What If Hollywood Never Became The Center of Filmmaking?

The Actual History

The American film industry began primarily in New York and New Jersey in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Thomas Edison and his Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC, also known as the "Edison Trust") established a near-monopoly on film production technology through aggressive patent enforcement. Formed in 1908, the Trust controlled the production, distribution, and exhibition of films, charging licensing fees for camera equipment and suing those who refused to pay. This stifling environment made it difficult for independent filmmakers to operate freely.

Between 1907 and 1913, numerous independent producers began migrating westward to escape Edison's reach and legal jurisdiction. Southern California, particularly the Los Angeles area, offered several advantages: year-round good weather for outdoor shooting, diverse landscapes ranging from ocean to mountains to desert within a short travel distance, lower costs of operation, and—most importantly—distance from Edison's lawyers and the Trust's enforcement mechanisms. The small community of Hollywood, incorporated into Los Angeles in 1910, quickly became the favored location.

In 1915, a crucial legal decision accelerated Hollywood's rise. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co. that the Edison Trust had violated antitrust laws, effectively breaking the monopoly. This ruling opened the door for independent production companies to flourish in Hollywood. Studios like Paramount (founded 1912), Universal (1912), and Warner Bros. (1923) established permanent bases in the area.

The 1920s witnessed Hollywood's transformation into a fully-fledged industry center. The studio system emerged with vertically integrated companies that controlled all aspects of filmmaking from production to distribution to exhibition. The "Big Five" studios (Paramount, MGM, Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, and RKO) along with the "Little Three" (Universal, Columbia, and United Artists) dominated global cinema. Hollywood developed star-making machinery that turned actors into global celebrities and cultural icons.

The Golden Age of Hollywood (approximately 1927-1969) cemented the region's global dominance. Technical innovations like synchronized sound (late 1920s) and Technicolor (refined in the 1930s) originated or were perfected in Hollywood studios. During World War II, Hollywood became a crucial center for American propaganda production while European film industries suffered disruption, further solidifying its international dominance.

The studio system faced challenges in the late 1940s and 1950s, including the 1948 United States v. Paramount Pictures decision that forced studios to divest their theater chains. Television's rise created new competition, and the blacklisting era caused political turmoil. Yet Hollywood adapted, developing widescreen formats, epic productions, and new business models.

Through successive eras—New Hollywood of the 1970s, the blockbuster-focused 1980s and 1990s, and the franchise-dominated 2000s through 2020s—Los Angeles maintained its position as the global center of film production and distribution. While other production centers emerged in places like Mumbai (Bollywood), Hong Kong, Nigeria (Nollywood), and London, Hollywood retained its position as the most influential and profitable filmmaking hub globally. By 2025, despite challenges from streaming services and international competition, Hollywood continues to represent American cultural power and remains the aspirational center of global filmmaking, with Los Angeles County generating approximately $40 billion annually from the entertainment industry.

The Point of Divergence

What if Hollywood never became the center of filmmaking? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the American film industry never concentrated in Southern California, potentially reshaping the entire landscape of global entertainment and cultural influence.

The most plausible point of divergence would lie in the period between 1907 and 1915, when the industry's westward migration was still underway but not yet irreversible. Several potential divergences could have prevented Hollywood's rise:

First, if the Edison Trust had adapted its business model rather than doubling down on restrictive practices, independent filmmakers might have felt less pressure to flee to California. Imagine if, in 1910, instead of increasing its legal aggression, the Trust had created a more reasonable licensing structure that allowed independents to operate while paying manageable fees. This compromise might have kept film production centered in the New York/New Jersey area, where it began.

Alternatively, the U.S. Supreme Court could have ruled differently in the 1915 antitrust case against the Edison Trust. If the Court had issued a more limited ruling that reformed rather than dismantled the Trust, a different kind of film industry might have evolved—perhaps one still centered in New York but with regulated monopoly characteristics rather than the competitive studio system that developed in Hollywood.

A third possibility involves local conditions in Los Angeles. The Hollywood area might have implemented restrictive zoning ordinances or excessive taxation on film production. In fact, some early Los Angeles residents did oppose the noisy, disruptive film industry. If these anti-film factions had gained political control around 1910-1915 and enacted hostile policies, filmmakers might have chosen different locations for their permanent studios.

Finally, climate factors could have played a role. Southern California experienced several severe droughts in its history. If an unprecedented drought had coincided with the film industry's westward exploration (1909-1913), filmmakers might have viewed the region as inhospitable and chosen alternative locations like Florida, which also offered abundant sunshine but with different water resources and landscape options.

In this alternate timeline, we'll explore how American cinema—and by extension, global entertainment—might have developed if filmmaking had remained centered in New York or dispersed across multiple regional hubs rather than concentrating in Hollywood.

Immediate Aftermath

New York Maintains Dominance (1915-1925)

Without the mass exodus to Hollywood, New York would likely have maintained its position as America's primary film production center throughout the 1910s and 1920s. The immediate consequences would have been substantial:

Studio Architecture and Production Methods: Rather than the sprawling outdoor lots that characterized Hollywood studios, the New York-based industry would have developed more vertically. Massive multi-story production facilities would have appeared in areas like Astoria, Queens and Fort Lee, New Jersey. Indoor shooting would have remained predominant, with elaborate sets and artificial lighting systems developing more rapidly than in our timeline. The more constrained space would have encouraged technical innovations in compact filmmaking.

Seasonal Production Cycles: Unlike Hollywood's year-round production capability, the New York-centered industry would have adapted to seasonal weather patterns. Summer months would feature intensive outdoor shooting schedules, while winter would focus on indoor scenes, post-production, and planning. This cyclical pattern would have created distinct annual rhythms in film releases, with summer-shot spectacles perhaps traditionally premiering during winter months.

Proximity to Theater and Finance: The New York-based film industry would have maintained closer ties to Broadway theater and Wall Street financing. The cross-pollination between stage and screen would have been more pronounced, with easier movement of talent between mediums. Major financial institutions would have developed specialized entertainment investment divisions earlier and with greater sophistication than occurred in our timeline.

Regional Production Centers Emerge (1915-1930)

Without Hollywood's consolidating force, American filmmaking likely would have developed regional production hubs, each with distinctive characteristics:

Florida's Emergence: Jacksonville, Florida—which in our timeline was briefly a major film production center before Hollywood's rise—would likely have continued its growth. The city's combination of reliable sunshine, varied landscapes, and East Coast location made it attractive to filmmakers. In this alternate timeline, Jacksonville might have specialized in adventure films and outdoor spectacles, developing expertise that Hollywood concentrated in Southern California.

Chicago's Industry: Chicago, already a transportation and commercial hub, would likely have developed as a major film production center focusing on urban dramas, crime stories, and industrial documentaries. The city's central location would have made it ideal for distributing films nationwide, and studios might have clustered around Lake Michigan for water scenes and in industrial areas for studio space.

Dispersed Technical Development: The geographical separation of production centers would have necessitated different technical solutions. Without Hollywood's concentrated expertise, innovations in lighting, camera technology, and sound recording would have followed multiple parallel paths rather than the relatively unified development that occurred in our timeline. By the mid-1920s, regional technical standards and practices might have emerged, potentially creating compatibility issues between films produced in different hubs.

Different International Dynamics (1918-1935)

The absence of a Hollywood-centered American film industry would have altered international film relationships substantially in the years following World War I:

European Recovery Advantage: European film industries, particularly in Germany and France, would have faced less overwhelming American competition during their post-WWI recovery. Without Hollywood's consolidated industrial might, European filmmaking centers like Berlin's UFA studios might have maintained stronger market positions internationally. The German Expressionist movement could have exerted even greater influence on global cinema.

Multinational Production Alliances: Instead of Hollywood studios establishing international dominance, we might have seen more equal partnerships between American regional producers and European studios. Cross-Atlantic co-productions might have become common practice by the late 1920s, creating more internationally integrated production methods than existed in our timeline.

Language and Sound Transition: The transition to sound cinema (which began around 1927 in our timeline) would have evolved differently. Without Hollywood's centralized decision-making and standardization, competing sound technologies might have persisted longer. The New York-based industry, with its proximity to radio development and its theater connections, would likely have led in dialogue-driven productions, while other regions might have maintained silent film techniques longer.

Early Media Integration (1925-1935)

The relationship between film and emerging media forms would have developed differently:

Radio-Film Integration: With major film production centered in New York alongside the radio industry, the integration between these media would have occurred earlier and more deeply. By the early 1930s, entertainment conglomerates combining film, radio, and print media would have emerged more organically than in our timeline.

Different Star System: Without Hollywood's isolated "colony" of actors and its powerful star-making publicity machine, a different celebrity culture would have emerged. Actors might have maintained more varied careers across stage, screen, and radio, with less of the isolated "movie star" phenomenon that defined Hollywood. Fame might have been more regionally varied, with New York, Chicago, and Florida each developing distinct types of film personalities.

Long-term Impact

Industry Structure and Business Models (1935-1960)

Without Hollywood's concentrated studio system, the American film industry would have developed along substantially different organizational lines:

Distributed Production Network

Rather than the vertically integrated major studios of our timeline, the American film industry would likely have evolved into a network of specialized production entities. By the 1940s, this might have included:

Finance and Distribution Hubs: Centered in New York, controlling investment and national distribution strategies
Technical Specialization Centers: Regional facilities specializing in particular types of production, with Chicago perhaps focusing on industrial films and documentaries, Florida on outdoor adventures, and New York on prestige dramas and comedies
Talent Agencies and Management: Likely dispersed between theater districts in major cities rather than concentrated in a single location

This distributed structure would have created a more federated industry less vulnerable to the antitrust actions that disrupted Hollywood in 1948. When television emerged as a competitive threat in the late 1940s and 1950s, the existing geographic overlap between film and broadcast centers in New York would have facilitated faster integration between these media.

Alternative Exhibition Models

Theater ownership would have developed differently without the Hollywood studio system:

Regional Theater Circuits: Instead of nationwide chains controlled by major studios, regional exhibition networks might have emerged with stronger connections to local production centers
Urban-Centered Premium Exhibition: The continued strength of urban production centers would have maintained focus on premium urban theaters rather than the suburban expansion that characterized post-war Hollywood
Seasonal Programming Cycles: The weather-influenced production schedules of a New York-centered industry would have created distinct seasonal patterns in film releases

By the 1950s, this might have led to a more diverse exhibition landscape with greater regional variation in programming and theater experiences.

Aesthetic and Content Differences (1940-1975)

The absence of Hollywood would have profoundly influenced the kinds of films produced and their aesthetic approaches:

Urban Cinematic Language

Without Southern California's sprawling landscapes and constant sunshine, American cinema would have developed a more distinctly urban visual language:

Architectural Focus: Films would likely have featured more vertical compositions, interior spaces, and urban density
Weather as Narrative Element: Seasonal changes and weather would have become more integrated into storytelling rather than the perpetual sunshine of Hollywood productions
Street-Level Realism: The proximity to urban centers would have facilitated a stronger documentary-influenced aesthetic emerging earlier than the post-war Italian Neorealism and French New Wave that eventually influenced Hollywood

This urban aesthetic might have made American cinema more closely aligned with European filmmaking traditions, potentially reducing the stark stylistic divide that developed between Hollywood and international art cinema.

Cultural Reference Points

The content and themes of films would have reflected different geographic and cultural influences:

Northeastern Cultural Dominance: Without Hollywood's California perspective, American cinema would have more strongly reflected Northeastern urban sensibilities, values, and concerns
Ethnic Diversity: The New York-centered industry would have maintained closer connections to European immigrant communities and their stories
Industrial and Labor Narratives: Chicago and other Midwestern production centers might have developed stronger traditions of films exploring industrial work, labor relations, and class consciousness

By the 1960s, American cinema in this timeline might have developed a reputation for urban sophistication and social commentary rather than the escapist entertainment often associated with Hollywood.

Global Cultural Influence (1945-2000)

America's influence on global culture through cinema would have taken a markedly different form:

Altered Soft Power Projection

Without Hollywood's unified global projection of American lifestyle and values:

Less Consumerist Messaging: A New York-centered film industry with stronger ties to intellectuals and high culture might have projected a less consumerist version of American life
Regional American Identities: International audiences would have been exposed to more varied regional American identities rather than the California-influenced national image that Hollywood projected
Intellectual-Cultural Emphasis: American films might have been positioned more as cultural products alongside literature and theater rather than primarily as entertainment commodities

The Cold War cultural competition between the US and USSR might have played out differently, with American cinema perhaps emphasizing intellectual and artistic values alongside democratic themes rather than consumer prosperity and individual freedom alone.

More Balanced International Film Ecosystem

The absence of Hollywood's overwhelming market dominance would have created space for a more multipolar international film landscape:

European Film Industry Resilience: European national cinemas might have maintained stronger market positions domestically and internationally
Earlier Asian Cinema Recognition: Without Hollywood's market dominance, Japanese, Indian, and Hong Kong cinemas might have gained international recognition and distribution earlier
Multinational Production Standards: Technical standards, from aspect ratios to sound systems, might have developed through more international negotiation rather than Hollywood dictation

By the 1970s, this might have produced a global cinema landscape with 5-6 major production centers of roughly comparable influence rather than Hollywood's clear dominance.

Technological Development Paths (1950-2025)

The geographic dispersal of film production would have altered technological innovation patterns:

Distributed Innovation Centers

Rather than Hollywood's centralized technical development:

New York: Likely would have led in sound technology, dialogue recording, and later digital editing due to proximity to broadcast centers
Chicago/Midwest: Might have specialized in industrial cameras, practical effects, and documentary techniques
University Partnerships: Without Hollywood's industry-centric development, university film programs might have played larger roles in technical innovation

This distributed innovation model might have created more diverse technical approaches but potentially slower standardization.

Different Digital Transition (1990-2025)

The film industry's transition to digital technologies would have followed different paths:

Earlier Television-Film Integration: With production centered near broadcast hubs, the boundaries between film and television production might have blurred earlier
Computer Graphics Geography: Without Hollywood drawing technical talent to Southern California, computer graphics innovations might have clustered differently—perhaps around MIT and New York rather than Silicon Valley and Los Angeles
Film-Gaming Relationships: The relationship between film and video games would likely have developed differently, possibly with earlier cross-medium experimentation but less technical convergence

By 2025 in this timeline, the distinction between "film" and other visual media might have dissolved more completely, with "cinema" existing as an aesthetic approach across multiple platforms rather than an industry centered in a specific location.

Contemporary Global Media Landscape (2025)

The 2025 media environment in this alternate timeline would differ substantially from our own:

Distributed Production Capitals

Instead of Hollywood's continued centrality, global media production might be organized around:

New York: Remaining the financial and prestige drama center for American production
Mumbai: Potentially elevated to equal international status earlier without Hollywood's overwhelming market presence
London/Berlin: European production possibly maintaining larger global market shares
Tokyo/Seoul: Asian media potentially achieving global influence decades earlier

This more balanced global production landscape might have created more culturally diverse global media consumption patterns with less American dominance.

Alternative Digital Streaming Development

The streaming revolution would have unfolded differently:

Network Origins: Streaming services might have emerged from broadcast networks rather than tech companies
Regional Streaming Platforms: Instead of global platforms like Netflix, regional streaming services might maintain stronger market positions
Different Content Algorithms: Recommendation systems might emphasize different values, perhaps prioritizing artistic lineage or cultural relevance over Hollywood's engagement metrics

The media concentration we see in our timeline might have taken different forms, perhaps organized around regional cultural spheres rather than global platforms.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Miriam Feldstein, Professor of Cinema Studies at New York University, offers this perspective: "Hollywood's dominance created a remarkably unified global cinema language—what we might call a cinematic monoculture. In a timeline where American film production remained centered in New York or dispersed across regional hubs, we would likely see greater diversity in visual storytelling approaches. The New York film tradition, with its stronger connections to theater and literature, might have produced a more dialogue-driven, intellectually ambitious American cinema that would have maintained stronger connections to European art film traditions. I suspect we would see less of a divide between 'entertainment' and 'art' in film—a dichotomy that Hollywood's commercial focus helped solidify."

Alexander Wong, Media Economist and author of "Global Screen Industries," suggests more complex economic outcomes: "Hollywood's geographic isolation created a unique industry ecosystem that facilitated both innovation and cartel-like behavior. Without that concentration, American film production would likely have developed more like publishing—an industry centered in New York but with significant regional variation. The economic efficiency gained through Hollywood's centralization would have been lost, potentially resulting in higher production costs but also more diverse business models. The international market dynamics would have been fundamentally different too. Without Hollywood's overwhelming export strength, we might have seen a more balanced global film trade with stronger regional production centers emerging decades earlier than they did in our timeline. The cultural and economic implications of this change would be impossible to overstate."

Dr. Julia Martínez, Cultural Historian at the University of Barcelona, contemplates the cultural impacts: "Hollywood shaped global perceptions of America in ways both profound and subtle. A New York-centered American film industry would have projected a different national image—more urban, possibly more intellectual, and certainly more connected to European cultural traditions. The California dreams that Hollywood sold worldwide—with their emphasis on open spaces, reinvention, and youth—might never have become so central to global pop culture. Instead, American cultural influence might have manifested through different symbols and narratives, perhaps emphasizing sophistication over frontier mythologies. The implications for 20th-century cultural history and American soft power are enormous; we might have seen a United States that projected intellectual rather than primarily commercial cultural values through its cinema."