Summary of the Key Points
Despite being widely recognized as a "bad movie," *Niulai* surprisingly became a huge hit in theaters and on the internet, turning into a nationwide frenzy of mocking its flaws. The essence of this phenomenon is not a victory for film art but rather an example of how internet check-in culture has "occupied" the theater space. Audiences didn't go there to watch a movie; they were there to join in the trend, share memes, and vent their emotions. Behind this farce lies public dissatisfaction with the film industry, the ephemeral nature of the traffic-driven economy, and the unique role of theaters as scarce public venues. However, it all amounts to a meaningless release of emotions.
1. *Niulai* Didn't Become Popular Because of the Movie Itself, but Because of "Check-in Watching"
Have you ever experienced going to a popular online restaurant only to find the food unpleasant, yet still taking a photo to post on social media? *Niulai* is the theater version of this phenomenon. The article points out that before attending the movie, audiences were already familiar with the "highlight moments" from short videos—knowing exactly when to laugh and when to criticize. The odd looks from ticket sellers and the unspoken understanding among viewers all indicate that their real purpose was not to enjoy the film itself but to complete a task: to take screenshots, post on social media, and participate in this nationwide meme game. When people left the theater, they would call it an "epoch-making work"—but whether this was praise or sarcasm doesn't really matter; what matters is that they felt like they had been part of it.
This reflects how internet check-in culture has taken over theaters, turning them into offline social venues—not places for watching movies but for showing off, much like going to Disney not to enjoy the rides but to prove one's presence.
2. Don't Compare *Niulai* with *The Room*
Some compare *Niulai* to the foreign flop *The Room*, but the author argues that this is a misunderstanding.
The success of *The Room* was an internal meme among film enthusiasts: people who understood film used its flaws to reinforce their sense of "taste community"—like friends mocking a bad movie to show they appreciated good ones. They even made the first viewing of *The Room* a ritualistic experience. In contrast, *Niulai*'s popularity was spread digitally; no one started it, and it attracted casual internet users rather than film fans. People weren't there to criticize the movie but to release their emotions. Therefore, *The Room* represents a "taste alliance," while *Niulai* represents an "emotion alliance."
3. Why Did Box Office Drops from 130 Million to 70 Million?
The predicted box office for *Niulai* started at 130 million but then plummeted to 70 million. Why? Because the logic of online traffic is that it comes quickly and goes just as fast. When your social media is filled with screenshots from *Niulai* and short videos with the same memes, the novelty wears off—just like browsing ten identical viral videos. The thrill of online traffic lies in being the first; once everyone has participated, it loses its appeal.
Thus, the decline in *Niulai*'s box office was inevitable since it had no substantial content to retain viewers and relied solely on a temporary trend. Once the hype faded, people stopped supporting it.
4. The Claim of "Rebellious Against Capital"? Just Self-Comfort
Some see *Niulai*'s success as ordinary people resisting capitalism—for example, the director's five-year effort and his mother's financial support being seen as a rejection of the capitalist production process, or audiences buying tickets for a bad movie as a form of voting against authority. The author exposes this illusion:
- Mocking a bad movie is still contributing to the traffic economy (buying tickets, sharing content all generate traffic).
- The most effective way to resist poor quality content is to avoid it altogether, not to support it with money. Watching a bad movie means you still find it enjoyable, you're just giving yourself a fancy excuse.
In reality, people are dissatisfied with the film industry but don't dare to criticize other things (like leaders or capital), so they target the film industry as a safe target. It allows them to vent their anger without risk.
5. Theaters Become "Emotional Dumping Grounds," But That's Not the Future of Cinema
Another reason *Niulai* became popular is that theaters are one of the few remaining legal public places for gatherings. Nowadays, what other place allows people to gather and laugh or criticize together? So, people pour out their frustrations with life and the industry on movies. *Niulai* served as an outlet: it was so bad that it could accommodate all these emotions—people could criticize it, make memes, and even use it as a symbol of resistance.
However, this is not good for the film industry. Theaters, once seen as places for spreading film art, have become tools for emotional expression rather than artistic dissemination. The value of movies has been overshadowed by traffic and spectacle.
In conclusion, the craze around *Niulai* will eventually pass. Once the hype fades, people will return to their regular habits, and the industry's problems will remain unchanged. Perhaps the only lesson from this is that when people can't find an appropriate outlet for their emotions, even something as worthless as *Niulai* can be packaged as something appealing. But this doesn't solve any real issues.
(The entire analysis is written in plain language, without technical jargon, to help you understand the logic behind this "flop craze."