Arranging my DVD collection...by movie studio

I was staring at all the spines of my DVD collection, as I am so often known to do, when I started to realize, for the first time, that they all had little studio logos printed on them somewhere. Many of the same logos appeared on completely different DVDs. In addition, films by the same director often were made at several different studios. I began to see the history of film not as the history of directors, but as the history of studios. To further this coldly corporate view of film history, I've decided to count how many DVDs I have from each studio. Here's where it stands:

Warner Brothers: 18
Columbia: 9
Paramount: 6
Universal: 6
Criterion (not a studio): 6
20th Century Fox: 5
MGM: 4
Disney: 2
Dreamworks: 2
Fox Lorber (not a studio): 2
Miramax: 1
New Line: 1

Now what can this tell us about Hollywood history? First of all, Warner Brothers has kicked some serious ass, with a commanding lead of 18 titles in my collection. However, at some point in the 80s, I think, Warner bought the rights to MGM's catalogue, which means that obvious MGM classics like The Wizard Of Oz have been released on DVD by Warner Brothers. What I don't understand, then, is why I have some DVDs released by MGM, like The Graduate and Annie Hall. Maybe Warner Brothers only purchased the rights for MGM movies made before a certain period?

I can also see that some studios suffered long lulls in quality (or at least didn't make any movies I've felt were worth buying). For example, 20th Century Fox has The Grapes of Wrath from 1940, but they don't show up in my collection again until M*A*S*H in 1970. Same with Columbia, which released Mr. Smith Goes To Washington in 1939 but didn't put out anything else I own until Easy Rider in 1969.

It's also interesting to see how directors jumped from studio to studio, especially in the 70s. Scorsese did Mean Streets for Warner Brothers, Taxi Driver for Columbia, and The King of Comedy for 20th Century Fox. Altman did M*A*S*H* for Fox, McCabe & Mrs. Miller for Warner Brothers, and Nashville for Paramount. Other directors, however, seemed to find their studio and stick with it, like Coppola with Paramount and Kubrick with Warner Brothers.

Another thing that becomes apparent is that for a long time there were basically only seven studios in Hollywood, and only recently have we had newcomers like Miramax, New Line, and Dreamworks.

Finally, the biggest difference between the studios is the effort they put into their DVDs. When Disney does a double-disc, they're basically as good as Criterion. Next comes Warner Brothers, which sometimes gives the full-out double disc treatment and sometimes does the half-assed, single disc, here's a trailer and a featurette treatment. Fox is solid but not amazing. Universal sometimes goes for the double-disc treatment but barely puts anything worthwhile on the second disc; the best DVD of theirs is actually the single disc of American Graffiti (I assume George Lucas had a hand in putting that one together). MGM's are the worst; even the covers look cheap.

Well, even though my roommate made fun of me for doing this, I have to say, I found the exercise quite rewarding and educational.