Talk:Block booking

GA failed
I have failed this because, while decently-referenced and coherently written, it just isn't comprehensive enough.

The article is basically two things: an explanation of the practice and a history of the legal wranglings around it. It is in that latter that we could know more.


 * What was the studios' defense/rationalization of this (besides their own profits, of course)? Today the cable companies defend themselves against á la carte by claiming that that model makes it possible for them to carry smaller niche-oriented channels which some communities deeply appreciate but which wouldn't survive long (they claim) in a more even-handed market? Did the studios make a similar claim?


 * Who spoke up against this during the 1920s and '30s? There certainly had to be some voices who did. The Poverty Row studios certainly couldn't have been happy with this situation ... did they make any organized efforts to challenge it?


 * Finally, I would ask what the consequences were, except that the article on the Supreme Court case discusses that. We're talking about something that had a profound effect on American cinema — a major nail in the coffin of the studio system. It should be discussed here in even more detail.

Researching this may be a project but there are any number of histories of Hollywood that go into it. When it's been sufficiently expanded, it can be renominated. Daniel Case 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

===

I just talked to the manager of a local cinema here in Oregon, 'Coming Attractions Theatres', and apparently, this practice still goes on!!! I couldn't believe it!!! They told me that they were forced to show a bomb-film in their smaller cinemas in order to be allowed to show 'Pirates of the Caribbean'. It happens much more than most people think. I don't know if there is any relevant research into this practice continuing in the present day. Devolution (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

United Artists
The article mentions that United Artists did not practice block booking - yet this Variety piece from 1923 seems to contradict that...

Pictures: UNITED ARTISTS SELL THREE IN ONE GROUP. (1923, Jan 05). Variety (Archive: 1905-2000), 69, 46. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1505607200?accountid=14522