"Eating looks" is not a shortcoming of "All or Nothing"

Industry common sense is "instrumentalized" by the audience

Text / Pang Hongbo

The audience's "offside" is getting more and more out of control.

This year, the "offside" of audiences throughout the film market is a clear trend. The Spring Festival file is not noisy about the size of the fan, not the box office, but stealing the box office. The summer file is not about reversing the fall, not a blockbuster or stealing the box office, and the release of "All or Nothing" has completely reached a climax.

Today's audiences are no longer willing to just wait for the industry to "feed" and be "tap water" for their favorite film audiences, but this water is not just flowing to the "box office pool", teaching film marketing, supervising the box office and even dealing with competitors "in real time". The movie did usher in "traffic", but if the big schedule grows abnormally in an unhealthy ecology for a long time, is it a hidden danger to the entire industry in the long run?

When the screening of "All or Nothing" can be said to be "not talking about film morality", when the number of people who have seen Douban can be compared to whether to steal the box office, when there is a large number of "watching movies is not as good as watching TikTok" in movie evaluations, and when the audience begins binary opposition to correspond some high-box office movies to low-level audiences, this wind direction has a very dangerous trend.

Respect for the audience is because at all times the audience deserves to see a higher quality film. But when respecting the audience becomes "doting" the audience, allowing the audience to tear up the film and steal the box office, then the possible consequences are actually paid by the entire industry.

1

—"Don't talk about Kataku"—

"Stealing the box office" should not be instrumentalized by some audiences.

In fact, the role of the audience as a "box office policeman" is not only staged on a large scale this summer. In this year's Spring Festival file, the dispute over the so-called "stealing the box office" reached a climax. It should have been a good thing for the audience to supervise the theft of the box office, but this public opinion war has gradually spiraled out of control in the process of evolution.

Spring Festival file "Manjiang Red" "steal" "The Wandering Earth 2" box office, the audience thinks that it is a "shame" for a 3-month movie to become the champion of the schedule, and "The Wandering Earth 2", which carries the rise of domestic science fiction, cannot lose; In the summer, "Desperate Bet" pressed "Fengshen No. 1", and the audience only relied on the number of people Douban wanted to watch to "analyze" "Fengshen No. 1" was seriously stolen at the box office, and the audience thought that an "anti-fraud propaganda film" relied on point screening to squeeze other film space is "not talking about film morality", and "Fengshen " as a magical blockbuster that sharpens a sword for ten years cannot lose.

Different from the traditional sense of "stealing the box office", the public opinion dispute about "stealing the box office" today contains too many factors. On the one hand, the audience loves heavy industry blockbusters, and thinks that blockbusters should have big box office returns because of big investments. But on the other hand, because of the "love" for blockbusters and denigrating small-cost films, it has risen to "aesthetic ability" and even "viewing grade".

While anxious that the box office of his favorite films would not rise, he began to carry out the so-called "box office supervision", believing that small and medium-cost films were suspected of "stealing the box office", so that the hard-won film market was forced into a "public opinion war", and such a sensitive word as stealing the box office became a tool for attack.

From the Spring Festival file to the summer file, there is a clear trend of wisdom reduction about "stealing the box office". It is to launch a public opinion attack on the film through the subjective assumption of some one-sided data without the audience understanding the basic industry common sense.

For example, "private venues" that are not sold to the public but are screened normally, such as the lock of the adjustment of the schedule and equipment failure to avoid ticketing, and the so-called "ghost field" also have reasonable explanations for the industry. However, the reaction may be "full" on the ticket purchase interface, but these common senses actually have a rationalized explanation of the industry, not 'stealing the box office' in the traditional sense.

This year's summer file has intensified, such as inferring from the number of people who have watched Douban, probabilistic analysis based on friends N brushes around them, and the film being "suppressed" under capital control. These "storytelling" methods are undoubtedly an emotional heating for an unknown incremental audience.

This year's summer season is undoubtedly the best quality in history. However, the 1.9 billion "Fengshen Part 1" was characterized by public opinion as a "victim", and realistic explosions such as "Desperate" and "Disappearing Her" were attacked as "box office shame" for various reasons. Then, "deformed" or even polarized word of mouth is actually an unnecessary loss for this summer file.

In most cases, the industry is "silent response", advocating for itself through a "strict resistance to box office theft" statement when it hurts itself. But the misunderstanding of public opinion caused by obvious "common sense errors", "silence" may not be quelled, but is a boost.

2

— "It's better to watch movies than TikTok?" ”—

From "reality resonance" to "watching movies is not as good as watching TikTok", some audiences "turned their faces".

Before 2020, the core competitiveness of the film market lies in "reality resonance". A large number of dramas with realistic themes coincided with the counterattack and became a dark horse. And before this year, there was "Disappearing Her" and then "All or Nothing", and the reviews of both movies were very polar. "Disappearing Her" exploded the summer file, but in the subsequent wind reviews, the movie was labeled as "calculating", and after "All or Nothing" was ridiculed for "not talking about film morality", the audience thought that watching "anti-fraud propaganda films" was not as good as watching TikTok.

However, the movie is a "long video" of about 120 minutes, compared to a "short video" of a few minutes, it is naturally very different at the level of content creation, which is common sense. Even though "All or Nothing" is based on many real cases, the overall movie has far more "fiction" than short videos. In addition, many viewers think that the most "essential" part of the movie is placed on the short video platform to attract the audience to enter, but the complete movie has a general look, which itself is also a "fraud".

The movie does put the essence clips that can arouse more public response on the short video platform, but the movie itself is a "long video", only through the fragmented content to speculate on the movie, and lose the patience to appreciate the "long video", this fragmented entertainment habit itself can not completely dump the fault party to the movie.

In addition, if the creation of realistic themes forcibly compares "scale" with short videos, then it greatly restricts such films. For films that have been released in established facts, it is nothing more than a change in wind criticism. However, for whether some non-head small and medium-sized films open their minds to "speculation", "waist speculation" at the creative level is a problem worth worrying about in the future.

This year, fraud in northern Myanmar has become a social focus, shortly before the release of "All or Nothing", because of the personal experience of victims who fled northern Myanmar, it became popular on short video platforms, and then a large number of content involving the inside story of fraud in northern Myanmar appeared on short video platforms.

According to relevant statistics, the Douyin topic of "All or Nothing" has been played 9.6 billion times before the screening, which is more than the second and third places combined. On the one hand, it has greatly improved the pre-screening popularity of the movie, and "All or Nothing" has skyrocketed in the data of wanting to see on the ticketing platform; But on the other hand, it is inevitable that because of the algorithm of the short video platform, more social massive short video content relevance is pushed to the audience.

This year, the number of theatrical movies jointly produced by the Douyin platform reached 14, in addition to "Desperate" and "Disappearing Her", "The Wandering Earth 2", "Man Jiang Hong", "I Love You"! and other films. This allows some films to enjoy the traffic dividends of short video platforms, but on the other hand, when "reality resonance" becomes excessive, and because of the large number of relevant content of short video platforms, will future reality films face new difficulties in publicity?

3

—The "regret" of "All or Nothing" —

The "new gameplay" of the main theme is both advantages and disadvantages.

"All or Nothing" is definitely not a perfect movie, this realistic film focusing on the theme of fraud in northern Myanmar still has very gratifying progress on many levels, but this film must have many shortcomings in its creation that should not be ignored.

Dubbed by the audience as an "anti-fraud propaganda film", Deser "All or Nothing", has a very rare breakthrough in scale. The real "torture" of scams in northern Myanmar, such as falling cats, short legs, piercing nails, and locking up dog cages, has been presented in movies, and this kind of violent scene is relatively rare in similar domestic movies in the past. In addition, the complete chain of telecom fraud is basically "popularized" in detail.

This is as a domestic film, "All or Nothing" reflects a very positive signal. But at the same time, as an "anti-fraud propaganda film", the film must involve the main theme ratio and the "timing" issues.

The police line from the perspective of Yongmei does not have a strong sense of participation in the first half of the film, and the overall narrative is not greatly interfered with because of the existence of the police, and finally forcibly turns the film into a "main theme movie" in the traditional sense. "All or Nothing" was originally called "Fishing Action", and the proportion of Yongmei's police line may have been adjusted in proportion in the past two years. And from the subject matter to the scale, the film will inevitably experience a lot of twists and turns in censorship.

The biggest problem with the creation of this film is that the film "reverses" too quickly in the last half hour, and the reasonable details are slightly "distorted" because it is too compressed to half an hour.

It is not unreasonable for Ah Cai to let Anna go, but why Ah Cai let Anna go is unreasonable because of the lack of foreshadowing; Lu Bingkun naturally had some trust in Pan Sheng because of his unyielding, but it was unreasonable to hand over his daughter to Pan Sheng at the final moment of life and death; The policeman played by Yongmei who really made a breakthrough in the process of solving the case was the "small card" of Anna pushed in the process of traffic jams, but the detection of the small card until Anna was released back to China and the subsequent rapid solution of the case also lacked foreshadowing.

Therefore, the main theme does not interfere excessively in the first half of the movie, but the excessive compression in the second half leads to a "disconnection" in the plot and emotions, and this "hasty" causes logical problems.

In 2016, also in Southeast Asia, "Operation Mekong" changed the public acceptance of the main theme film in one fell swoop. But in the past 7 years, the audience has shown obvious resistance after the main theme film appeared in a bunch. "Desperate" has indeed made great progress in the scale of a film that will obviously be "intervened", but the last half hour of "extreme rescue" still seems a little hasty and has become some regrets of the movie.

Whether it is a market with frequent blockbusters or a market with high box office, this positive signal is not easy to come by. But if the audience has long instrumentalized "common sense", bipolar public opinion has occupied the center for a long time, and the collective of the film industry is covered up by "stigma", it will undoubtedly consume the collective efforts of the industry.