[zachm0]

Of course I can’t back this up with any proof, but it might lead to some good content. I have a hard time seeing something like the Marvel Cinematic Universe happening if it wasn’t for Disney being as big as it is. It’s possible that Disney is the only reason Star Wars is back too. If they ever get around to making their own streaming service, having all the Disney properties in one would be amazing. Of course you could argue that these don’t outweigh the downsides of Disney having so much control but I think there some good aspects too it.

[BLKNSLVR]

Good content isn't the issue.

"Not only do we have to play it for four weeks straight, we have to play it four times a day," said Roper, adding that with only one screen available, it would be "very difficult" to play a single movie for a month without losing money due to lack of audience.

Sounds to me like the kind of business practices that is getting Google sued by the EU, and despite their necessarily being different rules for monopoly, the above is a case of applying blanket rules for a 50-screen cinema complex as for a single-screen independent cinema because Disney doesn't need to zoom in to that level of detail. Fine lines. The law is an ass.

Similar situation for a Disney-exclusive streaming service. That'd be similar to Disney buying up a chain of cinemas and only showing their <s>films</s> movies in those cinemas.

The flipside is that independent cinema's should make these sorts of anti-competitive behaviours known to their customers: "Sorry, we can't show Star Wars: The Last Jedi because Disney has enforced conditions that we, as a small, independent cinema, can't comply with whilst remaining profitable. We do, however, recommend the following great movies that we have the freedom to screen at our discretion..."

[techdragon]

That last counter offensive approach won’t work in an industry where neutral third parties, aggregators in tech parlance, such as newspapers and movie phone In days of yore, and sites like IMDB these days, drive the majority of customers to a business.

The aggregator doesn’t care, it’s not their problem, in fact the only way it becomes the aggregator’s problem is when the companies who use the aggregator as part of their sales funnel, that means big movie studios pulling advertising revenue from aggregators that don’t do what they like.

If the cinema can get enough “organic traffic” then the rules are different but the majority of cinemas these days other than specialists, like Arthouse or foreign film focused theatres, seem increasingly beholden to the aggregator driven customers. But I’m not an industry expert so I could be wrong.

[bena]

> Sorry, we can't show Star Wars: The Last Jedi

And the vast majority of people have stopped reading.

As a matter of fact, they didn't even begin reading. Because they looked up showtimes for what they wanted to see elsewhere and went to a theater that is showing what they want to see.

Here's the deep, dark secret you are ignoring: No one cares. And that's why the studios can pull these tactics. They have the product that people want. If a theater doesn't show it, the customer will just go to a theater that does. They don't want to see "a movie", they want to see "The Last Jedi".

[BLKNSLVR]

Unfortunately I think you're right. But:

  John Roper is general manager of the Phoenix Theatre in Fort Nelson, which is home to about 4,000 people.

The 4,000 residents may not have other options, and small towns don't tend to like 'the big guys' stepping on the locals. It's really only a fringe of the fringe that may care enough to change their opinions (not even necessarily their behaviours), but that's still better than just rolling / bending over with no resistance at all.

In other words: Blah blah unrealistic idealistic blah blah. But it makes me feel better.

[bena]

He's in an uncommon situation as he's a couple of hours away from anything. And still, "fans... have been taking an eight-hour round trip to Fort St. John".

I mean, Disney does have the power in this regard. They're the ones with the product. Theaters are just technically middle-men in this regard.

[kartan]

> I have a hard time seeing something like the Marvel Cinematic Universe happening if it wasn’t for Disney being as big as it is.

I have read the comics. The stories are better. But to maintain a big corporation, stories need to be dumbed down to appeal to as many people as possible.

Everybody gets to see a good movie, but nobody gets to see the movie they would like the best.

> It’s possible that Disney is the only reason Star Wars is back too.

Disney and extended copyright is the reason you don't see more Star Wars content. If Star Wars copyright had expired, you will see a lot more content about that fictional universe.

Look for "Alice in Wonderland" and you will find card games, video games, reeditions, new interpretations in comic, film, and books (https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/27554.Best_Retellings_of...)... Because it is part of the public culture.

Star Wars is part of a lot of people youth. If Star Wars was free to use it will have one hundred times more content than an old book, even a very famous one, like "Alice in Wonderland".

Disney has its own negative word to describe how negative is that impact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyfication

Disney does good movies, indeed. But it doesn't mean that it is the best option to do so.

[spystath]

> Disney and extended copyright is the reason you don't see more Star Wars content. If Star Wars copyright had expired, you will see a lot more content about that fictional universe.

When Disney acquired LucasFilms my first thought was that they will probably kill the Star Wars Extended Universe and in a sense they did. There was a tremendous amount of Star Wars comics from Dark Horse during the 90s and 00s that built upon the whole Star Wars mythology. The "Old Republic" series (including the games) is probably the most enjoyable Star Wars story I've ever encountered but alas everything was rendered non-canon when Disney worked their magic. Now everything Star Wars revolves around the original chronology rehashing the same things over and over again in a "panem et circences" manner with no hope of seeing any new stories of any kind.

It's a shame

[bena]

> If Star Wars copyright had expired

Star Wars's copyright would have only expired if we were still under copyright law from before 1909. And even then, that would technically be only for the first movie. So the characters from that movie could be used, but not any characters in the later movies. You could have Han Solo, but not Lando. Obi-Wan, but not Yoda, etc.

And you'd likely also have to deal with trademark issues, which are separate from copyright.

And there is still plenty of Star Wars content out there and being made.