ext_28836 ([identity profile] serai1.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] serai 2006-11-23 08:33 pm (UTC)

Interesting on the distro rights. But my thought is, if MGM's rights are just first refusal, why has it been such a huge deal for so many years that MGM had those rights? Because I had the impression that it basically held the Hobbit property hostage. That's why New Line kept saying for so long that it would be difficult to do the Hobbit - because MGM had the distro rights. That makes me think MGM has a pretty big say in things. Otherwise, would it ever have been an issue?

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting