The controversy triggered by the box office performance differences between 'Shanghai Fortress' and 'Bureau 749'

Recently, two highly anticipated Chinese films, Shanghai Fortress and Bureau 749, both encountered box office failures, but the audience’s reactions to their respective failures were quite different. This phenomenon has sparked deeper reflection on accountability in the film industry and the standards by which audiences evaluate films.

First, let’s revisit the case of Shanghai Fortress. When the film was released, most of the promotion centered around lead actor Lu Han, while director Teng Huatao received relatively little attention. After the film’s release, its reputation collapsed, with both audiences and critics focusing their criticism on Lu Han’s acting and his high pay as a traffic-driven celebrity. Many felt that Lu Han’s acting did not align with the demands of a high-budget sci-fi film, negatively affecting the overall viewing experience.

In contrast, the situation with Bureau 749 was different. The film’s promotion emphasized director Lu Chuan, focusing on his years of preparation for the project. However, after its release, both its reputation and box office performance were poor, with the audience’s dissatisfaction mainly directed at Lu Chuan himself. This was particularly evident after Lu Chuan posted a message on social media saying “blame me,” which sparked a wave of widespread criticism.

These differing reactions highlight several issues:

1. Changing Audience Standards: Compared to a few years ago, today’s audience seems more discerning, recognizing that the overall quality of a film largely depends on the director. This indicates an improvement in the audience’s film literacy.

2. Impact of Promotion Strategies: The promotional strategies of these films significantly shaped audience expectations and influenced where criticism was directed. Shanghai Fortress focused on promoting Lu Han, while Bureau 749 emphasized Lu Chuan, directly affecting where the audience aimed their critiques.

3. Reflection on Traffic-Driven Celebrities: The failure of Shanghai Fortress led to reflections on the overuse of traffic-driven celebrities. By the time Bureau 749 was released, the audience was more focused on the director’s capabilities and the film’s overall quality.

4. Emphasis on Director’s Responsibility: As a well-known director, Lu Chuan faced higher expectations from the audience. When the film failed, it was natural for people to hold a more experienced and reputable director to a higher standard of accountability.

5. Influence of Social Media: Lu Chuan’s remarks on social media directly impacted the public’s perception of him, which is particularly significant in today’s fast-paced information-sharing environment.

Furthermore, this phenomenon also reflects some deeper issues within the Chinese film industry, such as balancing commercial interests with artistic pursuits, the appropriate use of traffic-driven celebrities, and the need to improve overall production quality. It is important to note that blaming a single individual for a film’s failure is unfair. Whether it’s the actor, director, or producers, everyone involved should be responsible for the quality of the film. This shift in audience reaction may encourage the industry to place greater emphasis on the overall quality of films, rather than relying solely on star power or the director’s fame.

In summary, the differing fates of Shanghai Fortress and Bureau 749 reflect changes in both the Chinese film market and audience psychology. These changes may drive the industry toward a more mature and rational direction, but they also serve as a reminder that when evaluating a film, it’s important to take a more comprehensive and objective approach, considering all aspects of the production.