Not technically. The DOJ periodically reviews old antitrust cases to see if they are still relevant. They felt like the ancient paramount case wasn't relevant to modern Hollywood and asked the court to phase it out a few years ago. So no new law or case ruling happened.
And those last two are very WEAK ways to make law, and are already hard to enforce. If this didn't come from one of the 5 aforementioned institutions this should not be enforceable.
Im back, looks like: >A federal judge in New York on Friday granted a U.S. Department of Justice motion to terminate 72-year-old regulations that barred Hollywood studios from owning movie theater chains.
This is a state level ruling, very weak, at some point the SC WILL need to rule on it again if this NY judge is causing frickery. Like I said law can only come from one of 5 places
you are autistic and wrong
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I am fricking right. Local courts do this shit ALL the time, and the SC has to re-rule on shit.
anon, you act like the politicians/big corporations in this country actually follow the law. they can do whatever the frick they want because they have the money to pay off anyone who would make a fuss
And those last two are very WEAK ways to make law, and are already hard to enforce. If this didn't come from one of the 5 aforementioned institutions this should not be enforceable.
t. poli sci scholar.
Im back, looks like: >A federal judge in New York on Friday granted a U.S. Department of Justice motion to terminate 72-year-old regulations that barred Hollywood studios from owning movie theater chains.
This is a state level ruling, very weak, at some point the SC WILL need to rule on it again if this NY judge is causing frickery. Like I said law can only come from one of 5 places
Anon do you know what federal in federal judge means. It means he's tied to
It means some random 2nd circuit Judge based in New York did it. It's not a state level judge.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes, my point was its regional. So a Lawyer in California can't point to the New York judge's ruling and sell Groman's Chinese Theatre to Paramount Pictures.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
paramount pictures is owned by National Amusements which is literally a movie theater chain
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
They are owned by Paramount Global and are one of the oldest studios in the country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Global
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
They a rua
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Landmark is a more literal metaphor in this case. Landmarks are things you look at for guidance. A supreme court decision acts as a landmark for future judges to use as precident on future cases. Pretty much any case that makes it to the supreme court is in some way going to be a "landmark case," so the term is kind of pointless.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Was for
>Landmark case
Why do they always say this, wouldn't the actual usage of the phrase be similar to watershed? Instead it's added to every case today, as if to imply change is le bad
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The circuits are allowed to look at other circuit's rulings for guidance. They just aren't binding.
>Landmark case
Why do they always say this, wouldn't the actual usage of the phrase be similar to watershed? Instead it's added to every case today, as if to imply change is le bad
I'm pretty ignorant about this law but a movie studio owning a a theater chain that shows there own films sounds like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. making and distributing their own film on their own platform.
It just seems like a silly law.
Oh, so it's just to stop studios from buying the theatres, but they could build their own theaters to show their own movies, correct? Like if say Touchstone made their own theater to show only their movies that would be fine
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Not him but it was about keeping studios from being able to exclusively distribute their content through their own thestersy while locking out small theaters.
Honestly, if Netflix hadn't been first to explodw , I wouldn't have been surprised seeinf this kind of thing slapped on early Hulu which was a glorified cartel product.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>early Hulu which was a glorified cartel product.
What do you mean? My memories of early hulu are being able to watch the entirety of stargate sg1 without a subscription and minimal ads by doing an interactive one every few episodes and it was incredibly delightful
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Early Hulu was a joint venture by news Corp(fox), NBC Universal, a private equity firm, and Disney who bought in slightly later. This was three major entertainment firms, also 3/4 of the main broadcast networks, controling how people access/consume their products and they were without viable competition at the time. That marks vertical intigration, cartel behavior, and control of a market which are no nos. One classic thing though is the gov ignores trusts until they negatively impact the consumer. Hulu never got big enough to negatively impact the consumer.
>It's antiquated when you compare it to Streaming
Not really, if Apple stopped other streaming services from running on iPhones in favour of their own they'd be under a stack of antitrust lawsuits straightaway
Its why shows like Malcolm in the middle have no deal negotiated for the music rights in regards to a physical distribution yet a virtual streamed distribution is some how okay... even though streaming wasn't a thing when the music licenses were negotiated
>disney will literally buy all these movie theaters and will turn them into disneyland. THEY WILL ONLY show their own movies and NOTHING ELSE
So they'll lose even more money when their new movies inevitably bomb.
Yup. It's gonna be remake little mermaid and morbius screenings across every theater until they're all destroyed, and they'll say it's all YOUR fault that theaters are dead.
Vertical integration will encourage theatres to produce movies that are worth being considered luxury experiences. At worst, studios will just lose even more money with their ESG slop
They have more skin in the game, unless they're just gobbling it up to be merged with streaming companies later (not Sony?) And aren't major studios already cutting under the table deals to get more screens than say A24/Neon?
Surprised it took them so long. Honestly figured the chains would all get snapped up by studios as soon as the ban expired, but I guess these acquisitions take time. Expect more deals like this one to follow.
This is actually good. The reason the Paramount decree was put in place was stop big studios from making it impossible to see competitor's (especially smaller studios) movies, but now studios make so few movies every year that this likely won't be an issue. If studios no longer have to split half of the box office returns with theaters, then movies have to make a lot less to be profitable.
>Sony Classics are regularly shown >Radical movie food and drink tie ins to rival the 90s >Movies are designed even MORE for the theater experience
Dudes, I think Kino is back on the menu.
>Sony Classics are regularly shown
There’s a theater owned by the guy that created and wrote The Blacklist in my home town. It serves food and alcohol and movie tickets are $5 unless it’s a benefit targeting local rich people. Nobody showed up to watch new movies so they stopped showing them, they only show movies like Gremlins and Airplane! and Grumpy Old Men and The Sandlot and the theater is packed while the big Cinema 8 just shutdown. There are zero new movies that I am interested in.
Sounds like what I've been advocating for the theater industry for years now. Most chains already have days where they have a single showing of an older movie, but they should be expanding that.
vertical integration
Sony films can be shown at the theater for a premium.
think about it, typically theaters get around a 50% cut of ticket sales. if it's a Sony picture in a Sony theater, all the money is in house.
Sony films will probably also be shown on more screens and Imax, it's a way for Sony to maximize profits.
Normally I'd say that they ought to release their own movies in Alamo theaters exclusively and keep them there for a few months before dumping to streaming, but the chain isn't wide enough geographically to support that.
They are going to rename it Columbia aren't they?
Nah, it'll become the Sony TheaterStation or Sony Theaterman.
I thought this was illegal?
It's cool, Sony gave 10% to Biden.
it was reversed under trump you moron
Fricking dumb c**t!
Huh, looks like it was reversed a few of years ago.
WTF when did this happen? Was it a NEW Supreme Court rulling?
Not technically. The DOJ periodically reviews old antitrust cases to see if they are still relevant. They felt like the ancient paramount case wasn't relevant to modern Hollywood and asked the court to phase it out a few years ago. So no new law or case ruling happened.
I dont think the DoJ can just do that. Law comes from one of 5 places
1. Constitution
2. Legislation
3. Courts
4. Regulatory Boards
5. Executive Order
And those last two are very WEAK ways to make law, and are already hard to enforce. If this didn't come from one of the 5 aforementioned institutions this should not be enforceable.
t. poli sci scholar.
you are autistic and wrong
I am fricking right. Local courts do this shit ALL the time, and the SC has to re-rule on shit.
What am I wrong about.
anon, you act like the politicians/big corporations in this country actually follow the law. they can do whatever the frick they want because they have the money to pay off anyone who would make a fuss
Im back, looks like:
>A federal judge in New York on Friday granted a U.S. Department of Justice motion to terminate 72-year-old regulations that barred Hollywood studios from owning movie theater chains.
This is a state level ruling, very weak, at some point the SC WILL need to rule on it again if this NY judge is causing frickery. Like I said law can only come from one of 5 places
Anon do you know what federal in federal judge means. It means he's tied to
It means some random 2nd circuit Judge based in New York did it. It's not a state level judge.
Yes, my point was its regional. So a Lawyer in California can't point to the New York judge's ruling and sell Groman's Chinese Theatre to Paramount Pictures.
paramount pictures is owned by National Amusements which is literally a movie theater chain
They are owned by Paramount Global and are one of the oldest studios in the country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Global
They a rua
Landmark is a more literal metaphor in this case. Landmarks are things you look at for guidance. A supreme court decision acts as a landmark for future judges to use as precident on future cases. Pretty much any case that makes it to the supreme court is in some way going to be a "landmark case," so the term is kind of pointless.
Was for
The circuits are allowed to look at other circuit's rulings for guidance. They just aren't binding.
back when disney wanted to buy amc
>Landmark case
Why do they always say this, wouldn't the actual usage of the phrase be similar to watershed? Instead it's added to every case today, as if to imply change is le bad
it was only a NY level case so not even landmark
They repealed the law or whatever it was that prohibited studios to own theaters, like 3 year ago.
Why was it illegal to begin with?
anti trust law and vertical integration. they were trying to avoid one company controlling a product from writing to production to distribution
I'm pretty ignorant about this law but a movie studio owning a a theater chain that shows there own films sounds like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. making and distributing their own film on their own platform.
It just seems like a silly law.
The idea was to prevent a studio from buying theaters and only showing their own movies. It's antiquated when you compare it to Streaming
Oh, so it's just to stop studios from buying the theatres, but they could build their own theaters to show their own movies, correct? Like if say Touchstone made their own theater to show only their movies that would be fine
Not him but it was about keeping studios from being able to exclusively distribute their content through their own thestersy while locking out small theaters.
Honestly, if Netflix hadn't been first to explodw , I wouldn't have been surprised seeinf this kind of thing slapped on early Hulu which was a glorified cartel product.
>early Hulu which was a glorified cartel product.
What do you mean? My memories of early hulu are being able to watch the entirety of stargate sg1 without a subscription and minimal ads by doing an interactive one every few episodes and it was incredibly delightful
Early Hulu was a joint venture by news Corp(fox), NBC Universal, a private equity firm, and Disney who bought in slightly later. This was three major entertainment firms, also 3/4 of the main broadcast networks, controling how people access/consume their products and they were without viable competition at the time. That marks vertical intigration, cartel behavior, and control of a market which are no nos. One classic thing though is the gov ignores trusts until they negatively impact the consumer. Hulu never got big enough to negatively impact the consumer.
>It's antiquated when you compare it to Streaming
Not really, if Apple stopped other streaming services from running on iPhones in favour of their own they'd be under a stack of antitrust lawsuits straightaway
streaming still hasn't been fully litigated yet.
Its why shows like Malcolm in the middle have no deal negotiated for the music rights in regards to a physical distribution yet a virtual streamed distribution is some how okay... even though streaming wasn't a thing when the music licenses were negotiated
This is more like if Amazon or Netflix sold you the tv you watch their trash with, and it's not compatible with competing streaming services.
>sounds like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc.
In the past, these companies would have been broken up by now. Esp. Amazon.
>It just seems like a silly law.
Only because you grew up in a country completely controlled by megacorporations. In the 1940s it was common sense.
now you know why pandemic happened
when scorsese compared capeshit to "theme parks" he wasn't joking
disney will literally buy all these movie theaters and will turn them into disneyland. THEY WILL ONLY show their own movies and NOTHING ELSE.
This is the future of cinema. Theme Parks.
>disney will literally buy all these movie theaters and will turn them into disneyland. THEY WILL ONLY show their own movies and NOTHING ELSE
So they'll lose even more money when their new movies inevitably bomb.
Yup. It's gonna be remake little mermaid and morbius screenings across every theater until they're all destroyed, and they'll say it's all YOUR fault that theaters are dead.
It's a good thing. I've been screaming for years that they should go back to doing this
It was, but it expired in 2020. I hadn't noticed either until I checked today
Why?
vertical monopolies only benefit the owner and punish the consumer
Theaters already suck though, so who cares?
Vertical integration will encourage theatres to produce movies that are worth being considered luxury experiences. At worst, studios will just lose even more money with their ESG slop
They have more skin in the game, unless they're just gobbling it up to be merged with streaming companies later (not Sony?) And aren't major studios already cutting under the table deals to get more screens than say A24/Neon?
We have been punished with bad movies for 30 years.
The industry is pivoting away from big flashy sfx fest for the whole family and Alamo is fine dining for Millennials and Zoomers.
>this is a bad thing
huh? how? its either no more alamo drafthouse or it still continues to run. are you dumb?
If you can call 24/7 madame web screenings "running".
Surprised it took them so long. Honestly figured the chains would all get snapped up by studios as soon as the ban expired, but I guess these acquisitions take time. Expect more deals like this one to follow.
Oh frick off you penny pinching twats
This is actually good. The reason the Paramount decree was put in place was stop big studios from making it impossible to see competitor's (especially smaller studios) movies, but now studios make so few movies every year that this likely won't be an issue. If studios no longer have to split half of the box office returns with theaters, then movies have to make a lot less to be profitable.
alamo has sucked for years now so w/e, sony can't frick it up any more and Sony is addicted to failure so they should be happy.
>alamo has sucked for years now
>t. never had the whiskey banana split shake
That sounds disgusting and you sound fat.
Whachu know about bananas, prolly nothin'
>Whachu know about bananas, prolly nothin'
>99 proof
Wtf?
Proof doesn't mean percent. Its not 99% alcohol by volume.
When you see "proof" divide the number by 2 to roughly find the alcohol content percentage. Some go much higher.
The biggest movies of the year are sony movies.
If I wanted to watch a Sony movie I'd buy a Playstation
I thought Mondo was bad enough after the pandemic. This is fricked.
Went to a showing in one of those theaters before. Awful viewing experience if you are actually trying to watch a movie.
Theaters are already super expensive and full of Black folk, how much more damage can they do?
This was the one theater chain that still threw out "people" that talked during screenings and didn't allow walk-ins after 5-minutes into the film.
>they have a day where play nothing Sony Picture Classics films
Could be kino
>Sony Classics are regularly shown
>Radical movie food and drink tie ins to rival the 90s
>Movies are designed even MORE for the theater experience
Dudes, I think Kino is back on the menu.
>Intermission films make a comeback because studios want you to buy concessions halfway through
Kino
>Sony Classics are regularly shown
There’s a theater owned by the guy that created and wrote The Blacklist in my home town. It serves food and alcohol and movie tickets are $5 unless it’s a benefit targeting local rich people. Nobody showed up to watch new movies so they stopped showing them, they only show movies like Gremlins and Airplane! and Grumpy Old Men and The Sandlot and the theater is packed while the big Cinema 8 just shutdown. There are zero new movies that I am interested in.
Sounds like what I've been advocating for the theater industry for years now. Most chains already have days where they have a single showing of an older movie, but they should be expanding that.
>shilling already starting
>Implying 4 hour films with intermissions won't be kino.
Yes. Epic kino, Cinemaphileners.
NOT
THE
ALAMO!!!!!
vertical integration
Sony films can be shown at the theater for a premium.
think about it, typically theaters get around a 50% cut of ticket sales. if it's a Sony picture in a Sony theater, all the money is in house.
Sony films will probably also be shown on more screens and Imax, it's a way for Sony to maximize profits.
>sony then fricks up like they always do by making their movies exclusive to theaters
Harry Knowles cannot wait to shit in a diaper and rape someone at the Sony Draft House
They just can't help themselves from making terrible decisions, can they?
Spiderman raimi trilogy 24/7.
They were already closing shop almost everywhere.
>35 of its cinemas across 25 metro areas
It's fricking nothing. This shit is more about advertising and brand awareness than anything
Normally I'd say that they ought to release their own movies in Alamo theaters exclusively and keep them there for a few months before dumping to streaming, but the chain isn't wide enough geographically to support that.
I hate our fake and gay government. Instead of making new decrees, they just double down and let it be worse.