4 ms·

> However, the outlet said, Vietnam and the Philippines aren't negligible markets, where a Hollywood hit "can earn anywhere from $5 million to over $10 million

> However, the outlet said, Vietnam and the Philippines aren't negligible markets, where a Hollywood hit "can earn anywhere from $5 million to over $10 million in each country." I'm wondering if the firms already calculated that appeasing China brings in more than $10 million.

sundvor 3y ago
Unlike Maverick, where the scenes of the authentic jacket were ultimately worth sacrificing the entire Chinese market. That was a proper Taiwan patch though, rather than these vague dots. Respect.
- rottencupcakes 3y ago
  Are you kidding? They removed the Taiwan and Japan patches in the first trailer to try to see if China would bite. China was never going to allow a movie that made the American military look so damn cool. Then they put the patches back after the writing was on the wall. Money over everything.
  - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
    >China was never going to allow a movie that made the American military look so damn cool. Even in Europe I saw they're not that comfortable with it. In Austria they had recruitment posters ads outside the theater entrance and they played ads about joining the Austrian airforce before the movie, to try convince you to join the Austrian airforce so you can fly the only two functioning Eurofighter Typhoons in service lol. China did their own Top Gun movie featuring their own Chendu jets.
  - perihelions 3y ago
    That's fair: there's not exactly a US market enthusiastic for "cool" Chinese military propaganda films either. Budget: $200,000,000 (estimated) Gross US & Canada: $342,411 Opening weekend US & Canada: $105,768 Gross worldwide: $902,548,476 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13462900/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13462900/ ("The Battle at Lake Changjin" (2021))
    - cornfutes 3y ago
      > there's not exactly a US market enthusiastic for "cool" Chinese military propaganda films either. Hero debuted as #1 in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_(2002_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_(2002_film)
      - kaladin-jasnah 3y ago
        This movie, at least from the Wikipedia article, doesn't seem to be about the PLA (and rather a historical army?), so does it still count as military propaganda per se?
    - glimshe 3y ago
      I'm not sure what was your intended use of the word "either", but I'd be careful calling movies like Maverick "US propaganda". Maverick is a privately produced movie that appeals to the American national sentiment, and the world's fascination with the US Military, but it's NOT government propaganda. The US Military was happy to see the movie, obviously, and fully supported its development with consulting services and realistic equipment, as it is generally the case with movies that help their struggling recruiting efforts, but they were not the reason the movie exists. Battle at Lake Changjin was literally commissioned by CPP's government, literally including its department of propaganda and is part of a concerted government effort. Also have in mind that the Chinese government imposes actual bans on content, such as "can't have this and that flag, or this or that line, or your movie can't be shown in China" in a way similar to Vietnam and Philippines. Actual Chinese propaganda movies can be shown in the US - they don't get shown often, if at all, because nobody wants to see them.
      - sundaeofshock 3y ago
        Movies like Maverick are indeed propaganda. In exchange for all that fancy military hardware, the Navy was able to exercise editorial control over the script. In fact ‘ Jerry Bruckheimer, a top producer, said that “Top Gun” and 2001’s “Pearl Harbor” simply wouldn’t exist without military approval.’ https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-30/top-gun-maverick-memorial-day-tom-cruise-pentagon-propaganda https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-30/top-gun-mav...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

sundvor 3y ago

Unlike Maverick, where the scenes of the authentic jacket were ultimately worth sacrificing the entire Chinese market. That was a proper Taiwan patch though, rather than these vague dots. Respect.

rottencupcakes 3y ago
Are you kidding? They removed the Taiwan and Japan patches in the first trailer to try to see if China would bite. China was never going to allow a movie that made the American military look so damn cool. Then they put the patches back after the writing was on the wall. Money over everything.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  >China was never going to allow a movie that made the American military look so damn cool. Even in Europe I saw they're not that comfortable with it. In Austria they had recruitment posters ads outside the theater entrance and they played ads about joining the Austrian airforce before the movie, to try convince you to join the Austrian airforce so you can fly the only two functioning Eurofighter Typhoons in service lol. China did their own Top Gun movie featuring their own Chendu jets.
- perihelions 3y ago
  That's fair: there's not exactly a US market enthusiastic for "cool" Chinese military propaganda films either. Budget: $200,000,000 (estimated) Gross US & Canada: $342,411 Opening weekend US & Canada: $105,768 Gross worldwide: $902,548,476 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13462900/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13462900/ ("The Battle at Lake Changjin" (2021))
  - cornfutes 3y ago
    > there's not exactly a US market enthusiastic for "cool" Chinese military propaganda films either. Hero debuted as #1 in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_(2002_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_(2002_film)
    - kaladin-jasnah 3y ago
      This movie, at least from the Wikipedia article, doesn't seem to be about the PLA (and rather a historical army?), so does it still count as military propaganda per se?
  - glimshe 3y ago
    I'm not sure what was your intended use of the word "either", but I'd be careful calling movies like Maverick "US propaganda". Maverick is a privately produced movie that appeals to the American national sentiment, and the world's fascination with the US Military, but it's NOT government propaganda. The US Military was happy to see the movie, obviously, and fully supported its development with consulting services and realistic equipment, as it is generally the case with movies that help their struggling recruiting efforts, but they were not the reason the movie exists. Battle at Lake Changjin was literally commissioned by CPP's government, literally including its department of propaganda and is part of a concerted government effort. Also have in mind that the Chinese government imposes actual bans on content, such as "can't have this and that flag, or this or that line, or your movie can't be shown in China" in a way similar to Vietnam and Philippines. Actual Chinese propaganda movies can be shown in the US - they don't get shown often, if at all, because nobody wants to see them.
    - sundaeofshock 3y ago
      Movies like Maverick are indeed propaganda. In exchange for all that fancy military hardware, the Navy was able to exercise editorial control over the script. In fact ‘ Jerry Bruckheimer, a top producer, said that “Top Gun” and 2001’s “Pearl Harbor” simply wouldn’t exist without military approval.’ https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-30/top-gun-maverick-memorial-day-tom-cruise-pentagon-propaganda https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-30/top-gun-mav...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]