Summary of the Core Content
The animated film “Niulai” became an unexpected sensation due to its extreme bad quality: starting with daily box office earnings of just a few hundred yuan at the beginning of its release, setting a new low for annual animated films, it suddenly experienced a surge in ticket sales (ranging from 350,000 to 770,000 yuan per day) driven by widespread curiosity online, and the number of screenings increased dramatically, turning it into a form of “collective art of criticism” involving everyone. The author analyzes the accidental factors that led to its success and criticizes some media outlets (such as the Beijing News) for focusing on blaming the audience while avoiding discussing the issues surrounding production and censorship. They believe such a phenomenon is unlikely to be replicated and should not happen again.
Detailed Analysis
1. The Box Office Curve: A Magical Reversal from “Worst of the Year” to “Daily Blockbuster”
The box office performance of “Niulai” is almost a case of black humor: on its first day, it only earned 3,420 yuan, with 16 tickets even being refunded; in the first nine days, the total revenue was only 7,169 yuan, and the lowest daily income was 188 yuan, making it the “worst-performing animated film at the box office of the year.” However, on August 15th, there was a dramatic turnaround: daily ticket sales soared from less than 4,000 yuan to 350,000–770,000 yuan, and the number of screenings increased from 16 to over 2,000, with total revenue exceeding one million yuan. This contrast is as absurd as a “little-known film suddenly becoming an internet sensation.”
2. Why Did the Audience Choose to “Suffer” for the Fun? The Secret to Collective Curiosity
The audience wasn’t there to watch a “good movie”; instead, they were determined to see how bad it was. The atmosphere at the theaters was quite surreal: one viewer shared that when the last person entered and said, “So many people came to watch this trash,” the whole theater burst into laughter. The film’s use of Northeastern dialect in the soundtrack and rough animation design provided frequent moments of humor, and despite the criticism, the audience left applauding, saying, “It’s been a long time since we’ve had such pure entertainment.” Essentially, it was a form of collective behavior art—everyone together criticizing the bad movie, resulting in a stronger sense of interaction and release than watching a serious film would have.
3. The Accidental Factors That Contributed to Its Success: Why Only “Niulai”?
The success of “Niulai” was due to a combination of several fortunate circumstances:
- No Marketing + Reverse Traffic Generation: No marketing efforts were made; the film’s popularity came from online ridicule, attracting curious viewers.
- Deceptive Poster Design: The ink-wash style poster looked like that of a high-quality animated film, but the actual animation quality was poor, creating a stark contrast.
- The Name’s Fortunate Connotation: The title “Niulai” (which sounds similar to “bull market”) made it appealing to stock investors who saw buying a ticket as a lucky gesture, further expanding its audience.
- Collective Curiosity: The film’s extreme bad quality turned it into a unique form of entertainment.
The author believes these factors are unlikely to be replicated, and censorship would likely prevent similar films from passing in the future, meaning there won’t be another “Niulai.”
4. Who Should the Media Blame? The Beijing News’ Avoidance of the Real Issues
The Beijing News criticized the audience for sustaining the film’s popularity through curiosity, but the author sees this as missing the bigger picture: the real questions are—how was the film made? How did it pass censorship? Were there any rumors about the film receiving government support funds? By focusing on the audience instead of the root causes, the media are avoiding the more important issues.
5. Reflection on the Phenomenon of Bad Films: A Casual Outburst or a Warning for the Industry?
The author compares this to the Vasa Ship Museum in Sweden: although the Vasa sank on its maiden voyage, it has become an important historical artifact due to being preserved intact. However, “Niulai” will likely not be remembered as a classic in film history; it was just a temporary source of entertainment. Such phenomena are rare and should not happen again. They argue that while such films may bring short-term popularity, they are not beneficial to the industry. What’s more important is addressing the underlying issues with production and censorship.
Conclusion
The success of “Niulai” is like a bizarre interlude in the summer—people remember the fun of a group of “crazy people causing a ruckus,” but the underlying problems in the film industry should not be ignored. Such casual entertainment is unlikely to recur, and we need more good films rather than speculative works that rely on being bad to attract attention.