The criterion 10 million movie viewers has been a fixed target in the South Korean movie market for a long time. When the 10-million barrier was broken for the first time, it was hailed as a social phenomenon—an indicator of cultural growth in Korea. It is true that 10 million is still a notable achievement, considering that it represents about five percent of the total viewers who went to the movies last year. However, what is problematic here is the standardization of these mega-hit movies, both content and business-wise.

 

Currently in Korea, the imbalance in the distribution of profits is large. Over the last few years, the domestic movie market has grown significantly, with constant increases in the number of tickets sold and the amount of money invested. However, the news has not been delightful for everyone. Only the rich has become richer, and the poor has remained the same, or even worse. Only large production companies, which invested more than eight billion won, have generated positive revenue, while all of the remaining companies have recorded losses.

 

One more evident problem is the monopoly on screens held by big commercial films. For example, most of the hit movies released this year, such as The Violent Prosecutor , The Handmaiden , The Wailing, and Train to Busan, were all criticized for taking over 1,000 screens, taking away the opportunity for smaller or independent movies. Because these movies where the only ones being screened, there is no doubt that many audience members had no other choice but to watch them.

 

The cycle repeats itself—investors put money into big production companies, these companies make big-budget commercial movies, these movies monopolize screens, and money is made from audiences that are taken away from other movies. In order to satisfy as many viewers as they can, the big-budget options also repeat similar tropes—for example, clichéd family melodrama or society-criticizing didactic drama. Therefore, only the big companies survive and grow bigger, while a more diverse range of films are kicked off the stage.

 

In order to solve this problem, the biggest task is to balance the profit distribution. Currently, only movies with star actors and directors receive investment—this might be a reasonable decision from a capitalistic perspective, but it is hard to deny that it is detrimental for the development of the movie industry as a whole. Therefore, big production companies should encourage the growth of more diverse films and independent movies using distribution avenues such as CGV Arthouse or the Megabox Film Society project, which set aside a certain number of screens for indie films. These movements protecting independent films are also helpful for theaters in an economic sense, given that CGV Arthouse generated a significant profit last year, even considering the low number of screens it had to work with.

 

Government regulation is also necessary. Even though it is impossible for the government to fully intervene in the movie market, a more thorough review of antitrust laws to prevent screen monopolies would be desirable. Furthermore, the attitude of audiences is equally important—rather than choosing a movie based only on star actors or the name value of big production companies, critical selection based on the story, style, and content of the movie itself is definitely needed.