Rebirth of Hong Kong 1981

The more independent films there are, the more intense the market competition will be.

I also blame Michael Ovitz for their good luck. If CAA's integrated package service was placed before the 50s, it would inevitably be strongly suppressed by major film companies.

If it is placed ten years later, it will also be jointly suppressed by Hollywood giants.

As President Reagan came to power, the free economy in the United States increased, and the original anti-monopoly ruling became invalid overnight.

The most profitable business in the world is a monopoly business, everyone must know this.

No matter what your monopoly is, as long as it is what people want, it will make a lot of money.

As long as there is an opportunity to monopolize an industry, the leaders of each industry will do their best to obtain a monopoly position and maximize their benefits.

However, monopoly will hinder competition. If an industry is monopolized for a long time, it will not only be detrimental to consumers, but also detrimental to the renewal and progress of the industry.

The antitrust litigation in the United States is well-known in the world.

Early Hollywood film giants engaged in a decades-long battle with the government judiciary in pursuit of monopoly status.

Between the two sides, whoever loses in the end wins.

This point, needless to say.

In front of the government, all resistance is superfluous.

The 40's, most famously the 'Paramount Ruling'.

This ruling ended the vertical monopoly of the eight major Hollywood filmmakers on the entire film industry.

At that time, the eight major film companies that occupied an absolute dominant position in Hollywood, Paramount, MGM, Warner Bros., [-]th Century Fox, RKO, Columbia, Universal and United Artists, controlled production, distribution, During the screening, Hollywood movies are controlled from top to bottom.

The eight major film companies have theaters in major cities in the United States, although in terms of numbers, the theaters controlled by the eight major film companies only occupy a small part of the American film market.

However, most of the theaters in the hands of the eight major film companies are the highest-quality first-run theaters, which are the main ticket warehouses. Therefore, in terms of box office share, the eight major film companies have already achieved a monopoly position on the American film market at that time.

This is a bit similar to Shaw Brothers, Golden Harvest, and Golden Princess monopolizing the Xiangjiang film market. To be honest, the three Shaw Brothers film companies have a more complete monopoly than the eight major Hollywood film companies.

Hollywood also reserved a sip of soup for independent producers, while the three film companies of Shaw Brothers sometimes didn't even give others a sip of soup.

In Xiangjiang, the movies made by independent filmmakers are good, and most of the three film companies will directly pay to buy them out, allowing independent filmmakers to earn a little money to spend.

Don't even think about the share of the screening.

Not willing to sell?Things that don't exist.

If you don’t sell it, you won’t even get your money back. Do you think you will sell it or not?

Of course, the Xiangjiang pool is small, and the Governor's Mansion implements a free economy and does not interfere with monopoly.

Xiangjiang's monopoly companies have grabbed a lot of them, not to mention the daily necessities such as water and electricity, and even when people die, there is a funeral king who will collect your money.

In contrast, where there is a monopoly in the United States, at most it is an alliance of multiple companies.

The U.S. Department of Justice is the most troublesome existence for wealthy businessmen after the tax department, especially large companies, large consortiums, and various anti-monopoly lawsuits.

Before the end of World War II, the eight major Hollywood film companies controlled less than 20.00% of the total number of movie theaters in the United States, but in the important first-run theaters, they accounted for as high as 90.00%, and the number of released films accounted for 70.00% of the national output.

The entire Hollywood film market is directly or indirectly monopolized by the eight major film companies.

It was not until after the end of World War II, after a protracted struggle, that the major film studios officially began to divest the theaters, and the whole process lasted almost the entire 50s.

The eight major film companies have lost control of the film distribution channels. Even though they are still indirectly controlled by the eight major film companies in private, on the bright side, the eight major film companies have no way of vertically monopolizing the theaters below.

All films have been given fairly fair competitive conditions, and at the same time, it has also given independent filmmakers more opportunities to enter theaters, promoting the development of independent production in Hollywood.

Hollywood's internal affairs are resolved. According to normal circumstances, the next step should be a big development.

It is a pity that the film industry did not usher in a more prosperous flourishing. Under the attack of the emerging TV industry, Hollywood ended its golden age.

In the 70s and 30s, for a full [-] years, in addition to the continuous improvement of technology in Hollywood movies, the market was divided by more than half by the emerging TV industry.

The eight major film companies in the past have been in a half-dead state.

With President Reagan coming to power, the free economy started, and a new round of monopoly mergers came back.

Some behaviors that were considered monopoly in the past became legal after President Reagan came to power.

This is not only an opportunity for big studios, but also a crisis for big studios.

Capitalists and rich people at home and abroad are all staring at the eight major Hollywood film companies. No matter how powerful a tiger is, if he is hungry, he will not be able to withstand the impact of the pack of wolves.

Later, the eight major Hollywood film companies became the six major film companies. Sony acquired Columbia, and then acquired MGM-United Artists, which merged MGM and United Artists.

The competition is very fierce, beyond the imagination of ordinary people.

It's just that the new round of monopoly mergers is fundamentally different from before the 50s. The big film companies have become part of more powerful multinational media giants. The entire Hollywood film company has been swallowed up by those multinational media giants. The film business has become A department parallel to television, newspapers, the Internet, theme parks, derivative development, and so on.

Greater monopoly and stronger capital further suppress the living space of independent filmmakers.

Until the 90s, after the end of the first round of mergers, CAA brought together those independent filmmakers who had been squeezed by the big film companies, and became a behemoth that even the big film companies were unwilling to offend.

Whether it is film or television, without actors, directors, screenwriters and other personnel, it is an empty shell.

It's like a factory where the multinational media giants control the machinery without which nothing can be produced.

Although CAA does not have machinery and equipment, most of the people in the factory listen to it. Once CAA takes the workers away, the entire factory will shut down.

The rise of CAA is not necessarily inevitable. Without an agent company in Hollywood, it will not be impossible to transfer.

In the 70s and [-]s, didn't the so-called brokerage companies in Hollywood also have no effect at all?

Looking at the Xiangjiang film market, it is completely occupied by the three major film companies, and it is not affected at all.

The success of Michael Ovitz and the success of CAA are more or less affected by the environment.

They rely on low commissions to attract celebrities and artists, and then draw in those independent producers who have been squeezed out by big film companies, forming a big alliance that cannot be underestimated.

This is a bit of a union organization representing workers in the West. It is true that the capitalists are strong, but the power of the union is not vegetarian.

If Yang Chen didn't come from a later life, if he didn't know how powerful CAA's later generations are, he would never accept the opponent's big mouth just because Michael Ovitz opened his mouth.

Later CAA owns nearly half of the Hollywood entertainers, nearly two-thirds of the top stars, as well as top directors, producers, playwrights, singers, bands...

Such a giant company has an annual income of only a few hundred million dollars. To be honest, if it was purely for making money, he would not invest in a company brokerage company like CAA.

He has 3000 million U.S. dollars, and he can multiply his profits dozens of times if he invests in any industry.

The more important reason why Yang Chen became a shareholder of CAA was for the consideration of future Chinese-language movies.