Few major studios (Disney, Warner, Sony, Paramount) control production, distribution, exhibition — limits independent filmmakers. Determines funding access, theatrical distribution, creative dependency.
Five or six major studios dominate the global film market — and anyone who wants to produce independently notices this immediately. Disney, Warner Bros., Sony, Paramount, Universal, and (still) Lionsgate control not only production but also distribution and theatrical exhibition. This is the practical problem of the oligopoly in cinema: those who don't belong to these studios have to ask themselves who will finance their film, who will get it into theaters, and whether programming even has space for it.
On set, you notice this indirectly — through budget ceilings, crew rates, and the availability of good locations. The studios have long-term contracts with the best post-production houses, with top cinemas, with streaming platforms (which they own themselves). An independent producer pays double for the same service because they don't have volume discounts. The oligopolists squeeze their suppliers and don't pass on the savings — they keep them.
Financing becomes even more critical: lending and insurance for independent films are expensive and complicated because banks assess the risk as higher. A studio film is a product even if it fails artistically — the marketing machinery runs, the theatrical slots are reserved. A good independent film has to painstakingly fight for attention, usually through festivals (Cannes, Berlin, Venice) and then through a limited release in a few cinemas. The oligopoly dictates that blockbuster releases (which belong to the studios) get 3000+ theaters, while arthouse films are happy with 100.
The practical consequence: filmmakers become more strategic. They produce for streaming platforms (which are again owned by the studios), seek international co-producers, work with regional funding bodies, or don't even try to break into the cinema chain. The oligopoly forces niche strategies. Anyone who wants to understand why independent cinema looks different today than it did 20 years ago — why smaller, specialized distributors have disappeared, why the theatrical landscape has become more homogeneous — must look at this market concentration. It determines who is allowed to tell stories and who is not.