Senior HTF Member
- Mar 28, 2016
- Real Name
Unless you happen to enjoy seeing older movies on the big screen. There are a few theaters in the Albany area that play older movies, but I don't know that any of them would qualify as repertory theaters under Disney's definition.Much ado about nothing, honestly.
I think the Palace probably would. They at least don't show any current movies.Unless you happen to enjoy seeing older movies on the big screen. There are a few theaters in the Albany area that play older movies, but I don't know that any of them would qualify as repertory theaters under Disney's definition.
As Disney gobbles up more and more of the film industry, anti-trust concerns have to come into play at some point.
Those are two fundamentally different experiences, though.It doesn't mean the movie is inaccessible on home video and streaming; it means it's not accessible on a theater screen.
This isn't a format issue, like IMAX versus conventional or DVD versus Blu-Ray. It's bigger than that. Going to the cinema and seeing a movie with an audience is fundamentally a different mode of entertainment than watching the same content on home video.Sure they are different experiences. I can't and won't disagree. But there is no inherent right in seeing a movie in our preferred format.
I certainly wouldn't be thrilled, but it would be less of a big deal because they each control far less inventory.So if MGM or Lionsgate or Universal did this, it would be okay because of their market share?
Disney is moving back toward the vertical integration that the Supreme Court struck down in United States v. Paramount Pictures. Disney produces the motion pictures. Disney distributes the motion pictures. And with Disney+, Disney exhibits the motion pictures. If Disney+ is just one mode of exhibition, it's not such a big deal. But when it becomes the exclusive mode of exhibition for many many titles, then it is a big deal.