The Silver Screen Monopoly

The world of viewing consumption is rapidly evolving. The boom of smart phones/tablets, home cinema systems and the internet have given users a far more diverse selection of mediums to watch film and television programs on. The cinema has essentially become just one of an entire array of mediums to view media content on.

Once upon a time, the cinema was the mother of all viewing experiences. Going to the movies was more than simply an afternoon with the friends. It was an event in and of itself. Cinemas were were often attached to restaurants where viewers could dine before show time; film serials were shown back to back, giving viewers a cinematic experience that were on an epic plain; and seats of the auditorium were seldom empty.

This was the golden age of cinema. It was the theater of film. It was celebrated and adored for the grandiose spectacle that it was.

But those days have ended. The alluring cinema empires were replaced with the clinical cash cows known as the multiplex cinema. Suddenly the theatrical charm of going to the flicks was replaced by a soulless empire which treated its customers like financial cattle.  These multiplexes exploited the worlds' love for cinema by transforming its audience into nothing more than a farm of money trees; eager to drain as much capital from them as was humanely possible. Box office figures were all that the multiplex cared about, whilst the quality of viewing became the last on their list of priorities.

Film was replaced with digital projection, ushers were removed from screenings and projectionists were no longer hired to make sure that screenings ran smoothly and successfully.The number of staff decreased considerably, leaving technology to pilot the flow of boundless screenings.

Meanwhile, back at home, viewers begun to find it far easier to get their hands on technology which allowed them to build up a cinematic experience of their very own. Surround sound systems, bluray players, widescreen television sets and easily accessible internet connections slowly began to bleed into the world; meaning that audiences began to wield the power to construct a cinematic experience which catered to their own personal needs

Whilst the multiplex stole away the heart of movie viewing, the viewer discovered a way to bring that heart into their very own living rooms.

The use of the world wide web has also drastically reshaped the viewing habits of people across the globe.  The freedom to choose what you want to watch and when you want to watch it has replaced the static schedules which once existed. The consumption of content has become much more fluid and liberal over contemporary years.

Television appears to be embracing this new paradigm with open arms (though they were somewhat slow to act at first). The uprising of Netflix, BBC iPlayer, 4od and other on demand services allow users to access the latest television content; eradicating the monopoly which once belonged to scheduled television broadcasting services.

Music consumption has also moved forth with the times. Digital music stores such as iTunes, as well as commercial streaming services like spotify have granted consumers the ability to purchase, download, customize and consume music in which ever ways they desire.

And what's more is that all of these services can be accessed on a diverse variety of devices. Phones, tablets, televisions, desktop computers and mp3 players can easily power such content in today's technological age.

But unfortunately, Hollywood is throwing a wobbly about this grand new era of choice. They insist that all exclusive film releases should be viewed on the big screen. They don't give a damn about what their consumers want, as they claim to know what is right.

This is quite a remarkable attitude when you think about it. Imagine walking into Tesco one day to purchase a slab of fresh meat, only to be greeted by an arrogant staff member who rudely declares that you don't want that meat, but instead you want a birdseye processed lasagna for you Saturday night evening meal. If a member of staff spoke to you like that, would you effortlessly agree with them? Of course not. You'd tell them to get lost and shove their lasagna up their backside!

But not Hollywood. Oh no, Hollywood are adamant on existing in the past. Ironically, they are the dinosaurs of the art form which they are so renowned for creating. They are insistent on forcing their audience into conforming to an outdated mindset of viewing films.

Hollywood uses piracy as their excuse for monopolizing cinemas for exclusive releases. They claim that if people have the option to purchase new features from digital stores, then everyone will simply pinch them for free.

What a load of hogwash. A majority of people who pirate new films at home do so because it's one of the only ways that they can view new material away from the heartless realm of the multiplexes.

Their reason being that people don't always want to see a movie at the cinema. The floors are sticky, the seats are unnecessarily uncomfortable, the prices are sky high, and there's almost always some sociopath of a twit in the row behind who seems to have absolutely no problem with chatting through the entire duration.

If an option to rent and watch a film was available on iTunes or amazon for a slightly lower cost than a cinema admission ticket, a majority of people would choose it over the dodgy pirate copy that their mate gave them at work. If they had a choice to see the new Iron Man film in crystal clear, virus free HD over a dodgy torrent file or advert riddled streaming site, most would choose the former. 

Remember a decade ago? Record producers went haywire when music downloading became a hit amongst internet users. They claimed that no one would pay for music ever again. But guess what? iTunes was dreamed into existence and the music piracy vacuum was more or less filled. Music piracy still exists, sure, but not on the scale which it was once on, and the music industry is still far richer today than you and I will ever be. Do you really think Simon Cowell now spends his days rooting through skips for his latest meals? Certainly not (but a reality show consisting entirely of that would make far better entertainment than the twaddle he's been producing recently).

The same would happen if exclusive film releases became more medium diverse. People would still pirate, but the level of piracy would be nowhere near the scale it exists upon at the present moment.

Of course, Hollywood could write off this claim by acknowledging the fact that we cannot predict audiences' viewing habits. And they are absolutely right. But why not give it a try? Trial a feature on multiple formats - like several independent films have done (to much financial success might I add) - and see whether the film sores or bombs financially.

The reason they wont do it? Because they don't want it to work.

Right now, cinemas and Imax screens are a monopoly for new Hollywood releases. This means they can charge extortionate prices. These days, a standard cinema ticket can rise as high as £10 or above, whilst 3D tickets hover around the £20 mark.

In an ideal world, the producers would have it so that anyone who wants to see their movie will have to fork out £20, whilst anyone who dares to view it in another way will be criminalized and fined up to the eyeballs for committing piracy.

Yes, Hollywood is a business and profits are the sole source of their survival. But forcing customers to adapt to their vision of how products should be consumed, whilst criminalizing those with differing ideas is an outrageously absurd attitude to adopt.  Businesses should be based around competition and consumer demand, not dictatorial monopolies.

It's also interesting that some of the producers and cinematic creative forces who are so passionate to keeping this monopoly in place are hugely successful Hollywood figures such as James Cameron and Michael Bay.

I love Cameron, but why is he moaning about how viewers watch his films? His last movie made $2.7 billion at the box office, whilst his movie before that made $1.8 billion! Even if the viewing figures for Avatar was half of what it is in actuality, it would have still made around $1.35 billion at the global box office! Why is he getting so miffed at the possibility of a couple of quid getting knocked off admission tickets? He's still the most financially successful film maker on this planet.

As for Michael Bay, well I think his films suck, but he's still reached a point in his career where his films now gross over the one billion mark upon each release. Changes to viewing behaviors will not stop his bank account from expanding any time soon!

But sadly, producers will keep fighting for the silver screen monopoly. The multiplex is nothing more than a cold, heartless, money making machine with the sole aim of draining as much money from consumers as they can possibly get away with.

Yet just because this industry fights for such a medium monopoly does not mean that they shall necessarily win. The world is changing and the internet grows in its strength with every passing day.