[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.