Summary of the Key Points
"Niulai" is a domestically produced animated film that is so poorly made as to be "shocking": its 3D modeling looks like the work of a beginner, the animations are stiff, and the plot is empty. In the first 10 days, it only earned 7,700 yuan at the box office (with fewer than 200 viewers nationwide). However, after it became a trending topic due to its poor quality, the number of screenings surged from 4 to 2,500, and the box office revenue exceeded 1.3 million yuan, with predictions suggesting it could eventually reach 18.37 million yuan. This success is not an example of a miraculous comeback but rather the result of a combination of factors: audience curiosity, flaws in the industry's processes, cinemas' pursuit of profit, and the way mass entertainment tends to deconstruct serious topics.
Detailed Analysis
1. The Audience
What viewers are buying is not just a movie ticket but also a social "ticket" to feel like they are part of a trending event. No one went to see "Niulai" in hopes of enjoying a good film; instead, they bought the opportunity to join in on the conversation about this controversial topic. It's similar to lining up at a popular online store just to post about how terrible the movie is on social media and feel like they are part of a collective discussion. The fear is missing out on the conversation (a phenomenon known as "fear of missing out"). Moreover, for a few dozen yuan, they get something that everyone is talking about, making it a very cost-effective experience. In fact, watching "Niulai" is almost guaranteed to be disappointing since it's likely to be even worse than expected, which provides a sense of certainty that reassures viewers compared to watching highly rated films that could potentially disappoint.
2. The Industry
The production process in the industry is fair, but quality often takes a backseat; "completion" is more important than "quality." The creators of "Niulai" are a mother and daughter who handled all aspects of the film, including writing the script, providing voiceovers, and producing the soundtrack. The production company, formerly a decoration firm with a registered capital of 100,000 yuan, had only one employee contributing to social insurance. How did such an "amateur" team obtain a theatrical release license? The answer is that while the process is fair, the criteria focus on completion rather than quality. As long as you complete your work and submit it for review, you may get approval—even if it's incredibly bad. This reveals a flaw in the industry's review system: it cares more about whether something has been done rather than whether it's good.
3. The Cinemas
Cinemas increase screenings of "Niulai" not out of emotional connection to the creators but as a shrewd business move. They consider only whether people are buying tickets when deciding whether to show a film. When "Niulai" became a nationwide topic, cinemas saw an opportunity to make money by adding more screenings, scheduling it during prime times, and even showing it in Dolby theaters. Some cinema managers claimed that it sold better than "Odyssey"—because the popularity directly translated into profits. Cinemas are essentially businesses that support projects with high viewership, regardless of artistic value.
4. The Times
In an era where AI can generate thousands of animation frames in a day, manually made films like "Niulai" have become a rarity. Its poor quality represents a genuine failure, a result of the creators' dedication over five years. This kind of "crude beauty" (the awkwardness of human craftsmanship versus the mechanical flatness of AI) is unique. What's more noteworthy is how serious discussions about the film's production (such as censorship and the phenomenon of inferior products displacing better ones) have been turned into memes and jokes by the public. It's not that people don't care; rather, serious conversations are too exhausting, and using humor to lighten the mood allows them to avoid feeling overwhelmed. This is a common trend among contemporary consumers: using entertainment to deal with all seriousness.
In Conclusion
The sudden popularity of "Niulai" does not signify a revival of bad films but reflects our era's fascination with extremes and our tendency to avoid serious topics, as well as the loopholes in industry regulations. After laughing at such a poorly made film, we might wonder: if poor-quality content can easily generate profits, could more similar works emerge in the future? The idea that inferior products can outcompete better ones might not be just a joke.