I wasn't too sure if I'm asking this question in the correct board, sorry if I'm not.

With MGM/UA Home Entertainment owning the rights to the Bond movies which format will these movies appear on or both? I see Casino Royale is BD only due to Sony Distibuting here in the US.

I wasn't too sure if I'm asking this question in the correct board, sorry if I'm not.

With MGM/UA Home Entertainment owning the rights to the Bond movies which format will these movies appear on or both? I see Casino Royale is BD only due to Sony Distibuting here in the US.

Bond is a Blu-ray only.

I believe there was talk that all of the Bond films were going to be released on Blu-ray this year or sometime next year.

like you said Bond is from MGM and MGM is BD only

I wasn't too sure if I'm asking this question in the correct board, sorry if I'm not.

With MGM/UA Home Entertainment owning the rights to the Bond movies which format will these movies appear on or both? I see Casino Royale is BD only due to Sony Distibuting here in the US.

SDVD for me. :D

All MGM titles are distributed by Twentieth Century Fox, but are owned by a consortium lead by Sony. Sony sold the MGM distribution rights to Fox once they realised they had sunk too much money into buying MGM, so Bond 1-20 are by MGM/Fox, 21 (Casino Royale) and 22 are by Sony Pictures Entertainment, anything afterwards is by MGM (this may change though) and distributed by Fox.

Also remember who owns a large share of the company, Sony. So they don't have much choice in being Blu Ray only.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., through its operating subsidiaries is actively engaged in the worldwide production and distribution of motion pictures, television programming, home video, interactive media, music, and licensed merchandise. The company owns the world's largest library of modern films, comprising around 4,000 titles. Operating units include Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Inc., United Artists Films Inc., MGM Television Entertainment Inc., MGM Networks Inc., MGM Distribution Co., MGM International Television Distribution Inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Home Entertainment LLC, MGM ON STAGE, MGM Music, MGM Consumer Products and MGM Interactive. In addition, MGM has ownership interests in international TV channels reaching nearly 110 countries. MGM ownership is as follows: Providence Equity Partners (29%), Texas Pacific Group (21%), Sony Corporation of America (20%), Comcast (20%), DLJ Merchant Banking Partners (7%) and Quadrangle Group (3%). For more information, visit www.mgm.com.

Acording to the new SD DVD's they are releasing these movies got a frame by frame restoration. These will look nice on Blu-ray me thinks.

Also remember who owns a large share of the company, Sony. So they don't have much choice in being Blu Ray only.

Also PEP have given Sony the control over their stake, basically giving them 49% control over MGM, but in all honesty, none of the equity funds are going to go against Sony as they have successfully run a studio already (Columbia) whereas they have little to no experience in this field.

Shoot, you guys didn't see the numerous Sony plugs in Casino Royale, including a whole bank of BD players in a security office scene? ;)

Hey .. I could swear those were BDP-S1 look-alikes (prototypes) in that Security office scene!!

Heh - now I gotta tell my wife I wasn't hallucinating ... Thanks Frozen :D

SDVD for me. :D

Me too.

Yesterday Amazon had the Bond Ultimate Edition Boxed Sets Bundle on sale for an unbelievable $125. I bought them all for two big reasons: there is almost zero chance that the BD versions will have all the extras of the Ultimate Editions and I'm HD DVD only anyway.

It is back up to $179.99 now, though...

Acording to the new SD DVD's they are releasing these movies got a frame by frame restoration. These will look nice on Blu-ray me thinks.

I viewed a couple of them and they do look quite nice (but have some EE). I agree they should look quite good on Blu-ray.

All MGM titles are distributed by Twentieth Century Fox, but are owned by a consortium lead by Sony. Sony sold the MGM distribution rights to Fox once they realised they had sunk too much money into buying MGM, so Bond 1-20 are by MGM/Fox, 21 (Casino Royale) and 22 are by Sony Pictures Entertainment, anything afterwards is by MGM (this may change though) and distributed by Fox.

Not true.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2006/nf2006036_6396_db016.htm

MGM also has a partnership with the Weinstein Company and all movies made under that partnership are distributed on home video by Weinstein, exclusively to HD-DVD.

Not true.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2006/nf2006036_6396_db016.htm

MGM also has a partnership with the Weinstein Company and all movies made under that partnership are distributed on home video by Weinstein, exclusively to HD-DVD.

MGM have since sold their distribution rights to Fox. So if MGM is the lead partner then the DVD/BD will be by Fox.

1 down (Casino Royale) and... a bunch... to go. :D

Me too.

Yesterday Amazon had the Bond Ultimate Edition Boxed Sets Bundle on sale for an unbelievable $125. I bought them all for two big reasons: there is almost zero chance that the BD versions will have all the extras of the Ultimate Editions and I'm HD DVD only anyway.

It is back up to $179.99 now, though...


I was tempted by that deal, however I'll be glad I didn't once I get it on Blu-Ray.

I was tempted by that deal, however I'll be glad I didn't once I get it on Blu-Ray.

Who knows how long that'll take? Plus if the SD versions are at B&M stores for $69 each ($276 for all 4), I shudder to think how much they'll be as an HD set.

And when they do come out, they'll most likely not have all the extras that the Ultimate Editions have anyway. IMO, they'll release a crippled version first so they can double/triple dip later with an HD Ultimate Edition.

Still, if I were a Blu-ray supporter, it would be less tempting... but at $6.25/movie for the two disc UE versions of all the Bond films (except Casino Royale, of course) it is a great deal.

MGM have since sold their distribution rights to Fox. So if MGM is the lead partner then the DVD/BD will be by Fox.

Sorry that you are still wrong. The upcoming films DOA, The Ex, 1408, and Fanboys are all MGM/Weinstein partnerships with MGM as the lead partner. Weinstein still retains the home video distriubtion rights to all these films, and when they come to home video at the end of this year/start of 2008, they will be HD-DVD exclusives.

Current releases Lucky # Slevin, School for Scoundrels, and Clerks II were also all films with MGM as the lead partner. They have been released to video recently, and who released them exactly, Weinstein or Fox? Weinstein. Upcoming releases Hannibal Rising, Factory Girl, and Black Christmas are in the same boat. Who is releasing those, Weinstein or Fox? Weinstein, with Black Christmas already announced as an HD-DVD exclusive. I think I'm beating a dead horse now.

MGM's partnership with Fox may apply to catalog titles, but it does not apply to ALL releases as you stated previously. Some MGM titles will be HD-DVD exclusives.

I've been saying this for months, but MGM is a split bag. The will swim in anyone's pool, whether HD-DVD or BD. Whatever benefits them the most financially is the direction they will go.

MGM have since sold their distribution rights to Fox. So if MGM is the lead partner then the DVD/BD will be by Fox.

MGM can't sell something they don't own. The terms of the partnership with Weinstein states that MGM owns the theatrical distribution rights and Weinstein owns the home video distribution rights.

After a period of time, the home video rights are transferred back to MGM so the film can become part of the MGM catalog.

However, MGM can't sell the home video distribution rights, because Weinstein owns those for a period of several years, not MGM. When the rights revert back to MGM, then they can license them to whomever they want.

Don't try to change the subject. All the Bond films would still come under BD exclusive.

Don't try to change the subject. All the Bond films would still come under BD exclusive.

Well, the answer to the question is possibly both, at least for some Bond films, on a global scale.

The MGM library is owned by several parties. From wikipedia:

"As of the present day, Warner Bros. (through subsidiary Turner Entertainment) owns the rights to the pre-1986 MGM film library. MGM itself owns nearly all of its own post-1986 library, most of the post-1952 United Artists catalog (although it also includes a tiny fraction of pre-1952 UA material), a majority of the Orion Pictures film and television library (which includes material from predecessors American International Pictures, Heatter-Quigley Productions, and Filmways) and the pre-1996 Samuel Goldwyn library."

Now, most of the older Bond films were released by United Artists, which are still owned by MGM and now distributed by Sony. However, some of the more modern bond films (most of the Roger Moore era; Moonraker, Octopussy, A View to a Kill, etc.), were a MGM/UA co-venture. Apparently because of this, Warner was able to claim some ownership to those Bond films as part of their purchase of the pre-1986 MGM catalog. Warner has distributed the MGM/UA bond films overseas as a result. I don't know if Warner sold their share back or resolved this issue in some other way since the purchase of the catalog. If not, it is possible that those films could appear on HD-DVD, at least internationally.

A quick shows Warner having little to nothing to do with those titles.

A quick shows Warner having little to nothing to do with those titles.


???

Warner has distributed those titles internationally and at least claimed to be partial owners at one time. I would call that something. It's how Disney movies, like the Prestige are being released on HD-DVD in the UK, when it is BD exclusive in NA.

However, there is more to the story that I don't recall. I remember Warner claimed partial ownership in all the MGM/UA partnered Bond releases (basically most of the 70's and early 80's Bond films). I don't know if it was a majority stake (depends on whether MGM or UA was the majority partner at the time they were made). Before the films were released on DVD the first time, Warner and MGM struck some sort of deal, but I don't know what the terms were. They could have sold their share back to MGM, or maybe they sold distribution rights to MGM (either for a period of time, or permenantly). Depending on what that deal was, it could mean Warner still retains the rights to distribute a portion of the Bond franchise, at least internationally.

Warner Brother also bought the rights and produced Never Say Never Again. They did strike some kind of deal there too, with MGM around the same time. I think it was in 1996 or 1997. So its possible MGM owns the whole she-bang, but WB (Turner) could still have their hooks in it somehow.

As of the present day, Warner Bros. (through subsidiary Turner Entertainment) owns the rights to the pre-1986 MGM film library. MGM itself owns nearly all of its own post-1986 library, most of the post-1952 United Artists catalog (although it also includes a tiny fraction of pre-1952 UA material), a majority of the Orion Pictures film and television library (which includes material from predecessors American International Pictures, Heatter-Quigley Productions, and Filmways) and the pre-1996 Samuel Goldwyn library.

MGM announced that it would return as a theatrical distribution company in the first part of 2006. MGM negotiated and struck deals with The Weinstein Company, Lakeshore Entertainment, Bauer Martinez, and many other independent studios, and then announced its plans to release 14 feature films for 2006 and early 2007. MGM also hoped to increase the amount to over 20 by 2007. Lucky Number Slevin, released April 7, 2006, is the first film to be released under the new MGM era. It also distributed Breaking and Entering with Miramax Films and The Weinstein Company. Other recent films under the MGM/Weinstein deal include Clerks II and Bobby. Upon the MGM/Weinstein films' release on home video, however, full distribution rights revert to Weinstein (under Genius Products).
The MGM catalog is a complete mess. Fox pretty much owns anything that doesn't fall under the above by the way of the deal that occured late last year.

Remember last year when MGM announced it was selling its catalog to Sony for home video distribution? Its library being vast enough to get Sony and various investors to raise $5 billion to purchase it? And then do you remember how almost NONE of those classic movies have been released on DVD since then??

I do. Believe me, if anyone does, it's me.

Well, so does MGM. Which is why they've worked out a deal to move their home entertainment releases to 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment from Sony Pictures' U.S. home entertainment division.

Under the old agreement with Sony, MGM films had to compete with Sony releases, which meant they were effectively squelched in favor of Sony's home releases. Fox is expected to be a better deal for MGM, which has recently revitalized itself as a studio again. While Sony will lose the rights to launch MGM films in the Blu-Ray format, Fox is also seen as a proponent of Blu-Ray, helping to soften the blow to Sony.
Why not discuss titles that have actually been announced? If I am a Bond fan, hearing that Fox likely owns the rights for distribution is bad news. Fox's support of Blu-Ray to this point has been abysmal.

Don't try to change the subject. All the Bond films would still come under BD exclusive.Why do you make such a statement when you have no information to back it up?

Hey .. I could swear those were BDP-S1 look-alikes (prototypes) in that Security office scene!!

Heh - now I gotta tell my wife I wasn't hallucinating ... Thanks Frozen :D

No problem.

Believe it or not, that was the scene that convinced me to go format-neutral. Sony and the BDA just had too much marketing muscle and content for me to remain HD DVD only.

Fittingly enough, Casino Royale was my 23rd BD purchase-compared to 22 HD DVDs.

It's sad for me, a little. I really like HD DVD-many of my HD DVDs look amazing and some of my favorite titles are HD DVD only. I just couldn't justify keeping myself away from something like 75% of the titles being released. Killed me.

I did some more asking around about the Bond films, and this is what I learned. At one point, Turner (WB) did own a partial portion of a part of the Bond catalog, and they also owned all of Never Say Never Again.

However, in 1997, MGM was itching to get full rites back to the Bond franchise. Turner apparently didn't care about owning the home video rights to just 3-4 of the films. What Turner really wanted was the broadcast rights to ALL the Bond films up to the point (so Bond 18 or 19 I think) for his cable stations. From what I gather a deal was struck where Turner traded back their partial ownership of the 3-4 Bond films in exchange for the broadcast rights for all the films. Then in a side deal, it appears MGM bought the rights to Never Say Never Again.

Ironically, in 1998, MGM and Sony had to go to court because they too claimed to own a piece of Bond, and they were going to start making their own Bond films. However, MGM owned a part of Spiderman, which Sony wanted to make into a movie. So the two settled out of court. MGM traded Spiderman for Bond.

So at this point, MGM thought they owned all of the Bond rights. However, apparently partial rights to the original Casino Royale were still floating around, and Sony acquired them, thus staking a claim to Bond again. MGM was already planning to remake Casino Royale (they had the remaining portion of the rights) and Sony threatened to make their own version of the same film. This pressured MGM into partnering with Sony for the Casino Royale we have now. Apparently as part of that deal, MGM got Sony's share of the original Casino Royale.

So to the best of anyones knowledge, as of today, MGM owns the theatrical and home video distribution rights to the entire Bond franchise, unless someone crawls out of the woodwork again. They can license these rights to whomever they choose to distribute, which could be Fox.

I think you are right wnorris. I thought I read somewhere that the Rocky and Bond series were important for MGM to get back. I also thought I read that "Poltergeist" is one of the films Warner has out of the dealings.

What a mess...........LOL!

It's sad for me, a little. I really like HD DVD-many of my HD DVDs look amazing and some of my favorite titles are HD DVD only. I just couldn't justify keeping myself away from something like 75% of the titles being released. Killed me.
I hear you. I was in the same boat - going HD DVD first then (inevitably) Blu Ray.

I think you are right wnorris. I thought I read somewhere that the Rocky and Bond series were important for MGM to get back. I also thought I read that "Poltergeist" is one of the films Warner has out of the dealings.
Poltergeist is a pre-1986 MGM, so Warner owns it as they do nearly all of it. Why would MGM need to get the Rocky films "back"? They've had them ever since the late 80's when the UA library transferred from CBS/FOX to the newly formed MGM/UA Home Video.

As far as the Bond films go, I have never seen a Bond DVD release overseas that wasn't on the MGM label.

I'm curious about the following though:

At one point, Turner (WB) did own a partial portion of a part of the Bond catalog, and they also owned all of Never Say Never Again.
This is interesting. I've never known Warner to ever own any of the official Bonds. They've always gone wherever the UA library has gone and Warner has never owned any of the UA library. NSNA is a different story since it was a Warner Bros picture. If Warner indeed owned any of the official Bonds, I'd love to hear more about that.

Just a on a side, Never Say Never Again, is not a real 007 film, it has never been considered part of the real franchise and falls outside of the Bond legendarium. It was made because there was some dodgy deal done so that Sean Connery could be called back in and forced to do a remake of Thunderball.

Never Say Never Again is the one bond film that I will refuse to watch, I feel bad for Sean Connery when he had to take that role.

Still, for completeness, it would be wrong not to collect it... same for the other Casino Royale (the David Niven one --- it has a catchy tune[also unwatchable])