LATEST NEWS

1

Wait, Alex, you mean you don't want the remaining Terminator films to be average, run of the mill movies? Valkyrie and Steve Martin's Pink Panthers were HUGE! I concur. Let's leave things the way they are.

Widescreen Wonderland on May 14, 2009

2

That is bad news but on the flip side no McG would be good news.

Cat on May 14, 2009

3

MGM is owned by Sony, although they operate independent... And if T4 will become the box-office it looks like it will, then no marketing will be required 😉

Tschai on May 14, 2009

4

its better than fox ?

nelson on May 14, 2009

5

I don´t get it, Alex. Why would MGM be such a terrible place? you only mentioned GOOD projects from them, even though you´re talking abou partnerships. Well, what if Terminator ends up in a partnership as well? You may have a point there, of course, but I thought it was a weak post, there´s a lack of foundation there. I don´t know much of the specifics and couldn´t make a list of bad handling on their projects, so I was expecting you to do that. I mean, why EXACTLY is MGM a bad place? where are their bad moves? where are the movies with lack of care? I´m only writing this because your site for me is the best, I go to others, but yours is the first one I visit everyday because I trust on your taste (VERY similar to mine) and the good informations you´re able to get. So I got worried when I saw such a weak text on my favorite website, should I go somewhere else? I hope not. Actually, I think you should think with less emotion and leave your tastes for the actual movies, the business is not what you´re the best at as I coud see. Right, comment #1 mentioned 2 bad examples, wich is a simple move and is the one I was expecting from you. This is NOT a big deal, what I´m saying may sound a bit overreacted, but I think it´s just because english is not my native language, so what I tend to do is try to cover EVERY bit of detail of something I want to discuss. You can see this more as a "Why exactly did you think that, Alex?", wich is simply what I wanted to know, but you see, I just wanted to throw out everything that crossed my mind.

felipe on May 14, 2009

6

#5 - It's hard to explain without going into a huge discussion, but it's more that when MGM tries to distribute a movie by themselves, they don't know how to market, they don't know how to handle publicity, they're an old studio and they don't know how to do anything anymore. Like I said, look at WB, look at why we're all excited for Terminator Salvation. That's an example of how modern studios do things right - MGM hasn't done that recently, at all... #1 - Again, Valkyrie was released by United Artists, not MGM. And Pink Panther was released by Sony.

Alex Billington on May 14, 2009

7

It says something of the sad state of things when you don't have faith in one of the oldest film and most iconic of the classic film studios.

Sean Kelly on May 14, 2009

8

Darn typos. Ignore the first "film" in the previous comment.

Sean Kelly on May 14, 2009

9

FOX FOX FOX FOX FOX FOX ! please join the bidding

tom rothman on May 14, 2009

10

Thanks a lot, Alex. =) I didn´t actually overreacted, I think I thought about it too much. I don´t know squat (love this word) about business in this industry, so I got lost at first, but it´s clearer now. You see how informed I am when thought #1 mentioned movies released by MGM. =P I don´t think a huge discussion would be needed, what you said is just enough, at least for me, to understand it.

felipe on May 14, 2009

11

your spot on alex big films like this need big studios .come on alex was terminator salvation really good ?

jono on May 14, 2009

12

Sony owns MGM now. MGM is a different place than it was before.

Darunia on May 14, 2009

13

to TSCHAI. post n3 thats the stupidest comment i have ever seen in my life, " And if T4 will become the box-office it looks like it will, then no marketing will be required " the only reason people are awared of t4 coming out, all those trailers, tv spots we are seen months even before t4 hit the theatre, THATS CALLED MARKETING, and thats where 90 % of the total marketing budget is spend on, so obviously once its a box office success , NO FURTHER marketing is required,atles until until blu ray, but thats minimum, maybe 5 % of the total. i have to agree MGM been way behind for the past decades and it wont make a come back at all. but eventho t5 goes to MGM, they can still go on a partnership as they always have been. speicially due to lack of fund

pinkSushi on May 14, 2009

14

#13 - I´m almost sure that it was a joke. relax.

felipe on May 14, 2009

15

Terminator 3 sucked dick and anyone who likes anything sucks major cock you here me world you all like men

Dr Robotnik on May 14, 2009

16

Umm you are dead wrong Alex. DEAD WRONG. You are a WB whore hence you are supporting Terminator salvation but I frankly speaking couldn't give a fuck. Even if it was a FOX movie and it was the same exact thing as we are seeing right now then I would have still supported it. The movie looks really really good. Hence, you are supporting it. If you are supporting it just because it has WB tag then you are a shill. SONY & WB are distributing this internationally and domestically respectively as u said. I think it is HALYCON that has actually made the movie or maybe I am wrong. Nonetheless I think it is okay if Terminator goes to other studio.

JoJo on May 14, 2009

17

No, man, the only reason I am a WB "whore" is because I see how they market their films and I think they're doing a great job, they get it, they know how to do it, and they've pulled off some huge hits because of it. I support them because they've proved time and time again that they're a great studio. You're right about Halycon still making the film, but I care about its marketing and its release. And I hate MGM for their lack of care about their own films and their marketing. It's just a simple matter of my care and concern for the marketing and the hype and that side of things - I care how studios handle their films because I usually love their films.

Alex Billington on May 14, 2009

18

I agree with what Alex is saying. Let's talk about another movie that I and many others thought was amazing but had poor marketing and that was Liam Neison's "Taken". I rarely saw any kind of marketing for the film until like a week before release. (maybe a little before but nothing like it should have gotten). What Alex is trying to say is that, huge movies need to go to big studios so they can get the attention they deserve.

Curtis G on May 14, 2009

19

MGM has such great heritage it would be wonderful if they could sort themselves out and become a force to be reckoned with again. That iconic logo alone is enough reason to love them. But they're in trouble and I doubt they can afford to outbid Warners: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3id8b91cde574aee65b402a465b1450913

Mathieu on May 14, 2009

20

Alex your right WB understand how to market a big budget film like this MGM dont know how to promote anything well

movieboy on May 14, 2009

21

# 18 but taken made $144,275,747and thats the 3 best grossing film in January ever and its also the taken best grossing kidnapping movie so i guess if i movie is good it can do well even with out good marketing

Hollie T on May 14, 2009

22

Alex has the right idea, and I agree with Curtis as well. Taken was a great film but never got a good foothold. It was released poorly, therefore not doing very well. This is a problem, for now.

Merc on May 14, 2009

23

@ #20 Yes, but Taken wasn't released everywhere at once (It wasn't out in some places until a whole year later).

Rai on May 14, 2009

24

We're excited over this? Never the less, let anyone have it. Frankly it's a franchise that can die. They all need to so we can get some new material. ALthough 10-20 years from now they'll just be rebooted again.

LSP on May 14, 2009

25

So?

Mat on May 14, 2009

26

F**k MGM; f**k them in there stupid f**king Asses.

Last Son Vs. Blatch on May 14, 2009

27

Who cares who owns what...so long as it doesnt stink

Tedious Ted on May 15, 2009

28

Terminator: Salvation: It has enough pace and excitement to keep action fans switched on, This is Sam Worthington's movie, and he steals it, decent action film, far superior to the awful Terminator 3. Despite some laughably silly plot elements, McG has created an overall entertaining movie experience. Being a rabid fan that grew up on the franchise created by James Cameron, the idea of McG getting behind the camera for this sequel was slightly nauseating, and yet, by some miracle, the fourth film in the franchise is (barely) passable.

George on Aug 22, 2009