After more than a decade of cooperation and development, Warner Bros. has now become a giant in the film derivative industry, and what supports the successful operation of derivatives is, of course, a complete operational system. A film has never relied solely on box office "one-legged walking," but depends on a complete industrial chain and a comprehensive operational system, thereby forming diversified support for the film industry.
Compared to Hollywood, China's "post-derivative" development is extremely backward, but this also means there is enormous potential in developing China's film "derivative market."
No market can be mature from the start; there must be a development phase. Hollywood itself also went through a period of chaos.
As far as Duke knows, a few Chinese films have also attempted comprehensive development of "film derivatives."
For example, back when The Promise was produced, the production company declared plans to enter markets for online games, books, musicals, cartoons, theme parks, and other derivative products, but tragic box office results caused many of these plans to remain only at the conceptual stage, with no follow-up. After Zhang Guoshi's New Year blockbuster Three Guns Shooting Surprise was released, its online game Ma Zi Noodle House also went live; The Founding of a Republic released lighters and other derivative products…
However, these piecemeal efforts can only be regarded as better than nothing, and did not make a major contribution to film revenue.
Although this is a China-US film forum, the only truly famous Hollywood attendee is Duke, and the forum mostly revolves around Chinese films. At first, Duke participated quite seriously, but when the topic turned to how Chinese films could win more support from domestic audiences and theaters, he comfortably assumed the role of a listener and observer.
Listening to the continuous sounds from the theater, Duke perked up his ears and kept his mouth shut.
He had been in Shanghai for two days, as in previous visits. Duke had browsed a lot of first-hand materials on Chinese films and the latest market data.
Why support domestic films? This is not simply a matter of patriotism. The Chinese and American film industries have reached a new strategic cooperation agreement, and the biggest impact is actually on the "bad films" already in production that aim to make money in the Chinese market.
For this reason, someone even listed 100 bad films released in theaters over the past two years, and after a round of complaints, expressed relief, remarking: opening the market to Hollywood is actually a purification for Chinese films. We really don't have to face such bad films everywhere anymore.
Since February this year, when a key figure visited the US and China and the US reached a strategic cooperation agreement on further opening the Chinese film market to the US, the Chinese film industry has been full of cries and complaints. Many people clearly realized: now the wolf is really coming.
How much impact does this agreement have on Chinese films? For audiences, it doesn't matter much, since more good films are available to watch; for theater managers, it also means more money to earn.
The greatest impact is on Chinese film producers, such as directors and investors.
Therefore, the loudest voices on-site came from them. They were the ones demanding support for domestic films.
Ninety-five percent of Chinese film revenue depends on domestic box office, so the importance of theaters is obvious. Inevitably, polarization appeared on-site, with film producers and distributors almost at odds with several theater representatives.
Listening to what they said, along with the Warner Greater China statistics Duke had just seen, he gradually understood what they were discussing.
Since April, nearly all mainstream domestic theaters had become targets of directors' complaints: A Simple Man, Flying Over the Nursing Home, Me 11, Seediq Bale… Many films claimed to be meticulously crafted "sincere works," so when box office results were poor, directors began to find reasons. Besides promotional and distribution factors, inadequate theater scheduling became the main reason.
By May, these complaints almost reached a peak because theaters had allocated nearly 70% of screens to Duke's The Avengers.
But to the theater representatives, such complaints clearly seemed somewhat absurd.
It cannot be denied that these works have a certain artistic value, but from the theater's perspective, they are part of the market itself, merely goods supplied to audiences. Therefore, whatever the audience wants to watch, they schedule more showings of those films—that is only natural.
Hence, the theater representatives were also frustrated by these accusations.
A theater representative from Guangdong vented, "Let's not speak far afield. Last weekend, nine films were released in my theater, and I have only ten screens in total. Even if each film gets one screen, how many showings can I schedule in a day? And these are all new films; most of the producers haven't done any promotion themselves. When the audience comes to buy tickets, they don't even know what these films are. By contrast, The Avengers is well-known. Audiences specifically want tickets for The Avengers. Are you going to tell them: don't watch The Avengers, you're Chinese, you should support domestic films, go watch a Chinese film instead…"
Facing the accusations from directors and producers present, the theater representatives clearly didn't want to take the blame for obstructing domestic film development. Another representative stood up strongly to rebut, saying that many domestic films weren't scheduled because they were unwilling, but because their themes and content were truly poor, and the audience simply wouldn't accept them.
"How bad are they? So bad that I can't even sit through them. Basically, our attitude toward domestic directors is based on respect, because globally, every director has a growth process, peaks and valleys. No one can guarantee that just because one film flopped, the next film will be a masterpiece. We also know audiences' tastes are diverse, but some films…"
This representative hesitated, and ultimately did not directly name names, "I'm not in a position to point fingers. You can see from audience reactions—no one calls these films good. Why should we support such films? Over the past two years, not only have these films not decreased, but they have been increasing month by month. Online, someone even summarized that out of over 200 Chinese films released in theaters last year, 100 could be called 'masterpieces at screwing the audience.' In the past, when the market wasn't open, during some film off-seasons, we had no choice but to screen these films. But now, since there are choices, why not screen the profitable, well-received Hollywood films instead?"
From this representative's perspective, aside from the truly "bad films," many domestic releases are also inexplicably "bizarre films." "Some of these films aren't necessarily very poor, but at first glance, it's clear they have no market. Just like Wang Xiaoshuai himself said, he knew Me 11 would definitely not sell well. If that's the case, why insist on squeezing into theaters? Nowadays, theaters joining commercial chains are all run as businesses. As a business, you have to calculate profit. Why would I skip a profitable film to show one that loses money? Especially since theaters are in commercial hotspots, rent, utilities, and labor all have to be accounted for in costs."
"Wang Xiaoshuai knows the hardships of commercial theaters…"
The one speaking up was a film company owner, apparently an investor in Me 11. "So I advocate even more strongly for the establishment of art theaters, so that art films like his Me 11 can be screened in specialized art theaters, which should be subsidized by the state."
As soon as these words were spoken, many in the audience subtly rolled their eyes.
The theater representative clearly harbored some resentment toward those pushing these kinds of films into cinemas, and what he said next was blunt.
"Although I strongly agree with establishing art theaters, I do not agree with showing certain films by sixth-generation directors in these theaters."
He stood up directly and said, "If the government is funding subsidies, it represents the general public. Subsidized content should reflect the needs of a broad audience. The works of sixth-generation directors mostly stem from very personal perspectives, capturing intuitive feelings—for example, Jia Zhangke's small-town plots or Wang Xiaoshuai's third-tier city narratives. These belong to them personally. Finding investors to produce them means they support the director's vision. But from an audience perspective, since commercial theaters cannot earn box office, it proves that very few people resonate with these films. Therefore, if art theaters are built just to screen such films, isn't that essentially using the majority of taxpayers' money to serve the wishes of a very small minority?"
The film company owner was instantly speechless.
However, the theater company representative was also shrewd and immediately changed the topic. "Theater chains are commercial companies, not charitable organizations. We face huge operational pressures. Without sufficient profit, how can we support so many employees or maintain normal company operations?"
This is very straightforward reasoning. People can indeed pursue higher artistic goals, but a commercial company's only pursuit is profit—that is only natural, and no one can argue with it.
He continued, "In my view, instead of trying to fix the theater chains, it would be better for you to improve the films themselves, produce fewer bad films. As long as the films are of high quality and audiences respond positively, how could we not arrange screenings?"
"Therefore, I believe the key does not lie with the theaters themselves…"
This representative's eloquence was remarkable, steering the topic back to film production itself. "It lies with the producers and distributors to reduce the number of bad films. Very poor or niche films shouldn't be pushed into theaters at all."
Naturally, the topic turned to film production. The theater representatives, like Duke, looked forward to the ensuing scene as the directors at the venue began to vent—screenwriters lacking skill, actors demanding high pay, with no money, how can there be good films?
...
Hi For access to additional chapters of
Director in Hollywood (40 chpaters)
Made In Hollywood (60 Chapters)
Pokemon:Bounty Hunter(30 Chapters)
Douluo Dalu: Reincarnated as Yan(40 Chapters)
Hollywood:From Razzie to Legend(40 Chapters)
The Great Ruler (30 Chapters)
Join pateron.com/Translaterappu