news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

small town youth have three treasures:

oh wow this is good!

author | bu he

editor｜xiaobai

typesetting | die

the pictures in this article are from the internet

if the audience likes to watch, making a hundred films a year is not too few.

if the audience doesn't like the show, ten films a year would be too many.

this leads to a psychological question:

"if the audience can't be immersed in the story within the first five minutes of the film, then the film is doomed."

it can also be proved that only when the audience likes it can it arouse public attention and then generate empathy topics on social platforms. this has a profound impact on how the audience as individuals expand their social life——

any cultural product must have social attributes.

including movies.

yes, any movie in any period should have this attribute.

"why go to the movies if you don't socialize? why go to the movies if you don't socialize?"

this is a consumer perspective on movies in 2024.

nowadays, most people are willing to spend tens of yuan to become members of video platforms, so that they can watch as many movies and tv series as they want and have free time. even the main users of a certain app have started to activate the "early warning mechanism" -

let movie lovers criticize the recently released movies first, and then wait and see what happens.

of course, this issue has also been mentioned in previous articles -

it’s not that you can’t watch the movie, but the membership is more cost-effective.

most importantly, in the comment sections of several industry articles, the majority opinion was that “today’s movies are not good.”

i believe that people who can tell the truth are neither internet trolls nor people in the industry.

so why isn't the movie good?

do movies with high online ratings necessarily have good box office results?

reality often slaps us in the face, especially when the market has generally been cold in the past few periods this year, the fast-moving consumer goods characteristics of domestic films that are dependent on the overall social environment are fully revealed.

a story that doesn’t touch the audience’s g-spot won’t make the audience buy it.

however, the reality is that after the audience walks out of the cinema, whether they are friends or lovers, they no longer discuss the plot, but do what they need to do. when they turn around and see questions like "how do you rate the recently released xxx" on social platforms, honest people choose to ignore it, while those who are not interested choose to criticize directly.

so there is an interesting phenomenon:

before the movie was released, people said that "the director was shocked and the audience was moved to tears". after the movie was released, when it was the turn of the "grassroots" to take the lead, public opinion was completely reversed.

it is formulaic, routine, and out of touch with reality, while also having to face the impact of other entertainment products.

the audience spoke:

"i can watch one movie a month and then pretend to be a fan on douban. why do you think that is?"

01

two comedy screenwriters were received by stephen chow when they went to hong kong. it is said that stephen chow invited them to dinner and during the meal asked them about the current development of mainland films and the audience's preferences. the two younger generations told him everything they knew.

i don’t know if he really listened to it, but stephen chow later made a movie called “the new king of comedy”…

or maybe he misheard.

there are variables in the market, and these variables must be related to the basic trend of social development and popular trends. the so-called "i owe stephen chow a movie ticket" is just the self-playing and singing of literary and artistic celebrities. it is the young people in small towns who really pay for it.

they are the real main consumers in the film market.

if they don't recognize or buy into it, then no matter how high the score on douban is, it's just consolation.

the "small town youth" mentioned here does not refer specifically to the group in small cities in the 18th tier, but refers to the consumer groups with middle and low incomes in all cities.

they are the first group of people to perceive social changes and are also the main force in determining box office performance.

they are also the class that is most deeply affected by social current affairs and people's livelihood.

so don't underestimate their intelligence, they are just like the saint seiya -

"a trick you have used before will be ineffective the second time."

therefore, the current domestic film market is not polarized, but rather "high and low mismatched":

the upstream industry focuses its main energy on the productivity of its products. the industry believes that the number of movies currently screened in cinemas is not proportional to the number of screens, and production capacity needs to be increased.

i think it’s the opposite. there is an overcapacity in the movie industry right now. the reason is very simple.

no matter how many movies are produced, if they cannot "reach" the audience's g-spot, it is considered overcapacity.

why take the photo if no one is watching?

so the question is back to the starting point:

who are movies made for?

02

small town youth have three treasures:

oh wow this is good!

their reasons for judging whether a movie is pleasing to the eye are also respectable:

either you can have fun, or you can have fun playing.

some industry insiders are unable to break away from the limitations of the industry and only analyze the market acceptance of a movie, or the lens language or shooting techniques from a professional perspective. this is the style of the academic school. this kind of review can only attract the pursuit of young artists, who can learn some vocabulary to establish their own image on social platforms.

young people in small towns are indifferent. it’s not that they are uneducated. they just use the simplest perspective and feelings to appreciate whether a movie can bring emotional value.

yes, emotional value.

this word has appeared many times in previous articles.

if we further break it down, it can be called "empathy, lip service, and spokesperson."

it is a socialized public opinion guidance trend. the public receives a lot of information every day. the entertainment consumption life before the internet era and the entertainment consumption life now can basically be described as the gap between "earth civilization" and "three-body civilization". "high-end" thematic expression is no longer favored by consumers.

for example:

the film "galaxy writers" is of good quality. it tells the life of domestic screenwriters and has some american life comedy temperament, but its subject matter is the "screenwriter" group. the box office is not ideal, and it is difficult for ordinary audiences to empathize with the film. the rating on douban is not high, and most of the participants are people in the industry.

however, the short videos of the leading actors song muzi and he wenjun on a certain website are quite popular, and the themes are mainly "workplace affairs" and "life's powerlessness". netizens love to watch and give high ratings, because of their artistic processing, which makes these painful things become funny and funny jokes.

when everyone saw it, they thought it was fun and exciting, so they agreed instantly.

then the judge will ask:

why don't they make movies out of their most popular content?

i said:

don't dwell on this issue.

because there is also a sample essay.

03

in 1989, the domestic horror film "black building" was released, and the poster featured the slogan "not suitable for children".

this was a common marketing background for domestic films at that time. there was a crosstalk saying:

"you don't understand. what is inappropriate is appropriate."

on the black market, tickets for "the haunted mansion" could be sold for six yuan each (normal ticket prices were a few cents at the time), and even at this price, people chased ticket scalpers to buy tickets. after the release, the audience's response was so enthusiastic that it could be called the highlight of domestic horror films. according to popular rumors, some viewers were scared to death while watching the movie. after being banned, the film became even more famous.

you have to know that in the 1980s, this kind of movie was unheard of by chinese people. on the one hand, it was about evil spirits seeking revenge, and on the other hand, it combined current events (soon after the movement ended) to tell the tragedy of the turbulent times. most of the audience were "experienced people" and remembered the past era vividly.

after watching the movie, the audience at that time not only expressed their "fear", but also discussed endlessly about what happened "at that time".

although due to various reasons, the final truth of "black building haunted soul" is:

"it's all fake. a few people were telling stories in the hospital."

but that doesn't prevent it from becoming a classic domestic horror film.

but in the nearly 40 years since then, domestic horror films have not been able to keep up with the current hot topics, and the endings are all the same, "acting crazy, hallucinating and hearing hallucinations", which makes the status of horror films more and more embarrassing.

for film promoters and distributors, it is very hopeless!

in the past, these movies could be released on the mid-july holiday, but the audience has seen so many tricks and knows what’s going on.

gradually, "domestic horror films = bad films" became a consensus.

therefore, the small genre of horror films has basically retreated to online movie platforms. of course, if the story is set in a modern context, it is still necessary to use "acting crazy, hallucinating and auditory hallucinations" as the cliché.

is it because these screenwriters, directors and actors don’t work hard enough?

no.

it's a concession they have to make.

this also makes the story that could have been true lose its sense of reality.

the audience's reaction is very direct. they will express their understanding, but they will also choose to vote with their feet.

04

the majority of moviegoers in mainland china have a monthly income of 10,000 yuan as the median value. the higher the income, the smaller the proportion of moviegoers, and vice versa. therefore, it is generally arranged in a "spindle shape".

the group with an average monthly income of 6,000-10,000 yuan accounts for the highest proportion, followed by the social group with a monthly income of 3,000-6,000 yuan.

remember this data first, it is an important basis for proving the case.

this group’s constant standard for commodities, including entertainment products, is “good value for money”.

in simple terms, it means "spending money to go to the cinema and watching it is a pleasure."

however, over the past decade or so, people have become gradually immune to visual effects and have begun to pursue emotional feelings.

if movie products cannot meet their emotional needs, it is not surprising that people turn to streaming media, especially fragmented streaming media to meet their emotional needs. the reason is the same as "bubble" -

the craze created by rapid focus in a short period of time relies on consumers' confidence in the product and a good operating environment in the overall market. once the product quality steadily deteriorates and the upstream suppliers are slow to make changes, the audience's reputation will decline, and without consumer recognition, the market will have no "foundation".

so much of the industry marketing we see today is ineffective.

whether it’s inviting industry bigwigs to endorse a film at a premiere, or video marketing such as celebrities saying it’s good, the final feedback is still the amateur public opinion on social platforms.

positive examples include zhang yimou's two films released during last year's national day and this year's spring festival, as well as the dark horse "zhou chu eliminates three evils".

to put it simply, the reasons for the high market recognition are:

reality.

the content about social classes, definition of mutual fighting and "grassroots thinking" are in line with the living conditions of the main audience groups and their intuitive feelings about social life.

if you can't do it, then you might as well be simpler and more brutal, like products with old ips like "alien: taken" which don't require thinking or being generalized to the level of social awareness. they will just "explode".

watching the uncut scenes within two hours stimulates your adrenaline and makes you stand out among a bunch of good people, good deeds, and family and country. it's okay to do so.

05

the formation of a market requires a process of cultivation.

the most important thing is whether there is a fertile soil for the birth of a good work that is recognized by everyone.

"commercialization and marketization" is of course the right direction of development, but first of all, we must consider "who are you shooting for", or change the angle:

“how can you make a good film?”

this "good" also needs to go beyond the limitations of the industry's thinking and have a cultural environment that is compatible with it.

many movies have failed this year, and no one expected this result.

what's the problem?

i don’t think we should simply blame the audience for being too picky. the ticket prices are already expensive, so why should we require the audience to give positive reviews after watching the movie?

on the surface, there are many types of films in the several schedules, and the endings are the same:

the ending cannot be be.

perhaps it would be clear if we list the three questions:

1. films and tv dramas are the product of emotions. they need to highlight, but can only highlight one central idea. they need to leave room for the audience to discuss, rather than forcibly sublimate and finalize the final word. "one-man show" will lead to audience indifference.

since there is no value in discussing it, i might as well not read it.

second, the audience, especially those in the above monthly income range, need one or more cultural works to speak for them. if movies can’t do it, then what about tv series? what about short plays? what about video clips? what about dramas and musicals?

there must always be a kind of cultural product that can become the audience's mouthpiece. whoever grasps the audience's mentality will be the hottest star.

third, although the global film market has entered a cooling-off period, this is not the main reason to excuse the box office. we should also consider the specific social and cultural life and the changes in the audience. cultural and creative arts are not something high above. they will always sink first and then rise.

just like peking opera, crosstalk and other folk arts, if practitioners cannot get down to the masses and do not understand what the audience wants to see, then the works will be neither good nor bad, only popular.

only if the above three issues can be addressed one by one will there be hope for the continued development of the film industry.

back to the comments at the beginning of this article:

"why go to the movies if you don't socialize? why go to the movies if you don't socialize?"

movies must have social attributes to have value.

otherwise it will all be “whatever you say is what it is”, then what’s the point of having an audience?

they just need to buy a membership.