THis week, Amazon acquired famed movie studio MGM for $8.45 billion, second in size after the company’s $13.4 billion purchase of Whole Foods in 2017, the day before prosecutors. Washington, D.C. Amazon on Antitrust Issues in the Retail Market Joining attorneys general from California, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Washington, who have raised similar concerns, Chief Executive Jeff Bezos, who is retiring in July, said in a statement: “MGM. There is a long list of beloved intellectual property. We can imagine and develop that IP new for the 21st century.”
Bezos is a guy who makes nearly $3,000 a second. Anyone who makes a few million dollars every 15 minutes, who says the Sun is only 3 billion miles from Pluto, can travel there and back more than 25 times and earn $1 per mile – sees the treasure. of cinema history as an IP that will be exploited more importantly and more risky. aspects of culture It’s actually nice and at this point, it’s almost a common feature of writing about Bezos to try and understand his wealth in practice. Even more difficult was trying to rationalize how wealth had distorted his understanding of the arts and its role in society.
So far, most MGM purchases have been written in the context of the destiny of some of the studio’s most prominent productions: Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and the James Bond franchise, among others. This week, Variety published an article. Which is divided into sections about the various movies and TV shows and what could have happened. Do some of them fall under the Amazon Prime umbrella? Does the other person own the property separately due to a previous contract? The speculation about ownership of movies and shows has reduced everything to numbers and titles, emphasizing that these properties are truly a product. Not everything MGM owns has cultural significance, as is the guarantee of the paranoia that has gripped the pearls about preservation. That’s not the point. And anyone worried about how this deal tests antitrust laws when it comes to Amazon’s size and monopoly potential will be disappointed, as MGM’s portion of the movie market is so small. But that concept is also misleading. What follows is a dilution of both quality and vibrancy for the cinematic format.
The idea of a “streaming war” has overtaken public perception of how the entertainment industry approaches the production of its movies and shows: goods to be traded and hoarded to attract subscriptions. Bloomberg Frames the MGM deal in the form of hours. “Amazon studios produce a few hundred hours’ worth of TV shows and movies a year. MGM adds to its catalog of 25,000 hours of retrospect that Amazon can split between its Prime deals. Video or IMDB TV that supports ad-free to stream.” Every major studio has developed or is developing their own platform, which is expected to pressure Amazon to expand their streaming options. The end result is a confusing and frustrating selection of subscriptions for potential viewers who want easy access to a large number of movies.
What is missing from both the micro and macro conversations about streaming is why the conservation and celebration of film and other arts are threatened, not only in the world, but in the world. but important But why so little new life online? As more and more companies sidestep their “content” behind volatile monthly fees, the overall ownership of the cinema worsens. Physical media such as DVDs and CDs, a major artifact when it comes to bizarre and long-lived ways to convey and create valuable movies, are rapidly depleting. Instead, viewers will have to decide on an inferior visualization, dead pixels and distracting onscreen buttons. The experience of performing a theatrical performance that always seems to be on the verge of decay. dominated by flashy gimmicks which will hopefully be designed to make people come and stay Even movie studios can’t be trusted to understand what’s best for their archives. Kevin Ulrich, head of MGM’s Anchorage Capital Group, commented on the studio’s deal. to Amazon, saying, “I’m very proud that MGM’s Lion, which has long sparked Hollywood’s golden age, will continue its history and The creative ideas of United Artists go the way the founders intended from the start, driven by their talent and vision.”
In this black hole of funding and devaluation, custody is one of the few avenues left to help protect cinemas from the cynicism and hunger of ever-growing big corporations. Independent platforms such as Criterion and Mubi, conservative initiatives, and unenthusiastic initiatives of those concerned about the future of cinema: These current measures do not seem comparatively bad. But still far from insignificant.
In Harper’s article, Martin Scorsese, a filmmaker whose legacy and contribution to art forms seems difficult to protect and replicate in our current landscape, writes: “Those of us who know cinema and The history of cinema must share our passion and knowledge with as many people as possible. And we have to make it clear to the current legal owners of these films that they are a lot more than just assets to exploit and then locked up.”
The utility, power, and social value of art cannot be measured, nor should these “treasures of our culture,” as Scorsese rightly call it, should be published and inspiring. In doing so, they must be allowed to exist freely, with the implicit knowledge that they are one of the few truly universal things that make life on the dying planet. worth living