|
Post by politicidal on Aug 8, 2020 15:27:39 GMT
The Paramount Consent Decrees which had been in effect for seventy-one years has been scrapped. TEXT: A federal judge has approved the Department of Justice’s efforts to end the Paramount Consent Decrees — 70-year-old court orders that prevented movie studios from engaging in a variety of anti-competitive behaviors, including ownership of movie theaters. U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres cited the rise of streaming services like Netflix as one of the reasons for her decision: Motion picture distributors that are not subject to the Decrees have entered the market since the 1940s — most significantly, The Walt Disney Company, the leading movie distributor in 2018 with about $3 billion in domestic box office revenues … Other motion picture distributors not subject to the Decrees include Lionsgate (20 films released in 2018), Focus Features (13 films), Roadside Attractions (12 films), and STX Entertainment (10 films). …None of the internet streaming companies — Netflix, Amazon, Apple and others — that produce and distribute movies are subject to the Decrees. Thus, the remaining Defendants are subject to legal constraints that do not apply to their competitors. It’s not clear whether this decision will have any impact on the big streaming services. Torres acknowledged the argument that even when the decrees do not apply to a given studio, they “serve as a yardstick of acceptable behavior, exerting a normative effect on industry actors who are not parties to them.” But it’s hard to imagine anyone in 2020 thinking it’s a good idea to get into the theatrical business in a big way. Domestic attendance was already on the decline, even before the COVID-19 pandemic forced most theaters to close. Netflix and Amazon had shown some interest in owning theaters before this. Amazon was reportedly in the running to acquire Landmark Theatres a couple of years ago, and rumors that it might acquire AMC sent the theater chain’s stock shooting up earlier this year — but no acquisition has been announced, and in the meantime AMC appears to have stabilized its finances. Netflix, meanwhile, signed a long-term lease for New York City’s Paris Theatre last year, and it may also have been interested in the Egyptian Theatre in Los Angeles. However, these seem less like the first steps in a broader theatrical strategy and more like one-off deals designed to provide the streamer locations that it can use for screenings and fancy premieres. The real impact of the ruling may be in other areas, like the elimination (after a two-year sunset period) of restrictions on block booking and circuit dealing. Without those restrictions, studios could potentially require theaters that want access to lucrative franchise titles to screen their less popular movies as well. techcrunch.com/2020/08/07/goodbye-paramount-consent-decrees/
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 8, 2020 16:19:33 GMT
What does this mean for studios like A24?
It seems like it is just going to be a battle between WB and Disney.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Aug 8, 2020 16:38:42 GMT
That’s not good...
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Aug 8, 2020 17:22:58 GMT
Has more to do with block booking, want the next Avengers, you need to play Wrinkle in Time in your biggest Aud for 3 weeks
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 8, 2020 17:44:34 GMT
I suspect this might lead to a "studio war", studios constantly buying out theaters and only showing their movies. Oh you wanna watch the latest Batman film? Too bad this ones owned by Disney, you gotta go two towns over to the Warner Brothers one.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Aug 8, 2020 18:05:24 GMT
Serious question: is there anyone who is actually cool with this?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 8, 2020 18:09:01 GMT
Serious question: is there anyone who is actually cool with this?
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 8, 2020 18:11:47 GMT
I suspect this might lead to a "studio war", studios constantly buying out theaters and only showing their movies. Oh you wanna watch the latest Batman film? Too bad this ones owned by Disney, you gotta go two towns over to the Warner Brothers one. Almost certainly.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 8, 2020 18:14:52 GMT
I suspect this might lead to a "studio war", studios constantly buying out theaters and only showing their movies. Oh you wanna watch the latest Batman film? Too bad this ones owned by Disney, you gotta go two towns over to the Warner Brothers one. Almost certainly. This reminds me of the famous restaurant wars from Demolition Man. Taco Bell is the only restaurant in the future. Disney will be the only movie studio in the future. I feel like I need to vomit.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 8, 2020 18:19:06 GMT
This reminds me of the famous restaurant wars from Demolition Man. Taco Bell is the only restaurant in the future. Disney will be the only movie studio in the future. I feel like I need to vomit. Well if more people went to see Fox’s movies, perhaps Disney wouldn’t be in that advantageous of a position.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 8, 2020 18:25:19 GMT
This reminds me of the famous restaurant wars from Demolition Man. Taco Bell is the only restaurant in the future. Disney will be the only movie studio in the future. I feel like I need to vomit. Well if more people went to see Fox’s movies, perhaps Disney wouldn’t be in that advantageous of a position. I'm not arguing with that, but there are monopoly laws for a reason. Buying Fox is one thing, but taking over the entire industry is something else entirely. Maybe I am unjustly paranoid about Disney, but they seem to have a monopoly goal in mind.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 8, 2020 18:48:28 GMT
Well if more people went to see Fox’s movies, perhaps Disney wouldn’t be in that advantageous of a position. I'm not arguing with that, but there are monopoly laws for a reason. Buying Fox is one thing, but taking over the entire industry is something else entirely. Maybe I am unjustly paranoid about Disney, but they seem to have a monopoly goal in mind. They've certainly a big chunk and there's reason to complain about that. But there remains competition from companies owned by AT&T; Comcast; what's left from Sony's entertainment ventures. Now if Congress gets behind their business tactics and targets those competitors, then I'd be concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Aug 8, 2020 18:50:33 GMT
At this point it doesn't really matter since the media mergers already reduced or destroyed all the film alternatives. There are a lot less movies released to theaters now than 30-50 years ago.
Probably will see lots of theater owners selling to the studios. When it was announced Disney was denying Fox films for revival cinemas no one would speak on the record--they were afraid.
Disney wants to be Mosfilm for the world.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 8, 2020 18:56:38 GMT
I'm not arguing with that, but there are monopoly laws for a reason. Buying Fox is one thing, but taking over the entire industry is something else entirely. Maybe I am unjustly paranoid about Disney, but they seem to have a monopoly goal in mind. They've certainly a big chunk and there's reason to complain about that. But there remains competition from companies owned by AT&T; Comcast; what's left from Sony's entertainment ventures. Now if Congress gets behind their business tactics and targets those competitors, then I'd be concerned. The future will tell whether my concerns are warranted or not.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 8, 2020 20:12:55 GMT
They've certainly a big chunk and there's reason to complain about that. But there remains competition from companies owned by AT&T; Comcast; what's left from Sony's entertainment ventures. Now if Congress gets behind their business tactics and targets those competitors, then I'd be concerned. The future will tell whether my concerns are warranted or not. If they did just lose $4B in the third quarter, are they even in a position to buy say, AMC or Cinemark anyway? Found a followup about its implications via Deadline TEXT: In the hours after the Justice Department announced it would move to terminate the Paramount consent decrees, the stock price in AMC, Cinemark and IMAX all popped in after-hours trading. But even if studios are freed from 71-year-old restrictions that prevent them from exercising significant control over the exhibition pipeline, it doesn’t necessarily mean they will rush to buy up theater chains. Studio sources expressed doubts that many would move to buy brick and mortar businesses at a time of upheaval. Rather, supporters of the government’s proposal believe that it could lead to other types of innovations, like subscription plans, and more experimenting with day and date theatrical and streaming releases. At a time when just about all of the major studios are launching streaming services, there could be more flexibility to tie subscriptions to theatrical exhibition offers. The landmark U.S. vs. Paramount decision in 1948 forced the studios to divest their theater chains, signaling the end of the studio system itself. Since then, the Justice Department has had in place a set of restrictions on the way that studio distributors do business with exhibitors, including such things as “circuit dealing,” in which a single license covers all theaters in a circuit, or granting exclusive rights to a movie in a geographic area. One issue raised by the National Association of Theater Owners is the impact that lifting the consent decrees would have on mid-range and independent movies, at a time when studios have shifted their focus to global tentpoles. In their comments to the Justice Department, NATO expressed particular concern with what happens with block booking, in which films are bundled into a single theater license. Supporters say such bundling could help riskier fare — for example, a “prestige” picture could be paired with a surer bet, like a big budget tentpole. But NATO is wary. “The ensuing freedom of exhibitors to book picture by picture formed the backbone of the modern theatrical and exhibition system,” NATO told the DOJ. “Indeed, the success of both the modern multiplex system and the home entertainment market is directly tied to the consumer-targeted programming that has thrived following the prohibition on block booking.” Their argument is that without restrictions on block booking, “studios could require exhibitors to book their entire slate of films in wide release for multiple-week runs.” If that happens, they argued, it would “leave little to no room for important films from smaller studios,” or for documentaries. The Writers Guild of America West also warned the DOJ that without the decrees, “vertically integrated studios will advantage their own films by putting them on more screens for longer, thereby foreclosing movie-going customers to competing producers and narrowing consumer choice.” In his speech on Monday to the American Bar Association, the Justice Department’s antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim, suggested that even without the Paramount consent decrees, the Antitrust Division would still review some of the banned practices like block booking to see if they harm consumers. He has been reviewing all sorts of consent decrees that have been on the books for decades, looking to terminate those viewed as out of date. But he also said that removing the restrictions could lead to greater innovation. Delrahim also cited the case of Moviepass, which charged one flat price to see an unlimited number of movies. With a flawed business model, it shut down in September, but Delrahim said that it still affected how movie chains were responding to market demands, what with AMC launching its own program. “These changes illustrate that markets can evolve, and no one can predict with certainty from where and in what form innovation will appear,” he said. “Once innovation has occurred, however, it would be a mistake for antitrust enforcers to limit the potential for consumer-enhancing innovation.” The DOJ is expected to file to terminate the decrees in the next week. A federal judge would then have to approve it. NATO said that it will comment further once they review the government’s motion. deadline.com/2019/11/paramount-decrees-antitrust-makan-delrahim-1202789365/
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 8, 2020 20:33:07 GMT
The future will tell whether my concerns are warranted or not. If they did just lose $4B in the third quarter, are they even in a position to buy say, AMC or Cinemark anyway? Found a followup about its implications via Deadline TEXT: In the hours after the Justice Department announced it would move to terminate the Paramount consent decrees, the stock price in AMC, Cinemark and IMAX all popped in after-hours trading. But even if studios are freed from 71-year-old restrictions that prevent them from exercising significant control over the exhibition pipeline, it doesn’t necessarily mean they will rush to buy up theater chains. Studio sources expressed doubts that many would move to buy brick and mortar businesses at a time of upheaval. Rather, supporters of the government’s proposal believe that it could lead to other types of innovations, like subscription plans, and more experimenting with day and date theatrical and streaming releases. At a time when just about all of the major studios are launching streaming services, there could be more flexibility to tie subscriptions to theatrical exhibition offers. The landmark U.S. vs. Paramount decision in 1948 forced the studios to divest their theater chains, signaling the end of the studio system itself. Since then, the Justice Department has had in place a set of restrictions on the way that studio distributors do business with exhibitors, including such things as “circuit dealing,” in which a single license covers all theaters in a circuit, or granting exclusive rights to a movie in a geographic area. One issue raised by the National Association of Theater Owners is the impact that lifting the consent decrees would have on mid-range and independent movies, at a time when studios have shifted their focus to global tentpoles. In their comments to the Justice Department, NATO expressed particular concern with what happens with block booking, in which films are bundled into a single theater license. Supporters say such bundling could help riskier fare — for example, a “prestige” picture could be paired with a surer bet, like a big budget tentpole. But NATO is wary. “The ensuing freedom of exhibitors to book picture by picture formed the backbone of the modern theatrical and exhibition system,” NATO told the DOJ. “Indeed, the success of both the modern multiplex system and the home entertainment market is directly tied to the consumer-targeted programming that has thrived following the prohibition on block booking.” Their argument is that without restrictions on block booking, “studios could require exhibitors to book their entire slate of films in wide release for multiple-week runs.” If that happens, they argued, it would “leave little to no room for important films from smaller studios,” or for documentaries. The Writers Guild of America West also warned the DOJ that without the decrees, “vertically integrated studios will advantage their own films by putting them on more screens for longer, thereby foreclosing movie-going customers to competing producers and narrowing consumer choice.” In his speech on Monday to the American Bar Association, the Justice Department’s antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim, suggested that even without the Paramount consent decrees, the Antitrust Division would still review some of the banned practices like block booking to see if they harm consumers. He has been reviewing all sorts of consent decrees that have been on the books for decades, looking to terminate those viewed as out of date. But he also said that removing the restrictions could lead to greater innovation. Delrahim also cited the case of Moviepass, which charged one flat price to see an unlimited number of movies. With a flawed business model, it shut down in September, but Delrahim said that it still affected how movie chains were responding to market demands, what with AMC launching its own program. “These changes illustrate that markets can evolve, and no one can predict with certainty from where and in what form innovation will appear,” he said. “Once innovation has occurred, however, it would be a mistake for antitrust enforcers to limit the potential for consumer-enhancing innovation.” The DOJ is expected to file to terminate the decrees in the next week. A federal judge would then have to approve it. NATO said that it will comment further once they review the government’s motion. deadline.com/2019/11/paramount-decrees-antitrust-makan-delrahim-1202789365/ That is informative. I hope it all works out for everybody, mainly us, the various types of consumers.
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Aug 8, 2020 20:57:56 GMT
Disney bribed the court to make this happen?
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 8, 2020 22:26:20 GMT
Disney bribed the court to make this happen? Indeed, so they can fill in the seats for Captain Marvel 2 . This ruling also gave a few YT channels a lot more material to work with.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Aug 8, 2020 22:54:14 GMT
Disney bribed the court to make this happen? Or the Department of Justice. In any case, the big studios win.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Aug 8, 2020 22:55:34 GMT
What's a 'movie' 'theatre'?
I guess anyone should be able to buy them. They'll funnel in their video ads on us as much as they can.
|
|