Any industry in any country or region will certainly have to take many detours in the process of maturing and developing, just as it is not smooth sailing for the Hollywood film industry to reach its current scale, and the development of this industry on the other side of the Pacific has also encountered various difficulties. Pen & Fun & Pavilion www.biquge.info

Some difficulties are inevitable for the industry, while others are to some extent artificial.

For example, in the last few years when Murphy lived there, some films caused a lot of public opinion because of the scoring problems of related movie websites.

I don't know what kind of pressure or what kind of capital it represents, but the state-level official media over there actually published an article, saying that 'bad reviews hurt the film industry', and even induced more exaggerated words such as 'the movie score of a certain film website, let me believe you anymore'.

It is undeniable that these websites do have malicious personal attacks, and individual self-media and public accounts publish malicious and irresponsible remarks for the purpose of eyeballs, circle fans, traffic monetization, etc., but it is really speechless to use this way to block the mouth of the public.

The film is poor, and people who buy tickets to watch it are not allowed to say that it is bad, how can such media be described by the word NB?

In that special social environment, in order to protect themselves, some movie websites can only delete some poor ratings and leave higher ratings to maintain the correctness of their own forward alignment.

"Under the guidance of these low ratings, many viewers are disappointed in domestic films, and even refuse to watch domestic films because of this, which seriously hurts the domestic film industry."

I'm afraid that such remarks hurt the film industry more than bad reviews, right?

For some movies, isn't it bad without bad reviews? Ban those movie rating websites, and in the future, the Internet will be full of praises, can it be proved that it is not rotten?

No matter which film market, it is necessary to recognize that the audience has the right to "vote with their feet", which means that the audience has the right to "star rating", which is a choice.

Before watching a movie, go to the Internet to see the relevant ratings, and after watching the movie, go to the website to write a review, and give a score, whether in North America or on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, it has become a movie-watching habit for many Internet users.

On the open platform of the Internet, I exchange feelings and share opinions with my neighbors, which not only enriches my own movie-watching experience, but also solves the problem of asymmetry of movie information.

There will definitely be people who are extreme, angry, and find faults, but the sample size is large enough to reflect the overall perception and attitude of most people.

Of course, just as there are as many people as there are people who like it, there are also people on both sides of the Pacific Ocean who should see that in the open field of public opinion, there is indeed a disorder in the evaluation of movies.

On the scoring platform, there are both good and bad reviews; Even professional film critics have no shortage of malicious bad reviews that attract attention, and even "personal attacks".

It can be said that there is an open market and open public opinion, there will inevitably be pressure brought about by various unexpected circumstances, for such a situation, it is necessary to reasonably guide and properly solve, rather than a slap on the head, just save time and effort to make a one-size-fits-all, "the bath water is dirty, you can't throw out the children in the basin", this should be the consensus.

However, then again, will the film really be ruined by "one star"? Will the film ecology really be affected by "bad reviews"? As long as anyone with no problem with their head can see clearly, this is simply impossible.

Otherwise, not to mention the fledgling film industry on the other side of the Pacific, Hollywood's popcorn commercial production would have been finished long ago, where would there be today's scale and madness?

In Murphy's view, watching a movie is like eating, you can know if it's delicious or not, and you can't say that it's not delicious, but you question other people's tastes.

In the final analysis, the quality of a movie is not "say you can do it, you can do it, and if you can't do it", it is not "say no, you can't do it, you can't do it".

Just imagine, movies like "The Dark Knight" or "The Shawshank Redemption", if they don't talk about high-completion works, how can they gather so much "tap water" and rely on the market and word-of-mouth to complete the counterattack? From another point of view, how much of a movie that relies on "little fresh meat", "five-cent special effects", and "hype scandals" to attract attention, even if you buy 10,000 "five-star praises", in the end it will just become a laughing stock.

Instead of competing with the ratings on the Internet, it is better to reflect on your attitude and improve the quality of the next film.

In fact, some movies can counterattack, and some movies will fail, which in itself means that the audience is becoming more and more mature and will no longer be easily deceived into the cinema by bad movies.

Standing in Murphy's current position, thinking about the Chinese film market in those years, it can only be described as "soaring", his growth in the last few years was 27 percent, 36 percent and a record of nearly 50 percent, and there was even a ridicule in the film industry that "people are stupid, have a lot of money, and come quickly".

But in the last two years, growth slowed sharply, and the market suddenly lost the frenzied atmosphere it had before.

Many people were pessimistic because of this, and Murphy was no exception at that time, but looking at the past from the current position, to some extent, the slowdown in the box office growth at that time was not a sign of a healthier film market.

After all, the premise of the maturity of the film market is that there must be a group of mature audiences.

The box office of a movie is very important, but it is impossible and does not need to be a face-saving project, and it will "grow substantially" every year -- whether it will increase or not, and how much it will grow, should be determined by the market.

Like some media and film companies, it is too embarrassing to eat appearance, voting with feet and star rating This is the most basic right of the audience, just like the North American market and Murphy's films, on some platforms where netizens and audiences rate movies, there are also marketing behaviors of brushing bad reviews or brushing positive reviews, but as long as the platform is big enough and open enough, it can tolerate and even precipitate those impurities.

Of course, the platform should also better improve the scoring mechanism, and try to make it a true reflection of netizens' wishes, whether it is a "one-star bad review" or a "five-star positive review", whether it is a "screening stage" or a "public screening stage".

If a country's film industry doesn't even have the stomach to accommodate "one star", it can simply ban the entire industry.

Compared with engaging in one-size-fits-all and one-word halls, it may be a much more important issue to really come up with works that can stand, spread, and stay.

Combined with those related memories of the past, Murphy is actually very clear that the situation encountered by Fox and "City of Chaos" in the twentieth century is not unique on the other side of the Pacific, and the film market on the other side of the strait is quite chaotic like the initial stage of North America, which can even be described as 'dancing demons'.

At this time, an official organization such as Big Scissors should act as the defender of market order, rather than jumping out to decide the quality of the film for the audience.

Again, many films, it's not that it's good to say it's good, let alone forcefully ask the website to cancel the bad reviews, it will get better.

No movie is born and destined to be a classic or a bad movie, but any film not only needs an audience that can understand and is willing to watch it, but also a filmmaker who can make excellent films and attract audiences to understand.

What happened to "City of Chaos" in the Pacific didn't pay too much attention to Murphy, which was handled enough by Twentieth Century Fox, and he was a Hollywood director, even if he really wanted to do something, he couldn't do it.

Compared with these things, the preparation of "Diego Rose" is the center of his work at this stage.

Beginning in early September, a cast of key actors including Robert Downey Jr., Jonah Hill and James Franco, led by Murphy, made frequent appearances in downtown Los Angeles' Old Chinatown neighborhood to make final preparations for the film's shooting.

Margot Robbie also temporarily ended the filming of "Game of Thrones" and rushed back to Los Angeles from Portsmouth to rehearse with Robert Downey Jr. and prepare to participate in the filming.

For a project like this, which is so small that Murphy has been thinking about and planning for a long time, except for the hesitation and vacillation of the concept at the beginning, the subsequent preparations have been quite smooth, and by the time the time it was close to mid-September 2011, all the work was basically completed and filming was ready to start.

Two days before the start of filming, Murphy went out of his way to bring in Philip Raschel and David Robbie.

"David, the shooting is dominated by natural light, but many locations require you to use equipment to block the light," Murphy made a final explanation to David Robbie, "not only for the indoor scenes, but also for the environment of the exterior location, which also produces a sense of dark and oppressive lighting." ”

"I'm ready." David Robbie looked confident, "I've done field trips to all the locations with the lighting crew. ”

"That's good." Murphy then turned to Philip Raschel and said, "The tone of the shot, in addition to the usual gloom, had to have a yellowish texture to create the feeling of the eighties and nineties of the last century." ”

Philip Raschel had no problem with that, as vintage film cameras and 35mm film helped the crew meet Murphy's requirements.

Murphy reviewed the preparations for each department, and there were basically no problems, even if there were some minor troubles, they could be solved while shooting.

According to his plan, the film "Diego Rose" will officially start filming on September 11, and it will not take more than October 25 at the latest to shoot all the shots, and then take a month and a half to complete the post-editing.

To save time, post-production only had double-digit special effects shots to deal with, and the film's soundtrack was not original, but was added to the music as Murphy had done when he first shot the film. (To be continued.) )