• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

CBSViacom bail from negotiations for Miramax film library

AnotherDayAnotherDollar

The Fallen
Oct 31, 2017
5,632
I know a lot of people here won't care about this, but this is really surprising to me. Miramax has a very decent library full of great content like Pulp Fiction, English Patient, Good Will Hunting, No Country for Old Men. Library is over 800 titles and its value is estimated to be around 325MM.

Content is key in this day and age with everyone streaming. Of course talks can resume, and Being is probably being difficult with wanting to retain ownership of the library.

MGM, Lionsgate, and Sony bailed awhile back and now CBSViacom is out. Those were the ones who originally showed interest. They can all come back to the table, or someone like Apple, Amazon, Netflix can swoop in or even Hulu (Disney), HBO (Warner/ATT), and Peacock (Universal/Comcast) could try to make a play.



 
SweetVermouth

SweetVermouth

Banned
Mar 5, 2018
4,272
Didn't Disney own Miramax for some time? I doubt they'd buy it again. MGM got no money. Lions Gate would kinda fit.
 
Mr. X

Mr. X

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,495
Disney going to pick em up and put it under the FX/Hulu umbrella is my bet
 
Finale Fireworker

Finale Fireworker

Love each other or die trying.
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,710
United States
Amazing to think Disney owned Miramax not that long ago and they just sold it for no reason. Not that I prefer Disney own everything but it's bizarre that less than ten years ago this whole library was also theirs.
 
DrEvil

DrEvil

Developer
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
2,628
Canada
I wonder how much of it has to do with Weinstein.

Wasn't miramax where all of Kevin Smith's stuff is, too? That was all financed by Weinstein et al.
 
bossmonkey

bossmonkey

Avenger
Nov 9, 2017
2,501
Netflix or apple could use a base of content like this since they don't have a preexisting studio like Disney, peacock, cbs, or hbo do. I'd guess netflix will make a lowball offer. They love throwing cash around.
 
DrEvil

DrEvil

Developer
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
2,628
Canada
Whiterose said:
Probably a lot has to do with that. I heard Tarantino movies reruns are suffering because of it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

My guess is he'd probably stand to get a decent chunk of change for the rights/royalties/etc. and No company wants to go near the PR shitshow that would occur as a result of purchasing the library.
 
Laserdisk

Laserdisk

Banned
May 11, 2018
8,942
UK
Can someone buy it and release the Unrated Scream so I can retire the LD?
Also the original cuts of all the movies Harvey scissorhands cut as he "knew better" than all the directors.
It would kill his ego.
 
Window

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,282
Laserdisk said:
Can someone buy it and release the Unrated Scream so I can retire the LD?
Also the original cuts of all the movies Harvey scissorhands cut as he "knew better" than all the directors.
It would kill his ego.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Would love to see the original cut of Gangs of New York.

But yeah I can't see any big player being willing to risk a PR disaster of indirectly supporting Weinstein by going through with this purchase.
 

Deleted member 33

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
1,457
Considering how much licensed content Netflix will be losing over the next year, it would be a very smart idea for them to start acquiring libraries of content.

If HBO Max grabbed Miramax's library, they would arguably have the greatest film library of any streaming service. Since they already own the libraries for Warner Bros, New Line Cinema, and MGM (pre-1980s).

It's a shame that Weinstein has tarnished an entire library of great films. I don't blame companies for not wanting to touch them.
 
Last edited:
Window

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,282
Emily said:
Considering how much licensed content Netflix will be losing over the next year, it would be avery smart idea for them to start acquiring libraries of content.

If HBO Max grabbed Miramax's library, they would arguably have the greatest film library of any streaming service. Since they already own the libraries for Warner Bros and MGM (pre-1980s).

It's a shame that Weinstein has tarnished an entire library of great films.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Wait WB owns the old MGM library? What does the current day MGM own then?
 
LewieP

LewieP

Member
Oct 26, 2017
18,093
Would this just be the rights to the original movies, or the rights to do sequels/adaptations/remakes etc?
 

Deleted member 33

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
1,457
Window said:
Wait WB owns the old MGM library? What does the current day MGM own then?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In 1986, Ted Turner bought MGM, but a few months later, sold the company back, while keeping the library assets for himself. So any MGM films produced before 1986 are still owned by Warner Bros like "The Wizard of Oz", "Gone with the Wind", and "2001: A Space Odyssey".

Post-1986 MGM films would be like "Rain Man", "Legally Blonde", "Barbershop", "Rescue Dawn". Those aren't owned by Warner Bros, they are owned by current day MGM. Current day MGM also owns their own service/channel called Epix.
 
Window

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,282
Emily said:
In 1986, Ted Turner bought MGM, but a few months later, sold the company back, while keeping the library assets for himself. So any MGM films produced before 1986 are still owned by Warner Bros like "The Wizard of Oz", "Gone with the Wind", and "2001: A Space Odyssey".

Post-1986 MGM films would be like "Rain Man", "Legally Blonde", "Barbershop", "Rescue Dawn". Those aren't owned by Warner Bros, they are owned by current day MGM. Current day MGM also owns their own service/channel called Epix.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I see. Another reason to sign up to HBO streaming, if they make their classic era films available. There's so many of them. Disney's can't even compare (though Fox does help).
 
OP
OP

AnotherDayAnotherDollar

The Fallen
Oct 31, 2017
5,632
Finale Fireworker said:
Amazing to think Disney owned Miramax not that long ago and they just sold it for no reason. Not that I prefer Disney own everything but it's bizarre that less than ten years ago this whole library was also theirs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think at that time they had just picked up Marvel and were mainly interested in blockbusters. were not interested in non franchise movies. They got paid well for it, 600MM+ IIRC. With them owning Hulu I can see them picking it up if the price is right and Being gives up all ownership. Hulu it will lose a lot of Warner and NBC's content soon (in 5 years or so it'll all be gone). FX/Fox R rated content is not enough to make up for that loss, so I could see Hulu making a play for the library through Disney. However, I think Apple, Amazon, and Netflix would bid higher if any of them are interested (and they should be IMO).

Laserdisk said:
He doesn't have all the content tho
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Exactly, yeah. I think people are overestimating Weinstein's situation here. Most of the GA don't even know that he was involved with Miramax or about him in general. Whoever buys them could put in some money to charity as a sign of goodwill along with saying he has nothing to do with it. This library is legit and a good get in this day and age of streaming.

Window said:
I see. Another reason to sign up to HBO streaming, if they make their classic era films available. There's so many of them. Disney's can't even compare (though Fox does help).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think Fox owns international distribution rights to those old MGM movies, though I'm not 100% sure. However, yes, Warner's library is superior to Disney/Fox combined IMO.
 
Neece

Neece

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,196
Hopefully HBO snatches it up since that's one of the streaming platforms I'm sure I'll sub to.
 
davepoobond

davepoobond

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,537
www.squackle.com
Emily said:
In 1986, Ted Turner bought MGM, but a few months later, sold the company back, while keeping the library assets for himself. So any MGM films produced before 1986 are still owned by Warner Bros like "The Wizard of Oz", "Gone with the Wind", and "2001: A Space Odyssey".

Post-1986 MGM films would be like "Rain Man", "Legally Blonde", "Barbershop", "Rescue Dawn". Those aren't owned by Warner Bros, they are owned by current day MGM. Current day MGM also owns their own service/channel called Epix.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

interesting, i didnt realize this.

though, i always knew Tom and Jerry was owned by Warner, now I know how.
 
sangreal

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890
CBSViacom/Paramount have a very weak library compared to the competition (as in the other major studios, not Netflix which also has a very weak library) and could certainly have used this

The demands must be absurd for everyone to have bailed during this arms race
 
OP
OP

AnotherDayAnotherDollar

The Fallen
Oct 31, 2017
5,632
Neece said:
Hopefully HBO snatches it up since that's one of the streaming platforms I'm sure I'll sub to.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Warner snatching them up would be fantastic for HBO Max and make that service even more of a must own. Right now, library wise, it's between HBO Max and Hulu/Disney+ bundle for me. Only thing is AT&T is over 150B in debt IIRC. Stephenson said the most important thing for the company is to cut debt. That's why they sold their 10% of Hulu for dirt cheap. This library is relatively cheap, but out of all the possible streamer buyers I think AT&T would be the least likely to buy this.

sangreal said:
CBSViacom/Paramount have a very weak library compared to the competition (as in the other major studios, not Netflix which also has a very weak library) and could certainly have used this

The demands must be absurd for everyone to have bailed during this arms race
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Being insisting on having some kind of ownership post sale is a dealbreaker IMO.
 
davepoobond

davepoobond

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,537
www.squackle.com
Warner seems like the best fit, but maybe Sony or Lionsgate would still want it. Sony is only going to be licensing to everyone else, so it seems like a no brainer for them
 
mikeamizzle

mikeamizzle

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,058
ViacomCBS (yes that's really the name they decided on post-merger for a consumer oriented company lol..) is the worst run major media company in existence.

Edit: the fact that they decided to name this corporation ViacomCBS instead of just CBS or I guess CBSViacom displays this incompetence imo.
 

Deleted member 16365

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,127
Let's all pull together our cash and buy this. Then we can charge a markup for anyone who wants to watch Rounders.
 
sangreal

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890
mikeamizzle said:
ViacomCBS (yes that's really the name they decided on post-merger for a consumer oriented company lol..) is the worst run major media company in existence.

Edit: the fact that they decided to name this corporation ViacomCBS instead of just CBS or I guess CBSViacom displays this incompetence imo.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Why wouldn't they just go back to Viacom w/ CBS under it as it was before the split? If the name is tainted then CBS like you said -- but considering they've both always been owned by the same people its silly to feel they both need 1st billing in the name
 
mikeamizzle

mikeamizzle

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,058
To be honest, I would say CBS would be the better name simply because it is a known commodity for consumers where Viacom just isn't.

Your question is a very good one though as either Viacom or CBS would have been a better pick than ViacomCBS imo. Really have no idea how that was settled on but I'm guessing it has a lot to do with the Redstone family drama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.