It was my understanding that Netflix wanted to show their movies in French cinemas, but French regulations would prevent them from doing that while also streaming the movies for subscribers.
If true, that quote from the comment you're responding to is probably a good representation of the attitude that France approaches that regulation with.
Hearing an argument like that uttered unironically can be baffling, but it is how the thought process can go in France. Those cinemas, they might well argue, are French businesses which inherently deserve to exist - and damn the consequences.
That's what used to happen. The Fox and Paramount theatres in Oakland, CA used to be owned by Fox and Paramount, respectively.
The 1948 USA vs Paramount antitrust decision might play a role. Content producers used to own theaters until they were forced to sell them to avoid excessive vertical integration.
PS: Same thing IMO happened to the Emmys's when Shrek was prevented from winning 'best picture'. With one simple choice they became a joke.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Anima... Has some er public history, but it was added specifically for Shreck.
Their recommendations get colored by their pettiness, sort of like how the Academy's presentations tend to feel disingenuous. It feels like the quality of the work often isn't what is being judged, so...who cares?
If people want to organize around a certain set of ideals that’s up to them. Codifying it in their law is also up to them.
No one social organizational structure has an inherent right to exist unless the people seem to support it.
Argue brainwashing or propaganda is what maintains it, the reality is: thems the rules in France.
I'm not at all a fan of regulatory capture, but I do understand that you can't pay lip service to the spirit of Cannes - celebrate film and cinema, don't promote your streaming services.
After reading, I think it's clear why this "cheerleading" is occurring and it doesn't matter size. Most people probably think like I do and think that film should be judged on its own merits. If film celebration was really the primary goal, these types of rules would not be in place and they really would be "free to show them"...but we know that's not the case which means that film celebration is not the primary goal.
and the windowing regulations require 3 years before a movie can go from cinema to streaming
Personally, I use a good projector and a high quality audio system in my living room and while not typical, I'd consider it far from unusual. Degrading any media consumption that happens at home in a blanket statement really doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Wait, what, really?
> maximizing cinema profits
Ah, no, there it is.
This is a fight for survival. Cinema can't catch up; it's an industry that was built for business conditions that existed in a bygone world, back when the equipment for distributing and viewing high-quality video recordings was so prohibitively expensive that it didn't make sense for people to have it in their homes. It's going to (largely) disappear, but it can maybe squeeze out a few more years of existence by trying to use regulation, business deals and whatever other tricks to try and create a simulacrum of the conditions its existence is based on. Like for any middleman, those conditions are precisely a lack of consumer access via alternative channels.
That said, I can see the decline. I cringe every time I think of how much more concessions get priced upwards, in addition to ticket pricing. I don't think the market will bear too much more.
Essentially, you have to wait some time [36 mos.] before you can contractually stream after initial theatrical showing, which of course, is contrary to Netflix's whole money making model.