Controversy Arises as “All or Nothing” Violates Rules of Film Screening
This summer, the Chinese film industry saw a surge in domestic productions hitting the big screen. “The Missing She”, “In the Octagonal Cage”, “Three Thousand Miles in Chang’an”, and “Fengshen Part I” were just a few of the highly anticipated films that were released. However, amidst the buzzing market, a new movie called “All or Nothing” caused uproar as it violated the principles of fairness and justice in the industry.
Screening is a common strategy employed by filmmakers to generate buzz and create anticipation for their films. Typically, screenings are held in a limited number of cities and showtimes, about a week before the official release. The purpose of these screenings is to garner positive word-of-mouth and spark interest among potential viewers. However, this unwritten rule of “small-scale” screenings has been taken advantage of by “All or Nothing”.
The controversy surrounding “All or Nothing” stems from the film crew’s decision to extend the screening period to an impressive 7-hour window, covering prime time throughout the day. Moreover, spot screenings were organized all over the country, deviating from the traditional limited scope of screenings. The film had been promoting itself through various preview videos, which successfully attracted a large audience. It began screening a week before the official release, securing a considerable 15.4% of the film schedule on the first day, earning 172 million yuan ($25.3 million) at the box office. By the third day, the cumulative box office had reached 537 million yuan ($79 million), making it the highest-grossing film in Chinese history. In response to the outcry from other films that had been squeezed out of their scheduled screenings due to “All or Nothing”, the film studio was forced to reschedule the official release to August 8th, the fourth day of screening.
The negative impact of “All or Nothing’s” unorthodox approach to screenings was not fully mitigated by its official release. In the film industry, release schedules are meticulously planned and shared with the audience. These schedules act as agreements between the studios and the viewers and also serve as reference points for other films when choosing release dates. By disrupting this system, “All or Nothing” not only violated the spirit of the contract but also caused a ripple effect by squeezing the screen time of other officially released films.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with screenings, there are rules that ought to be followed. The screening events organized by “All or Nothing” were not excessive in number, but they trickled into the official release period and enjoyed the benefits of both worlds. This behavior not only contravened the principles of fairness and justice but also disrupted the market order, resulting in a greater share of the screening schedule for the film compared to its counterparts. Although the short-term effects may appear positive, in the long run, such large-scale screenings during the pre-release period should not be considered “normal market behavior”. Without proper regulation, this kind of violation could lead to a domino effect, causing unfair competition and hindering the healthy growth of the film industry.
The controversy surrounding “All or Nothing” has shed light on the need for stricter guidelines and clearer rules regarding film screenings. As the industry continues to thrive, it is crucial to establish a fair and equitable environment that fosters competition while safeguarding the interests of all parties involved.