If the reports are true that MGM’s studio library and logo are headed for the auction block, then I hope to see that their properties are sold to a studio that can try to do it right. MGM is one of the oldest major studios in Hollywood (since 1924) and has a long history of success. But today, the roaring lion logo isn’t so intimidating and has seemed less of a major player and more of a non-factor.No surprise there though, judging by a laundry list of telling problems including: turnover of upper management (after firing CEO Harry Sloan last summer), financial difficulty (having to restructure $3.7 billion in debt), and finally as a motion picture business, being unable to produce any sizeable hits.
This is MGM reaching basement level after a long way down.
Where’s the will to survive as a studio? Not that it’s any measure of good business sense to be churning out movies left and right, but MGM doesn’t release nearly as many films per year as the other five major studios. For the sake of comparison, Warner Bros. was involved in releasing 118 films over the last five years, whereas that same number for MGM is 56. The past year has definitely been a part of MGM’s vanishing act by putting out a whopping three movies in 2009—The Pink Panther 2, The Taking of Pelham 123, and Fame.
That’s one sequel and two remakes. All three of which underperformed. Where’s the creativity? Movie audiences love falling for it the second time around (which is valid unless it's Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel), but MGM is desperately resting on its past successes thinking it can re-invent itself. The web home page is so hopelessly nostalgic it’s shocking. Apart from the ad for “Stargate Universe”, you’d be hard-pressed to figure out what kinds of new entertainment this studio is anxious to sell to their consumers.
But it’s not because the webmaster is incompetent or the online marketing team couldn’t get it right—it’s a real problem that’s probably best illustrated in the upcoming “more movies” box (on the right) that doesn’t even fill the space. Sure, movie icons like Hannibal, Rocky, and Bond (MGM’s knight in shining armour) lend to a storied past, but what’s on the horizon?A quick glance at a list of slated releases for the next two years reveals that only another eight projects are in the works; the one particularly intriguing one being Guillermo Del Toro’s The Hobbit which is a co-production with Warner Bros./New Line Cinema and WingNut Films. Maybe that’s all the more reason that Time Warner should bid harder. Fox and Lionsgate have also been mentioned as potential buyers.
The studio with the lion logo acts more like a deer—lost in the Hollywood headlights. MGM has been slowly retreating into its grave for a while now, and it’ll be up to someone else to bring back its dignified roar if they’re auctioned off in the next couple of weeks.
I cannot wait for the Hobbit! Although I'm qutie confident that many people can. I think that the collapse of MGM as a studio speaks volumes to the fact that Hollywood must stay on its toes. Lagging behind in innovation, techonology (ie 3D) and unique scripts is enough to damage any studio, no matter its history. I know this summer Universal had trouble (with its big titles being Land of the Lost and Bruno), but Warner Bros. made a killing (with the Hangover). Keep your eyes out for 20th Century Fox's Avatar, although it has to make over $500 million to break even. I know I'm going on opening night.
ReplyDeleteYour reference to Universal Pictures this last summer as experiencing financial hardship is a good one, since the studio certainly did not get the box office hit they'd hoped for with one of their summer releases. Especially true when compared to other studios' huge success with (as you mentioned) movies like "The Hangover", "Up", "Ice Age", and "Transformers". As a whole, Universal's summer lineup turned out to be a wash. The only two of the five releases that wound up well below production budget were "Land of the Lost" (appr. -$35.2 mil) and "Funny People" (appr. -$13.5 mil). But the rule of thumb in the movie business is the '80-20 Rule'; meaning that 80% of a studio's profits is made on 20% of its product. Or in other words, every one out of five movies a studio releases earns enough to make up for the four other duds. But Universal's ticket sales in any of their mild summer successes ("Drag Me To Hell", "Public Enemies" and "Bruno") don't fit this trend however, and U will continue to suffer this fall by releasing films like "Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant" and "The Fourth Kind". Hollywood is definitely on its toes though because the current economy doesn't leave much room for failure-- there's been a fair number of shake-ups in upper management at different studios (Sloan at MGM, Cook at Disney, Lesher and Weston at Paramount) over the past several months due to this sensitivity. The box-office slump at Universal was likely a big contributing factor to the ousting of chairmen Marc Shmuger and David Linde in early October. It looks like MGM may be done for, but it seems no one's safe in Hollywood.
ReplyDeleteUniversal, universal. How I want to like your movies. You brought me childhood classics like Happy Gilmore, but your recent movies are neither funny nor profitable. Stop trying to take advantage of your properties and come up with some new ideas.
ReplyDeleteSpoiler alert: MacGruber is going to be the next Hot Rod, Brothers Solomon, Wayne's World, etc. Moderately funny movie that is a box office fail. I will see it. S. Hummel will see it. And about a million other people will see it. That's it. Universal, get your head back in the game.
Yep. I'll be seeing it... probably at the Bridge too, so I can get it in full IMAX and shake in my seat when the warehouse explodes. Plus, Jorma's directing!
ReplyDeleteI think studios should not be judged by the quantity of movies they are putting out, but rather the quality. There are plenty of movies that turn out to be flops at the box office. Movies are expensive to film, so if you are going to invest in a film, you want to create something that is going to generate lots of sales. Movies that go straight to the shelves are not as lucrative as those that make it big in the box office. I like that MGM doesn’t just sign away on anything, but rather is more selective when choosing to make a movie. Quality over quantity makes them different than there competitors.
ReplyDelete