WI No Hollywood?

Here's the scenario:

In 1907, as in OTL, Edison Studios begins negotiations with Vitagraph, Essanay, Selig, Lubin, Kalem, American Star, and American Pathé to form a licensing agreement to Edison's patents on film technology. Unlike OTL, however, Eastman Kodak refuses to play ball. They have no problems selling stock to the consortium, but they're not about to cut off their revenue by refusing to deal with their competitors. If Edison and company want to take it to the courts, so be it, but Kodak decides to stay neutral.

Biograph Studios, who were deliberately left out of the licensing negotiations, still buys out the patent on the Latham film loop in retaliation. But without Eastman Kodak in on the deal, they don't have much interest when the trust invites them in. Part of it is sour grapes at being excluded initially, to be sure, but, more to the point, Biograph's executives don't believe that the trust will be able to enforce its monopoly solely through patent cases. Without the film stock monopoly, it's doomed to failure.

As it turns out, Biograph's defiance of the trust is the straw the breaks the camel's back. Smaller studios find their nerve in Biograph's cover, and soon some of the more powerful partners in the trust start to sour on the deal. What starts as a few rumblings of discontent among some of the more powerful members of the cabal (particularly Vitagraph), turns into a seismic shock when the trust's first big test, a trial against Biograph in the fall of 1908 into the winter of 1909 for violation of trust-held patents, effectively blows up in their face. The courts hold that Biograph was indeed in violation of Edison patents, but issues little more than a token fine. At the same time, the court rules that the trust's actions went "far beyond what was necessary to protect the use of patents or the monopoly which went with them" (the same words used in the OTL case that dismantled the trust in 1915) and finds them in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The companies that can disentangle themselves from Edison's Folly (as the trust came to be known) do so post haste. Those that don't go down with the ship. Edison Studios itself survives, but no longer has the legal or economic power to dominate the industry as it once did.

So, really, things work out much like they did in OTL, only about a decade earlier. But that decade makes a huge amount of difference: it was in the years of Motion Picture Patents Company-domination of the business that the modern film industry emerged. Hundreds of independent students moved out west, hoping not only to get as far away from Edison's home base in New Jersey as possible, but to find a environment more conducive to their illicit, patent-violating work. They found an ideal location in a small suburb of Los Angeles. Not only was it under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which was hesitant to prosecute patent cases), but it was close enough to the Mexican border that crews could flee the country until any heat died down. The town, of course, was Hollywood, and it was there that the major studios of the American movie industry were forged, including Paramount, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Fox, Universal, and so on.

With the MPPC basically crippled at its infancy, there's no migration west, and the business of making movies stays much closer to the financiers in New York. Since the first generation of studios is still damaged by the dissolution of the trust, a lot of them probably don't survive. Those that do may or may not be any more inclined to track trends in the business, such as the shift to feature-length productions. I suspect that companies like Biograph might well be better positioned to adapt then they were OTL, but other than that, it's hard to say who will dominate the industry in ten years time.

I suspect that the people exercising the strongest influence over the movie industry will not be moviemakers at all, with production being closer to, and therefore much more under the thumb of, the folks holding the purse strings. The movies probably never attract the same kind of wild west, "anyone can be a star" appeal that they had in OTL.

Does this work, given the PoD? And if so, how else would cinema (both American and, ultimately, World) be different? And what are the larger cultural effects therein?
 
Here's the scenario:



Does this work, given the PoD? And if so, how else would cinema (both American and, ultimately, World) be different? And what are the larger cultural effects therein?

It does sound interesting, but I'm afraid there's no butterflying Hollywood: the climate, the scenery, and many other things made that area a natural hot spot for film-making, compared to cloudy, rainy, and downright dreary New York. It's still possible, of course, to keep more of the influence in the New York area, especially if you can handwave the Edison fiascos, but you'd be hardpressed to get rid of Hollywood altogether.
 
It does sound interesting, but I'm afraid there's no butterflying Hollywood: the climate, the scenery, and many other things made that area a natural hot spot for film-making, compared to cloudy, rainy, and downright dreary New York. It's still possible, of course, to keep more of the influence in the New York area, especially if you can handwave the Edison fiascos, but you'd be hardpressed to get rid of Hollywood altogether.

Well it's not the genres Southern California has most lent its scenery to (eg Westerns) couldn't almost as easily, at least in the early years of the industry, be shot somewhere else (The Great Train Robbery did fine with sets in New Jersey) -- and by the time shooting at these kind great locations does become a clear plus, it won't matter to where the studios themselves are centered (since by then, shooting on location will just be another element to the business).
 
Florida was a big location in the early days of film. It had most of the same advantages of California, but closer to the NY money men.
docfl
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Well it's not the genres Southern California has most lent its scenery to (eg Westerns) couldn't almost as easily, at least in the early years of the industry, be shot somewhere else (The Great Train Robbery did fine with sets in New Jersey) -- and by the time shooting at these kind great locations does become a clear plus, it won't matter to where the studios themselves are centered (since by then, shooting on location will just be another element to the business).

You can shoot anywhere, but you want an Arid Maritime climate with Mountains nearby. Why? You want dry since when it rain, you don't shoot. It is better to have say 340 days of shooting weather than say 200 in Seattle. This will become less true as big sound studios are used, but we are not there in the early 1900's. So why not somewhere like the Sahara where it never rains. You want to shoot movies not set in deserts, so you want rain. Mountains create rain even in arid regions. So you get plants. You also will have a wide variety of hills going from the sea plain to the high mountains. Why not Arizona, which matches this? You want to be able to shoot ocean/water scenes. There are a few other considerations, but there are few places that work this well. Geography is destiny. You have similar conditions in Angola but it is so far away. Under some TL, you can get say a French or German film industry partially located there. No where like Hollywood, but a major film area. Chile should have this type of climate, so I guess you could get a Spanish or Brazilian industry here. There might be another location or two, but they don't jump to mind. You need a cold ocean climate running by the desert zone backed against high mountains. Maybe somewhere in Australia (Perth)? Maybe somewhere in NW Africa such as Morocco has potential.

So you can buff/nerf the USA film industry and indirectly nerf Hollywood. But you can't easily move Hollywood to any other location.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Florida was a big location in the early days of film. It had most of the same advantages of California, but closer to the NY money men.
docfl

And what advantages do you see it sharing with California? And how do you explain Hollywood not being in Florida?
 
IOTL, there was an attempt in the 1920s to turn Hobe Sound, Florida into a film production center called "Picture City". This was torpedoed by both the collapse of the Florida land bubble and, more importantly, the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane. The latter in particular is, I feel, a good indicator of why much of Florida is a poor choice of locale to develop a film industry: the weather is too hazardous in too much of the state.

However, I could see an inland city like Orlando, Ocala, or Gainesville developing a film industry. Those cities are far enough away from the coast to not be as severely affected by hurricanes (IOTL, Walt Disney chose Orlando over Miami and Tampa as the site of Disney World for this reason), yet still close enough that it's no big deal to head out and shoot beach or water scenes. If the film industry's based in Orlando, for instance, then you could see development of cities like Cocoa, Cape Canaveral, and Daytona Beach to use as secondary shooting locations, as well as resorts for actors, directors, and other industry players.

And what advantages do you see it sharing with California? And how do you explain Hollywood not being in Florida?

In a TL like the one John Frederick Parker outlined, Florida would have one major advantage over California -- in the days before cheap air travel, it's far more accessible to the New York financiers who likely have greater control over the industry. IOTL, the studios fled to Hollywood in order to escape Edison's reach, but here, you won't have that driving effect; a few indies may head out west, but it's not gonna be a huge thing. By having the studios in Florida, the people financing them will be able to keep them on a shorter leash, exerting greater control over the production process.

Having the film industry in central Florida rather than southern California is likely to have some knock-off effects on American pop culture. For instance, instead of the classic goof of mountainous Midwestern landscapes, we could see the exact opposite goof of flat Wild West landscapes.:D More seriously, moving the film industry to Florida is likely to set off the state's tourism boom decades earlier -- millions of tourists visit Los Angeles to see the stars, after all. Speaking of which, could a film industry help to prop up Florida's, or at least central Florida's, economy after the '20s land bubble bursts?
 
There are still going to be a lot of New York financiers unwilling to set up shop in the south in this era. While certainly not as liberal as it is today, the film industry back then was still fairly progressive, and anti-semitism was still a big deal back then. That's another tick in favor of a relatively fresh start in California. They also heavily trended Republican, another reason to stay out of the south at this time.

California certainly has a lot of advantages if you are going to move. That said, I don't think relocating was an absolute certainty. It would have required higher investment to stay, but we have examples of "greenhouse" studios in Europe to keep out the weather. And of course there's ever-advancing technology. I would expect to see earlier adaption of sound technology ITTL, due to increased competition, so they may only need to hold out for ten years or so before the outdoor advantage is kaput.

But I do admit that this would be a long-shot, and California's still the most likely destination.
 
Filmmakers need somewhere to go. Edison would constantly send goons after them, in some cases killing them, for using the European technology. They need somewhere to protect them. If not Hollywood, somewhere. I don't think Edison will make a deal with the other studios and independent filmmakers. He was an evil bastard and it's simply not in his nature.
 
Filmmakers need somewhere to go. Edison would constantly send goons after them, in some cases killing them, for using the European technology. They need somewhere to protect them. If not Hollywood, somewhere. I don't think Edison will make a deal with the other studios and independent filmmakers. He was an evil bastard and it's simply not in his nature.

Except TTL, he hasn't got a legal leg to stand on...
 
CaliBoy1990 said:
It does sound interesting, but I'm afraid there's no butterflying Hollywood: the climate, the scenery, and many other things made that area a natural hot spot for film-making, compared to cloudy, rainy, and downright dreary New York. It's still possible, of course, to keep more of the influence in the New York area, especially if you can handwave the Edison fiascos, but you'd be hardpressed to get rid of Hollywood altogether.
Wasn't there an effort to set up in Phoenix? Failing that, what about Houston or Dallas? And what about stronger regional industries, like Chicago (& Detroit? & Cleveland?), without the dominance of Hollywood?
BlondieBC said:
You can shoot anywhere, but you want an Arid Maritime climate with Mountains nearby.
If that's true, why is the Canadian industry centered in Toronto & not Vancouver? (Yes, I know, lots of "flyaway" projects shoot there...:rolleyes:)
Kevin R. said:
Having the film industry in central Florida rather than southern California is likely to have some knock-off effects on American pop culture.
It's going to have others: namely, Los Angeles is much less likely to be huge, smoggy, & overpaved.:eek::cool: It's much more likely to remain what it was in the '00s & '10s: a town around 10,000.

That appears to have other cultural impacts, not least on the popularity of car culture, & car/driving films. May also mean bands like The Beach Boys are less popular...:cool:
Kevin R. said:
the exact opposite goof of flat Wild West landscapes.:D
Ah, yes, the country of Leone: Italy, pretending to be Montana.:p
 
Last edited:

BlondieBC

Banned
If that's true, why is the Canadian industry centered in Toronto & not Vancouver? (Yes, I know, lots of "flyaway" projects shoot there...:rolleyes:)

Vancouver has a lot of rain. I would not describe it as an arid region. You have to read the entire post, not just part of it. Probably Toronto has fewer days of rain than vancouver.
 
It's going to have others: namely, Los Angeles is much less likely to be huge, smoggy, & overpaved.:eek::cool: It's much more likely to remain what it was in the '00s & '10s: a town around 10,000.

Bit of a nitpick, but it was growing even then -- in 1890 the population was already 50,000, ten years later it doubled, and in 1910 (just as the Hollywood Boom was getting started) it had grown to nearly 320,000.
 
John Fredrick Parker said:
Bit of a nitpick, but it was growing even then -- in 1890 the population was already 50,000, ten years later it doubled, and in 1910 (just as the Hollywood Boom was getting started) it had grown to nearly 320,000.
I stand corrected.:eek: Thx. I had the impression it was much smaller longer.
 
What about Dallas (or some other city in Texas) as an alternative? Any possibilities there?

Well, you get that far from the East Coast, you might as well be by the sea.

But let's see if we can't move beyond the question of "where else?", to ask what this alternate American film industry might look like, to what extent it could be dominated by East Coast financiers, and how that would change the look of early American films.
 
Except TTL, he hasn't got a legal leg to stand on...

He didn't have a legal leg to murder people, but in the end he still did. Edison is a ruthless bastard and will do whatever it takes to form a psuedo-monopoly.

The locations doesn't matter unless the police force promises to keep Edison's goons away. The filmmakers originally were setting up shop in Arizona. Edison sent cowboys after them.
 
Wasn't there an effort to set up in Phoenix? Failing that, what about Houston or Dallas? And what about stronger regional industries, like Chicago (& Detroit? & Cleveland?), without the dominance of Hollywood?

If that's true, why is the Canadian industry centered in Toronto & not Vancouver? (Yes, I know, lots of "flyaway" projects shoot there...:rolleyes:)

It's going to have others: namely, Los Angeles is much less likely to be huge, smoggy, & overpaved.:eek::cool: It's much more likely to remain what it was in the '00s & '10s: a town around 10,000.

That appears to have other cultural impacts, not least on the popularity of car culture, & car/driving films. May also mean bands like The Beach Boys are less popular...:cool:

Ah, yes, the country of Leone: Italy, pretending to be Montana.:p

Wiki says that L.A. already had 102,000 people in 1900.....and, amazingly, just over 300,000 by 1910. So, the City of Angels being a major West Coast community was kinda in the cards by the time Hollywood got started up.

Stronger regional film industries can definitely be done, though, even with a Hollywood as influential as OTL's. Just find a way to make a few of the smaller companies really successful; maybe somebody makes a major sleeper blockbuster hit? :D
 
Unless a more spread out and regional film industry presents itself, it's not going to change the film industry's culture/business model in the big picture of things (yes the pun was intended). Whether in Florida or California, we'd still end up with unimaginative bean counters who try and slap together the most mediocre and simplistic of plots, with a preference for sequels and remakes of past successful films.

Wiki says that L.A. already had 102,000 people in 1900.....and, amazingly, just over 300,000 by 1910. So, the City of Angels being a major West Coast community was kinda in the cards by the time Hollywood got started up.

Stronger regional film industries can definitely be done, though, even with a Hollywood as influential as OTL's. Just find a way to make a few of the smaller companies really successful; maybe somebody makes a major sleeper blockbuster hit? :D

Now that is where we'd see the most changes to this TL, which would alter Californian and US demographics.
 
Unless a more spread out and regional film industry presents itself, it's not going to change the film industry's culture/business model in the big picture of things (yes the pun was intended). Whether in Florida or California, we'd still end up with unimaginative bean counters who try and slap together the most mediocre and simplistic of plots, with a preference for sequels and remakes of past successful films.

Could the circumstances in the OP give us a US film industry that was worse in this respect?
 
Top