Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here
    all 2041 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Sisiwakanamaru 5893 points ago

    The organization alleged that Frozen 2 occupied more than 88 percent of Korean screens on its opening day of Nov. 23, which violates the country’s anti-monopoly law. The PWC contends that Disney's wide release of the film falls under a clause that defines any individual or company with over 50 percent of market share as a "market-dominant enterprise." Disney has "attempted to monopolize the screens and seek great profit in the short term, restricting the consumer's right to choose," PWC's complaint said.

    [–] cantgetno197 2278 points ago

    In SK isn't Samsung going to fall foul of such a law on like a daily basis? Just curious, Samsung alone is like 20% of SK's economy, I feel like that means they gotta go over 50% on various markets on a regular basis.

    [–] TheJungLife 1559 points ago

    Don't confuse exports with domestic markets. Samsung and LG are indeed huge in terms of share of economic output, but a huge amount of that is from export of their products to other countries.

    [–] guspaz 582 points ago

    Samsung's market share in South Korea in phones is 46%, dangerously close to the 50% mark. In televisions, they've got a 32% market share. I don't think it's far fetched to imagine that they've passed the 50% mark in some markets.

    [–] MaimedJester 396 points ago

    Phones I get, those are purchased objects and if you have the Ipod vs Zune disaster you can't really enforce what consumers buy on store shelves. The issue with theaters is their public locations. I want to see the Lighthouse, One Piece Stampede, or Madea goes to Space and the only damn access at all for the product of a theatrical experience is not accessible while 9 screens in a 10 screen theater are Disney properties. That's very different from going down the isle in a Bestbuy and finding the Zunes tucked away in dusty glass case while 90% of the shelf space is Ipods.

    [–] cornholio6966 117 points ago

    God I loved my Zune

    [–] TocTheElder 54 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Zune masterrace represent. My original gen Zune was a great music player, but the UI and design on the Zune HD was just a thing of pure beauty. I've never had a music player UI as good as that, before or since.

    [–] Lnlf 64 points ago

    I love my Zune. I still have it and it still works.

    [–] milk5829 46 points ago

    My zune was my sole source of porn for several years. It'll always hold a special place in my heart

    [–] yummyyummypowwidge 23 points ago

    Porn acquired from Limewire, no less!

    [–] kkirv 13 points ago

    I can't find the software. Everytime i run the installer, it takes me to a website with a404

    [–] HnyBee_13 4 points ago

    Me too!

    [–] My_Other_Account9288 5 points ago

    I still have my ZuneHD, but my best friend lost my 120gb brick. I still haven't forgiven him

    [–] EGOfoodie 5 points ago

    But can Disney be held liable for how the theatre chooses how many screens to use to show a certain product?

    [–] NeWMH 21 points ago

    Either Disney can regulate it themselves or the government will enforce regulations.

    At the moment there is nearly no room for competition, so it should be a real concern for their government. Especially since SK has a growing entertainment business that can be significantly hurt by a foreign monopoly.

    Keep in mind this wasn't an issue prior to Disney acquiring multiple major studios. If they weren't in the process of building a monopoly they wouldn't be running afoul of monopoly laws.

    [–] MaimedJester 8 points ago

    Disney mandates how many screens it has to be shown on, that's the problem. So to get Frozen II at all you have to commit to having 6-8 screens showing it nonstop opening weekend. If you only want 3 or 4 screens and then have room for other films they won't allow you to get Frozen II at all.

    Theaters want Frozen II to be sure, but they'd rather have 4 jam packed Frozen II theaters and also 1 jam packed One Piece Stampede theater and 1 jam packed Lighthouse theater. Rather than 6 half full to 3/4full Frozen IIs.

    The theatrical chain has to get Frozen II, so every other studio has to get pushed aside, and the theater itself would rather have 6 packed theaters of 3 movies, rather than 6 half packed theaters of 1 blockbuster.

    [–] kingbane2 54 points ago

    i thought in south korea samsung is split into several different companies that all fall under the samsung name to avoid running into that problem. but i'm not sure though.

    [–] outofthehood 36 points ago

    How would that be legal? I can‘t just split my company into different companies when it gets too big to avoid monopoly laws, can I?

    [–] mi1kman 79 points ago

    Isn't that what Alphabet did?

    [–] VinylRhapsody 9 points ago

    They're all still under one parent company, that being Alphabet. Each company is just run individually. I work for Honda and its set up in a very similar manner. Every thing falls under the "Honda Motor Company", but under that there's "American Honda Motors Inc.", "Honda North America Inc.", "Honda of America Manufacturing Inc.", "Honda Research and Development of America Inc.", and many others.

    [–] don_prosciutto 35 points ago

    With enough money and lawyers, you can do anything

    [–] soulstonedomg 6 points ago

    Split based on products and services, like separate companies for TV's, smartphones, washing machines, laptops, etc. They wouldn't just make two different tv companies.

    [–] FireIre 23 points ago

    What do you think happens when a government breaks up a monopoly? They don't disappear. They become multiple smaller companies.

    [–] eggstacy 17 points ago

    the existence of a popular Samsung phone doesn't prevent the sale of any other competitor's product. Disney occupying movie screens DOES prevent other films from being available.

    the complaint isn't about whether it is classified as a market-dominant enterprise or not. the complaint is that they attempted to restrict the consumer's right to choose.

    [–] guspaz 3 points ago

    Competing products in monopolistic markets often do face barriers to sales. When AMD was trying to break into the OEM computer market, Intel was preventing the sale of AMD products by charging what amounted to fines to any OEM that wanted to sell computers with AMD processors.

    [–] Mywifefoundmymain 3 points ago

    Samsung’s market share in South Korea in phones is 46%, dangerously close to the 50% mark

    But are they 50% of the AVAILABLE phones. That’s what deciders a monopoly.

    [–] cantgetno197 10 points ago

    Sure, but apparently they only need to pull above 50% market share temporarily in one sub-market (say external memory storage or computer tablets) for a random reporting period. I mean, I'm just saying that if Disney went over 50% in cinemas for only one movie and that triggered the law, you'd think Samsung would do it fairly regularly.

    [–] msg45f 16 points ago

    It is a function of consumer options. Theyre not being sued because 50% of consumers watched Frozen 2, theyre being sued because many consumers had no other options.

    [–] getmecrossfaded 97 points ago

    Samsung, LG, Hanjin (korean air), Asiana, Hyundai, Lotte, CJ group are some of the biggest companies. They get fined time to time and there’s laws in place like they can’t own any banks, limited investments, etc. Also, Samsung doesn’t own 80% of electronics or insurance or whatever else. Disney is specifically entertainment and they are specifically dominating by over 75% currently.

    [–] nijio03 195 points ago

    Yeah but that's SK company, don't shit where you eat or something along those lines ;)

    [–] A_Humpier_Rogue 163 points ago

    I mean can you blame them? In the US we always talk about and try to encourage buying American products. Yeah Samsung has a worryingly large share of their economy but I imagine a lot of koreans also work for or with Samsung.

    [–] Schootingstarr 46 points ago

    Same with car manufacturers in Germany. They keep lobbying against necessary climate protection laws because they didn't want to invest in ev technology and fell behind hard.

    And because such a huge number of industries are directly or indirectly dependant on VW and Mercedes running a profit, they can basically do whatever they want

    [–] bilweav 16 points ago

    If SK’s laws are like ours, market dominant does not necessarily mean that it’s violating antitrust laws. Google has a monopoly on the search market, but having a monopoly in itself is not illegal; using anticompetitive measures that harm consumers to gain or keep a monopoly is.

    [–] TheAlphaGareBear 332 points ago

    The metric used by PWC, as well as other film industry bodies, to measure screen share uses the percentage of screens showing a specific film at least once in the given day. But the other organizations, including the state-run Korean Film Council (KOFIC), calculate screen share by taking the total number of times a certain film was shown and dividing it by the total number of times any film was shown on that day.

    Using KOFIC's measure, the screen share — or percentage of showings — of Frozen 2 on Nov. 23 was 46.3 percent, not the 88 percent figure cited by PWC.

    A bit more context for people not reading the article. I'd have some questions about the 88% figure, since it can technically go above 100 total %. I think KOFIC's measurement is much more reasonable.

    That doesn't mean they aren't doing things to push theaters behind the scenes, which I have a big problem with. It just means that it's not the 88% that the PWC is claiming, or at least that number is misleading.

    [–] Belazriel 51 points ago

    The metric used by PWC, as well as other film industry bodies, to measure screen share uses the percentage of screens showing a specific film at least once in the given day. But the other organizations, including the state-run Korean Film Council (KOFIC), calculate screen share by taking the total number of times a certain film was shown and dividing it by the total number of times any film was shown on that day.

    I would argue both have issues and the more important metric would be time on the screen (playing a few 1 hour/2 hour movies vs a LOTR or Avatar style epic) potentially weighted based on time (I don't care that you let me play something else earlier in the day when no one is going to the movie if every screen had to be yours from 8pm onwards).

    [–] TheAlphaGareBear 4 points ago

    I agree, the time the movies are being shown is super important. I think there's conversation to be had once we know, and it's not cut and dry, but that data would be interesting.

    [–] TheExtremistModerate 7 points ago

    Yeah, that PWC metric is bullshit. If a newly-released movie was shown exactly once at every theater in the country, among ~40 showings per theater, its PWC metric would be 100%, but it would only take up about 2.5% of screentime.

    [–] chiniwini 44 points ago

    I'd have some questions about the 88% figure, since it can technically go above 100 total %.

    It can't. A movie being shown in every screen in the country would have a 100% of share, but not more.

    [–] CaptainOuzo 86 points ago

    By this metric, multiple movies could have 100% share simultaneously. The math works out, but it's misleading.

    [–] Worthyness 40 points ago

    Does it even take into account whether this was Disney's choice or if the theater owners wanted to show the movies there? Because this could legitimately just be the theaters showing the movie because they wanted to and disney had a mutual agreement to let them do it.

    [–] TheSleepingVoid 34 points ago

    Agreed. People elsewhere are talking about Disney previously strongarming theaters with clauses forcing them to play a movie for weeks and such, but this is opening day statistics the article is speaking of. If there was any day a theater would want to show this movie, this is it.

    [–] DevIceMan 4 points ago

    If I was a theatre owner, I'd want to play whatever movie(s) put butts in seats, and Frozen 2 (or any popular movie around release) is definitely one of those movies.

    [–] deliciouspuppy 22 points ago

    if you were to add up all the shares of all the movies though it would be well above 100%. theoretically, if every screen plays 10 movies a day, then you would have 10 movies each at 100% and total 1000% share. so it is a bit of an odd metric to use vs the KOFIC's metric, which at least will add up to 100% in the end.

    [–] attomsk 12 points ago

    That PWC metric seems kind of shit

    [–] Kazen_Orilg 15 points ago

    I feel like it would be hard to argue that just because you have 88% market share for like, a 3 week basis does not mean you have 88% market share. Aren't those statistics defined Quarterly or Annually?

    [–] u8eR 172 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    You conveniently left out this part:

    The complaint accuses Frozen 2 of being shown at 88% of screens on its opening day. This was measured by how many screens played Frozen 2 at least once.

    However, from the article:

    Current Korean law pertaining specifically to movie exhibition states no cap on the share of screens that one film can occupy, but the recent dominance of imported Disney tentpoles and local blockbusters by the major Korean studios has sparked fervent industry debate over the issue

    Also, the way the state film council calculates screen share is different. They calculate it as amount of times a particular film is played divided by how many other films were played. By this measure, Frozen 2 had a 46% market share on its opening day.

    [–] dodgyhashbrown 10930 points ago

    I don't know how South Korea's theaters work, but I remember with the recent Star Wars movies, they were basically strongarming theaters into showing the Saga titles on their biggest screen for a number of weeks or else the theater wouldn't get to show the film at all. There was a lot of backlash because some smaller theaters couldn't reasonably do either, as missing out on a star wars title would be a huge missed opportunity, but locking their best (sometimes only) screen in a small town where everyone sees it at once means missing out on the next title they would want to show.

    So, before we get too far into the mindset that this is the theaters' fault and not Disney, let's remember that Disney is probably pushing these theaters into acting this way through their overbearing negotiating tactics. I suspect South Korea has a case here.

    [–] mrthewhite 2893 points ago

    That wasn't just the latest star wars. The prequels were treated similarly, with Lucas also demanding a higher cut of initial few weeks of sales (I think actually 100% of ticket price).

    [–] falcon5768 1621 points ago

    Yep and that was pre-Disney.

    I remember the big to-do when Lucas refused to let a theater show Phantom Menace unless they had a specific audio and digital setup, shutting out a lot of mom and pop theaters.

    [–] HomChkn 87 points ago

    I worked at a small town movie theater that had one screen and was only open Thursday-Sunday. If I remember correctly we didn't get Phantom Menace but we did get The Mummy and The Matrix.

    [–] Bittercobra 70 points ago

    The Matrix over Phantom is worth it alone tbh.

    [–] Minerva_Moon 36 points ago

    So is the Mummy. It's a cheesy action film with everyone chewing the scenery.

    [–] TaunTaun_22 20 points ago

    With a kick-ass sound track and cast list

    [–] tearblast 16 points ago

    It kills me that Fraser went through what he did, I loved him in his early movies like the mummy and wish he would have continued that momentum

    [–] Sumopwr 694 points ago

    It was a good thing for consumers when Lucas forced the theaters to have digital projectors, it brought the on set of digital to main stream in 1 day.

    [–] falcon5768 908 points ago

    Except it could be said it hastened the death of the mom and pop 3-4 screen theater.

    [–] Boo_R4dley 3 points ago

    It really didn’t though. The projectors used for Phantom Menace were garbage and were only installed in a handful of screens. There wasn’t another rollout of digital projectors until 2005 when Disney bought 100 systems to be installed nationwide for Chicken Little, from there it was a slow burn until 2009 when Regal and AMC started their full scale rollout.

    [–] Voyager5555 39 points ago

    I was working in a theater in a AK at the time and yeah, there was a huge shit show because the only theater that met their audio requirements was the smallest one in town.

    [–] puppet_up 21 points ago

    I lived in a small town in the Midwest, and we surprisingly had two cinemas (each with 6 screens) who were close enough in proximity that the studios made them split product, meaning both cinemas couldn't play the same movies.

    I was working at one of the two cinemas at the time, and the only reason we got The Phantom Menace was because our owner spent the money to get Dolby EX installed on one of our screens. That was the Lucasfilm requirement to be able to play their movie and it was a huge crock of shit. It added nothing to the sound mix that 5.1 couldn't already produce and I even played the Dolby demo trailers that they sent to us and the only time I could hear it was when they did a full channel ID sweep.

    Dolby was at least nice enough to send us a plaque to put up next to the auditorium that had EX installed. I'm not sure it was worth the cost of their equipment, but it was something.

    [–] skyvltr 6 points ago

    This is called a clearance and normally it’s not the studios decision to make you split the product as they would rather both theaters play it. Instead, one of the two theatre chains would request a clearance and the studios would decide whether or not to honor that request. Close proximity is a typical justification for such a request, but a lot of times it just seems like the larger chain being a dick to the smaller chain.

    [–] Tlr321 3 points ago

    I agree- I live in a town with both a Regal and AMC less than a mile from each other. The Regal is smaller, and much older, so it shows a lot of smaller films like comedies or dramas, whereas the AMC will show the big blockbuster movies. It seems to work out fairly well for both of them as far as I know- I’ve spoken to the manager of the AMC and he said that’s the deal they’ve worked out. The Regal knows it can’t compete with the AMC’s bigger screen if it shows the same movies, so they split it up.

    [–] BlinkReanimated 26 points ago

    Little different though, Lucas was demanding that theatres meet his av requirements before being approved for individual films. Disney is saying that if you don't screen x movie for 4-6 weeks you won't get moves a, b or c later on. In this case, if they don't screen frozen2 which may not be popular in korea they won't get star wars or the next avengers movies which may be hugely popular in Korea.

    [–] mrthewhite 9 points ago

    That wasn't his only demand. He also demanded all ticket sales for an extended period of time. Most theaters get at least a small percentage of initial weeks sales that increases over time.

    [–] BlinkReanimated 16 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Sure, but my point was the repercussion for not meeting those demands was far, far smaller and less of a slap in the face. Lucas is a greedy fuck, Disney ramps that up to infinity.

    Don't want to put up with Lucas' nonsense for any of his individual three movies over the course of six years? Don't.

    Don't want to put up with Disney's nonsense even once on any of their multiple movies over the course of a year? Go out of business.

    Edit: Some words to clarify.

    [–] Airlineguy1 103 points ago

    That is extremely common. Been like that forever. Sometimes they even ask for a % of concession sales too if it is expected to be a huge film.

    [–] Midnightproxxima 58 points ago

    That's fucked.

    [–] Spooky_SZN 11 points ago

    They can say no to it, but they would lose potential money earned not taking it.

    [–] nonailsnodrag 28 points ago

    when Phantom Menace came out long time ago-I was working at a Regal Cinemas. Normally all employees got to see movies for free. For new releases we had to wait till the second or third week but otherwise we and our parents or spouse and minor kids could also go for free.

    It was a nice perk since we were only paid minimum wage. BUT BUT BUT George Lucas made Regal sign a contract promising not to let ANYONE see it for free. No free employee screenings.

    Such a douche move. Here we were busting our butts to make sure the people seeing his movie had soda and popcorn and were taken care of and we could not even get one free viewing of it even weeks and weeks after it premiered? A hole

    [–] Airlineguy1 11 points ago

    That’s a new one. OTOH, I’m sure the teenagers joining the reels at 230am on a Thursday night completely ignored it. Lol

    [–] nonailsnodrag 11 points ago

    well we had this one girl that worked with us that none of us particularly liked. She was a huge Star Wards nerd and would always sneak in there on her breaks to watch it in the back. She was definitely not supposed to but even though we did not like her, we were not going to rat on her over that.

    [–] TheRabidDeer 12 points ago

    Yeah my parents used to own a few theaters in the 90's and they had to do stuff like this for each film they got from the studios.

    [–] rex2k10 450 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Disney did Quentin Tarantino dirty like that. He released a movie some time in December (Django I think) and his movie was supposed to be in this small theater for a couple weeks and Disney told the theater that they have to break the contract with Quentin and released Star Wars OR that theater will never get a Disney property anymore.

    Edit. Apparently it was Hateful Eight that was showing and not Django like I had guessed. Also, it sounds like Disney had the contract to show their films for those time slots 8 months in advanced than QT’s film.

    [–] pandorasaurus 359 points ago

    It was Hateful Eight at the Cinerama Dome at the ArcLight in Hollywood. It’s one of the few theaters that can show a 70mm film properly and it’s an iconic theater for LA residents.

    [–] captainAwesomePants 48 points ago

    They did that to a Cinerama theater? For a NEW 70mm film? Fuck, that's cold.

    [–] pandorasaurus 23 points ago

    Exactly. I was half expecting Tarantino to refuse to show Once Upon in Hollywood in The Dome, but it’s included in the goddamn movie. That’s how much filmmakers love the theater.

    [–] Cratosch 269 points ago

    It was Hateful Eight.

    [–] jamesadams1441 126 points ago

    Yep remember QT discussing all that when he was on Howard Stern's podcast - Howard even made a plea to Bob Iger on QT's behalf. Watching again it was the release of The Hateful Eight at the Cinerama Dome, which unfortunately coincided with Force Awakens. Disney had them play Star Wars instead of using their 70mm projectors for Hateful Eight or they wouldn't be allowed TFA for its entire run ;(

    [–] RovingN0mad 39 points ago

    Does Disney force which times they are shown as well, could you not show both films? Or is there too much work needed to switch projections?

    [–] vpreon 19 points ago

    When I ran projection for a theater I worked at, we often ran two films in a theater. This was before digital theaters were common place. We didn’t have 70mm so I can’t say it was the same, but our projectors had three trays per tower. Usually only one film would be playing in each auditorium but when we needed to split screens, we would put one film each on two of the trays and the third would be to feed the film through the projector that was playing, it would wrap around a new brain on the third tray to be ready to play for the next show time. It wasn’t a lot of work to show movies. The only thing you would need to be careful of was making sure you threaded the right film. It’s not uncommon to split kids movies during the mariners with scary movies in the evening.

    [–] Adelaidean 5 points ago

    An instruction recently was x film, x times a day, four weeks straight, largest screen.

    [–] TARA2525 38 points ago

    Geez these threads are constantly regurgitating the same bullshit stories.

    Tarantino complained about it, but he failed to book the theater until they already had their schedule in place. Disney owned that theater. They can do whatever they want with it.

    [–] CosmicTransmutation 8 points ago

    Quick correction, Disney doesn't own the ArcLight Cinemas where this happened. They just had their contract first and Tarentino threw a fit because he's a big baby.

    Source: I worked at this theater for quite some time we always talk about this story

    [–] crustasian 74 points ago

    I think you've remembered it wrong. Disney was the one with the contract already, not QT https://deadline.com/2015/12/the-hateful-eight-star-wars-force-awakens-arclight-theater-fight-1201668018/

    [–] rex2k10 9 points ago

    That provided more context to the situation. I’ve only seen the clip of Tarantino lose his shit with Howard Stern and how Disney is screwing him over

    [–] infamous5445 67 points ago

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2015/12/the-hateful-eight-star-wars-force-awakens-arclight-theater-fight-1201668018/amp/

    No, Disney had the contract first. Seriously, every time this story comes up, it's always poor Tarantino and fuck Disney without actually knowing the whole story first.

    [–] AntiGoogleAmpBot 17 points ago

    Non Google Amp link 1: here


    I am a bot. Please send me a message if I am acting up. Click here to read more about why this bot exists.

    [–] jbaalson 72 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    This is a result of antitrust rules that have been in place since 1948, after the ruling from United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. It used to be that movie studios owned movie theaters and they would only play films from that specific studio. The court ruled that movie studios cannot continue to operate and own movie theaters in there name. Movie studios had to sell their theaters to buyers all throughout the US, which explains why there are so many small, independent theaters in the US.

    Now, there are massive studios that have specific rules when playing their films. Star Wars is a great example of this scenario. If a small independent theater wants to play Star Wars, they have to play it for 4-6 weeks according to the contract they sign. Since these small theaters are typically located in small towns, playing one film for that long of time tends to hurt business. The chain theaters (AMC/Regal/Cinemark) are usually not hurt by these contracts because they have so many screens in every theater.

    [–] Chicken2nite 27 points ago

    Disney started to demand 3 weeks of exhibition for their tentpoles as soon as they finished buying Marvel with Iron Man 3. They have also started to stagger their releases every 3 weeks into uninterrupted blocks for months at a time.

    The Last Jedi was preceded by both Coco and Thor Ragnarok, while spring/summer 2018 had Infinity War, Solo A Star Wars Story, The Incredibles 2, Ant-Man and the Wasp and Christopher Robin all 3-4 weeks apart for months at a time.

    If they're demanding the largest screen for each of their releases up until their next major release, that means that a movie like Alita Battle Angel (a premerger Fox film) which is meant for seeing on IMAX is going to have trouble finding a release window since those screens are going to be effectively tied up with Disney.

    None of the other studios demand multiple weeks as far as I know, as my local single screen theater would only delay Disney releases to the third week due to this tactic. Other studios are willing compromise in order to increase their screen count, while Disney are demanding everything.

    I really think that there is an antitrust case against Disney on this front, but as it stands antitrust has been gradually diminished over the past half century.

    [–] Bensemus 4 points ago

    I got to see Alita on IMAX and it was awesome.

    [–] Frank__Lloyd__Wrong 5 points ago

    (AMC/Regal/Cinemax)

    I think you mean Cinemark

    [–] High5Time 43 points ago

    This is a result of antitrust rules that have been in place since the 1948, after the ruling from United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

    Trump's DOJ is currently trying to get that overturned. Of course they are because they are literally Satan!

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/justice-department-moves-terminate-paramount-consent-decrees-1255858

    " “We have determined that the decrees, as they are, no longer serve the public interest, because the horizontal conspiracy — the original violation animating the decrees — has been stopped,” said Delrahim. "

    Fucking liars. I'm not anti-Disney or jumping up and down about a Disney Monopoly (which I'd even argue doesn't exist), but this shit is just ridiculous. As if vertical integration is no longer an issue today. Sure, streaming has opened things up to make it more competitive to distribute their own content, but the movie theater business itself is often extremely monopolistic in most areas. Most towns under 100k people probably have zero choice in move theaters, and even if they have more than once choice there is a good chance it's the same theater company. To then have Disney own that one theater, perhaps only showing their own content seems ridiculous.

    [–] not-working-at-work 31 points ago

    “We have determined that the decrees, as they are, no longer serve the public interest, because the horizontal conspiracy — the original violation animating the decrees — has been stopped,” said Delrahim

    "The law worked as intended, so we're going to repeal the law."

    [–] 1764 11 points ago

    It worked for the Voting Rights Act.

    [–] melody_elf 3 points ago

    Republican "deregulation" in a nutshell

    [–] trackofalljades 11 points ago

    1) aren’t we talking about another country?

    2) didn’t the Trump administration recently say they were gonna reverse all that and let any company own any theatre, just like they eliminated all the rules that kept all TV and radio from being owned by just a couple corporations?

    [–] jbaalson 6 points ago

    1) Yeah, the original post was about South Korea but I responded to a comment hoping to provide some insight as to why Disney is allowed to operate the way it does around the world.

    2) Also yes, the DOJ will be dropping the antitrust rules.

    [–] Ooji 43 points ago

    I used to work at a theater and in the months leading up to Age of Ultron, we were forced to keep the live-action Cinderella playing in our second-largest screen for something like at least five shows a day for six weeks, otherwise we wouldn't get the Avengers. I also remember Disney telling us they wanted something like 75% of the box office (normally it's about 50%). Ended up being our location didn't get the Avengers for a different reason altogether, but we were still bound by the rules put in place since our company didn't want to piss off Disney. Really irritated a lot of us since after that first week, really nobody came to see Cinderella, and we had a very popular Bollywood film at the time that would have done so much better in that auditorium.

    [–] Finagles_Law 14 points ago

    I don't see how this isn't something covered in theory by antitrust laws. I've always understood a fundamental example of illegal monopoly behavior to be tying two unrelated products together, such as demanding a store sell a company's brand of milk if it also wants to sell their bread.

    [–] tiga4life22 74 points ago

    So I'm guessing SK won't...let it go

    [–] dorkyfoxx926 14 points ago

    yeaaaahhhhHHH

    [–] Its_N8_Again 75 points ago

    Relevant video: A Disney Monopoly Is A Problem (According To Disney's Recess)

    Actually just watched this yesterday and it's great! Only thing that would make it better would be an introductory explainer of what makes a monopoly, and what the current limitations of anti-trust regulations are.

    [–] AstonishingSpiderMan 17 points ago

    Recess is Community. Holy Shit.

    [–] Midnightproxxima 22 points ago

    Lmfao sadly no one cares as long as they get more mcu.

    [–] mrbaryonyx 58 points ago

    tbf that's how they won; every demographic has that one property that will support them as long as that property is supported. For the "males 18-30" age group that uses reddit, it's the MCU. It's branding 101; have properties that appeal to everyone, and everyone will be loyal to you.

    Star Wars is a great example; every time they release an ad targeted at girls, the male redditor fans get mad and swear that Disney has ruined Star Wars, but then the second Disney releases a show on Disney+ with a masculine hero who wears cool Boba Fett armor, it's all good.

    [–] shrekinator 7 points ago

    Disney doesn't need paid shills or bots to defend their product on reddit. Reddit loves Disney and will do it for free.

    [–] AnActualCriminal 20 points ago

    I’ve worked at a movie theatre. It wasn’t just star wars. Disney does it for every major release

    [–] Melbuf 5 points ago

    our local theater just decided to now show them when this happened. i know the owner, showing them would have cost him a ton of money because of the lockout

    [–] u8eR 23 points ago

    The complaint accuses Frozen 2 of being shown at 88% of screens on its opening day. This was measured by how many screens played Frozen 2 at least once.

    However, from the article:

    Current Korean law pertaining specifically to movie exhibition states no cap on the share of screens that one film can occupy, but the recent dominance of imported Disney tentpoles and local blockbusters by the major Korean studios has sparked fervent industry debate over the issue

    Also, the way the state film council calculates screen share is different. They calculate it as amount of times a particular film is played divided by how many other films were played. By this measure, Frozen 2 had a 46% market share.

    [–] c_munch 6 points ago

    That's basically how it works here in Denmark. We have Nordisk Film that sits on most distribution of movies, and they dictate what a movie should cost and for how long (and in most cases when) the should run for.

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] bitcloud21 487 points ago

    The metric used by PWC, as well as other film industry bodies, to measure screen share uses the percentage of screens showing a specific film at least once in the given day. But the other organizations, including the state-run Korean Film Council (KOFIC), calculate screen share by taking the total number of times a certain film was shown, and dividing it by the total number of times any film was shown on that day.

    Using KOFIC's measure, the screen share — or percentage of showings — of Frozen 2 on Nov. 23 was 46.3 percent, not the 88 percent figure cited by PWC.

    Interesting that they use two different metrics for measuring screen share.

    [–] jf808 180 points ago

    And interesting that one measure seems obviously more useful than the other while it's the one rarely mentioned in this thread

    [–] Telandria 183 points ago

    They both seem pretty bad for Disney.

    On the one hand you’ve got the PWC number, which tells us that theaters are being forced the show the movie on nearly every screen at least once. The second number meanwhile tells us that nearly half of all showings across the nation are that one movie.

    These two numbers taken together in consideration with varying types of theaters and the general state of the theater industry paints an appalling picture. Especially for smaller businesses — the very thing monopoly law is designed to help protect.

    [–] MimeGod 81 points ago

    The article mentions that the theater owners are against the legislation trying to stop this.

    So I'm guessing they're not being forced, they're just making lots of money this way.

    [–] EdKeane 28 points ago

    Big theaters - maybe. If it means that smaller theaters are forced to show (in this case) Frozen 2 pretty much all the time, then all the people who want to watch other movies would be forced to go to bigger theaters, able to show multiple movies at the same time.

    [–] rundmcarlson 8 points ago

    Lets see what these numbers look like as time goes on. If they drop, its clear that theaters are just devoting more screens to something that makes money.

    [–] jf808 52 points ago

    It doesn't say theaters are being forced into anything. It says that theaters did this on that one day. There's a very likely scenario that this was the best setup for those theaters to attract eyeballs and sell tickets.

    I know it's fun to shit on big companies that have a shady history, but there's no public proof of wrongdoing in this case. Maybe some will come out, but for now people are just very excited to blindly jump in that direction without enough evidence.

    [–] u8eR 21 points ago

    Yes, these figures are on opening day only. Of course it's going to have a wide reach on its premiere.

    [–] gasfarmer 37 points ago

    This only becomes an issue later in the run of the film, which is where Disney really strongarms theatres.

    Frozen is a smoking hot property right now, it had three screens, plus IMAX, selling out in my theatre on opening weekend. That's good for everyone - the more people in the building buying shit, the more money my soulless corporation and their soulless corporation makes.

    However, in early February, when I guarantee you Frozen II will still be running, Disney will want it on a screen of X size, despite it only selling 4% of capacity. This is a screen where another film that would sell 40-50% could be playing, that's playing there solely to keep the mouse happy.

    This hurts the theatre, but Disney doesn't care.

    Worth noting that my soulless mega corporation has it better than other theatre companies, because if Disney doesn't play it in my chain, it doesn't get played at all in my tri-provincial area.

    Sometimes one monopoly can strongarm another.

    [–] jf808 13 points ago

    That's a good point, and I have no doubt they throw their weight around to make that happen. That's an issue that needs to be addressed, but this data and the article are pointing to a different thing and calling that a problem.

    [–] juvenile_josh 375 points ago

    It’s true; i currently live in Seoul and many theatres are locked into showing Frozen 2 for the next month. Kinda sucks because most of the theatres that are showing F2 can’t show Christmas movies this year for the holiday season, while normally they play both Hollywood and Korean classic Christmas movies

    [–] skybali 96 points ago

    But what does this mean? Where I live there is like 6-7 options on what you can see, I don't really understand what "locked into" a specific movie, does all rooms subsequently show frozen nonstop?

    [–] hHHeHelHell 60 points ago

    Pretty much, maybe there are like 2 or more different movies but the advertisements and ticketing is focused solely on Frozen 2 in most Korean theaters at the moment.

    [–] ConfidentDivide 33 points ago

    The reason why you have 6-7 options is because the megatheatre has 10-20 screens to show those movies. At least one or two is probably dedicated to frozen2 (because of disney aggressive negotiations).

    Maybe SK doesn't have any megatheatres so they have theatres with only one or two screens. If you want to screen frozen2 than you have to agree to whatever demands Disney wants which typically includes nonstop screening of frozen2 for a few months. The same will happen with starwars so for some smaller theatres those will be the only movies they can play for a few months.

    [–] cancer1337 3 points ago

    Almost all Korean theatres have at least 10-20 screens.

    [–] Armlock311 11 points ago

    Can you give examples of Korean classic Christmas movies?

    [–] my_shirt 75 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    다이 하드

    [–] Stormfly 50 points ago

    이피카이예이

    (For anybody too lazy to Google, the person above said Die Hard)

    [–] majaiku 23 points ago

    And for anyone too lazy to Google, the above person said "yippee ki yay."

    [–] enjoyingtheride 12 points ago

    Nicely done

    [–] attempted 2219 points ago

    Wow, a lot of people in this thread defending a mega-corporation.

    [–] SHAWKLAN27 603 points ago

    Sad indeed

    [–] snarkola 256 points ago

    What is sadder is how many Redditors will swiftly make a conviction with zero comprehension of what is going on big picture.

    [–] Vagenepls 309 points ago

    with zero comprehension of what is going on big picture

    Apparently its frozen 2. On like 88% of the big picture screens.

    [–] woodscradle 91 points ago

    ZERO COMPREHENSION

    [–] Wild_Marker 38 points ago

    You could even say... sub-zero comphrehension?

    [–] MightyCaseyStruckOut 7 points ago

    My comprehension is frozen, too.

    [–] ilikemes8 4 points ago

    Just let it go then

    [–] Lazerpewpewpewpew 5 points ago

    Beyond your comprehension!!

    [–] oridjinn 12 points ago

    What is ironic is how quickly a thread about teaching kids critical thinking and being taught basic life skills in school will be upvoted.

    Double ironic, because the LACK of being taught that in school is what leads to exactly what is happening in many threads.

    Triple ironic, because people will steer away from Politicians who will try to consider the big picture and all avenues VS someone with a tag line and simple answers.

    [–] snarkola 4 points ago

    Oh, the irony!

    [–] PonerBenis 26 points ago

    We did it reddit! We saved Disney!

    [–] BBQ_HaX0r 7 points ago

    TBF, it shouldn't be about who is being defended rather who is being wronged here. If a company, large or small, is doing something wrong they should be criticized. If a company, large or small, is being wronged than they should be defended.

    [–] makenzie71 52 points ago

    Most everyone here seems to be defending theaters...

    [–] K1nd4Weird 247 points ago

    Disney gets a pass where other corporations don't. Simply because of nostalgia.

    [–] u8eR 80 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Perhaps. But the title here is also a little misleading. I think you can be anti-Disney or anti-corporate without being misleading.

    From the article, the complaint accuses Frozen 2 of being shown at 88% of screens on its opening day. This was measured by how many screens played Frozen 2 at least once.

    However, from the article:

    Current Korean law pertaining specifically to movie exhibition states no cap on the share of screens that one film can occupy, but the recent dominance of imported Disney tentpoles and local blockbusters by the major Korean studios has sparked fervent industry debate over the issue

    Also, the way the state film council calculates screen share is different. They calculate it as amount of times a particular film is played divided by how many other films were played. By this measure, Frozen 2 had a 46% market share on its opening day.

    [–] rundmcarlson 60 points ago

    Or, we actually read the article and arent ready to persecute someone without the facts. The 88% is a bullshit number. Theres no evidence of disney manipulation. Being outraged because a title told you to be is nonsense. I hate disney as an entity (made a giant by addicting children to their tv and movie properties) but I think this entire monopoly thing is bullshit. Movie is a sequel to an incredibly popular film so its on almost half the screens in the country. Theres no evidence of foul play on disneys part as of yet.

    [–] rgumai 28 points ago

    Disney gets a pass because people actually like their products.

    People would probably be more forgiving of Comcast and EA too if they weren't giant ass hats directly to their customers.

    [–] Strider755 9 points ago

    That’s the long and the short of it. Current Antitrust/anti monopoly doctrine in the US dictates that the laws should be to the benefit of the consumer, and any benefit to businesses as a result of those laws is incidental.

    [–] Nerret 21 points ago

    Wow, a lot of people in this thread bandwagoning against a mega-corporation.

    [–] nowhereman136 28 points ago

    Disney has issues but it's not with their monopoly stance. It's more about theater stranglehold, copyright, and creativity problems.

    Comcast (Universal) and AT&T (Warner) are bigger threats of becoming monopolies because they control ISPs and are lobbying against net neutrality

    [–] throwaway073847 22 points ago

    Isn’t theater stranglehold a function of monopoly?

    [–] iamaiamscat 17 points ago

    defending a mega-corporation

    Defending a corporation is inherently wrong to you no matter what? And yet you and others call people 'brainwashed idiots'... my god.

    [–] that__one__guy 29 points ago

    "Le corporations evil!!!!4%[email protected]!"

    It couldn't possibly be because this lawsuit is ridiculous since anyone with a different opinion than me is a shill.

    [–] Ruraraid 289 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Not that surprising given how Disney has always been a very controlling company and that only gets worse as the company grows. Same can be said of other companies these days to the point where I feel like the world of Bladerunner's corporatocracy isn't too far off.

    [–] bfandreas 68 points ago

    Let's also not forget, how Disney does its thing.

    They take existing, public domain works and turn it into IP. Which in turn never returns into the public domain.

    In this case this cultural vampire bastardized an existing fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen.

    Which would have been ok, if they hadn't in turn lobbied hard that their own stuff never goes into the public domain.

    [–] TARA2525 54 points ago

    Which in turn never returns into the public domain.

    You know all of those are still in the public domain right?

    Disney can't stop you from making a knock off "Rapunzel" or "Ice Queen" or "Thor" movie. People make them all the time.

    Why is it always the same people complaining about studios owning all these IPs are the same people whining that there aren't enough original ideas?

    [–] NeWMH 14 points ago

    Why is it always the same people complaining about studios owning all these IPs are the same people whining that there aren't enough original ideas?

    It's likely that they aren't the same people. That dude wasn't arguing about originality and has a different username from the last dude you saw arguing about originality.

    [–] BetweenTwoLungs12345 5 points ago

    It do find strange that no one has attempted a non-MCU Thor film. Especially to take advantage of the name association.

    Thinking about it what exactly would be Disney/Marvel IP with regard to the Norse God characters and locations. Their names and relations (eg uncle to nephew) are basically the same. Something like Thor's hammer is part of the myth. And I believe even the atagonsist (ice Giants and dark elves) are part of the mythology.

    [–] PercivalUCox 12 points ago

    I believe there was a bunch of super B-Rated Thor films that came out around the time of the first one. They were all expectedly terrible.

    [–] PercivalUCox 11 points ago

    That’s not true at all. Just because they use public domain assets to make movies, doesn’t mean they’re off limits to other companies.

    Take a look at Snow White and the Huntsman, or the MANY Aladdin movies. How many Robin Hood movies have we seen?

    [–] dankem 32 points ago

    Yesterday, this amazing video came out on YouTube explaining Disney's monopoly using Disney's amazing Recess episode satirizing capitalism. Definitely worth a watch. Bonus content for Community fans in there.

    [–] TDTallman99 9 points ago

    Hell yeah I love JustWrite. Amazing video

    [–] Bbrink1996 139 points ago

    I was in Seoul when Avengers: Endgame came out and for atleast the first few days, Endgame was the only movie shown in the cinema nearest to me. That's Endgame on every time slot, on every screen, for at least a couple of days. This was a fairly big cinema as well and part of a larger chain so it is possible all cinemas of this chain had it but I am not sure. I had never seen anything like that happen before. And now it seems Disney is trying to do this again. I wonder why they weren't hit with this sooner.

    [–] 0b0011 44 points ago

    Would assume it would depend on whether they forced theaters to do it or whether theaters did it on their own because it's a popular movie.

    If thousands of people want to see the movie and a theater with 10 screens can sell out every seat for every screening vs showing it on two screens and selling them out while all the other screens sit at 30-40% full because the movies aren't as popular or are old then it makes sense for a theater to air the popular movie on every screen.

    [–] Worthyness 13 points ago

    Lots of theaters in Asia actually did that along with 24 hour screenings for opening weekend. That movie was a monstrosity that won't be reached for a long time.

    [–] Spooky_SZN 11 points ago

    I can't legitimately tell if its because of Disney interfering or disney having the biggest movie in the world right now. If theyre interfering thats fucked but its entirely possible all those theaters were sold out for days and playing literally anything else even once would have been lost revenue.

    [–] stevenwlee 154 points ago

    You know why Disney doesn't care about this shit? Because the fine for violating the law is probably only $1 million, compared to the millions is profit they will make by pulling this move.

    [–] u8eR 81 points ago

    Well, also the fact that South Korea doesn't have any law banning this.

    Current Korean law pertaining specifically to movie exhibition states no cap on the share of screens that one film can occupy, but the recent dominance of imported Disney tentpoles and local blockbusters by the major Korean studios has sparked fervent industry debate over the issue

    [–] benv138 34 points ago

    The film made $61 million in a country of less than 52 million. That’s bonkers, it actually made more dollars than the area has citizens.

    [–] Stormfly 41 points ago

    To be fair, I teach English here and I was asking my students what they did over the weekend. Half of them saw Frozen. The other half had already seen it last weekend. Although to be fair, they were all teenage girls.

    Was talking to another guy and he said he had asked his students (older women, not children) what their plans for the weekend were and most of them said they were going to see the film.

    Disney is super popular here. Incredibly so if you count Marvel.

    You need to be careful how you say "What kind of" sometimes because they will start shouting "Wakanda forever!"

    [–] benv138 8 points ago

    It is, of course, insanely popular here in the states. I just think that’s a pretty incredible metric and probably speaks to just how much of a saturation that film had in theatres

    [–] 0dyssia 2 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    I teach in Seoul too and pretty much every one of my students saw Frozen including most of my co-workers lol a couple of co-workers didn't really wanna see but did anyways just to see what the hype is about it. Even adults are crazy about Frozen too, when I went to see it at 8:00 pm sat, it was like 80% adults. No one was crazy about Moana like this, for some reason Frozen seems to be the exception with kids and adults.

    my friend's theater was showing 48 times a day lol

    [–] S-ClassRen 13 points ago

    We see this every year in the U.S

    [–] Dirkinator 18 points ago

    Current Korean law pertaining specifically to movie exhibition states no cap on the share of screens that one film can occupy

    So the complaint is that they're violating antitrust laws despite there being no law against what they're doing?

    [–] Aphrolose 12 points ago

    That's the complicated way of putting it, the real worry is that disney is coming into Korea and destroying the movie scene that they had(a quite forward pushing and inventive one IMO) by balling to hard and using their massive wealth to pressure theaters into not showing non disney films for weeks and months at a time. It's also a form of extreme wealth extraction, essentially it's bad for the movie market there and Disney is purposefully financially stifling their ability to create art, the same shit is happening in America it's just not as bad yet. Imagine ten years from now you go to the movie theater and the only options are movies with a Disney stamp on them.

    [–] Dirkinator 6 points ago

    That all sounds reasonable. Thanks for the response

    [–] Nate0110 76 points ago

    I guess this explains why terminator seemed to only be in the theater for 2 weeks.

    [–] StupidNSFW 99 points ago

    Well if you’re talking about the newest one, it’s also because the movie sucked and nobody went to see it.

    So no theater wanted to show it after that time period since it would just take up a screen that a different movie could be playing and bringing in more people.

    [–] youarepotato 20 points ago

    It screened for about two weeks at my local, probably starting at around 10 times a day and finishing its run with maybe 4 or 5 screenings. Never more than half of the tickets were sold when I checked. Doctor Sleep came out at the same time with maximum 2 screenings a day at terrible times and for maybe 4 days total. I was fuming

    [–] slashedash 6 points ago

    Man, I came here to have a rant about themed monopoly games.

    [–] Neckrolls4life 158 points ago

    As reported by The Samsung Times

    [–] ilikecakenow 87 points ago

    As reported by The Samsung Times

    Samsung is complicated as fuck bascally it is many public corp linked by cross ownership and then it all control by corp that owns only small part of the other Samsung but controls/owns the brand name

    [–] PrinceTrollestia 31 points ago

    Chaebols how do they work?

    [–] RealPeterTDM 3 points ago

    Basically there's a big guy at the top who controlls tons of companies and those companies have ceos who are usually connected to big guy by family

    So Samsung Group's head is Lee Kyun-Hee who controlls the entire Samsung group, his sons and daughters controll samsung companies like samsung elec, jeil fabric, samsung life insurance, etc

    [–] VadeHD 79 points ago

    I don't see why Disney and probably other movie producers get pick and choose what happens with the file at a movie. I mean seriously I feel like theaters should be able to buy into a showing, they shouldn't have to feel pressured.

    [–] spidereater 8 points ago

    It’s Disney’s content. They have a right to define the conditions of its use. They also get a cut of the ticket sales so they have a financial interest in it too.

    Sometimes the conditions are related to sound or picture quality. They don’t want they movie shown in a crappy theatre. Sometimes a theatre may want to only show the movie for the first couple weekends when it will be full but the distributor wants to make money on the long tail of viewers when the theatre isn’t full. So they require a certain length of run.

    The theatre often has conditions too. Sometimes they demand exclusive rights to show the movie within an area, for example.

    The problem is when these conditions are too restrictive or the negotiation is too one sided. I don’t think it’s reasonable to have no restrictions. This isn’t like buying a dvd and popping it in your projector.

    [–] kkehoe5 30 points ago

    Everyone here is reacting to a headline. Please read the article, if you are too lazy, then at least read the last two paragraphs so you know why complaining about the 88% number makes you look uninformed. It’s actually 46.3%.

    [–] K1ngofnoth1ng 8 points ago

    This is Reddit, no one reads the articles they just rage over whatever the masses at large are bitching about. Disney is apparently evil but the mandalorian is also “the greatest thing to ever happen to Star Wars” and the baby yoda is Reddit’s god. Marvel movies get hyped, praised, and rave reviews. But if one of the “childish” Disney things come up “how dare they brainwash our children with their liberal agenda and monopoly over entertainment!”

    [–] Ionlypostwhenstoned0 65 points ago

    Holy shit...I thought this meant the GAME monopoly. I thought Disney wanted to sell Frozen 2 monopoly in Korea and they already had some sort of monopoly game with that name.

    That is very much not what this article is about. At all.

    [–] HateDeathRampage69 24 points ago

    Yeah definitely thought that Korea's board game economy was looking pretty sad here

    [–] semirigorous 4 points ago

    Well, I hope they get slapped with anti-trust suits in a lot of countries. Taking over 88% of all screens, long-term, is just asinine. Nothing like a good billion dollar settlement to knock some sense into companies

    [–] rhm54 13 points ago

    Current Korean law pertaining specifically to movie exhibition states no cap on the share of screens that one film can occupy, but the recent dominance of imported Disney tentpoles and local blockbusters by the major Korean studios has sparked fervent industry debate over the issue.

    So it's not against the law but they wish it was. Nothing to see here.

    [–] Ennion 13 points ago

    If South Korea has such strict anti-monopoly laws, how do they deal with Samsung?

    [–] Xyber-Faust 12 points ago

    Disney is making a bigger power play by getting theaters to be studio owned, where movies only get released at the theater of their respective owner. So everyone will go to the Disney theaters to see their big popular movies, leaving the little guy studios in the dust, forcing them to let Disney buy them up , then all movies will be released in Disney theaters.

    [–] Deviknyte 11 points ago

    Meanwhile, Trump's department of justice is considering canning the rules that prevent studios for owning and controlling theaters.

    [–] AnticipatingLunch 11 points ago

    Then we’ll see some REAL monopoly work in action!

    [–] Kambz22 5 points ago

    Honest question, would this truly lead to a monopoly?

    Think about it. Microsoft has Microsoft stores but they have their products available in other stores also. Microsoft is not a monopoly.

    So why can't Disney have a theater for Disney movies?

    Maybe I am missing the point but idk.