Pop Culture WI: Paramount win - Studio System never ended?

In 1948, during the United States Supreme Court case United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc, the court ruled that block booking was unconstitutional. This decision has forever changed the American film industry. But what if Paramount Pictures could win? Was this victory possible? And if so, how was Hollywood cinema developed in the future?
 
The industry was going to change regardless of the outcome, first off California has a seven years limit on contracts that would eventually let the big stars work on a film by film basis and already stars like James Cagney and James Stewart were not under studio contracts, second high taxes would have lead to more stars forming their own production company to shelter their income, and most importantly television was about to become more widespread and that would have inevitably hurt their movie theater side and they closed down a lot of movie places in the 50’s.
Ironically United Paramount Theaters invested in ABC Network and ABC itself was a result of the government making RCA give up one of the two networks they owned, that was what was called the Blue Network while the main NBC network was the Red Network.
 
The industry was going to change regardless of the outcome, first off California has a seven years limit on contracts that would eventually let the big stars work on a film by film basis and already stars like James Cagney and James Stewart were not under studio contracts, second high taxes would have lead to more stars forming their own production company to shelter their income, and most importantly television was about to become more widespread and that would have inevitably hurt their movie theater side and they closed down a lot of movie places in the 50’s.
Ironically United Paramount Theaters invested in ABC Network and ABC itself was a result of the government making RCA give up one of the two networks they owned, that was what was called the Blue Network while the main NBC network was the Red Network.
But is it not likely that studios may try to buy television channels? Or will it be considered too risky?
 
But is it not likely that studios may try to buy television channels? Or will it be considered too risky?
The FCC already ruled that the studios could not buy television stations or own television networks, United Paramount Theaters was spun off the parent corporation and that is how they bought ABC.
What the studio’s should have done was embrace television and used their B pictures and short films divisions and provided needed programming to the networks, that would have allowed them to keep using their contracted actors, writers, and directors instead of letting them go in cost cutting measures.
 
What the studio’s should have done was embrace television and used their B pictures and short films divisions and provided needed programming to the networks, that would have allowed them to keep using their contracted actors, writers, and directors instead of letting them go in cost cutting measures.
However, can this mean that in this case there will be no surge in B movies in the 50s? Once the relevant departments are aimed at meeting the needs of television, rather than drive theaters.
 
Probably the studios of they embraced television and more importantly don't sell off their film library for a quick buck but stay for the long they remain.healthy and do not try swing for the fences in making big budget movies that failed.
In the Fifties MGM, Warner Bros., Twentieth-Century Fox, and Paramount all almost went bankrupt with big budget failures of only there extensive land holdings in Southern California that kept them afloat.
As for B movies, some will still be made but with slightly higher budgets and production values and we might see an earlier start to Made for Television movies that can be shown in theaters in the lucrative foreign markets.
Another way.for the studio system to survive in a modified way is that the studios take the stars in the shows that they are producing and own and put them in a B movie during the season hiatus in order to see if they have the potential to star in big budget films later on.
Except for James Garner there was no actor who stared on television who was also a box office draw.
 
Probably the studios of they embraced television and more importantly don't sell off their film library for a quick buck but stay for the long they remain healthy and do not try swing for the fences in making big budget movies that failed.
Does this mean that there will be much less “epic films”? Here, by the way, an interesting point looms - quite possibly there will be less dependence of studios on road shows. In this way, it was just prestigious and luxurious pictures that were advertised - in particular peplums, high-budget military dramas, and musicals.

As for B movies, some will still be made but with slightly higher budgets and production values and we might see an earlier start to Made for Television movies that can be shown in theaters in the lucrative foreign markets.
It should be noted that many were created by independent manufacturers. After 1948, they had more opportunities for distribution of films.

Another way.for the studio system to survive in a modified way is that the studios take the stars in the shows that they are producing and own and put them in a B movie during the season hiatus in order to see if they have the potential to star in big budget films later on.
Except for James Garner there was no actor who stared on television who was also a box office draw.
But the examples of the opposite are known much better - Lucille Ball, Robert Young, Barbara Rush (hmmm .. maybe she will start her career as a television actress? Although I like her movies).


P.S. - in fact, television was not distributed until the mid-50s. Therefore, we can assume that here the competition at the very early stage isn't too noticeable.
 
P.S. - in fact, television was not distributed until the mid-50s. Therefore, we can assume that here the competition at the very early stage isn't too noticeable.
Actually television was in about 50% of American homes in the early fifties and well over 70% by the end of the decade as for the point that was made about stars like Robert Young and Lucille Ball moving from movies to television, it was once they made their move to television it basically ended their box office appeal as it was said why pay to go see some one in a movie when you can watch them for free on television.
I am trying to remember if anyone from a hit television show from the Fifties to the early sixties became a big movie star and the only one I can think of is James Garner, Steve McQueen was in television shows that flopped before he not it hit in the movies and the same goes for Burt Reynolds.
That doesn't mean that actors who got their start on television are doomed to stay in television Warren Beatty was on Peyton Place also Ryan O'Neill was on television.
 
I think that the changes will not be so significant.
In a way we will see something like theatre going multiplex even early as the studios will try to show as much movies they can(both AAA, A ,B and Documentals/arthouse) and try to take advantage of more functions when showing a rival flim blockbuster(like is Star Wars full...switch to alien in the meanwhile...Predator? watch commando,etc). As some say, will help independent as they can sold more to the studio theatre.

Does this mean that there will be much less “epic films”? Here, by the way, an interesting point looms - quite possibly there will be less dependence of studios on road shows. In this way, it was just prestigious and luxurious pictures that were advertised - in particular peplums, high-budget military dramas, and musicals.
I can see it going two ways...Roadshows are for Theatre own AAA projects when rival are normal(like a studio own exclusive) before switching to IMAX and other luxury formats
 
In a way we will see something like theatre going multiplex even early as the studios will try to show as much movies they can(both AAA, A ,B and Documentals/arthouse) and try to take advantage of more functions when showing a rival flim blockbuster(like is Star Wars full...switch to alien in the meanwhile...Predator? watch commando,etc). As some say, will help independent as they can sold more to the studio theatre.
As for the independent ones, there may be a problem - the fact that showing your picture depends on the decisions of the studio promoter can put it at a disadvantage.

I can see it going two ways...Roadshows are for Theatre own AAA projects when rival are normal(like a studio own exclusive) before switching to IMAX and other luxury formats
The problem is that these Roadshows were expensive, although they enhanced the prestige of the film. Actually it is not surprising that the price of ticketets was higher.
 
Last edited:
Actually television was in about 50% of American homes in the early fifties and well over 70% by the end of the decade as for the point that was made about stars like Robert Young and Lucille Ball moving from movies to television, it was once they made their move to television it basically ended their box office appeal as it was said why pay to go see some one in a movie when you can watch them for free on television.
I am trying to remember if anyone from a hit television show from the Fifties to the early sixties became a big movie star and the only one I can think of is James Garner, Steve McQueen was in television shows that flopped before he not it hit in the movies and the same goes for Burt Reynolds.
That doesn't mean that actors who got their start on television are doomed to stay in television Warren Beatty was on Peyton Place also Ryan O'Neill was on television.
Clint Eastwood was on "Rawhide" but I don't know if that was a big hit or not.
 
Clint Eastwood was on "Rawhide" but I don't know if that was a big hit or not.
He had to go to Italy to become a star, it was after he did The Man with No Name trilogy that he became a bankable actor plus he formed his own production company after coming back so that he could control which films that he did.
 
I am talking about television stars in the Fifties and early sixties, except for James Garner I can not think of anyone from that time period who was a big star on television and in movies at the same time.
The conventional wisdom at the time was that people would not pay money to see a movie when they could see that actor for free on television.
 
In a way we will see something like theatre going multiplex even early as the studios will try to show as much movies they can(both AAA, A ,B and Documentals/arthouse) and try to take advantage of more functions when showing a rival flim blockbuster(like is Star Wars full...switch to alien in the meanwhile...Predator? watch commando,etc). As some say, will help independent as they can sold more to the studio theatre.
There is an opinion that sooner or later this practice will be abandoned anyway.
 
I forgot about one important point - in the era of the Studio System, the studio symbolized a brand and a certain style. In other words, each studio had a certain specialization and niche. Did something like this survive? Or would everything have led to the current state when the boundaries between films of different studios remain?
 
Top