Old Hollywood: The Studio Era

When some people think of Hollywood, they may imagine a glamorized version of the Studio System era — a supposedly golden age of cinema when stars were stars and the Big Five and the Little Three were cranking out films. The Studio System era was a hierarchical and centralized system, however, with huge companies that held tremendous control over their employees and their talents. For instance, star actors under long-term contracts with a studio could only make films for that company. On one hand, this was very exploitative of labor due to the extreme limitation on agency. On the other hand, the studios provided real jobs. The longer contracts offered some stability for workers, and each studio ultimately developed its own aesthetic. It is important to mention that stars were not the beginning and end of the movie-making labor force. In the studio system to this very day, producing and distributing films involves the labor and talents of many workers.

The studios were vertically integrated monoliths that controlled every aspect of the filmmaking process, from production to distribution in movie theaters they either owned or coerced. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled against block bookings — a practice where independent theaters were forced by the studios to buy a certain number of films — and decided that the studios were in violation of antitrust laws. Over time, this ruling diminished absolute control of the studios.

Rise of the Independents

As the power of the major studios lessened, some smaller companies and producers, at least smaller relative to the former studios, blossomed. These companies/producers generally maintained less control of workers by using shorter-term contracts. Through a generous lens, this allowed workers more control of their labor to move from job to job. Some have argued that artistic creativity flourished accordingly because content creators more easily aligned themselves with companies/producers who shared their vision. A more exact take reveals that moving to a short-term labor force was a corporate, hierarchical tactic to pay workers less. Short-term contracts equaled less responsibility to commit to and care for workers long-term.

Post-Independent Era

Currently, multinational corporations with powerful subsidiaries pretend they are independent producers by generally treating each film project as a one-off, in isolation from all others, and fulfilling the labor they need with short-term contracts and independent contractors. The myth that somehow this is all good for workers and creativity is promoted. Of course, it’s not the dream of every content creator to work from contract to contract, hungrily eyeing and competing for the next job even before the first has ended.

Another prominent myth generated in the Internet age, of the same type, is that large hierarchical video content sharing systems driven by advertising or subscription services are the only options, and they equitably benefit content creators. In these video sharing systems, creators are either beholden to advertisers or limited creatively by subscription service company gatekeepers driven to only accept content with mass appeal.

A New Hollywood?

The Studio System controlled all content, exploited laborers and limited labor agency, but did allow for some longer-term contracts and sustained creative relationships. United Artists, one of the Little Three in the Studio Era, offered an alternative model from the other studios. Artists founded it, so they could have control of their creative work. Their goal was a worthy one that should be revisited today. The rise of the independent companies/producers offered an open hand to labor by dangling greater agency for content creators while also raising a clenched fist by controlling production, reducing earnings, and lessening stability. As films moved to the Internet, video content sharing systems run by the subsidiaries of multinational companies have pretended to create fair monetizing opportunities for content creators while instead taking a majority of the profits driven by advertisers or subscribers.

Many content creators, undeterred by these myths, are demanding true agency for their labor and reciprocal institutions that serve their interests — where they have a real stake proportional to their creative investment. What does this equitable creative institution, more fair to all members including creators, distributors, and the audience actually look like?

The POP Network’s Blockchain-Based Solution

The creation of new, more equitable institutions is possible by harnessing decentralized technologies. Where the old Hollywood relied on exploitation of labor, the new Hollywood soon-to-be realized by The POP Network treats all stakeholders equitably. Backed by the Ethereum blockchain, The POP Network is a video sharing ecosystem where the audience sends micropayments directly to content creators for the content they view. This system frees content creators to make the content they want and be supported directly from their audience, however niche their work may be. From content creators to those that help encode or store videos, every member of The POP Network community has the ability to earn revenue equal to their contribution.

The old Hollywood was all about maximizing profits for a minority of stakeholders, whether that was for a character like Jack Warner in the studio system or the corporate board of directors for any of the current corporate juggernauts. Instead, The POP Network’s new Hollywood aims to be an ecosystem that distributes value fairly based upon each member’s contribution to the community.