“A field is emerging that leverages the capacity to collect and analyze data at a scale that may reveal patterns of individual and group behaviors.”

958f
“The Paramount decision forced the majors to divest themselves of their extensive theatre (cinema) chains (see CASSADY, 1958), and television drained off the audiences that had previously flocked to motion-picture theatres. The net effect, according to Christopherson and Storper, was a dramatic rise in competitiveness, uncertainty and instability in the motion-picture industry, followed by the break-up of studio-based mass production, whose peculiar process and product configurations could no longer sustain profitable operations. Instead, the system was succeeded by a new order in which the majors divested themselves of much of their former productive capacity and contractual engagements, and became the nerve centres of vertically-disintegrated production networks.”

959
“This turn of events allowed the majors to cut their overheads, to pursue ever more diversified forms of production, and eventually to flourish in the new high-risk Hollywood”
“the majors continued to play important roles in Hollywood as centres of financing, deal-making and distribution.”
“the sources of the majors’ market power [... at least since the Second World War] have resided mainly in the internal economies of scale that characterize their distribution systems.”
“the globalization of Hollywood’s market range (BALIO, 1996) [and this phenomenon actually] appears – for the moment at least – to be reinforcing the centripetal locational attraction of Southern California for motion-picture production activities of all kinds.”

960
“its technical and organizational configuration was marked by quite high levels of scale and a degree of routinization, but nothing equivalent, say, to the typical Detroit automobile assembly plant churning out identical models by the thousands.”
“two other [main] organizational effects flowed from vertical disintegration in the motion-picture industry. The first was the transformation of the studios themselves into something closer to systems houses, i.e. large-scale (though comparatively downsized) establishments now focusing on the production of many fewer and increasingly grandiose films. [...] The second was the emergence of masses of small independent production companies and service providers”

961
“The Hollywood production system today can hence be described in terms of a prevailing pattern of major and independent film production companies [...], intertwined with ever-widening circles of direct and indirect input suppliers.”

962

962f
“Another way in which the majors proceed is to work with smaller production companies, where the latter assume primary responsibility for organizing overall production tasks. The smaller companies involved in these ventures comprise both the majors’ own subsidiaries and selected independent producers in projects that may range anywhere from a niche-oriented film to a high-budget blockbuster. In these collaborative ventures, the majors work in a range of protocols, though in probably the majority of cases these grant significant control to the majors over production and editing decisions. Typical procedures include financing, production and distribution deals, co-production pacts, joint ventures, split rights agreements, ‘first look’ contracts, and any and all combinations of these arrangements.”

963
“Many independents also unilaterally assemble packages of scripts, actors, directors and other assets that they then present to the studios in the hope of securing a production or distribution agreement, though few are ever successful.”
“although the majors continue to dominate the entire industry, and continue to maintain a significant degree of in-house production capacity, they also rely more and more on smaller subsidiaries and independent production companies in order to spread their risks, to diversify their market offerings, and to sound out emerging market opportunities.”
“independent film production has increased greatly over the last two decades, with the period of most intense growth being the early to mid-1980s when a boom in independent film production occurred, fuelled by the growth of ancillary markets”
“The distribution of films made by independent producers is handled for the most part by independent distribution companies, many of them highly specialized with respect to market niche”

963f
“perhaps the majority [–] of Hollywood independents rarely or never come into contact with a major, and work in an entirely separate sphere of commercial and creative activity.”

964
“the two tiers described above are actually complemented by a more indistinct circle of companies as represented by independents strongly allied to the majors together with the majors’ own subsidiaries.”

965
“These four points all allude to important positive externalities underlying the Hollywood production complex, endowing it with strong competitive advantages in the form of increasing returns to scale and scope and positive agglomeration economies.”
“in spite of the centripetal locational pull of Hollywood, expanding streams of production activities have been moving to distant satellite locations since the 1980s.”
“Without effective distribution, the production system could attain neither the scale nor the scope that help to make it such a formidable source of competitive advantages today.”
“Most of the industry is clustered in a relatively small geographic area centred on Hollywood itself, but also spilling over into other parts of the region.”

966
“the industry not only continued to grow in absolute terms in Los Angeles over the 1980s and 1990s, but maintained its high level of relative geographic concentration as well.”
“Decentralization occurs for two main reasons, one being the search for realistic outdoor film locations (which has always been a feature of the industry’s operations), the other being the search for reduced production costs (which is a more recent phenomenon).”

967
‘Creative runaways’: “directed to Canada, Australia, Britain and Mexico, with Canada receiving 81% of the total.”

968
“In view of this analysis, we can obtain a clearer grasp of just why (relatively standardized) television films are more susceptible to runaway production than feature films.”
“pronouncements of AKSOY and ROBINS, 1992, p. 19, to the effect that: ‘Hollywood is now everywhere . . . production now moves almost at will to find its most ideal conditions, and with it go skills, technicians, and support services’, and of HOZIC, 2001, p. 153, who talks about ‘Hollywood’s exodus into worldwide locations’, are both exaggerated and premature.”
“Hollywood today is a large-scale, many-sided, cultural-production and franchising complex, disgorging an endless variety of products designed for many different market niches. The linchpin of the entire system is the high-concept, mass-appeal blockbuster, that is, a big-budget film with a simple but climactic central narrative, an uplifting finale, a major star presence and possessing many marketable assets”

969
“The distribution system disseminates the industry’s products on wider markets, pumps revenues and information back into Hollywood, and hence is a basic condition of the sustained economic well-being of the central agglomeration”
“Employment in the distribution branch of the business is densely developed in Los Angeles alongside the production activities that it serves.”
“Distribution is the segment of the industry where oligopoly is most in evidence.”
“the marketing and distribution costs of many blockbusters today are equal to or even greater than their actual production costs” (Cones, 1997)
“vertical integration has indeed been on the increase of late.”
“For independent distributors, the average domestic box-office per film is $2.3 million, and for majors it is $46.1 million.”

971
“the pioneering efforts of US firms have more or less naturalized American cinematic idioms on many foreign markets, making Hollywood films highly competitive with purely local products”
“block-booking by US-owned film distributors is prevalent in foreign markets, even though it is illegal in the US.”
“The MPAA is a highly-financed cartel representing the combined voice of the majors, and it has proven itself to be extraordinarily aggressive and successful in shaping trade agendas in audiovisual products, as well as in many other political tasks of concern to the industry.”
“the annual American Film Market in Santa Monica [...] has grown over the last two decades to become the world’s largest motion-picture fair, attended by more than 7,000 people from 70 countries.”
“the majors are just as likely to dominate content supply in the new order as they have done in the old. More accurately, we should say that if, in theory, new electronic means of communications allow small producers to tap readily into global markets, the massive resources of the majors will still in all likelihood enable them to gain a decisive edge in publicity and marketing, and hence in sales.”

972
“in the late 1960s [...] imports grew to the point where they represented fully two-thirds of all the films released in the US”
“Much more research, of course, is needed on particular aspects of Hollywood’s operations, including many questions about new digital technologies, creativity and innovation, local labour markets, the institutional fabric of the industry, agglomeration and decentralization processes, corporate organization, marketing, the dynamics of demand, and so on.”
“[A] steady convergence [...] appears to be occurring between the economic and cultural in contemporary global capitalism”

29f
“Reworking the adage that “all screenplays are also business plans,” John T. Caldwell observes that any screenplay being considered for production

“generates considerable attention and involvement at the earliest story sessions and producers’ meetings by personnel from the firm’s financing, marketing, coproduction, distribution, merchandizing, and new media departments or divisions. Such discussions and analysis seek to ensure that any new film or [television] series will create income-producing properties (reiterations of the original concept) that can be consumed via as many different human sensory channels as possible.” Caldwell, J ~ Production Culture, 2008, 232f

This vast expansion of the original film text suggests that the narratively contained world of the feature film is now the exception, as target audiences are encouraged to extend their consumption into other outlets beyond the initial theatrical screening. To be sure, this process of cross-promotion has existed for some time, whether through fast-food tie-ins or action figures; however, the process of incompleteness suggested by DVDs has helped to reconceptualize film narrative in ways that tie together the fictional world of a film with the economic goals of a studio.”
DVD was an earlier step to / a preparation of audiences for storytelling in an entarch.

57
“Thus, while digital effects provide filmmakers with new tools for telling stories, the true reinvention of cinema is taking place on the margins, often outside of Hollywood, where innovative filmmakers seek new ways to distribute their work.”

64
“[In 2007 each cinema] screen was watched by an average of one hundred people over the course of a single week, typically on weekend evenings.”

78
“less than 15 percent of feature revenues now comes from theatrical box office income” (Caldwell, J ~ Production Culture, 2008, p9).

85
“portable entertainment [iPod/iPhone] may offer new models of attention more associated with distraction and with extending the narrative world of a movie or television show beyond the confines of the larger screens.” The iPhone is not a new outlet for movies, but for extensions of movies. A step towards entarch.

86
“The idea that we’re all going to abandon the multiplex for the supermobile is nothing more than one generation’s fantasy of another.” (Longworth, K ~ Distribution Wars, 2007)

90f
“Blurring the boundaries between promotional and entertainment content, webisodes call for a new language for thinking about the definition of a film text and for thinking about our relationship to this material.”

91f
“digital media have also contributed to the dissolution of a vibrant, unified cinema culture, explaining that “when people prefer to identify themselves as members of ever-smaller cohorts – ethnic, political, demographic, regional, religious – the movies can no longer be the art of the middle.”" Gabler, N ~ The Movie Magic Is Gone, LA Times, 25.02.2007

92
“what might be called the era of “desktop distribution” has actually ushered in new models for the engaged film audiences that watch and discuss films in a variety of public and private contexts, even while providing new avenues for major media conglomerates to reach those same audiences.”

102
“independent filmmakers begin to find new platforms that may place less emphasis on theatrical premieres.”

123
“While crowdsourcing may very well help filmmakers build an audience, it can also shut down possibilities for others, particularly the middlebrow films that may depend upon a gradual, platformed release in order to manage expectations. These shifts have had particularly devastating implications for the major indie studios.”
“Good buzz spreads quickly, bad buzz even faster.” (http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/06/laff-mark-gill.html)

148
“film blogs are perhaps the most significant evidence yet of a vibrant and engaged networked film audience.”

153
“These shorter videos should not be seen as a substitute for longer-form entertainment, whether movies or television, but instead complement, promote, and in many ways depend on the feature films and TV shows they parody.” He’s quoting Miller, Nancy; 2007; Minifesto for a new Age; Wired 15.3.

173
“whatever else digital cinema is doing, it is also quite clearly a means for expanding the sites where cinema can be commodified, for bringing movies to the widest possible audiences.”
“However, the reactions within the entertainment industry to these forms of fan activity cannot be separated from the industrial, social, and historical conditions that shape film exhibition, distribution, production, and consumption. While a number of media companies, including Viacom, have attempted to contain these fan productions, others, such as Fox Atomic, have sought to co-opt them by providing fans with material for creating their own videos.”

174
“the ongoing shift to digital exhibition challenges traditional economic models and exhibition protocols, altering not only the selection of movies available but also our relationship to film as a medium.”

174f
“film is defined not merely as a technological apparatus, but also as Lisa Gitelman reminds us, in terms of the social practices associated with it. Watching a movie in a theater, at home on a DVD player, or on the subway on an iPod enteils far more than the activity of looking at a screen, and in some cases the uses of new technologies, especially portable media players, upset normative definitions of public and private space, requiring people to develop new codes of etiquette to match the new technologies.” check out Gitelman

175
“this anytime, anywhere distribution model also has the effect of reshaping theatrical distribution model based on scarcity, in which there are only a limited number of screens available at any given time.”
“[Nicholas] Rombes observed that with the inclusion of extras on the DVD, audiences were given the perception that movies are infinitely malleable or expandable.” More recently, of course, film texts are expanded even further through additional scenes posted to the web, allowing viewers to broaden their experience of a film well beyond the initial textual boundaries, while also ensuring a seamless mix of entertainment, marketing, and branding. Or course, these supplemental do more than promote specific films; they also promote a specific relationship with the film industry itself, addressing us on DVDs in particular, as connoisseurs, as experts on film culture.”
“these textual materials present an important site for the ongoing definition and “self-theorization” of the production cultures associated with film and television.” see Caldwell

176f
“we are witnessing a vast expansion of DIY and ultra-low-budget film production, due in part to inexpensive production and distribution equipment, leading to a significant transformation of the practices associated with film exhibition. Thus, even though Hollywood blockbusters are breaking box office records, indies face the recognition that many films that had historically played in theaters would now be unlikely to receive theatrical exhibition, except perhaps at a few festival screenings.”

177
“Hollywood studios continue to produce massive blockbusters seen by millions of people, but the sheer volume of movies may have the effect of fragmenting audiences seen while providing individuals with precisely the films they would most enjoy.” He calls this “the loss of a common culture” p177.
“cinema remains defined primarily in terms of theatrical distribution.”

178
“In fact, while studio filmmakers and theater owners continued to criticize day-and-date-releasing, characterizing it in some cases as a threat to the very definition of film, a number of indie filmmakers have recognized it as a viable option for getting their films seen. These models have been successful in helping some low-budget filmmakers find a wider audience, but it remains unclear how these models will be used.”
“blogs in particular at least maintain the imagined experience of the communal experience of watching with a crowd.”

179
“cinema continues to play a vital cultural role, no matter when, where, or how we watch.”

“co-finance equity investors are not the studios’ ‘partners’ at all… they’re prey”

“They [European film financiers] see in the recent worldwide box office takings of The Dark Knight, and the phenomenal success in France of the €10m Bienvenue chez les Ch’tis (€130m in revenues and counting) evidence not of a persistent appetite for cinema-going, but of growing discrimination on the part of ticket-buyers.”

“Most of Europe’s independent film industry is dependent on television underpinning its funding. Over the last few years, with broadcasters suffering acute market share fragmentation due to new competitors, TV licence fees have dropped. Worse still, many non-studio, non-quota films simply don’t get bought. With a recession hitting TV advertising, these problems will only be exacerbated. So traditional sources of indie film financing will likely be hit even harder. What gives the myth some credence, however, is that film is cheaper than other forms of entertainment including videogames and restaurants. If you look at supermarkets, special offers are doing well and so are the luxury items. Sales of beef fillet have gone up exponentially since it beats dining out – it’s the middle that suffers in recessions.”

“150 of the films made in France [227 in total] were watched by fewer than 100,000 people last year; their box office grosses covering a pitiful 2% of their production costs.”

“…investment in French films reached a record-breaking €1.2bn in 2007.”

“…without a plausible shot at a Best Actor/Actress Oscar nomination, films in the €5m-€10m budget range are operating in a dead zone and are harder to recoup.”

“…we think European film is still a sound investment.”

CNBC ~ The New Screen Test (01.10.2009)

LA Times Blog ~ Netflix subscriber growth narrows (01.10.2009)

Welt ~ Die Deutschen haben weniger Lust auf Kino (01.10.2009)

Since it’s often seen as a couple of steps ahead of Hollywood, will Hollywood collapse?

Fritz, B ~ Tough times in the porn industry (10.08.2009)

Film is NOT recession proof.

Neither is Broadway.

Hofler, R ~ Showbiz not always recession proof (10.08.2009)

US
CANADA
AUSTRALIA
GREATER CHINA AND INDIA
JAPAN
SOUTH KOREA
GERMANY
FRANCE
SWEDEN

Screen Daily ~ Global Piracy Report (10.07.2009)

The Nielsen Company ~ Three Screen Report