Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Personally, I would rather not see any digital services provider own a movie studio's content. Apple might very well restrict the entire MGM library to their digital services and we'd never see another MGM title released on disc.

Apple buying one of the major movie studios would almost certainly be bad news for fans of physical media. Apple has no interest in selling discs.

I don't think you can say that is ever true. You have Comcast that operates a cable monopoly of sorts, but owns NBC and Universal without interfering with content distribution. The same would be true for Sony which owns Sony Pictures that readily distributes content. Legally if you buy a well known production studio you cannot constrain it to purely streaming when content has been previously distributed. They all offer streaming and media distribution.

Now considering that MGM is a mess, I wouldn't mind if Apple bought it so we could get SG1 on blu ray for example.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

I don't think you can say that is ever true. You have Comcast that operates a cable monopoly of sorts, but owns NBC and Universal without interfering with content distribution. The same would be true for Sony which owns Sony Pictures that readily distributes content. Legally if you buy a well known production studio you cannot constrain it to purely streaming when content has been previously distributed. They all offer streaming and media distribution.

Now considering that MGM is a mess, I wouldn't mind if Apple bought it so we could get SG1 on blu ray for example.

Apple is a much different company than either Comcast or Sony. Apple has always operated a very closed eco system, at least as much as possible, and I do not see them ever wanting to release physical media products. Apple is about control.

If Apple buys MGM then they can certainly decide how they want to distribute that content going forward. No studio has to release content on disc; it is their choice whether or not to do so. Apple also offers downloads, albeit proprietary ones that require their software to view. They do not only stream content. I just can't see Apple selling discs, but I wouldn't complain if they did.

[PhysicalMediaNut]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

Here's the story:

https://news.yahoo.com/james-bond-st...124244348.html

My heart does not break with this news. It probably means we are going to see a lot more bond content in the near future. Neither service is going to sleep on a IP like that. Bond fans should probably buy up the Blu-ray sets now while they are reasonably priced though.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PhysicalMediaNut

My heart does not break with this news. It probably means we are going to see a lot more bond content in the near future. Neither service is going to sleep on a IP like that. Bond fans should probably buy up the Blu-ray sets now while they are reasonably priced though.

We already have 25-27 Bond movies depending on how you reckon them. I'm a little burnt out, frankly, but the more the merrier for those who still crave more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_films

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Apple is a much different company than either Comcast or Sony. Apple has always operated a very closed eco system, at least as much as possible, and I do not see them ever wanting to release physical media products. Apple is about control.

If Apple buys MGM then they can certainly decide how they want to distribute that content going forward. No studio has to release content on disc; it is their choice. Apple also offers downloads, albeit proprietary ones that require their software to view. They do not only stream content. I just can't see Apple selling discs, but I wouldn't complain if they did.

The only aspect of control is the software/hardware relationship. Apple Music is not the only source for listening to artists. Neither is Apple TV+ for content. I guess you really don't understand how entrenched Apple products have been in the media industry or with music industry. A lot of studios and artists use their computers combined with various software (Apple authored, 3rd party). Look Apple could buy Sony, Disney, and other things but they didn't.

Now that Disney is pulling back all their content , I don't blame Netflix or Apple from buying it out if they could. Rather see either of them than the evil empire AT&T as they did with HBO.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Vilya

We already have 25-27 Bond movies depending on how you reckon them. I'm a little burnt out, frankly, but the more the merrier for those who still crave more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_films

Apple was already providing in iTunes the 4K releases of all the movies, I would say they already have a close working relationship with MGM.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

The only aspect of control is the software/hardware relationship. Apple Music is not the only source for listening to artists. Neither is Apple TV+ for content. I guess you really don't understand how entrenched Apple products have been in the media industry or with music industry. A lot of studios and artists use their computers combined with various software (Apple authored, 3rd party). Look Apple could buy Sony, Disney, and other things but they didn't.

... yet.

Apple has already made it pretty clear how they prefer to distribute content and that is digitally. I do not see them ever having an interest in the physical distribution of anything beyond the hardware necessary to use what they sell digitally. I don't mind being wrong about this one bit, but Apple selling blu-rays seems as likely as me performing with the Radio City Rockettes.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Now that Disney is pulling back all their content , I don't blame Netflix or Apple from buying it out if they could. Rather see either of them than the evil empire AT&T as they did with HBO.

So long as Disney continues to sell their content on disc, and so far they are, I do not care if they restrict the streaming of their content to their own streaming service.

I never expected to watch a CBS show on NBC, so Disney taking their toys home from the other streaming services seems logical enough to me. Exclusives are what make one streaming service stand out from the others now.

[PhysicalMediaNut]

Originally Posted by Vilya

We already have 25 Bond movies; I'm a little burnt out on them, frankly, but the more the merrier for those who still crave them.

My prediction is that the Bond formula will change despite resistance against it changing, and I feel there is a risk that the new Bond content will cater to the values of younger generations. I hope they don't go that way. If they inject it with too much of their agenda, I will probably pass on it.

However, I wouldn't mind seeing a series that explores the character psychology more like what they were trying to do with Daniel Craig's Bond. They were scraping the surface on some interesting themes in Skyfall.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PhysicalMediaNut

My prediction is that the Bond formula will change despite resistance against it changing, and I feel there is a risk that the new Bond content will cater to the values of younger generations. I hope they don't go that way. If they inject it with too much of their agenda, I will probably pass on it.

However, I wouldn't mind seeing a series that explores the character psychology more like what they were trying to do with Daniel Craig's Bond. They were scraping the surface on some interesting themes in Skyfall.

We'll certainly never see a sexist womanizing James Bond again like we had with the original Sean Connery.

The next "007" will be played by a woman; they can't call her James Bond now can they? After that, the next next "007" will be a transgender and so on until every group gets their turn.

https://www.gq.com/story/lashana-lynch-james-bond

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by PhysicalMediaNut

My prediction is that the Bond formula will change despite resistance against it changing, and I feel there is a risk that the new Bond content will cater to the values of younger generations. I hope they don't go that way. If they inject it with too much of their agenda, I will probably pass on it.

However, I wouldn't mind seeing a series that explores the character psychology more like what they were trying to do with Daniel Craig's Bond. They were scraping the surface on some interesting themes in Skyfall.

The question is will you buy the film (No Time To Die) in 4K to support the format, agenda and all? You wouldn't test the waters and see Daniel Craig's final entry into the franchise in theaters?

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Vilya

... yet.

Apple has already made it pretty clear how they prefer to distribute content and that is digitally. I do not see them ever having an interest in the physical distribution of anything beyond the hardware necessary to use what they sell digitally. I don't mind being wrong about this one bit, but Apple selling blu-rays seems as likely as me performing with the Radio City Rockettes

Before you fuss over nothing. see the original article "MGM Executive Shake-Up Could Foreshadow Bigger Changes at Storied Studio" 1/6/2020

Who might buy MGM? Comcast, which already has international rights to No Time to Die, is said to be a potential acquirer, as is Sony, which once owned MGM and now has a familiar board member in Pascal. Shari Redstone's ViacomCBS recently acquired a minority stake in Miramax and needs to continue content shopping for her newly merged company, which could benefit from MGM's film library and its rights to such TV series as The Handmaid's Tale and Vikings.

But Apple, which has already made overtures, might be the best fit. While all media companies are looking to bolster content, Apple's fledgling streaming service is far behind Netflix, Amazon, Disney+ and the coming-soon HBO Max and Peacock.

"Apple is so huge. Paying up for this would be nothing," says Wall Street analyst Hal Vogel. “They are sitting on $250 billion in cash.” Still, he thinks that no move toward a sale would take place before No Time to Die. “You’d want to sell it after the Bond film. That will make the debt more serviceable, and the valuation of the equity should be higher."

Another knowledgeable source believes MGM could run into money trouble because it is so highly leveraged. This person estimates that the company needs No Time to Die, the fifth Bond film starring Daniel Craig, to hit the $1 billion mark — no small feat given that 2015's Spectre grossed $880.6 million worldwide. (In 2012, Skyfall did cross that threshold with $1.1 billion.) An MGM source calls that notion unfounded, noting that the company enjoys ample liquidity and strong support from banks and lenders. Another source says De Luca can exit if cash constraints become a problem.

MGM board member Kevin Ulrich, whose Anchorage Capital has the largest stake in the company, is said to be enamored of the entertainment business and has been resistant to selling in the past, but some insiders say he has become more amenable in recent months. Sources say Burnett wants to flip the asset, but the call will be made by majority shareholders Ulrich and Highland Capital’s Jim Dondero. (Dondero remains on the MGM board, though his hedge fund business, Highland Capital Management LP, is currently in chapter 11 bankruptcy.)

"Management and the board are always looking to optimize value and are focused on making decisions in the best interest of the company and our stockholders, which includes the recent hire of Michael De Luca," an MGM spokesperson says. "Coupled with the leadership of Mark Burnett as the head of the studio's successful TV business, MGM is and continues to be well positioned to grow as we head into this next decade."

Rather see MGM continue to be a source of entertainment then for it to fall into a quagmire of debt to multiple parties like now.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

The question is will you buy the film (No Time To Die) in 4K to support the format, agenda and all? You wouldn't test the waters and see Daniel Craig's final entry into the franchise in theaters?

I like Daniel Craig, so I will most likely buy it despite my Bond burnout.

The real question is whether or not I can accept a woman playing "007." I try to keep an open mind, but just the idea makes me scoff.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Rather see MGM continue to be a source of entertainment then for it to fall into a quagmire of debt to multiple parties like now.

So long as MGM titles continue being released on disc, the himself can buy it for all that I care. I just think that Apple is worse than the devil.

The main thing that should frighten anyone is this: if Apple buys MGM and still distributes their catalog on disc, then that means that you will see me performing with the Rockettes. No, you can't escape it; I will make sure that you see my debut.

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I like Daniel Craig, so I will most likely buy it despite my Bond burnout.

The real question is whether or not I can accept a woman playing "007." I try to keep an open mind, but just the idea makes me scoff.

I doubt she will be the next 007. She's no doubt got the 00 designation, but to replace the character? Nah. Much ado about nothing and the haters are just in a useless froth over it. The Broccoli's know what's up. $$$$$$$$$

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

I doubt she will be the next 007. She's no doubt got the 00 designation, but to replace the character? Nah. Much ado about nothing and the haters are just in a useless froth over it. The Broccoli's know what's up. $$$$$$$$$

Forums have more froth than every Starbucks combined.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Vilya

So long as MGM titles continue being released on disc, the himself can buy it for all that I care. I just think that Apple is worse than the devil.

The main thing that should frighten anyone is this: if Apple buys MGM and still distributes their catalog on disc, then that means that you will see me performing with the Rockettes. No, you can't escape it; I will make sure that you see my debut.

Yes seen this same panic before.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Yes seen this same panic before.

[Show spoiler]

You better behave or I will insist that you be in my dressing room opening night AND that you help shave my legs. Try and get that image out of your head!

[Boccaccio]

Originally Posted by Vilya

So long as MGM titles continue being released on disc, the himself can buy it for all that I care. I just think that Apple is worse than the devil.

The main thing that should frighten anyone is this: if Apple buys MGM and still distributes their catalog on disc, then that means that you will see me performing with the Rockettes. No, you can't escape it; I will make sure that you see my debut.

I'd definitely pay to have that on disc. In glorious HD no less.

[JohnAV]

A very recent update on this from CNBC

MGM leads 2020 media acquisition targets as the entertainment world splits into haves and have-nots

There is now significant and potentially irreversible inequality in the world of media. If you’re looking for an equalizing force, don’t bet on it happening in 2020.

Two major shifts in the past year have made scale — the concept of being as big as possible — more important than ever for media companies. The first is the transition from linear cable TV to streaming services, which are expensive to build out and run and require premium content to stand out.

The second is major consolidation — Disney buying Fox, Comcast acquiring Sky, AT&T purchasing Time Warner and Viacom merging with CBS — that has put media companies with enterprise valuations under $50 billion at a severe disadvantage to their peers.

The result leaves a handful of companies, including AMC Networks (enterprise value: $5.2 billion), Discovery (~$40 billion), Lions Gate (~$6 billion), MGM (private), Sony Pictures (part of larger company, Sony), and even the merged ViacomCBS (~$25 billion), in positions of relative weakness.

On the other side, Netflix (~$160 billion), Amazon (~$965 billion), Comcast (~$320 billion), AT&T (~$487 billion), Disney (~$315 billion) and Apple (~$1.4 trilion) have all put their flags in the ground in what the media calls The Streaming Wars, an evolution from bundled cable TV to a world of a la carte services that can be watched anywhere on any device. If Comcast, Charter/Time Warner Cable, Dish and DirecTV were the Big 4 of the media distribution world for the past decade, Amazon, Apple, AT&T, Comcast, Disney and Netflix look like the Big 6 of the streaming era.

MGM, in particular, seems like a logical candidate to sell this year. Its owners include Anchorage Capital, Highland Capital and Solus Alternative Asset Management, hedge funds that acquired the company out of bankruptcy in 2010. The funds have made a brilliant decision to sit on their asset for nearly a decade, turning a bankrupt content library into an asset likely worth more than $10 billion, according to people familiar with the matter. And unlike family-owned media companies like AMC (the Dolan family) or ViacomCBS (the Redstone family), the company’s owners are probably less likely to be deterred from selling.

MGM has held preliminary talks with a number of companies, including Apple and Netflix, to gauge their interest in an acquisition, two of the people said. MGM owns the James Bond catalog and its studio has made several current hit shows including “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which streams on Hulu, and “Live PD,” a reality police show that has frequently been the most watched show on cable TV and airs on A&E. It also owns premium cable network Epix. MGM had revenue of more than $1 billion for the first nine months of the year consisting primarily of about $600 million in TV and film licensing revenue and $300 million from Epix subscriptions. For the nine months ended September 30, 2019, MGM reported adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of $123 million.

You can spot a 800 pound Gorilla can't you.