3 ms·

It's not so much fear of cultural imports as it is about political influence from a foreign government. The article makes a good point about how "Seven Years in

It's not so much fear of cultural imports as it is about political influence from a foreign government. The article makes a good point about how "Seven Years in Tibet" came out before Chinese money started flowing into Hollywood, and how perhaps that movie might not be so easily made these days. There's something you didn't mention when you talked about how "USA wants to spread its values too." American companies that invest in Hollywood and sites like Reddit generally aren't partially owned by the government, and certainly aren't subject to as much government control.

rdiddly 8y ago
"Seven Years in Tibet" was made without Chinese money, so why couldn't the same movie be made today without Chinese money? It's harder because everyone else is taking Chinese money? I don't buy it.
- theNJR 8y ago
  Censorship by omission is a tricky thing to quantify. If a Studio gets, lets say, $5b a year from their Chinese investments, do you think they'd make a Seven Years style movie (even without the Chinese money directly funding it)? To personalize it, I had plenty of conversations with Chinese VCs back when I was raising for my VR company. I was incredibly aware of the meta implications of this article while writing it. Had I received Chinese investment, I'm not sure I would have written it at all.
- deogeo 8y ago
  "Make this movie, and you won't get any more investments from us. We've said the same to your distributor and producer. And we'll make sure every corporate board we have influence over will shun you."
  - luckylion 8y ago
    And then the next producer will make it, enjoy the financial super hit and get super rich by doing it. That's how markets work, supposedly. If one company doesn't want to do something that is in demand, others will.
- defertoreptar 8y ago
  Interestingly, the movie was produced by Peter Guber's Mandalay Entertainment. In 2017, China’s Puji Capital invested in Guber’s Mandalay Endurance Media Ventures. > “We are at an interesting inflection with China’s film industry – we have China becoming the most important market globally coupled with an increasingly more sophisticated Chinese audience who strive for compelling stories and movies that captivate the heart and mind,” said Puji Film director Lily Zhao. https://deadline.com/2017/08/china-puji-capital-invests-in-peter-guber-mandalay-endurance-1202151649/ https://deadline.com/2017/08/china-puji-capital-invests-in-p... So yeah, I think that it's very possible that Guber might have more reason not to make "Seven Years in Tibet" nowadays compared to in 1997.
- function_seven 8y ago
  I imagine that any studio that wants to continue doing business in China would have second thoughts about also producing a film like that. This is just conjecture. I don't know to what extent (if any) that such a chilling effect has on a studio's domestic releases.

rdiddly 8y ago

"Seven Years in Tibet" was made without Chinese money, so why couldn't the same movie be made today without Chinese money? It's harder because everyone else is taking Chinese money? I don't buy it.

theNJR 8y ago
Censorship by omission is a tricky thing to quantify. If a Studio gets, lets say, $5b a year from their Chinese investments, do you think they'd make a Seven Years style movie (even without the Chinese money directly funding it)? To personalize it, I had plenty of conversations with Chinese VCs back when I was raising for my VR company. I was incredibly aware of the meta implications of this article while writing it. Had I received Chinese investment, I'm not sure I would have written it at all.
deogeo 8y ago
"Make this movie, and you won't get any more investments from us. We've said the same to your distributor and producer. And we'll make sure every corporate board we have influence over will shun you."
- luckylion 8y ago
  And then the next producer will make it, enjoy the financial super hit and get super rich by doing it. That's how markets work, supposedly. If one company doesn't want to do something that is in demand, others will.
defertoreptar 8y ago
Interestingly, the movie was produced by Peter Guber's Mandalay Entertainment. In 2017, China’s Puji Capital invested in Guber’s Mandalay Endurance Media Ventures. > “We are at an interesting inflection with China’s film industry – we have China becoming the most important market globally coupled with an increasingly more sophisticated Chinese audience who strive for compelling stories and movies that captivate the heart and mind,” said Puji Film director Lily Zhao. https://deadline.com/2017/08/china-puji-capital-invests-in-peter-guber-mandalay-endurance-1202151649/ https://deadline.com/2017/08/china-puji-capital-invests-in-p... So yeah, I think that it's very possible that Guber might have more reason not to make "Seven Years in Tibet" nowadays compared to in 1997.
function_seven 8y ago
I imagine that any studio that wants to continue doing business in China would have second thoughts about also producing a film like that. This is just conjecture. I don't know to what extent (if any) that such a chilling effect has on a studio's domestic releases.