The content of this article comes from the Internet, if it is inconsistent with the actual situation or there is infringement, please contact to delete.
Introduction: Wang Baoqiang's new movie "In the Octagonal Cage" was released on July 6, and with a good box office, the cumulative box office has exceeded 500 million so far. The question naturally arises: how much money does this movie really make? Film costs have always been a mysterious area, but before the film's release, there were rumors that Wang Baoqiang invested 1 billion yuan to make this realistic blockbuster. That's a huge number, and if true, the film would need to reach $3 billion at the box office to make a profit. However, Maoyan's prediction of a total box office of only 1.2 billion. So, the question is, does the film really cost 1 billion? We will explore the true cost of "In the Octagon" from three perspectives: actor salary, shooting cost and publicity cost.
Actor's remuneration is the primary consideration. "In the Octagon Cage" was directed and acted by Wang Baoqiang, who played the leading role in the film, and his salary reached 40 million according to the market value. In addition to Wang Baoqiang, one of the main actors of the film is Wang Xun, whose salary is about three or four million. This means that the total actor's salary for the entire film will not exceed 50 million.
Next, let's look at the cost of shooting. "In the Octagon" is a realistic film that does not involve large-scale special effects, and the characters eat cheap meals and wear affordable street stalls. The filming cost of this film will not exceed 10 million. This is reminiscent of the previous "Manjiang Hong" directed by Zhang Yimou, when it was rumored that the production cost of the film was as high as 500 million, but a big V questioned, "A few actors running around in the alley cannot spend so much, one 10 million is enough."
Finally, the cost of publicity is also a factor to consider. Although the film side carried out some publicity activities before the screening, the publicity cost was not high, mainly limited to road shows, short videos and live broadcasts. Therefore, comprehensive consideration, the total cost of "In the Octagon Cage" will not exceed 1 billion, and with only 400 million point screenings at the box office, Wang Baoqiang has achieved cost recovery. Every movie ticket will be his net earnings.
Perhaps you will ask, since the cost of the movie is not high, why is there a rumor of a cost of 1 billion? The reason is simple: to attract sympathy and support from the audience. For fans, they don't want to see their idol movies lose money, and Wang Baoqiang has always given people an image of "kindness, kindness and down-to-earth", which makes fans willing to go to the cinema to support him, even if the quality of the film is not satisfactory. Therefore, those audiences who walked into the cinema to support "Octagon Cage" because of the cost of 1 billion should sober up that the box office of the film depends on the quality of the film itself, not other factors. So, what is the truth? We can only wait for time to reveal the answer.
Revelation:
The situation in this article reminds us of some important points. First, the relationship between profitability and costs in the film industry may be more complex than we think. While the box office is crucial to a film's success, a film's success depends not only on the cost, but also on the quality and appeal of the film itself.
Second, media coverage and publicity can have a profound impact on audiences. In this case, the exaggerated publicity of the film's cost may be aimed at attracting a larger audience, especially those fans who are emotionally invested in Wang Baoqiang. This reminds us to maintain a degree of skepticism about media coverage and publicity, and to rely more on objective information and reviews to assess the quality of a film.
Finally, transparency in the cost of film production is also an important issue. For audiences and industry insiders, more transparency can help better understand a film's successes and failures, as well as clarify where money goes. Therefore, film production companies and related departments may need more transparency and public information to build the trust of audiences.
Summary:
The box office success of "In the Octagon" sparked a widespread discussion about the film's cost and publicity. Although the media claimed that the cost of the film was as high as 1 billion, however, by analyzing the actor's salary, filming cost and publicity costs, we can conclude that the actual cost of the film is much lower than this figure. The actor's salary and shooting cost are relatively low, and the publicity fee is not high. Therefore, the total cost of the film is estimated to not exceed 100 million.
This case reminds us that media coverage and propaganda often exaggerate facts to attract a larger audience. In this case, the high cost of publicity claims can be a tactic to win the sympathy and support of fans. However, the audience should look at this propaganda rationally, and the success of the film should depend more on the quality of the film itself.
Ultimately, the film industry needs more transparency so that audiences can better understand the production and allocation of funds for films. Transparency can help build audience trust and more accurately assess a film's success. In the future, I hope to see more publicly available information on the cost of film production and where the money goes.
In addition, there are some important lessons to be drawn from this case. First, while box office is an important indicator for the film industry, audiences shouldn't be swayed by high costs or publicity alone. The quality and plot of the film are the key factors that ultimately determine whether the audience is willing to go to the cinema to watch it. Audiences should choose films based on their own interests and aesthetics, rather than being influenced by excessive publicity.
Secondly, honest and transparent dissemination of information is essential for filmmakers and the media. While a promotional strategy may attract a larger audience, in the long run, false publicity can damage trust and reputation. Film production companies should be more transparent in sharing information about costs, actor salaries, and production details with audiences to build a solid audience base.
Finally, audiences should also cherish the diversity of films. There are all types of films in the film industry, from big-budget commercials to small-budget independent films, each with its own unique characteristics. Audiences can find works that satisfy their tastes in different types of films. Don't be fooled by the high cost or star cast, and don't overlook films that are low-cost but of excellent quality, as they often surprise audiences.
In conclusion, this case provides an interesting perspective on the complex relationship between cost, publicity and audience choice in the film industry. Audiences can learn to look at media coverage and publicity wisely, filmmakers can take the opportunity to share more truthful information with their audiences, and the film industry should value diversity and quality. In the future, these lessons will help build a healthier and more transparent film market.
The above content and materials are derived from the Internet, relevant data, theoretical research in the Internet materials, does not mean that the author of this article agrees with the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. We are not responsible for any issues arising above or in connection with the above and the author of this article do not assume any direct or indirect legal liability.