That is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a very long time. It's a movie, or two, that were never going to be made until like a year ago, and now probably won't get made anytime soon. Who does that heart? No one.
Ian McKellen might not be in The Hobbit
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
That is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a very long time. It's a movie, or two, that were never going to be made until like a year ago, and now probably won't get made anytime soon. Who does that heart? No one.
Simple economics. MGM's franchises may be steady enough, but aren't enough cashflow on their own to fund its debt. Its other income generating assets are in poor shape too. The debt burden is simply too big to take on in toto, given that situation. IMO, MGM is going to have to be filleted, the debt portioned out appropriately and sold off, and the best bits sold off to fund that sale. Breaking up a company like MGM is very complicated though, especially when you consider its current byzantine network of ownership and inter-related credit lines. If wholesale debt was cheaper and there was more demand for it, things would be simpler but the current market is pretty anaemic.
^ Call me ridiculous then you better spell correctly ;0)
And yes, if MGM goes down the tubes, how many little people will be out of work, or if all this film work continues in New Zealand, it will hurt Hollywood. Hollywood is hemorrhaging. American movies anymore suck.
Holm is too old for Bilbo of course, but at some point he's going to be unable to participate in any sort of cameo like Lee. This is the kind of franchise that can save a classic studio and instead money and bigwigs and economics as Hold said are ruining quality stuff.
Again too many hands in the pot. Who ever the dang partners are, were, who's still expecting their share, who has what rights. Correct that MGM has been in trouble for some time, but surely there must be someone with the know how and the capital to buy the company, make the movies, and properly distribute the profit. Simple economics would work here if everyone wasn't or hadn't already tried to make out like a bandit.
Is Jackson still in the lawsuit over the DVD rights and unpaid royalties? Heck, I'm amazed some sort of court ruling or bankruptcy filing hasn't stepped in to clean this up.
And yes, if MGM goes down the tubes, how many little people will be out of work, or if all this film work continues in New Zealand, it will hurt Hollywood. Hollywood is hemorrhaging. American movies anymore suck.
Holm is too old for Bilbo of course, but at some point he's going to be unable to participate in any sort of cameo like Lee. This is the kind of franchise that can save a classic studio and instead money and bigwigs and economics as Hold said are ruining quality stuff.
Again too many hands in the pot. Who ever the dang partners are, were, who's still expecting their share, who has what rights. Correct that MGM has been in trouble for some time, but surely there must be someone with the know how and the capital to buy the company, make the movies, and properly distribute the profit. Simple economics would work here if everyone wasn't or hadn't already tried to make out like a bandit.
Is Jackson still in the lawsuit over the DVD rights and unpaid royalties? Heck, I'm amazed some sort of court ruling or bankruptcy filing hasn't stepped in to clean this up.
$3,700,000,000 of debt is a bit more complicated than "simple economics." If someone wants to buy MGM, it needs to first come up with the capital to cover the outstanding debt that could be called in at a moment's notice. If you haven't looked around recently, the global economy is still more than mildly in the shitter at the present time. After the debt, there's still the value of the studio to be factored into any purchase price.
You seem to be under the impression that getting The Hobbit made will save MGM. First, the studio has to find the buckets of money just to get it made. Then, okay, both movies will make a few hundred million dollars domestically (which would be split with Warner Bros.). Overseas grosses would be diluted from all the sharing. This isn't a situation where a fantasy movie will magically save the studio. The Hobbit is a one-time moneymaking opportunity, not a bucket in the sky that will simply overturn and pour hundred-dollar bills all over the landscape. MGM is in bad shape and has been in bad shape for a very, very long time.
You seem to be under the impression that getting The Hobbit made will save MGM. First, the studio has to find the buckets of money just to get it made. Then, okay, both movies will make a few hundred million dollars domestically (which would be split with Warner Bros.). Overseas grosses would be diluted from all the sharing. This isn't a situation where a fantasy movie will magically save the studio. The Hobbit is a one-time moneymaking opportunity, not a bucket in the sky that will simply overturn and pour hundred-dollar bills all over the landscape. MGM is in bad shape and has been in bad shape for a very, very long time.
There is no way Ian McKellen could NOT be Gandalf if the film is made. Fans of the film franchise would revolt.
I am not a fan of money at all. Yes the world is in financial trouble, but I look at it in simple terms. One investor put up the money for debt and financing- money you don't have to split or put in any other open hands. Make a good movie, people will see it and buy related merchandising products, return and profit made. People don't think of it in these terms, and that is how MGM got in this hole in the first place.
What if the world wasn't based on money? They we could have The Simarillion, too! Yes I'm simple and idealistic and like art and great film. So sue me. ;0)
What if the world wasn't based on money? They we could have The Simarillion, too! Yes I'm simple and idealistic and like art and great film. So sue me. ;0)
I must be the only person who thinks the plans for The Hobbit sound terrible. How Peter Jackson took the Lord of the Rings with a giant budget, talented cast and wonderful setting and still managed to make substantial chunks of it so turgid is the real tragedy. Doing the same thing to The Hobbit, over two full-length movies no less, was filling me with depression.
I won't bother going to see either of those fucking movies if this happens.
^ And most people keep forgetting about the extensive film and television catalog off-setting the current debt. Just the films they own alone could place the company in good standing again if it wasn't for all the other debt. But as a company MGM has been run into the ground so far that the best thing to do is sell off their assets and cut their losses. I am sure the other studios would love to have the rights (and negatives) to their classics! (Those investors were out of their minds to buy the company back in 2004 as it is. Then all their squabbling about management made things even worse.)
The most valuable stuff (pre-1980s films) is already owned by Time-Warner, though, so you'd only being buying the rights to MGM's films from the mid-1980s to the present.
Don't forget that Fox already holds the distribution rights to the remainder of the MGM catalog. MGM terminated its distribution agreement with Sony in 2006, due to Sony not hitting agreed-upon financial targets, and immediately turned around and sold the rights to Fox in exchange for a $625 million cash payment (which was needed to prevent an impending debt foreclosure).
Wasn't MGM the studio that was having some sort of buy back program, you mail in your DVDs and $5 and get the blu ray edition? Was that the MGM brand under Time Warner? You'd think they'd have some stock, but it seems they licensed everything all away. Such a shame. Is it the financial state of the world that will put such a fine vintage studio under or the crooked dealings of Hollywood in the last 30 years? Pity.
I also do agree that sometimes I am weary of these films. I don't think there should be two. I actaully think Potter would ahve been better served as a long television series instead of chopping the story up and going for flashy quidditch. Maybe The Hobbit and stories from The Similarillion would be better off as limited mini series? Yes they can make blockbuster money, but if there's enough story to tell more than one movie, why not make a series?
I know, I know. Too many rights, issues, and money to be made. Has it ever been possible to make any show based upon what's right for the material? As opposed to the 'gimme gimme' that got MGM in all this mess.
I also do agree that sometimes I am weary of these films. I don't think there should be two. I actaully think Potter would ahve been better served as a long television series instead of chopping the story up and going for flashy quidditch. Maybe The Hobbit and stories from The Similarillion would be better off as limited mini series? Yes they can make blockbuster money, but if there's enough story to tell more than one movie, why not make a series?
I know, I know. Too many rights, issues, and money to be made. Has it ever been possible to make any show based upon what's right for the material? As opposed to the 'gimme gimme' that got MGM in all this mess.
Those titles that you can trade in DVD or HD-DVD for the Blu-ray are select titles under the Warner label (which is why Terminator 3 is on the list but not T1 or T2).
Hmmmm. I had forgotten about that. Well I guess they are screwed then. Other than the Bond films I can't think of anything in their catalog worth mentioning.
Until your socialist utopian fantasy world where we don't need money comes about, no. There will always be some financial consideration to any film or TV project, whether the creative people behind it are aiming for high art or broad entertainment. After all, they gotta eat. And if it's commercially successful, they might even be able to eat past wrap day.
I know I wouldn't envy the screenwriter who has to adapt The Similarillion.
What with lapsing into a coma at regular intervals...
^I actually thought The Similarillion might be adaptable (enormously abridged of course) if it were used as the basis for an animated anthology DVD like Animatrix, Gotham Knights and I think they did one for the Halo games too.
You'd have a "long" (30 mins-ish) segment covering the broad strokes of the creation mythology and the first age with a bunch of shorter segments in various styles touching on some of the more memorable tales or characters. The way Jackson and co handled the prologue to FotR is a good example of how to handle the material; that is rendering it down to the essential facts without going into too much detail or exposition.
I think that's as close to a Similarillion adaptation as anyone can hope for (or wish on someone for that matter.)
You'd have a "long" (30 mins-ish) segment covering the broad strokes of the creation mythology and the first age with a bunch of shorter segments in various styles touching on some of the more memorable tales or characters. The way Jackson and co handled the prologue to FotR is a good example of how to handle the material; that is rendering it down to the essential facts without going into too much detail or exposition.
I think that's as close to a Similarillion adaptation as anyone can hope for (or wish on someone for that matter.)
