20th Centry Fox looking to buy Warner: Good or bad for blu-ray?

[DenOfEarth]

It sounds kind of odd but what about if WB bought Paramount?

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by hilts

This.

WB has put a lot of tlc and support into the MOD line and I could see all that go into the crapper with a merger. Why doesn't someone buy Universal and clean up that shithouse?

Comcast just completed its purchase of Universal not too long ago. They're not gonna sell it anytime soon, lol.

[AgentOrange]

Originally Posted by hilts

This.

WB has put a lot of tlc and support into the MOD line and I could see all that go into the crapper with a merger. Why doesn't someone buy Universal and clean up that shithouse?

Umm.

Comcast just recently bought NBC Universal from GE. Universal literally just changed hands last year (in terms of when the deal was completed, it was several YEARS in the making).

[HeavyHitter]

Too bad Fox couldn't buy Universal.

[hilts]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Comcast just completed its purchase of Universal not too long ago. They're not gonna sell it anytime soon, lol.

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by hilts

He was responding to someone suggesting a takeover of Universal. The only way that'll happen is if the revolt over the Comcast/TWC merger leads to Comcast breaking up; that's happened before (the fall of William Fox, Fox's namesake, was from a botched attempt to take over MGM in the late '20's), but it won't happen today no matter how much everyone hates Comcast.

That said, no matter how much Rupert Murdoch wants Time Warner I seriously doubt the Feds will ever let him buy Time Warner as a whole. Even assuming he sells CNN, WB & Fox together would be far too big in the movie & home-video businesses. (The music industry is not an apt comparison; it was essentially failing when it consolidated, and few of those mergers involved a company that was already No. 1 like WB.) And how much longer would Disney/Marvel tolerate Fox controlling the X-Men movies while also owning DC? Maybe the Feds will let Rupert have HBO, TBS & TNT, but IMO he'll have a harder time getting WB past them than even CNN...

[hilts]

Originally Posted by RBBrittain

He was responding to someone suggesting a takeover of Universal.

I know. I was the someone, hence the forehead-smack. Was not intended as an insult to jscoggins, was supposed to be deservedly self-deprecating.

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

It sounds kind of odd but what about if WB bought Paramount?

IMO that would make more sense than this deal, but an even better option would be to undo the seriously botched CBS-Viacom breakup.

If Rupert wants to buy another media company, why not MGM? Fox & MGM already work well together in home video & foreign theatrical distribution, and IMO "Fox-MGM" would be a better corporate brand than "21st Century Fox". (The name William Fox proposed for his botched deal, "Fox-Goldwyn-Mayer", wouldn't work today; no one would replace the iconic MGM monogram with the acronym for "female genital mutilation". ) And by buying MGM's half of the Bond franchise he could nudge Sony out of the picture once their current financing deal expires (IIRC after Bond 25), no matter how much Barbara Broccoli & Michael G. Wilson like Sony.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by hilts

This.

WB has put a lot of tlc and support into the MOD line and I could see all that go into the crapper with a merger. Why doesn't someone buy Universal and clean up that shithouse?

Yeah, seriously!!! Universal is the one who needs it most! Comcast so far hasnt done squat.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by RBBrittain

IMO that would make more sense than this deal, but an even better option would be to undo the seriously botched CBS-Viacom breakup.

If Rupert wants to buy another media company, why not MGM? Fox & MGM already work well together in home video & foreign theatrical distribution, and IMO "Fox-MGM" would be a better corporate brand than "21st Century Fox". (The name William Fox proposed for his botched deal, "Fox-Goldwyn-Mayer", wouldn't work today; no one would replace the iconic MGM monogram with the acronym for "female genital mutilation". ) And by buying MGM's half of the Bond franchise he could nudge Sony out of the picture once their current financing deal expires (IIRC after Bond 25), no matter how much Barbara Broccoli & Michael G. Wilson like Sony.

MGM, not just the Bond franchise, is co-owned by Sony. Untangling that would be messier than buying one complete entity.

[popeflick]

It'll be interesting if/when Google makes a run at one of these studios.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

Yeah, seriously!!! Universal is the one who needs it most! Comcast so far hasn't done squat.

That is Comcast's M.O. after all. Don't upgrade their infrastructure, buy Congressmen/women, constantly raise prices, shakedown content providers for more money, and have some of the crappiest customer service in the biz.

Excuse me! So, sorry! That's "KableTown" with a "K."

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

That is Comcast's M.O. after all. Don't upgrade their infrastructure, buy Congressmen/women, constantly raise prices, shakedown content providers for more money, and have some of the crappiest customer service in the biz.

Excuse me! So, sorry! That's "KableTown" with a "K."

Right you are!

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

MGM, not just the Bond franchise, is co-owned by Sony. Untangling that would be messier than buying one complete entity.

Sony lost the piece of MGM it bought in 2004 after MGM filed bankruptcy in 2010. (Same for Comcast, who bought in with Sony.) Sony's interest in the Bond franchise wasn't affected, though they did return Casino Royale's video rights to MGM in time for the Bond 50 set.

Edit: This Hollywood Reporter article from 2010 clearly states that Sony & Comcast lost their interests in MGM when it exited Chapter 11. At the time it exited Chapter 11, MGM was owned 99% by its creditors & 1% by Spyglass Entertainment (whose owners were MGM's co-CEOs at the time); it is now traded over-the-counter but still supposedly owned by its pre-2010 creditors.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by RBBrittain

Sony lost the piece of MGM it bought in 2004 after MGM filed bankruptcy in 2010. (Same for Comcast, who bought in with Sony.) Sony's interest in the Bond franchise wasn't affected, though they did return Casino Royale's video rights to MGM in time for the Bond 50 set.

Edit: This Hollywood Reporter article from 2010 clearly states that Sony & Comcast lost their interests in MGM when it exited Chapter 11. At the time it exited Chapter 11, MGM was owned 99% by its creditors & 1% by Spyglass Entertainment (whose owners were MGM's co-CEOs at the time); it is now traded over-the-counter but still supposedly owned by its pre-2010 creditors.

What a mess.

Sony still distributes for MGM everywhere except for the US. However, Fox's deal with MGM expires in 2016, though it could be renewed as it was back in 2011.

I have a headache...

[saprano]

Who does every company want to buy everything? This happens in every industry. That's not good imo. Soon everything will be a commodity.

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

What a mess.

Sony still distributes for MGM everywhere except for the US. However, Fox's deal with MGM expires in 2016, though it could be renewed as it was back in 2011.

I have a headache...

Nope; Fox distributes MGM on home video worldwide, and most theatrical releases outside the U.S. & Canada. (I own several Fox-distributed MGM BDs from the UK, including the Bond 50 set.) Sony's only involvement with MGM now is the theatrical side of Bond plus a few movies (i.e., The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo) they let MGM nominally co-produce as compensation for the Bond deal.

[jscoggins]

Fox rebuffed again:

http:////www-nc.nytimes.com/2014/08/...pe=blogs&_r=6&

Updated, 5:22 p.m. | Rupert Murdoch‘s 21st Century Fox said on Tuesday that it was withdrawing its $80 billion takeover offer for Time Warner, after being unable to convince its fellow media giant to begin merger talks.

The withdrawal of the offer, only three weeks after making it public, is a rare deal-making defeat for Mr. Murdoch, especially after pursuing the biggest target of his decades-long career as one of the savviest of media moguls.

[Wildcat47]

I don't think it would be good at all, as far as more blu releases are concerned. I don't remember the threads on here, but a couple had members posting the stats of their personal collections. Most people, besides the people who only buy Criterion releases (not hating, love you guys too!), had more WB blus than any other company. Their output may be slow, but that tells me that they are putting out some stuff at least that people are definitely adding to their collections. Yes, WB has a huge library of titles that still need to be released. And if they would license out some stuff that would help! But overall, I don't see this buyout, if it happened, being a good thing for blu ray fans in the long run.

[Jobla]

Thank God for the latest news here.