{"id":56,"date":"2021-07-11T13:39:38","date_gmt":"2021-07-11T17:39:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/iterudio.com\/?p=56"},"modified":"2021-07-11T13:39:38","modified_gmt":"2021-07-11T17:39:38","slug":"the-business-of-motion-pictures","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.iterudio.com\/?p=56","title":{"rendered":"The business of motion pictures …"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

First principles<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

In the category of “first principles<\/a>” put “healthy competition is good for everyone.”

To be clear – saying “HEALTHY COMPETITION is good” implies that there is such a thing as “unhealthy competition.” <\/p>\n\n\n

“Healthy competition” – is a version of the classic “win-win” scenario. Ok, obviously in many\/most “competitions” someone “wins” and someone else “loses” – so we have to expand the “concept” of winning to include “short term winning” and “long term winning”. <\/p>\n\n\n

Storytime<\/strong> – short term win vs long term success<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

Examples from the “world of sport” should be obvious – e.g. that “young talented team” that gets blown out by the “experienced champion team” obviously didn’t win THAT GAME<\/em>. If that “young team” learned that they need to put in the practice time\/effort to improve themselves – then THEY<\/em> might be a championship team down the road. <\/p>\n\n\n

When\/if that happens players\/coaches might look back and say, “it all really started when we got blown out by ‘so and so’ and learned how much we needed to improve to be a championship team” — again, short term win<\/em> vs long term <\/em>win\/success.<\/p>\n\n\n

Disruption<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

Of course, our hypothetical “young talented team” isn’t going to enjoy getting taught the lesson. If that team responds by saying “the game isn’t fair” or “we stink and will never be as good as those guys” – then the result of the hypothetical sport-game above was truly win\/lose.<\/p>\n\n\n

Sports cliches aside – switching to a “business industry competition” point of view. Competition is usually good for the consumer but always “disruptive” for companies.<\/p>\n\n\n

If that “disruption” causes companies to improve their products and services – then we end up with a true “win\/win” scenario.<\/p>\n\n\n

Motion picture industry disruption<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

SO the “motion picture” industry has survived multiple “major disruptive events” in its 120+ year history.<\/p>\n\n\n

The first “motion pictures” were short novelty films sold via nickelodeons<\/a> – i.e. an individual put a nickel in the machine, then watched the short film through a viewing port.<\/p>\n\n\n

Thomas Edison is said to have opposed the development of a “projector” (where an audience could all watch the same film at the same time) because it would “kill the motion picture industry.”

Mr Edison was probably correct – the projector “killed” the nickelodeon film market. The disruption in the market spurred demand for longer narrative features – i.e. “motion pictures” moved from “novelty” to “story telling.”

Then in the late 1920’s the motion picture industry was disrupted by “sound.” If you were a silent movie star – you probably thought that “sound” killed the motion picture industry.

Then in the 1950’s “television” came along and disrupted the motion picture industry again.

Easy to forget in 2021 is that the old “studio system” ended in 1948 (United States v. Paramount) – which much more than television “disrupted” the motion picture industry.

HOWEVER, you can make a good argument that “television” wouldn’t have had the actors\/directors\/writers\/other technical talent to create that “golden age of American television” if the old “studio system” was still in place. <\/p>\n\n\n

The “small screen” didn’t have the prestige of “the movies.” If given the choice between being a “movie star” or a “television star” – my guess is that most “talent” would choose “movie star.” BUT if the choice was between “starving” and “working in television” – well, that choice is obvious as well …

Television also didn’t have the big production and DISTRIBUTION costs of “the movies.” Which illustrates how “competition” was good for the average consumer (more “entertainment” choices), good for a great number of talented individuals, but bad for the “big movie business studio status quo.”

Off the top of my head – other disruptors: <\/p>\n\n\n