The truth about the changed ending of Tencent's Fight Club | Fight Club | Chilling Effect |

Hello everyone, my name is Marley. This is a small channel that advocates thinking and tearing fifty cents by hand. In each issue, we will combine a political and economic case to discuss the reasons behind it and different thinking dimensions.

This 1999 film directed by David Fincher and starring Edward Norton and Brad Pitt was recently released on Tencent Video. This top-level film with a score of 9 on Douban was discovered by netizens that the ending was changed. It was changed to an ending that suits the core values of socialism, that is, as shown in the picture, the police arrested all the criminals and "prevented the explosion of the bomb". In addition, the protagonist "Taylor" was sent to a mental hospital for treatment and was later discharged. In order to avoid spoilers, I will not introduce the ending of the original version in detail here. I believe that the friends who have seen this movie know what the real ending is like. The most paradoxical thing is that "Taylor", played by handsome guy Pi, is actually a fictional character in the play, so the change in this ending can be said to completely subvert the intention of the entire film, and it is vividly reconciled into a new film.

Speaking of which, some netizens have found that it is not the first time that such a situation has occurred in the Tencent version of Hollywood movies. "Lord of War" (Lord of War) starring Nicolas Cage was also found to have modified the ending last year, and Fight Club's method is the same. They are forced to add subtitles at the end of the film, that is, the so-called bad guys are finally punished by the law. And friends who have seen this film also know that the real ending is not like this.

As soon as the Tencent special edition came out, many netizens exclaimed, "Is this bullying me for not seeing the original version?" The general public opinion on the Internet has pointed the culprit to Tencent, but so far, we do not know whether this is the film's self-castration, or the review agency requested the deletion, because neither Tencent Video nor the copyright owner Disney responded to the matter. . It is not uncommon for the plot and even the ending of the movie to be harmonized and modified in domestic and Hong Kong-produced films. I gave a detailed introduction in the two issues of "Hong Kong Director's Fallen History". It is a co-production film. In order to avoid the trouble of later review, the Ministry of Truth has already been involved in the main production links such as script writing and actor selection, so as to ensure that the film will definitely meet the review requirements. Even if it fails, there will be a double ending. Plans, such as the first Infernal Affairs in the mainland version, did not give Liu Tianwang a chance to be a good person again.

For old Hollywood films that have been released overseas for many years, after entering the Chinese market, in addition to being castrated, they can also modify the plot. As shown in the title, a few lines of subtitles can completely change the direction and direction of a literary and artistic work. The director's original intention, this can also be regarded as an eternal spectacle of world film history. I don't know how David Fincher felt when he saw this ending. For countless fighting fans who regarded this film as a masterpiece, it was undoubtedly a gang rape and insult to the audience's collective IQ.

At the beginning, we mentioned that many people pointed the finger at Tencent and China's censorship system. Is it Tencent's self-consciousness, or the registration certificate of overseas filmmakers, or the game of licensing. I don't think any of that matters anymore. Aside from the original intention of the artist, first of all, this is a commercial film. Since it is a commercial film, one fact we need to recognize is whether the seller can make money.

Let's talk about profit drivers first. As the world's largest consumer market, as a capital and market, this temptation is indeed unstoppable. As we all know, as a movie, in addition to the box office revenue at the time, the most hope of the copyright owner is that the work can continue to make money for him, which is the so-called long-tail traffic, which includes the retail and online sales of physical CDs. Streaming Media Income. In theory, as long as someone is still watching a film, no matter how long it has passed, the copyright owner will benefit. With the phasing out of DVD players and the development of Internet technology, there is no doubt that online streaming media is the main force of long-tail revenue, and it can also greatly increase the exposure of long-tail films at almost zero cost. Before the establishment of China's digital genuine channels, didn't they know that everyone who procured Hollywood blockbusters for so many years? Of course I know, but the copyright owner has almost no choice. If a lawsuit is to be filed, the defendant is an astronomical figure, and it is impossible to specify a subject at all. So, just prostitute for nothing. It's different now. China has a large streaming media platform like Aiyouteng, and they can finally spend money to buy movies, and old movies that were missed in Chinese cinemas can also enter the market through this channel. The platform uses movie IP to increase Traffic, the copyright can sell the cold rice again, whether it is a sale or a split, no matter how small a mosquito is, it is meat*, * In addition, many of the original prostitutes are still willing to pay for their own feelings. Yes, according to China's traffic base, it is also a considerable amount of income. Do you think the copyright owner can not be greedy?

Therefore, I personally think that there is a high probability that the copyright owner recognizes that the ending is harmonious. In a capitalist society, who would feel bad about money?

Having said that capitalism has no bottom line, let's talk about feelings. It should be noted that the sentiment here refers to a social psychological effect. So the second reality we need to recognize is that, at least for free speech, the "chilling effect" of globalization has gradually taken shape.

The so-called "chilling effect" is called Chilling Effect in English. Originally a legal term, it refers to the psychological deterrence of people because of legal judgments or some negative news in the society, and then a phenomenon that everyone is in danger. For China, the most obvious is that since the implementation of the National Security Law in Hong Kong, countless media have been suppressed and controlled, and many independent media and publishers have also announced to stop operating. This is a typical chilling effect and self-censorship, not them Bought or coerced, but a natural psychosocial effect. For the West, the typical phenomenon is to be cautious about leftist values such as race and feminism, and become submissive, and the whole society shows a kind of deliberate egalitarianism. I have a lot of interesting cases in the issue of American Political Correctness. If you are interested, you can read them. The most obvious manifestation of the "chilling effect" is the rise of "self-censorship", and this self-censorship marks the degradation of creativity and the lack of freedom in the whole society.

Many people think that self-censorship only exists in totalitarian countries, but in fact, as long as it has negative effects, it will appear in any system of countries.

PEN America released a report in 2013 titled "The Chilling Effect: The NSA Leads to Writers' Self-Censorship", the results of a survey of more than 520 American writers in the wake of the Snowden snooping incident that year. It shows that 16% of people said they would deliberately avoid writing on controversial topics, and 11% were thinking about it. A much larger percentage avoid discussing some topics via phone calls, emails and social media. In early 2015, PEN America released a global version of the report, which surveyed nearly 800 writers around the world. More than one-third of writers living in free countries also said that since the Snowden incident was exposed, they have been Avoid speaking or writing on specific topics, with over 75% of writers worried about government surveillance. According to a 2016 Harvard report on the Chilling Effect: Online Surveillance and the Use of Wikipedia, articles currently flagged as privacy-sensitive have seen a significant drop in traffic since June 2013 , even though many browsing behaviors may not be related to national security, the government's small actions do make ordinary people more inclined to self-censorship and restrictions.

Therefore, on the surface, the chilling effect and self-censorship are the self-renunciation of the people's instinctual protection of their own interests and rights under certain circumstances. This is the case in a country with relatively free speech, not to mention a totalitarian country?

Having said that, we will talk about the transnational nature of the chilling effect. As we said at the beginning, it is no longer an exception for foreign capital to sacrifice its own values in order to gain access to the Chinese market. Which giant, Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, or Sony, doesn't slogan while sneaking licks. I have said before that the essence of capitalism is to regard the pursuit of profit as a mission and the value of self-existence, and this value is not how much money capitalists and shareholders have to earn and how prosperous and rich, but the existence of enterprises is to create Value, which is generally divided into social value and commercial value. In countries with relatively sound rule of law and business environment, such as Western society, business giants have completed stable capital accumulation, that is to say, the pursuit of pure income is not the only goal, but more to reflect the value and value derived from the brand. Influence, and take part in social responsibility, such as the innovation of new technologies, various foundations, non-profit organizations, etc. For a consumer market like China, the mission of these multinational companies is relatively simple. To put it bluntly, it is to make money. Because in addition to making money, China's market environment does not have many conditions to realize the social value of enterprises, and it is very good to solve some employment problems incidentally.

Therefore, for foreign companies, the only condition for you to make money in China is to sacrifice your freedom of speech and social responsibility. Although this has been criticized, this is the tram dilemma that foreign companies need to face. After so many years of ups and downs, the capitalists know much more about what kind of country China is than us leeks. I once gave an example of Apple’s removal of an app supporting Hong Kong protesters. Cook’s explanation was that we respect different values, but we must abide by Chinese laws. As for Cook's position, let's start regardless of whether he is right or wrong, but this is a very make sense decision. The so-called make sense is a reasonable decision in line with the current situation. From a logical point of view, a reasonable decision is nothing more than a judgment of right and wrong and values. It is only the most beneficial decision for the party concerned. If he does not do this, it may affect the interests of countless dealers, the interests of Chinese employees, and the interests of shareholders. Benefit. If one company does this, it will inevitably lead to more companies doing it, so it is not difficult to understand why Apple is doing this, Microsoft is doing this, and Tesla is doing this. This has gradually formed a chilling effect of foreign capital entering the Chinese market. To put it simply, it is an instinct to seek advantages and avoid disadvantages. It is not that Chinese foreign-funded enterprises have no sense of morality and social responsibility, but there are not many options for them.

Let's go back to the incident of "Fight Club". Maybe as the main creator, it is unacceptable for every person who engages in art to forcibly change his own work. In recent years, Hollywood movies have been politically correct and not enterprising. and over-industrialization, leading good actors and directors to gradually switch to the TV drama and stage play market, and invisibly narrowing their creative space. As a literary and artistic work that needs to reflect commercial value, the self-censorship caused by the chilling effect is undoubtedly became the least costly decision. The simplicity and rudeness of the Chinese market, and the danger of everyone, also prompted this chilling effect to become more and more obvious.

Regardless of the East or the West, the root cause of the chilling effect lies in the deterrence and influence of state violence and public power, but it is not unsolvable. As the ideological confrontation between China and the West has become stronger in recent years, from the human nature, no one is willing to be shrouded in a deterrent force forever, so they will naturally vote with their feet. From the perspective of capital, when another alternative and emerging markets emerge, it is natural to choose to be a flying butterfly.

Taking the American film and television culture industry as an example, with the rise of emerging streaming media such as Netfilx, Amazon, **Disney+**, a large number of well-produced, open-minded, and bold original dramas have gradually replaced Americans and more People who speak freely are attracted back to the living room. This subscription system greatly ensures cash flow, and stimulates the activity and self-selectivity of users. Phenomenal works based on user behavior and preferences are also emerging in an endless stream, from house of cards to squid games, which all reflect this. Therefore, the living space of traditional Hollywood factories will be further compressed and diverted, and it will also force the transformation of the business models of Hollywood factories. This may be the best response to the chilling effect.

For China, the chilling effect caused by the censorship system is undoubtedly devastating. It will make things worse for the cultural and creative industry, which has no creativity except for a little money. Finally, a lion dance boy is created, and he is scolded and humiliated. In China, the original IP will be increasingly exhausted in the future. Then you can only continue to buy other people's things. Now you can force other people's leftovers to change the seasoning. In the future, when no one else sells it to you, it is estimated that you won't even be able to find a BT seed.

Eat the food of foreigners, don't smash other people's pots, overseas is not a place outside the law, I hope you are careful in your words and deeds.