We discussed that "the needs of the majority" is the decisive factor, which will promote the development of the film industry in one direction, and this development has not stopped since 20 years ago, so we have developed from "Farewell My Concubine" to "Little Times" and "To Youth", from old drama bones to small fresh meat.

So why is this happening? According to our discussion, this should be the change in the needs of most people, they don't need "Farewell My Concubine", they need "To Youth", is that so?

Unfortunately, that's the case.

The development of cultural products is always a progressive process, we use every penny in our hands to invest in the future, capital according to our investment to make their investment, where the demand is strong, where there is more development, where weak, there will be less, and this is somewhat like natural selection in the theory of evolution, but nature has become humanistic selection.

If so, wouldn't we have become Lo, and is this a kind of cultural landslide, or "degradation"?

If "we" is defined as "the audience of the Chinese film market", yes, Lo.

However, no one has become Lo, but our collective has become Lo.

People's aesthetics and three views are usually progressive, and they will always develop in a more mature and deeper or more diverse direction, so no audience will suddenly change Lo, and even if there is, it is very few, far less than most people's progressive.

Then why do "we" become Lo.

Because "we" is a dynamic collective, "we" are always changing.

20 years ago, "we" should be a rare urban youth collective, at that time the city was not so big, educational resources and employment opportunities were scarce, there was no Internet, there was not so much money, and the threshold for buying tickets to enter the cinema was relatively high, we can roughly summarize it as "traditional urban youth", these young people must have a very low proportion of the country's youth, maybe 15%, who knows.

At that time, "we" were probably tens of millions of people, and their aesthetics could be inferred from the popular works at that time, and they should be more literary and artistic, and countless creations went down in history, among which they liked to watch Wang Shuo and Jin Yong, some of them liked poetry, especially Haizi, and some people liked folk songs and rock, like Luo Dayou and Cui Jian, and a "Sweet Honey" made them cry.

They are the whole of the market, according to their aesthetics, capital and creators have spared no effort to satisfy them, nourish them, and with continuous promotion, "Farewell My Concubine" and "The Legend of Sword and Fairy" (who dares to say that it is not domestic?!).

Although the post-60s look down on the post-70s, and the post-70s do not look down on the post-80s, young people basically enter the market evenly, with "future investment", everything is elegant and calm.

Now it's different, urban youth is no longer a rare thing, as long as you have the ability to work and come to the city, you can become an urban person, you can earn money to go to the cinema, and the cost is not much more than a meal.

Even if you don't know anything about the world outside of your home country the day before, once you get into the city and have a job, your spending power will be no less than that of any traditional urban youth.

As a result, young people in this new city will unconsciously pick up their wallets and invest in the future, whether it is watching a movie or playing a mobile game.

He has the right to make any investment he likes, whether it is small fresh meat or the glory of kings, he has no problem buying women's clothes and going to the street as a big man!

All of this constitutes the new "we", those "traditional youth" 20 years ago, and among them, there is probably only 15% left.

And the other 85% of "we", with the economic explosion, have "future investment", unlike the 60, 70, 80 generations of even change, the young people after it are like a bombshell, announcing their entry with a bang, the success of "Little Times" may be the most thorough clarion call for this entry!

They don't make much noise, but smart capitalists and creators can hear -

"Here we are!"

The new "we" with the qualification of "future investment" usually have not had the opportunity to appreciate so many works, contact so many cultures, and even not so much time, in the "cultural experience", they are simply like a child, but the "future investment" in their hands is not less than any "traditional youth", the important thing is that they almost in a few years, instantly occupy the majority of the market, the economic explosion will not talk about any elegance, just like an explosion, "poof!"

I have to say that I don't have any cultural discrimination personally, I firmly believe that a person's level of cultural appreciation, aesthetics, and even IQ are limited by his upbringing, and if I had been born in an isolated country and lived at the present age, I would not have been able to read this article, which is simply unreasonable.

This kind of discrimination is unreasonable, just as discriminating against one's own mother who doesn't know how to use a computer, it has nothing to do with people's quality and ability, it is purely the result of the growth environment, anyone wants to start with "Sheriff Black Cat", otherwise watching "Your Name" will only be drowsy.

Back to "investing in the future".

There is undoubtedly a huge difference between the "new youth" and the "traditional youth", and there is no distinction between the two, but if you list all the different examples, you may be uncomfortable, please make up for it yourself, and pay attention to these are objective, without any subjective judgment, and do not contain any malicious intent.

It only shows here that the new youth appeared in a short period of time, "buzzing" all at once, probably becoming the absolute main force in the market before and after the release of "Little Times", so it is not rigorous, in fact, you can use the method of data research to ensure rigor, because it is not a professional scholar, so it is skipped here.

With the development of the economy and the scale of the city, more and more future investment is in the hands of "we" who have "relatively shallow cultural experience", and people who once called themselves "cultural elites" do not have more tickets in their hands than a person who has just entered the city to get a job and has not seen any movies.

[This is really not to blame for the small fresh meat, the small fresh meat is invested by "us", in order to meet the "we" existing products. 】

"Traditional" stands on the tower of contempt and looks down on the "fans of Little Fresh Meat", while opening the AV download torrent with the other hand and admiring the masterpieces of the teachers.

From all perspectives such as vulgar and unbearable, mercenary, harmful, and no connotation, *** worries seem to be inferior to small fresh meat.

It's just because *** worries meet our needs, and small fresh meat meets their needs.

[As a beneficiary, I take it for granted, and once I am abandoned, I will wave my flag and shout!]

Yes, all the people who hate small fresh meat (including me) have been abandoned by the market to a considerable extent, because we have too little "future investment" in our hands, and we have been crushed by most people with numbers.

If you are not satisfied with this, the scolding of Xiao Xianrou fans can barely be regarded as the right scolding, and the scolding of Xiao Xianrou and the behind-the-scenes capital is really wrong, just like the absurdity of a politician who has lost the election and scolds the ballot box.

So far, the discussion is all smooth, but we must try to avoid the mistake of "taking it for granted", everything is now limited to China, we might as well stand on a higher level to look at all this, the most intuitive analogy is nothing more than the United States.

We will be surprised to find that the Yankees' aesthetics are not much higher than "us", and Justin Bieber or something is still popular? Their young people like the same things as our young people! Their main consumer force also has a large number of people with very little "cultural experience."

Why is their product so good and blooming???

This kind of cross-perspective rebuttal thinking is worth advocating, but the refutation itself is not valid.

First of all, the Yankees don't seem to be much better than us, and there are also quite a few people who scoff at the superheroes who now occupy half of the country, and they face the same situation as the superclassics of the 90s.

But it must be noted that their situation is much better than ours, if their market has expanded by 2 times, then our market has expanded by 10 times, and if our "tradition" occupies "15%", then they still have at least "50%".

In the past 20 years, the United States has not experienced such a rapid economic leap as ours, in other words, their "future investment" is relatively even, generation after generation has come and gone evenly, and there has not been such an explosive "future investment" as ours.

From 10 to 50 years old, their "future investments" are much more evenly distributed than ours, and the number of urban populations has not changed much, from 70% of people who were eligible to go to the cinema 20 years ago, and now it may be 90%.

And we, 20 years ago, maybe 15 percent, but now it's 70 percent.

Indeed, in the United States, every year there are also "cultural newcomers" who enter the cinema, although their "cultural experience" is still young, but they already have a good salary, exactly the same as our newcomers.

But in the U.S. market, the percentage of such newcomers is much lower than ours.

Their urban population is already the majority, the vast majority of people and their parents, have been "us" since birth, and each of their ages and groups has made "future investments" relatively evenly, Justin Bieber is indeed popular, but there are simply too many stars of his level, and he is just one of them.

Of course, there is also the phenomenon of small fresh meat in the United States, and there are small fresh meat fans, but this group is relatively uniform with other groups, and there is no such exaggerated proportion in my country that crushes everything, so we can see various types of movies. Serving people with every need.

What's more, considering the diversity of the audience, they can't rely on "Little Fresh Meat" to make a lot of money, more audiences are picky and experienced, you have to come up with something good enough, it may be better to have Little Fresh Meat, but if the movie is, no one will buy it except Justin Bieber's fans!

If Justin Bieber can make three times the profit by scratching his head, who has the heart to spend years trying to get better? Or rather, more audiences want the movie itself to be better than Justin Bieber.

Capitalists and creators don't have any "conscience", they just want to make money, but their "little fresh meat routine" has limited income, and it has been covered by Disney with one hand, as a normal film group, only by trying to make good movies can they make money, otherwise the audience will not buy it.

[It's not themselves who really force Hollywood to make good movies, but the audience.] 】

In fact, they don't have to care about whether the movie is good or not, they only care about making money, but in their place, good and making money are almost equated, but in our case, it is obviously not, traffic and making money can be equated, and it is all kinds of strange things that are equated with traffic...... In short, "good" is really "thankless".

Like the Chinese capitalists, the American capitalists can calculate the proportion of idol fans, and then before the project is established, there may be a dialogue similar to "To Youth" and "Farewell My Concubine", but in their culture, it should be replaced by "Twilight 5" and "Westworld: Humanity and Intelligence".

Maybe their manager will make a report like this:

"About "Twilight 5", now many of the starring actors are Super Bowls, their salary is the pinnacle of Hollywood, if the original cast is enabled, the salary cost will exceed 150 million US dollars, and the cost of the entire film will exceed 250 million, counting publicity and sharing, we need a box office of 750 million US dollars to ensure profitability, as a reference, the box office of "Twilight 4" is about 700 million US dollars, which is not bad, in short, this project is guaranteed, but it needs to break through. ”

"As for Westworld, it's relatively easy to start, we've already bought a good script, according to our research, audiences aged 25-50 will be interested, the combination of sci-fi elements and humanities is a trend, and we have the ability to keep the cost within $200 million on the basis of ensuring a strong cast. There are not many references to this movie, we judge that he can at least reach the level of "Interstellar", and the global box office has a reason to hit $600 million, but we are not very optimistic about the American market, our audience is too stupid, but the Chinese market has always been in a state of hunger, like "Star Trek" and "Cloud Atlas", which require brains, the box office in China is even higher than that in the United States!"

After hearing this, the bosses and shareholders are faced with a real choice, and the fate of the company is in their hands, but it is difficult for them to determine which investment has a higher success rate, because the "future investment" that can be obtained by the two seems to be comparable.

At this time, an intelligence agent jumped out: "Universal Pictures is making a Westworld-like movie! It's already in the filming stage! We have to consider whether the audience will get aesthetically fatigued!"

Another analyst said: "There will be no high-cost youth dramas in the market for the next six months, and the data shows that there is a demand gap here." ”

With this information, it became clear.

The boss can finally make a reasonable decision: "Twilight! Keep the male and female protagonists, and the other characters will keep their salaries down, and change them if they can't be low, and those milky little fresh meat will really treat themselves as dishes!!"Westworld" will be released first! Let's discuss it after watching the market data of Universal's sci-fi film!"

This is the American market, relatively even, there is no clear main force, the public aesthetics are evenly distributed in a certain range, people like any movie, and their cultural experience and aesthetics are uniform.

Because of this maturity, the cultural market in the United States is outrageously diverse, with all kinds of music emerging in an endless stream, all kinds of dabbling, based on a strong and uniform market, Marvel can't just take a XX Man out to cheat money, they have to work hard to study the story and special effects, to make sure that it is more attractive than DC and other super blockbusters, so as to make money.

They are not nobler, they are smarter, they are all making money, and in order to make money, they have to "meet the needs of the majority", except that the tastes of their audience are uniform, demanding, experienced and diverse. It is undeniable that their market is also huge, which can support the birth of various types of masterpieces.

There is no doubt that China is the second largest market in the world, but it has not delivered a good report card worthy of this market, and even lost to Japan, South Korea and India.

Of course, although the number of masterpieces has lost, the box office will not lose, and there is nothing wrong with the box office being stable and second, but the main force that wins the box office is not a masterpiece in the usual sense, but a work that meets the needs of "cultural newcomers".

It can be said that the phenomenon of "cultural newcomers" exists in all aspects, and movies are just the most intuitive insinuation.

Ten years ago, wealth was concentrated in the hands of a small number of urban dwellers, who had almost all of their "future investments", while the remaining 70 percent of farmers did not have the opportunity to leave their hometowns several times in their lifetimes, let alone use the wealth they had to invest in the future.

The economic leap has given everyone the opportunity to pour into the city, farming is no longer the only option, according to the value of labor, everyone gets the "future investment ticket", and everyone has the right to cast their sacred vote.

Within 20 years, such a group of extremely similar "newcomers" have become a share of 70% of the vast majority of the market!!

Their experiences and circumstances are extremely similar, starting with a blank sheet of cultural paper, and they pursue the same colors!

Such a powerful force, such a powerful investment, undoubtedly quickly reversed the direction of the market, which made the original "we" at a loss, until angry, the popularity of "Little Times" may be the first climax of anger, and now, it has become a little fresh meat and the glory of the king.

The rest of the people wailed out in despair like outcasts, and only a handful of masterpieces and imported works could quench their thirst.

"Traditional us" has become an outcast in the market, as one joke says:

"Why do you want to make console games? Those people have such bad mouths and give so little money, why do they want to make mobile games! So many people, so much money, so easy to make!"

Regarding "Honor of Kings", in a recent issue of STN Express, Dan said that no one in his team is playing Honor of Kings, so he can't comment on this game.

Why is no one playing?

He said: "Because there are so many fun games, I don't have time to play those, why play Honor of Kings?"

It's a simple fact, but it's subjective, and there are so many fun games out there in their eyes that they can't finish playing for a year.

BUT IN THE EYES OF MORE PEOPLE, THESE GAMES MAY BE COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE, BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED "GAME EXPERIENCE", MORE PEOPLE SIMPLY CAN'T UNDERSTAND AND CAN'T GET STARTED, NOT TO MENTION THAT THE DIFFICULTY OF LETTING A YOUNG MAN BUY A POWERFUL "PC" OR "XBOX" IS FAR GREATER THAN SELLING HIS BODY AND CUTTING HIS KIDNEY TO BUY A NEW "IPHONE"!

We try to summarize this part with an aesthetically pleasing expression –

The Big Bang has pushed a huge number of newcomers into the cities, who have enough money to "invest in the future" before they even have time to see the world, and unknowingly dominate the future.

A lot of the invectives that I don't agree with can also be explained by this-

Those who get the slings win the world, the more brain-dead they are, the more profitable they are, there are too many fools and there are not enough liars......

In the end, I want to say that there is no right or wrong in the whole thing, all of this is caused by objective factors, there are few subjective action choices, everyone makes their own choices within their vision, invests in the future, and all kinds of mutual criticism is actually a struggle for their own interests, and there is no high or low right or wrong.