Question about MGM

[AranhaHunter]

I don't know if this is the right forum or not, but MGM is co owned by Sony right? (AFAIK they have something like 20% stake on it). So why are the movies being distributed by Fox?

I ask because I saw this news in the front page where it said Fox in conjunction with MGM etc...

[Joe Cain]

Why Sony is Now a Bit Player at MGM (BusinessWeek, November 2006).

Apparently ownership interest isn't enough? The way the story reads, Sony did not meet performance clauses for moving MGM catalog, so in mid-2006 MGM struck a deal with Fox to handle home media distribution of most MGM titles (excluding films which Sony-Columbia-TriStar co-produced, like Casino Royale).

I think that's right, anyway---I await correction...

[LeoneFan]

Originally Posted by Joe Cain

Why Sony is Now a Bit Player at MGM (BusinessWeek, November 2006).

Apparently ownership interest isn't enough? The way the story reads, Sony did not meet performance clauses for moving MGM catalog, so in mid-2006 MGM struck a deal with Fox to handle home media distribution of most MGM titles (excluding films which Sony-Columbia-TriStar co-produced, like Casino Royale).

I think that's right, anyway---I await correction...

Let me rephrase that, what they are really saying is that Sony didn't want to overprice the crap out of the MGM catalog titles so for maximum profit it was handed over to FOX AKA the king of $40 catalog titles.

[AranhaHunter]

Hmmm I guess since because Sony is a minority partner and only owns 20% of MGM then that means they can go to other studios for distribution if the other partners so desire (Comcast, Providence Equity Partners, etc..).

That makes sense, I guess the only way that Sony would be able to control the distribution of all the movies is if they purchased another 31% of MGM.

Thanks for the answers everybody.

[Joe Cain]

Originally Posted by LeoneFan

Let me rephrase that, what they are really saying is that Sony didn't want to overprice the crap out of the MGM catalog titles so for maximum profit it was handed over to FOX AKA the king of $40 catalog title.

"LOL" doesn't really characterize the deep dark chuckle I got out of that...

[WickyWoo]

Apparently ownership interest isn't enough? The way the story reads, Sony did not meet performance clauses for moving MGM catalog, so in mid-2006 MGM struck a deal with Fox to handle home media distribution of most MGM titles (excluding films which Sony-Columbia-TriStar co-produced, like Casino Royale).

Essentially the co-owners of MGM did not like Sony having such massive control over a very big and very public piece of the catalog, and a neutral third party (who had handled MGM's distribution before the move to Sony, Fox) was seen as the solution

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Essentially the co-owners of MGM did not like Sony having such massive control over a very big and very public piece of the catalog, and a neutral third party (who had handled MGM's distribution before the move to Sony, Fox) was seen as the solution

Thank goodness WB didn't ahold of it...

NOTE: For those unaware of what I'm talking about, WB used to handle MGM's distribution...

~Alan

[Big Daddy]

Originally Posted by AranhaHunter

I don't know if this is the right forum or not, but MGM is co owned by Sony right? (AFAIK they have something like 20% stake on it). So why are the movies being distributed by Fox?

I ask because I saw this news in the front page where it said Fox in conjunction with MGM etc...

There has been some bad blood between MGM and Sony. They were involved in court battles over the Jame Bond movies. Initially, after Sony and some partners took over MGM, it was agreed that Sony would distribute MGM movies. However, in a surprise move the board of directors signed a deal with Fox. Sony still produces the new Jame Bond movies, but most other titles are distributed by FOX. Read the following articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM
http://money.cnn.com/1997/10/14/bizbuzz/bond/
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...ay_Product_/85