The theory goes back to the 90s with journalist Charles Savage writing about it based on comments he’d picked up from a Pink Floyd fan group. Essentially if you start the album just as the lion roars for the third time in the MGM logo they will synch up – lyrics seemingly discussing what is happening on screen, events matching up with lyrics, sounds on the album corresponding with sounds on the film. The obvious first question would be – what does Pink Floyd say about this? They flatly deny it – with drummer Nick Mason saying – presumably tongue in cheek – that it’s actually based on The Sound of Music.

The next question. Does it synch up? Yes and no. As with any of these sort of theories, there is so much down to interpretation, for example, when Dorothy is singing about birds flying on the album you can hear an airplane, is that a connection? Another example is both the album and the film appear to have a doorbell sound at the exact same time. Now, what does this mean? It depends. A skeptic like me would say nothing, at best a coincidence, but to others proof positive of the connection.

The Investigation

First of all, we start TDSOFM at the third lion roar…why? Some of the more convincing examples of synchronicity have near-perfect timing but why not the first roar? Why not the title card? Next comes the question of interpretation and the band themselves denying it. Then there is the psychological phenomenon of apophenia, making meaningful connections between unrelated things or finding patterns that aren’t there. Closely connected to this is pareidolia, a form of apophenia, more related to random visual or auditory stimuli – the classic example being seeing faces in the pattern of wood or in clouds. Humans see connections and patterns where none exist, an evolutionary trait that usually serves us well, it is better to spot connections than miss them.

There is also the problem that the album is 42 minutes and 50 seconds, and the movie is 1 hour and 52 minutes, so either the album ends early or you start it again. If so it is very unlikely that synchronisation of events can occur when the album repeats.

Cultural Legacy

One of the fundamental aspects of art is that there is usually more going on than just what appears on the surface, there is a deeper meaning, another story being told. Audience interpretation can find the oddest interpretations and meaning that perhaps the creator never intended to be there. What is perhaps unusual is that both The Wizard of Oz and The Dark Side of the Moon are already extremely complicated pieces of art with a lot going on. Even leaving aside the visual spectacle of TWoO, there are interpretations that it has to do with religion, both that it is about enlightenment through faith and the idea that there is nothing behind the curtain, to even that the Cowardly Lion represents the American army in the Spanish-American War.

The Dark Side of the Moon is an ambitious album both in terms of production and thematically, with songs about consumerism, mental health and more. The over-analysis of cultural artifacts is nothing new or unusual (see some of my articles on this very site), with conspiracy theories, crossover universes and more being attached to everything from The Shining to listening to records backward to find hidden messages. The Wizard of Oz- Dark Side of the Moon synchronicity is only the most famous of these examples.

Also Read: The Strange Brilliance of Fan Theories

The post The Fan Theory Linking Pink Floyd’s “The Dark Side of the Moon” and “The Wizard of Oz” appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Let’s take a trip through history and the current media landscape and see if we can begin to understand what led to the decline of the old studios and the rise of the streaming giants.

Where They Are Now?

In Hollywood’s Golden Age (between the 1920s and 1960s) there were eight studios that made up the biggest movie production houses: MGM, Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros, 20^th Century Fox, RKO Pictures, United Artists, Columbia Pictures, and Universal Pictures. These companies were responsible for producing some of the greatest films, both of the golden age and of all time. However, after the golden age, these studios had many varying fates.

RKO Pictures was largely folded by the late 1950s. The company was later revived, but it had little success. Its most recent film was 2015’s Barely Lethal. Along with this the other iconic studios are now all owned by other companies. Sony bought Columbia Pictures in 1989; ViacomCBS has owned Paramount since 1994; Comcast owns Universal; Disney purchased 20^th Century Fox in 2019 and rebranded it as 20^th Century Studios; AT&T controls Warner Bros; MGM acquired United Artists in 1981. And despite facing bankruptcy in 2010 MGM survived and is currently being purchased by Amazon.

Several things have contributed to the current Hollywood landscape. For example, the loss of studio control over cinemas and the prevalence of television were major factors in ending the golden age. This left many studios floundering financially and needing to be saved through buyouts. Many of these production houses have managed to recover thanks to buyouts, cinema box office, and distribution deals. But a new market is providing huge competition for them.

The Streaming Wars

Movie streaming platforms have emerged as a huge market force in the past decade. This is because streaming and VoD services offer more flexibility for viewers, allowing them to view a wide range of movies from home for reasonable prices. Which has led to a huge audience frequenting these services.

And with the Covid-19 pandemic forcing cinemas to close, over the last year streaming sites were able to rob big Hollywood studios of their control of the market. Allowing these platforms to effectively become the new Hollywood studios, bringing out big new movies weekly (both original and distributed on behalf of other companies) that captured attention.

The most prominent players in the western world of streaming are Netflix, which has 208 million subscribers worldwide and earned around $25 billion in 2020, Amazon Prime, which has 200 million worldwide subscribers, and Disney+ with over 100 million subscribers. All these companies provide wide catalogues of films and TV shows, new and old, while also having their own brands of original content. However, the way these companies acquire said content is very different.

Netflix and Amazon Prime get their originals through producing and acquiring the distribution rights to various projects. Disney+ similarly produces and has distribution rights for many IP’s. But they also have their own film production studios. Meaning Disney is fully capable of making their own original content to put on their streaming sites. Thus ensuring they keep 100% of the revenue, which makes Disney+ much more like a traditional film studio. This makes it a huge threat to other film companies because of its ability to pivot effortlessly between streaming and cinematic distribution for its movies.

Those that Survived

Streaming has transformed Hollywood and movie production/distribution over the last few years. And even with cinemas reopening big studios will need to take steps to mitigate the financial damage done by the pandemic. This means that studios are now, more than ever, having to consider pivoting to streaming to recoup their losses.

Comcast entered the streaming wars last year with Peacock, made to showcase films from Universal. ViacomCBS also replaced their streaming network, CBS All Access, with Paramount+. But other studios are going to larger lengths to win over audiences.

Through its $8.45 billion purchase of MGM, Amazon hopes to boost the content it can offer. In addition, some also speculate that Amazon will use MGM to produce content for Prime, rather than letting it remain a standalone entity. Similar to what Disney is doing with its studios. And recently AT&T announced that it will merge Warner Media and Discovery into its own streaming platform. This will put the back catalogue of Warner Bros, CNN, Turner, and Discovery (as well as the streaming services HBO Max and Discovery+) into one place. These moves have the potential to really shake up the market.

But while this influx of new streaming platforms from movie studios and the move towards studios making content for streaming may be financially beneficial and offer consumers more content, it also shows that streaming services are slowly moving towards offering content produced exclusively by them and their affiliates. Thus customers may soon have to subscribe to various sites to get everything they want. Rather than having a diverse range of material on various sites.

What do you guys think of the effect the streaming wars is having on the American film industry?

Also Read: The History of Paramount Pictures

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post The New Hollywood: Streaming Giants appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.