Nathan DeFiesta on Unsplash

Hollywood began not as a content factory, but as a deliberate cultural engine—quietly confident that movies were where America gathered to feel something together. For decades, the big studios didn’t just make films, they controlled the pipeline, deciding what got produced, how it got distributed, and where it got shown, often with calculated efficiency. The results were glamorous, sure, yet the real power was structural: if you controlled the system, you could turn taste into inventory.

Then the system started losing its grip, first in small ways that were easy to dismiss, then in ways nobody could ignore. Antitrust reshaped what studios were allowed to control, television rewired nightly routines, and later cable and home video made staying in feel normal instead of second-best. The living room stopped being a place you waited between outings and became a destination, especially once the couch was comfier than the theater seats and the snacks didn’t cost a small fortune.

The Studio System Built a Factory for Dreams

The classic studio era ran on vertical integration, meaning the major players could produce films, distribute them, and exhibit them in theaters they owned or controlled. That setup made Hollywood feel invincible, because it wasn’t just selling movies, it was selling access to the audience. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually described these arrangements as violating the Sherman Act, including practices like block booking and theater-chain ownership.

What’s easy to forget is moviegoing once was as a weekly habit rather than a special outing. Trade papers and historians have long pointed to the postwar years as the high-water mark, when theaters were busy enough to feel like public infrastructure. One industry history recap notes that weekly attendance fell sharply with the arrival of television, dropping from about 83 million a week in 1946 to about 46 million in 1952.

The studio factory worked because it could make stars, genres, and expectations feel dependable. A western meant one kind of night, a musical meant another, and a big melodrama meant you’d leave the theater a little wrung out and weirdly satisfied. It was a system built for momentum, where risk was managed through volume and control, and where the audience’s options were limited enough that the industry could treat attention like a resource that kept renewing itself.

Antitrust, Television, and the Long Unraveling

The Paramount case didn’t kill Hollywood overnight, yet it cracked the foundation in a way that mattered. In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled against the studios’ monopolistic practices, and the consent decrees that followed forced major studios to separate distribution from exhibition and curbed tactics like block booking. The old model of owning the whole funnel stopped being the default, and once that kind of control is gone, it rarely comes back in the same form.

Television did the other half of the work, not through law, but through convenience. When movies were the main show in town, theaters could feel like the center of the week, a reliable ritual with predictable schedules and familiar faces at the box office. When TVs multiplied, entertainment became something you could do without leaving the house. That weekly attendance drop at the cinema in the late 1940s and early 1950s was in large part thanks to the proliferation of television.

Hollywood adapted by changing what it sold. Theatrical movies leaned into spectacle, stars, and formats that television couldn’t easily match, while TV took over the steady diet of comfort viewing. Later, home video and cable turned libraries into cash, creating a long tail where older titles stayed valuable instead of vanishing after a run. The industry didn’t exactly fall, it redistributed its power, turning studios into one part of a larger ecosystem where distributors, exhibitors, and tech platforms could all take a bite.

Streaming Wars and the New Power Brokers

Streaming pulled off a quiet comeback of vertical integration, just without the theater marquee. Platforms don’t need to own theaters to control distribution, because the app served as the cinema. The U.S. Department of Justice even pointed to how much the movie business had changed when a federal court terminated the Paramount consent decrees in 2020, noting that new technologies and platforms had reshaped how Americans watch movies. The rules born in the era of box offices and marquee lights were being retired in an era of logins and recommendation rows.

The numbers behind streaming are the kind that make old Hollywood economics look quaint. Disney has reported a combined base of Disney+ and Hulu subscriptions in the hundreds of millions, including a disclosure of 196 million total Disney+ and Hulu subscriptions at the end of a quarter. Netflix, in its own investor communications, has described itself as having over 300 million paid memberships. That scale changes everything about leverage, from what talent costs to how risk gets spread across global audiences.

Theatrical isn’t dead, though, and Hollywood’s “fall” is more complicated than a simple replacement story. Global box office still moves enormous money, with industry analysts estimating around $30 billion worldwide for 2024, which is a real rebound even if it’s not a full return to pre-pandemic highs. Hollywood now lives in a tug-of-war between theaters and streamers, and each wants the same thing: your undivided attention. The rise and fall of media empires is merely a reshuffling of kings, with the crown passing to whoever controls access.