>Studios want to make films that will bring in buckets of money. Audiences in the US are far more willing to go and watch patriotic films than those that question the actions of the military or government.
>A good example of this would be Iron Man 3, which had several minutes of additional footage added in for the Chinese market.
Yeah, doesn't seem like it worked too well for them[0]… if they really wanted to make 'buckets of money' in this case, why not add footage that would resonate with the audience (possibly non DoD supportive stances) instead of irrelevant shots of a local pop star? How can one go about hand-waving this situation that presented itself? They didn't feel like taking the time to understand the Chinese audience? Easier to employ Edward Bernays techniques of misdirection and diversion in order to try and associate good feelings with the movie?
They didn't feel like taking the time to understand the Chinese audience? Easier to employ Edward Bernays techniques of misdirection and diversion in order to try and associate good feelings with the movie?
This is the same film industry that still seems to typecast roles by race, to the point of whitewashing minorities out of leading roles they feel American (read "white") audiences will be uncomfortable with.
I doubt they thought it through much further than "You know what Chinese people want to see? Other Chinese people!"
Possibly, considering all the work that goes into A/B testing in general even in software (even for the most mundane of things with less money on the line than motion picture budgets), I doubt it was that simple.
Besides there's a basic premise behind statements like "You know what Chinese people want to see? Other Chinese people!" that is often overlooked, especially when its used to justify an action meant to display an image or viewpoint of some kind that is usually to the benefit of nobody but the person/company who wants to shape that viewpoint and related parties interests who are aligned with it, no matter how misguided it may appear…
Interestingly enough, they talk about how the technique of 'giving people what they want' as way of control in Adam Curtis' Century of Self in the second half [0; 1h57min]…
Fair enough, I don't know how much effort actually goes into testing recuts of a movie for foreign markets - you're probably right about it being more complicated than I suggest.
Nevertheless, I still believe their primary and overriding goal is making money. If those interests intersect with the interests of the American government in making sure it gets perceived well overseas, so be it, but I don't think major studios are going out of their way to make propaganda consciously.
>I don't think major studios are going out of their way to make propaganda consciously.
I used to think the exact opposite, because being aware of how the interests of the state align with ones monetary goals would enable those to take advantage of situations more so than those who aren't aware… However over time and because of events like those of the nature that took place with Russell Brand being kicked out of the GQ awards, I've taken a more nuanced position.
To me this whole discussion boils down to Murphy's law. We know the DoD is pro-military and has a huge budget for PR. We know making a movie requires a lot of cash (and for most non-scifi movies: props.)
There is need; there is opportunity; there is will on both sides. What can happen, will happen, and has happened.
To what extent I have no idea, but while I haven't yet seen an American-made movie that is wholly critical of the US military and the politics governing it, I wouldn't shout conspiracy. In my opinion, Hollywood is the least nationalistic of all countries' film-community, because it doesn't have to answer to their main audience's constant need for re-affirmation. The rest of the western world may have lost respect for the US the last decade or two, but we still envy the hell out of you, no denying that.
One can't actually blame the military and DoD for attaching strings to any filmmaker who wants an aircraft carrier or fighter jets or what have you. If you want to involve their personnel or their multi-billion dollar equipment (which is, essentially an incorporation of the 'brand' of the US government) in your work, you have to do so on their terms or else go elsewhere. That's not propaganda, that's just the government acting in its own self-interest.
You don't understand how it works, think about it as AB testing. They aren't interested in one movie, they are interested in lots of movies. They will try something different next time.
I'm thinking you didn't read my comment below about AB testing, or detected the sarcasm, or maybe me using the conditional of wanting to make buckets of money in this case wasn't clear enough…
>A good example of this would be Iron Man 3, which had several minutes of additional footage added in for the Chinese market.
Yeah, doesn't seem like it worked too well for them[0]… if they really wanted to make 'buckets of money' in this case, why not add footage that would resonate with the audience (possibly non DoD supportive stances) instead of irrelevant shots of a local pop star? How can one go about hand-waving this situation that presented itself? They didn't feel like taking the time to understand the Chinese audience? Easier to employ Edward Bernays techniques of misdirection and diversion in order to try and associate good feelings with the movie?
[0]: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0510/Chines...