Mary Kalfatoric asks if it is preferable to have the individually fascistic Walt Disney running the movie studio or the capitalistic Michael Eisner. I bring up this issue in my class on Media Institutions when we talk about the history of film. I argue that movies have gone from a "Mogul Tyranny" to a "Market Tyranny." The Mogul tyranny refers, of course, to people like Louis B. Mayer of MGM; Harry Cohn of Columbia; Jack Warner of WB; Carl Laemmle of Universal. Although certainly market forces played a role, so did the individual influence of these men: individual abuses of power, like nepotism and sexual harassment were common, but on the other hand at least studios had more on an individual character. Now, with "Market Tyranny," marketing decisions stressing economic predictability and licensing activity dominate. I know all of this is very simplistic, but Mary Kalfatoric's question gave me an opportunity for some feedback about the view of movie history I present in class (although, obviously, it is not an original view). Matt McAllister Virginia Tech