Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 16:30:14 GMT
Would you say that the studio system overall was a good or a bad thing?
What was the worst thing about the studio system ?
What was the best thing about the studo system ?
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Mar 28, 2018 16:53:13 GMT
The studio system turned out some wonderful films over the years. It was good seeing the same character actors in most of a particular studios films.
I've never researched it enough to know the pros and cons but I believe that some quality material was generated under that system.
I know some of the contract actors were loaned out from time to time but I suppose the lack of the actor having control over that aspect of their career would be a definite con.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 28, 2018 19:55:16 GMT
It seemed to allow for some semblance of stability at a time. But evidently it wasn't adaptable to the times as people grew more interested in television and whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Mar 28, 2018 20:32:26 GMT
Overall bad.
Limited content themes (excluding RKO and United Artists and smaller companies). Stranglehold on business harmed competition. Very negative long term effect on global cinema. The only breather period was the 1960s due to film stock price decreases, but then the monopoly reasserted itself in the 70s with the blockbuster.
The lack of content variety today is due to this monopoly pattern. The studios eventually sold to bigger companies and bigger companies and the markets shrank to nothing in the 1990s.
The only good thing was the star system allowed for lots of people who may not have considered acting as a career to get into it since there was an assembly line business structure (ignoring the negatives of course).
If the big money behind Universal, WB, Paramount etc didn't exist, what would the landscape of US movies look like now? You would probably have a few family owned film studios still in operation today.
|
|
