediting Fox for the success of Star Wars.

    Comment by cuppajoe — Monday March 18, 2013 @ 3:58pm EDT  Reply to this post

    • All they got in the end was something like “international TV broadcast rights”? Are you joking? Do you not realize that the majority of films end up breaking even only because of home video and TV distribution rights? Hell, if all studios relied solely on box office success to earn a profit no one in this town would still be in business.

      Comment by tvdistmakes$ — Tuesday March 19, 2013 @ 12:52am EDT  Reply to this post

      • That’s right….Home Video AND TV distribution rights. But MGM doesn’t get a piece of home video. And they don’t get a piece of domestic TV distribution either. They just get International TV distribution rights. Yeah, I’d say that in the big scheme of things that’s basically a bone that got thrown to them by WB for being a partial rights holder with very little leverage. It’s a nice chunk of change, but nothing compared to the $1-Billion that the film has generated from worldwide theatrical (and also not counting the ton of money the film is going to make on video). So maybe I didn’t make it clear: they are getting a very small piece of a very big pie…BY DOING NOTHING EXCEPT OWNING DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS TO THE RALPH BAKSHI ANIMATED VERSION OF THE FILM. Clear enough for you now?

        Comment by Cuppajoe — Tuesday March 19, 2013 @ 1:49am EDT  Reply to this post

        • Let me get this straight. You’re criticizing a company’s success based on the number of rights they hold to a film and their active involvement in the actual production of a film? Based on your comments it seems like you’re implying that unless a company sees a film through the entire cycle and maintains 100% of rights to the film (or as close to 100% as possible) they don’t deserve the praise or merit that comes with the success of a film. You do realize that most studios sell off/buy rights to films all the time, right? This includes the selling of theatrical rights in small markets across the world.
          I threw in home video just because its part of the down stream revenue sources for studios and because you seemed to have wholly ignored this as a potential source of revenue in your initial comment. Just to be clear, the international TV distribution markets are huge and contribute greatly to a studios revenue, so I’m unsure of your reason to belittle these rights.
          Finally, why the animosity towards this studio? It’s a business like any other and it’s amazing to see that this studio, which two years ago was on the verge of financial collapse, is now seemingly profitable.

          Comment by Tvdistmakes$ — Tuesday March 19, 2013 @ 3:21am EDT  

        • Ralph Bakshi made Lord of the Rings, not The Hobbit. Check your facts people.

          Comment by Jay — Tuesday March 19, 2013 @ 11:59am EDT  

• Nice reporting. Making fin news sound like sportswriting. Pink pages should follow deadlinehollywood’s lead.

  Comment by Q — Monday March 18, 2013 @ 3:30pm EDT  Reply to this post

• Meaningless? Last I checked, dollars were real. At least in my part of town. I don’t care how much they had to do with it, the cash is still real.

  Comment by JackSpade — Monday March 18, 2013 @ 4:50pm EDT  Reply to this post

• It’s true they didn’t really make the movies, but even if they had, they were both in preproduction during the Mary Parent regime. We’re all still waiting for new management to do something.

  Comment by busyboy — Monday March 18, 2013 @ 6:09pm EDT  Reply to this post

• Dear Haters, Barber and company are on a roll. They had 21 Jump Street and Hansel and Gretel as well (which made some real $), and have GI Joe 2 which is looking strong. We should all be glad to have them back on the map. Love, Irving

  Comment by Irving T — Monday March 18, 2013 @ 10:24pm EDT  Reply to this post

  • We were all with you until the “GI JOE 2 is looking strong” bit. MGM only gets to play ball in these movies because of Skydance. Without them, MGM is still a holding company pretending to be a studio by remaking it’s back catalogue: Rollerball, Red Dawn, Carrie (again)…

    Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday March 19, 2013 @ 1:43am EDT  Reply to this post

• For what it’s worth, on the TV side VIKINGS is pulling decent ratings on History. It has the added benefit of being a surprisingly solid show (surprising because History airs a lot of crap). MGM has distribution rights everywhere but Ireland and Canada.

  Comment by Reggie Van Luster — Tuesday March 19, 2013 @ 3:14am EDT  Reply to this post

• All this talk of an IPO is nothing more than sabre rattling to see if anyone wants to come out of the woodwork and buy MGM outright.

  The likes of Time Warner will try and snap up MGM (third is a charm after all) but they certainly won’t be doing it for that price.

  Comment by Warner Borg — Tuesday March 19, 2013 @ 11:14am EDT  Reply to this post