Time To Let Studios Own Theaters?

[The_Iceflash]

<center>Time To Let Studios Own Theaters?

As you may or may not know, United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (1948), was the anti-trust case that decided the fate of movie studios owning their own theaters and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their films. This had a profound effect on the movie industry and would change many things about the way movies would be made from then on and the effects of the result of this case can still be strongly felt today.

What do you think of the result of the case in general? Agree or disagree?
What do you think of the effects of it? What was the good and bad to come from it?
What do you think the movie industry would be like today if it weren't for this case? How different do you think the attitudes toward film-making would be?

Some people are now questioning it and think it's outdated and that studios should be allowed to own theaters.

Joe Roth: Time to Let Studios Own Theaters

Do studios want back into the theater?

Do you agree or disagree?</center>

[dvdjunkie]

You think it costs a lot to go to the movies today. Wait until the Major Studios get their grubby hands on your favorite movie theater. If you go to the movies twice a month, just think about it. Each time you go it costs around $10 to get in and another $10 for whatever snacks you want.

[The_Iceflash]

You think it costs a lot to go to the movies today. Wait until the Major Studios get their grubby hands on your favorite movie theater. If you go to the movies twice a month, just think about it. Each time you go it costs around $10 to get in and another $10 for whatever snacks you want.

Why do you think prices would go up?

This might be of particular interest:

Movie studios previously charged low rents to exhibitors because they were owned by the studio. When the studios were forced to sell their theaters, the result was higher rental rates charged to exhibitors (rising from an average of approximately 35% to its current level of approximately 50%), so the studios could recoup their expenses. The inability to block-book an entire year's worth of movies caused studios to be more selective in the movies they made, resulting in higher production costs, dramatically fewer movies made and, ultimately, lower quality of productions released. This also caused studios to raise the rates they charged theaters, since the volume of movies fell.

[ajmrowland]

^shit. I dont mind studio-owned theaters so long as there is very little exclusivity. we're being kept from a lot of movies as-is.

[Margos]

I think a Disney-owned theater would be, like, the coolest thing ever! And knowing Disney, it would probably be really, really neat anyway!

[Disneyphile]

That would be the El Capitan.

[Margos]

That would be the El Capitan.

Oh. OK. I'm not really that familiar with the El Capitan. Well anyway, they should make a chain.

[PatrickvD]

I don't think it's that outdated... But the idea back then was to stop the hold the studios had on the industry. And when we now look at how Disney (yes Disney) has changed the industry with its synergy and business model of owning an insane amount companies and platforms to promote their films on, the idea of them not being allowed to own theater chains is kind of silly.

I think it will be at the expense of independent films though. And that will ultimately hurt Hollywood. Upcoming talented filmmakers and actors will lose ground.

It's a tricky matter.