This was destined to be a turbulent summer movie season. The Dark Knight Rises seemed to have been cursed, as all sorts of strange incidents kept occurring.
On Sunday afternoon, during a screening of The Dark Knight Rises in a large theater in Guadalajara, Mexico's second-largest city, a fire suddenly broke out. Thanks to the timely arrival of firefighters, more than 800 audience members were safely evacuated. Fortunately, according to local fire department reports, there were no casualties.
But that wasn't the end of it.
That evening, Ohio police confirmed they had arrested a man carrying firearms and knives in a theater, and upon searching his residence, found a large stockpile of weapons and ammunition.
According to the Ohio police announcement, they were alerted by a theater manager who noticed the man's suspicious behavior. Upon inspection, they discovered a loaded Glock pistol, two large-capacity magazines filled with bullets, and four knives inside his military-style bag.
This incident once again pushed The Dark Knight Rises to the center of controversy.
Protest groups began appearing in Washington, D.C., strongly demanding that The Dark Knight Rises be forcibly pulled from theaters.
With so many incidents occurring in succession, it was impossible for The Dark Knight Rises to avoid negative effects. The first to take the hit was, naturally, its North American box office performance.
Although no official data was released, and the routine North American weekly box office ranking was canceled by relevant agencies, well-informed insiders still learned that after earning another $52.13 million on Sunday, The Dark Knight Rises took in $205.38 million during its opening weekend in North America.
It became the second film in North American history to surpass $200 million in its opening weekend. However, compared to expectations from the public and Warner Bros.—hoping for box office results on par with The Avengers—the gap was still quite apparent.
In other words, The Dark Knight Rises did not meet expectations.
As Duke had said, perhaps the shooting incident had drawn too much attention, pushing The Dark Knight Rises beyond the realm of cinema itself. Overseas curiosity and discussion exploded, driving the film's international box office to a massive $350 million across nearly 100 countries and regions, pushing its global total past the $500 million mark—to a staggering $551.27 million!
All these events made The Dark Knight Rises a constant topic of conversation. Compared to traditional media, the tone on the Internet was more relaxed and less prone to political overreach.
On Instant Share, someone commented on the Ohio police arrest that Sunday:
"The truth is, the 37-year-old man from Ohio, Scott Smith, was terrified after seeing reports of the Santa Monica mall shooting. He feared someone might attempt a copycat crime in his local theater, but he still really wanted to see the movie. So, he made a tough decision—to bring a Glock pistol and several knives with him to the theater, just in case. Then… he got arrested."
Voices like this gave Duke and Warner Bros. some relief—most movie fans still stood firmly on the side of The Dark Knight Rises.
"Those psychopaths are trying to ruin this movie!"
"The North American box office reportedly missed expectations—it's totally those bastards' fault!"
"The shooting and the movie are two different things! Don't blame Batman!"
Some movie fans, more amused than outraged, joked on their Instant Share and Twitter:
"I can only say Duke's film is badass. Sure, maybe kids might imitate it, but James Holmes was an adult… if he copied anything, blame his twisted mind."
The debate over The Dark Knight Rises was far from over.
Since the film was released in China at the same time, even media outlets across the Pacific joined the discussion.
"The Batman shooting is a tragedy of American laws and institutions, not a tragedy of Hollywood cinema!"
That was the title of an article from a southern newspaper across the Pacific—a clear and strong stance.
"A 25-year-old American named James Holmes opened fire on the audience during a screening of The Dark Knight Rises at the Santa Monica mall in the Greater Los Angeles area, killing 12 and injuring 58. This was not only a shocking tragedy in the United States but also sparked global discussion."
"Because the shooter was obsessed with a character from the film and showed signs of imitation, some believe the movie corrupted him. This view is biased. First, the killer hadn't even seen the new movie—if anything, he was imitating Heath Ledger's earlier portrayal of the character. Secondly, films often feature villains guilty of heinous crimes—if we wish to prevent imitation, then nearly all movies except motivational ones must be banned."
"In fact, mentally sound individuals can distinguish between the world of cinema and reality. They know what behaviors are acceptable and which are forbidden. In this sense, the killer imitating Heath Ledger's Joker is no different from a child jumping off a building with a broom after watching Harry Potter—mistaking illusion for reality. Such people are sick, even insane, but since the former harmed innocents, he is far worse."
"Every society has its share of deranged individuals. You can't imprison them before they commit crimes, but America's gun laws amplify and worsen this contradiction. What's worse, although the problem is well known, the American system cannot solve it. Issues that seem simple elsewhere are politically obscured in the U.S. The two biggest political debates—guns and abortion—split the nation evenly, making resolution impossible."
"The right to bear arms is written into the U.S. Constitution—it's considered a sacred right by many Americans. Outsiders often find this incomprehensible, as do many Americans who support gun control."
"In short, what Americans need to reflect on is not the movie, but their laws and system."
Although The Dark Knight Rises was not pulled from release in China, the treatment it received was hardly favorable. Under the heavy-handed "Great Scissors" domestic protection policy, Duke's film was released in China on the same day as Sony Columbia's The Amazing Spider-Man, which directly turned the latter into a tragedy...
The clustering of so many Hollywood films together was the direct result of this scheduling protection.
It could be said that the end of one domestic protection month in this market merely marked the disguised beginning of another. This unwritten tradition of "keeping foreign films outside the release window" sparked widespread debate, discussion, commentary, and ridicule among Chinese moviegoers—Why must there be a default domestic protection month? Is the protection month policy reasonable? Why has it aroused so much controversy and dissatisfaction? Can a protection month truly protect domestic films? Can such a policy serve local audiences and the market? Do other countries also set up protection months to safeguard their own films?
To be fair, in resisting Hollywood's large-scale invasion and supporting domestic film industries, this has been a fundamental stance adopted by most countries developing their cinema industries. Imposing certain restrictions on the circulation of Hollywood films within domestic markets to create space for local films is an understandable practice. Countries such as South Korea, France, and Italy have all implemented mandatory quota systems for Hollywood films.
Protecting and supporting domestic films is a necessary and expected policy direction for every nation—but why, then, does it cause such enormous controversy in China?
Having once lived in that country and now conducting his own research, Duke could naturally see part of the reason. This was inseparable from the overly simple and heavy-handed approach of the "Great Scissors."
During the one-to-two-month-long release window, only domestic films of varying quality—big or small—competed for screens, with Hollywood blockbusters almost completely cut off. From the audience's perspective, such excessive protection eliminated diversity, choice, and the sense of service. From the domestic film perspective, the overcrowding and jostling among large, medium, and small productions during that period often led to hastily made or poorly considered films flooding the market. The protection month was not an invincible fortress—it still required local films to deliver genuine quality.
Therefore, although the original intention of the protection month was to safeguard domestic films, on the other hand, it infringed upon the rights of the audience, losing popular support and depriving Chinese moviegoers of choice.
During Warner Bros.' Greater China market survey, one cinema representative put it bluntly—Hollywood indeed poses a great impact on Chinese films, but the fundamental problem lies in the poor quality of Chinese films themselves. From the audience's standpoint, of course they will choose to watch good movies.
Do other countries also have something like a so-called protection month?
...
Hi For access to additional chapters of
Director in Hollywood (40 chpaters)
Made In Hollywood (60 Chapters)
Pokemon:Bounty Hunter(30 Chapters)
Hollywood:From Razzie to Legend(40 Chapters)
The Great Ruler (30 Chapters)
Join pateron.com/Translaterappu