China's film earnings overtake Hollywood's

[beijingwalker]

China's film earnings overtake Hollywood's
January 4, 2022

BEIJING: China retained its top spot in global box office earnings in 2021 as the Chinese movie industry continued to take the lead in recovery from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic for the second year running. The earnings have overtaken Hollywood industry as well as India's Bollywood.

China's box office revenue hit 47.26 billion yuan ($7.4 billion) in 2021, the highest in the world, of which 84.49 percent was from domestic productions, showed data released by the China Film Administration on Saturday.

Despite the continuing impact of the pandemic, China also built 6,667 new screens in 2021, bringing the number of total screens to 82,248, marking the highest number globally and reflecting a quick recovery of Chinese film industry from the pandemic, according to the film authority.

"The Battle at Lake Changjin" collected a record 5.772 billion yuan in China's box office market, which is also a new record high as the highest-grossing film in Chinese history.

The film is set during the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea (1950-53) and depicts the Chinese People's Volunteers soldiers' brave fight in a key campaign at Lake Changjin, or Chosin Reservoir, during freezing temperatures.

China is expected to account for 34 percent of global box office revenue, compared to just over 28 percent in 2020, according to Gower Street Analytics projections. The US is estimated to take the second rank with a likely 22 percent share.

The year 2021 marked the second year that China beat the US to become the world's largest box office market, a result caused by the two countries' vastly different responses to the Covid-19 pandemic, according to media reports.

China's film earnings overtake Hollywood's

China's film earnings overtake Hollywood's

www.manilatimes.net

 

[beijingwalker]

Why Hollywood now needs China more than China needs Hollywood​

In October 2020, the Asian country overtook the US for the first time in terms of box office receipts. The power of the Chinese authorities is now such that they can veto an American film or actor if they so desire​

Los Angeles - FEB 28, 2022 - 10:13 EST

In February 2012, a smiling Xi Jinping, then the vice-president of the People’s Republic of China, concluded an official visit to the United States with an LA Lakers basketball game in Los Angeles. The politician was finalizing the details of what would be, one month later, the summit between presidents Hu Jintao and Barack Obama. That morning, then-US Vice President Joe Biden had called on his opposite number to address one of the most-pressing issues on the agenda. In the heart of the movie industry, Biden suggested closing a deal that the major studios in his country had been calling for for years and that would allow them to open 34 films a year in China, instead of the dozen or so that were shown every year since the mid-1990s. What’s more, the studios would go from keeping 13% of box office takings to 25%. Xi agreed, and the deal changed Hollywood.

Before this deal, the money from the Chinese box office was viewed as something of a little bonus. “After that agreement, China became a fundamental part of all major studios’ business strategy,” explains Erich Schwartzel, a journalist from The Wall Street Journal and the author of the recently published book Red Carpet, which lays out the history of Beijing’s growing influence over what the world sees on the silver screen.


Schwartzel, 35, spent five years researching the book and has discovered details that could appear mere anecdotes, but in reality, form part of a strategy for control by the Communist Party authorities over the image projected by one of the most-consumed cultural industries on the planet, and that is in a process of transformation given the rise in streaming and the fight between studios to remain relevant. According to the journalist, Hollywood has spent decades caving into the demands of the Asian powerhouse.

In 1996, for example, a Disney executive’s phone rang and on the other end of the line there was a Chinese diplomat who was calling from the embassy in Washington with a warning: they were concerned because two days before, Martin Scorsese had begun to film Kundun, a movie about the Dalai Lama. The call forced the home of Mickey Mouse to seek the advice of Henry Kissinger, the politician who brought US president Richard Nixon together with Mao Zedong in 1972.

Michael Eisner, the then-CEO of Disney, came up with a number of formulas to avoid the anger of Beijing, but at the same time, he knew that canceling a film shoot directed by one of the biggest names of cinema would be a major scandal. So the movie got made.

It premiered on December 25 on just two screens in the United States, while other movies that opened that day were present in some 1,700 theaters. Disney let the movie die. China, Schwartzel writes, “has the power to change movies from the early stages of a project.” When the authorities hear that a script could be problematic, he continues, “they immediately send a letter saying that it would be a bad idea.”

There are dozens of such cases. Sony had to navigate the same waters to complete Seven Years in Tibet, another story about the reincarnation of Buddha. Pressure from China on India, where the production was due to be filmed, forced a change of continent: in the end, it was shot in South America.

Schwartzel also argues that Richard Gere’s activism in support of a free Tibet turned the actor into a toxic asset. Despite his fame in the 1990s, nowadays he appears mostly in independent productions and has not participated in a project with a major studio for more than a decade. “It’s interesting that Hollywood, faced with the pressures of China, has not found creative ways to work within the system, but rather has caved to their demands,” the author states. “It says what it has to say or ignores what it has to ignore.”

The power of China, a country with 1.4 billion inhabitants, is not just about how many ticket-buyers it has. The authorities have at their disposal a catalog of coercive measures. These range from a veto on directors or actors, to the imposition of sanctions on the companies who own the studios, something that can cost billions of dollars.

Chinese censors, meanwhile, work with a list of taboo subjects that oblige studios to recut their movies for local markets. Bloody sequences should be avoided, as should plotlines involving ghosts, or where the government is corrupt (unless the politician in question is American, something that made Netflix show House of Cards a local phenomenon). On more than one occasion, changes have been made to classics. Recently, Fight Club saw its ending changed for broadcast via a streaming service in China.

In October 2020, China overtook the United States for the first time in terms of box office receipts, with $1.998 billion. It has managed this milestone in just 20 years. The local industry has grown, Chinese films have grown up, and viewers want to see their own stories on the screen. That is why Beijing is rejecting more movies than before. “The message is that they no longer need Western films,” Schwartzel explains. “The relationship began with China needing Hollywood. Later they both had a mutual dependency, and now Hollywood needs China more.”

Why Hollywood now needs China more than China needs Hollywood

In October 2020, the Asian country overtook the US for the first time in terms of box office receipts. The power of the Chinese authorities is now such that they can veto an American film or actor if they so desire

english.elpais.com

 

[Rafi]

At the height of the Soviet Union, it was never a challenger in economic, technological, or cultural sectors. China is becoming a peer competitor in all these areas, and even surpassed the yanks.

 

[xyxmt]

At the height of the Soviet Union, it was never a challenger in economic, technological, or cultural sectors. China is becoming a peer competitor in all these areas, and even surpassed the yanks.

Wonder why you hear so much love for Chinese Muslims

 

[Rafi]

Wonder why you hear so much love for Chinese Muslims

Crocodile tears.....at the same time destroyed numerous Muslim countries

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Streaming to be $94B business by 2025 as Hollywood rebounds

The coronavirus pandemic may have dealt a dizzying blow to Hollywood, but Tinseltown is expected to bounce back in just a few years, led by surging demand for streaming video. PriceWaterhouseCooper…

nypost.com

The coronavirus pandemic may have dealt a dizzying blow to Hollywood, but Tinseltown is expected to bounce back in just a few years, led by surging demand for streaming video.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers in a new report has predicted that streaming video will generate a massive $94 billion in revenues by the end of 2025, up 60 percent from 2020.

The industry, led by players like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney Plus, will be buoyed in 2025 by a whopping $81 billion in subscriptions sales and about $13 billion in sales tied to renting or buying movies, PWC predicted.

Will Digital Streaming Kill The Movie Theater? | Seat42F

Streaming is everywhere today. From influencers presenting products on social media to gamblers playing online blackjack from the comfort of their homes,

seat42f.com

Streaming is everywhere today. From influencers presenting products on social media to gamblers playing online blackjack from the comfort of their homes, streaming has infiltrated pretty much every aspect of our everyday lives. This was especially true last year, when streaming was all the rage, accelerating a process that has already begun. The closure of casinos across Nevada and other states has driven never-before-seen crowds to online casinos that offer a similar experience but an even bigger game variety. The closure of venues has driven artists to live-streaming concerts and performances. And the closure of movie theaters has driven some studios to release their latest movies on streaming services.


When Universal released Trolls World Tour on streaming, skipping cinemas altogether, it was perceived as a threat to the status quo, which prompted quite the backlash against the studio. Since then, in turn, more movies went at least partly in the digital direction, including Disney’s latest MCU title, Black Widow. The latter was a hybrid release – in movie theaters and Disney+ (with Premier Access that costs extra) – that, it seems, is part of Disney’s release strategy at least for the near future (the upcoming Jungle Cruise is expected to be launched in a similar fashion).

This poses an increasingly pressing question that seems to worry moviegoers and theater chains alike: is streaming on the verge of killing traditional releases? Is it out for the blood of movie theaters?

 

[tower9]

China’s film industry might be big but it is a minnow when it comes to global influence. They really need to follow South Korea and figure out how to make globally appealing content.

 

[Rafi]

China’s film industry might be big but it is a minnow when it comes to global influence. They really need to follow South Korea and figure out how to make globally appealing content.

Next 5 years, there is alot of stuff in the pipeline such as historical, anime and sci-fi stuff that will appeal to the world in general

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

China’s film industry might be big but it is a minnow when it comes to global influence. They really need to follow South Korea and figure out how to make globally appealing content.

You mean their tv shows..but not really movies

 

[MultaniGuy]

Maybe the Pakistani cinema industry and Chinese cinema industry can work together.

For example: The Jinnah movie needs a new High Definition remake.

 

[GiantPanda]

You mean their tv shows..but not really movies

True. I'd say Squid Game had a good sized pop culture impact but Parasite though it won Best Picture probably had less impact than "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" when that came out. Certainly less than the Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee movies.