Alternate "Hollywood".

"By 1912, major motion-picture companies had set up production near or in Los Angeles. In the early 1900s, most motion picture patents were held by Thomas Edison's Motion Picture Patents Company in New Jersey, and filmmakers were often sued to stop their productions.
To escape this, filmmakers began moving out west, where Edison's patents could not be enforced.
Also, the weather was ideal and there was quick access to various settings. Los Angeles became the capital of the film industry".

But what if Edison's Motion Pictures had not held most of motion picture patents,and the filmakers did not have the need to moving out west?

In other words if Hollywood had not become the capital of the movie industry,which other location could be the mecca of the films in XX century?
New Jersey?
 
"By 1912, major motion-picture companies had set up production near or in Los Angeles. In the early 1900s, most motion picture patents were held by Thomas Edison's Motion Picture Patents Company in New Jersey, and filmmakers were often sued to stop their productions.
To escape this, filmmakers began moving out west, where Edison's patents could not be enforced.
Also, the weather was ideal and there was quick access to various settings. Los Angeles became the capital of the film industry".

But what if Edison's Motion Pictures had not held most of motion picture patents,and the filmakers did not have the need to moving out west?

In other words if Hollywood had not become the capital of the movie industry,which other location could be the mecca of the films in XX century?
New Jersey?

Maybe somewhere in the Southern United
States? (I think you’d need someplace where
it doesn’t snow- so if Hollywood is out, that
would, it seems to me, mean Dixie)
 
Maybe somewhere in the Southern United
States? (I think you’d need someplace where
it doesn’t snow- so if Hollywood is out, that
would, it seems to me, mean Dixie)
Texas? Or maybe there are multiple "Hollywoods" and it not all centralized in a single area?
 
The industry would inevitably end up based in California due to favorable weather and diverse geography. Los Angeles has the benefit of lots of available land for use and a city poised for growth as migrants head out west to escape the faltering farm conditions of the 20s.

That said maybe if a devastating earthquake destroyed LA in the 1910s investors could get spooked and look elsewhere in the west, maybe in Nevada or Arizona. How does Reno or Tucson as the film capital of the world sound?
 
For Westerns, you want ready access to mountains and deserts, which Florida does not provide.

The Italians made it work pretty well. You'd have a bunch of Westerns set on the Great Plains instead of in the Southwest--and plenty of land in the Southeast can be dressed up to look like the Southwest. For mountains you of course have Appalachia. This suggests that film-makers might want to follow the Grand Ole Opry and "hillbilly music" and set up shop in Tennessee (Nashville or Memphis are decent bets, although Memphis might win thanks to its powerful political machine under Boss Crump), which has plenty of mountains plus some nearby places which you could dress up as the Great Plains ("Dodge City" or wherever you want to set your Western) or the desert, and isn't far from even more suitable terrain like the actual Great Plains. A lot of West Tennessee is pretty flat, as is a lot of Western Kentucky. And of course, the film-maker can write different types of Western, since that part of the South from 1780-1820 was a frontier which had pretty similar conditions to the classic Old West.

Of course, California does have plenty of advantages which the Upper South is incapable of providing.

Maybe somewhere in the Southern United
States? (I think you’d need someplace where
it doesn’t snow- so if Hollywood is out, that
would, it seems to me, mean Dixie)

Much of the Upper South can expect at least one snow a year (and an ice storm or two). Tennessee and Kentucky can expect somewhat more snow every year, plus lots of nice overcast late winter/early spring days with a high slightly above freezing and a constant drizzle. So if the film industry wanted to set up there, they might be filming a lot indoors.
 
The movie industry was always going to move out to California, in the silent pre-sound era movies were shot out doors in the sunlight even for interior scenes and Southern California has plenty of dry sunny days.
And as previously stated, Southern California has as varied geography, farm scene, San Fernando Valley before it was developed in the fifties, South Sea island, Catalina, mountains, San Gabriel mountains, and as the saying goes "A rock is a rock, a tree is a tree, shoot it in Griffith Park".
If it wasn't for the mountains to the east of San Diego blocking a reliable rail connection, the movie industry could have centered in places like La Mesa, Lemon Grove, or El Cajon.
 
The difficulty is that because of weather and scenery a lot of films are going to be shot in central/southern California anyway no matter where the studios might be headquartered. The ability to film year round without having to build expensive sets and sound studios is a huge advantage.

Making movies in California is significantly cheaper than it would be elsewhere in the US. The only other location that seems feasible is maybe Texas.
 
The myth of movie studios moving to LA because of the Trust is indeed a myth. They moved for the weather and cheap land and because Los Angeles was the end of the railroad/on the ocean and, as @David T mentioned, hostile to unions unlike New York.

A POD stopping a move to somewhere in SoCal would have to be pretty sizeable.
 
Top