Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies China The Matrix

As Far as China Is Concerned, Keanu Reeves No Longer Exists (msn.com) 149

Posted by EditorDavid from the whoa dept.
"It's no longer possible to watch any content starring Keanu Reeves in China," reports PC Magazine, "and searching for his name returns no results from search engines."

The AV Club explains: Earlier this year, about a month after the release of The Matrix Resurrections, Reeves was announced as a performer at the 35th annual Tibet House Benefit Concert. The concert was organized by Tibet House, a nonprofit founded by supporters of the Dalai Lama that Chinese authorities have labeled "a separatist organization advocating for Tibetan independence," according to The Hollywood Reporter....

Now, after his appearance at the show, it's being reported by the Los Angeles Times that the Matrix movies, Speed, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, The Lake House, and more films from the actor's catalog can no longer be streamed on platforms such as Tencent Video, Youku, and Migu Video.... The one Reeves picture that is still up and available to stream in the country is Toy Story 4 — but that's because the film's credits feature the dubbing cast, not the original cast from the American release.
But it's more than that, notes PC Magazine: As Reuters reports, the Chinese authorities have seemingly wiped the actor's existence from servers across the country.... And with the internet being so restricted and controlled there, it's relatively simple for those in power to digitally disappear someone. So far, Tencent and iQiyi have removed at least 19 of the actor's movies from their streaming platforms, and performing a search for either his English name or its Chinese translation will return zero results from search engines, apparently.
The Los Angeles Times supplies some context: The development emerged just after his latest film "The Matrix: Resurrections" became the first blockbuster to hit Chinese theaters in over two months, ending an unusually prolonged drought of censorship approvals on U.S. titles in a year of rising geopolitical tensions and a further cooling of relations with Hollywood.... "It's a curious case that's worth following. We tend to think of the censorship machine in China as this really coordinated monster, but the fact that we're seeing these conflicting signals [between the online and theatrical markets] suggests that some of these measures come from different places," said Alex Yu, a researcher at China Digital Times, a U.S.-based news organization that translates and archives content censored in China.

It's unclear who ordered the deletions, China's regulatory agencies or platforms acting proactively to remove potentially troublesome content, Yu said.... "Why all of a sudden did they decide to take this measure at this exact moment? It's a question we as outsiders might never be able to answer," Yu said. "The system is so opaque that it's pretty much impossible to pinpoint which agency or person is responsible...."

The ban on Reeves' past works bodes poorly for the China prospects of his upcoming projects. These include animation "DC League of Super-Pets," starring Chinese fan favorite Dwayne Johnson, and the pandemic-delayed sequel "John Wick: Chapter 4," which appears to target mainland viewers with its top billing of Donnie Yen, the Hong Kong action star known for his expressions of loyalty to China's ruling Communist Party....

Despite the original trilogy's popularity, "The Matrix: Resurrections" was a flop in China even before it faced nationalist backlash, grossing only $13.6 million and notching just 5.7 out of 10 on the taste-making ratings platform Douban.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

As Far as China Is Concerned, Keanu Reeves No Longer Exists More

As Far as China Is Concerned, Keanu Reeves No Longer Exists

Comments Filter:
  • How that is real cancel culture!

  • Censorship (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Saturday March 26, 2022 @12:39PM (#62391663) Journal

    If it weren't for censorship, then it's unlikely that Russia would have invaded Ukraine. If the people in Russia knew what was actually going on, then they wouldn't have supported the war.

    This is true for most wars. Censorship gives dictators the power to start wars.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

      That's a nice sentiment... I fear it's a tad naive, but certainly it's a nice one.

      • Well then, explain why you think it's wrong.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nagora ( 177841 )

          Well then, explain why you think it's wrong.

          The main issue, I think, is that Putin didn't actually hold a referendum to see if the people of Russia supported the war or not.

          • Of course, Putin is the one who wanted to go to war. But without the censorship, there would be mass protests in the streets and likely a coup.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by nagora ( 177841 )

              Of course, Putin is the one who wanted to go to war. But without the censorship, there would be mass protests in the streets and likely a coup.

              I dunno. Coups (usually) need the army, and the army seems to be just fine with the invasion. Whether they'll still be fine if they lose is another story.

              • Coups (usually) need the army, and the army seems to be just fine with the invasion.

                The army got the same propaganda as everyone else, so that's the point.

                There are a lot of signs Putin has lost the army. Conscripts of course would rather not fight, but a lot of generals have died, and you have stuff like this [youtube.com].

            • There are protests, (not widely reported in the west) where the few remaining people brave enough to complain about Putin's disgusting actions are beated up and imprisoned by their hundreds. Remember he has also disposed of Navalny and all other political opposition so getting rid of the bastard will be hard.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

            You haven't been paying attention, Putin + regime have been telling people that it's special operations to stop the neo-nazi genocide that Ukrainians have been committing against Russian speaking peoples in Ukraine. The Russian regime says they are not targeting civilians, anyone who reports differently is labelled a terrorist and can be imprisoned for years.

            War, what war?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

          People can be made to support a war quite easily, especially when they think the target is rightfully theirs and a push-over. And doubly so if they think this war won't impact them personally.

          • The famous quote comes to mind:

            “Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacke

            • "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

              This in particular shows why it is important to have free speech. If only the government is talking, then it is easy to convince people they are being attacked. If there are people on the ground showing the other side, it is not so easy to do so.

        • Ever heard of the Salem Witch Trials?

          • The salem witch trials are definitively not a war. Your thinking is kind of fuzzy and you are incapable of explaining your points clearly.

    • If the people in Russia knew what was actually going on, then they wouldn't have supported the war.

      Who says the Russian people support the war? Thousands in Russia have protested the war knowing they risk arrest in doing so. Imagine how many more would have protested if they did not face those consequences.

      • Who says the Russian people support the war?

        I've had long conversations with Russians who support the war. They are afraid that if Russia loses the war, Russia will disintegrate, etc.

        Certainly it is hard to figure out what percentage support the war, but that percentage is absolutely higher than it would be otherwise. The US has no desire to break up Russia. Such fears can only be sustained when one side is censored.

        Note also that when the US invaded Iraq, many people supported it because they thought Bush had "secret evidence" of WMD in Iraq

        • I think that the key word here is "afraid".

        • They are afraid that if Russia loses the war, Russia will disintegrate

          That sentiment is driven by the regime itself. One of the clauses of Russia's nuclear weapons doctrine is that they can be used if the State is under existential risk and the only way to save it is with nuclear retaliation. So Russians thinking Russia itself is under existential risk provides an excuse for Putin to use his nuclear arsenal if at any point he wants to. This also sends other powers the message this particular clause of their doctrine is suspended, so it's better they behave.

        • Note also that when the US invaded Iraq, many people supported it because they thought Bush had "secret evidence" of WMD in Iraq. Once that turned out to be false, support dropped. That shows the problem isn't exactly censorship, but more broadly blocking the free flow of information.

          3/4 of the US population believed Saddam had a hand in 9/11 at the time of the Iraq invasion.

        • I've had long conversations with Russians who support the war. They are afraid that if Russia loses the war, Russia will disintegrate, etc.

          So you've had conversations with some Russians who support the war. And they do not support the war because they believe in the cause. Rather they support it because they fear the consequences of losing.

          Note also that when the US invaded Iraq, many people supported it because they thought Bush had "secret evidence" of WMD in Iraq. Once that turned out to be false, support dropped. That shows the problem isn't exactly censorship, but more broadly blocking the free flow of information.

          And in this case there is ample evidence that many Russians living in Russia do not support the war.

          • And in this case there is ample evidence that many Russians living in Russia do not support the war.

            How many? If you claim to know, you're making things up.

            Whether they support this particular war or not, many support the idea of a very powerful Russia.

        • I've had long conversations with Russians who support the war. They are afraid that if Russia loses the war, Russia will disintegrate, etc.

          Quite possibly true, too.

          Note also that when the US invaded Iraq, many people supported it because they thought Bush had "secret evidence" of WMD in Iraq. Once that turned out to be false, support dropped. That shows the problem isn't exactly censorship, but more broadly blocking the free flow of information.

          In that case the problem was fraud and ignorance. We knew that Saddam used to have WMDs because we sold them to him. We also knew he didn't still have them because the munitions in question have a shelf life, and it was past. Also, because he had used them... on his own people.

    • This [Censorship as a war-preventer] is true for most wars.

      Very arguable. Or are you going to claim that America was subject to comprehensive (or "sufficient") censorship of news in the late 1950s and early 1960s to allow it's armed forces to get deeply involved in the Vietnamese civil war, and there get beaten.

      Censorship gives dictators the power to start wars.

      No, armies and armaments give dictators (and others) the power to start wars. No arms (or, say, guns which fire into your eye as well as firing for

      • "To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem." - Douglas Adams

      • Or are you going to claim that America was subject to comprehensive (or "sufficient") censorship of news in the late 1950s and early 1960s to allow it's armed forces to get deeply involved in the Vietnamese civil war, and there get beaten.

        Yes exactly, it was the Pentagon Papers that finally turned the citizens against the war.

        • Yes exactly, it was the Pentagon Papers that finally turned the citizens against the war.

          The Pentagon Papers were published in the New York Times in 1971; there were many, many mass protests against the Vietnam War long before that.

          • There were mass protests, true, but the war was still popular.

            And most of the protests were also music festivals.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nagora ( 177841 )

        This [Censorship as a war-preventer] is true for most wars.

        Very arguable. Or are you going to claim that America was subject to comprehensive (or "sufficient") censorship of news in the late 1950s and early 1960s to allow it's armed forces to get deeply involved in the Vietnamese civil war, and there get beaten.

        Oh yes. Very much so.

      • There's a game theory problem. Pacifism is a great thing - if everyone does it. But if you choose pacifism, and another country does not, then their leadership is free to march over and invade unopposed any time they want. The only smart move in this game is to raise an army, even if you only intend it for defense.

      • No arms (or, say, guns which fire into your eye as well as firing forwards as an unavoidable part of the design) - no wars.

        I am not sure what you mean by arms but the Rwandan Genocide during the mid 90s was accomplished mostly with machetes, yet the killing proceeded at an extremely high rate.

    • What makes you think that the people of Russia had any role in the decision to invade Ukraine?

      • If the people didn't have any effect, then Putin wouldn't put so much effort into controlling and censoring them.

      • What makes you think that the people of Russia had any role in the decision to invade Ukraine?

        Basically, because they didn't depose Putin after his original invasion of Ukraine. The idea the people as a whole can topple a government at any point by simply refusing to obey the current leader and his inner circle is a sound one. Sure, while this process is going some people are going to die, but how many depends on how many decide to say "no" to their current ruler. The more that do it, the less bloodshed on the side of those saying "no".

        I know this sounds cynical, but the thing is, Russians benefited

        • Wow. Do you seriously believe what you wrote? By following this logic, you can also blame yourself for not taking down Putin. Don't live in Russia? Why should that make a difference? By doing nothing to stop him, you therefore support his actions. You say, "rulers are servants of the people", but in a dictatorship, this statement is flipped around.

          • Do you seriously believe what you wrote?

            Yep. The full argument has more subtleties to it, but the gist of it is that, yes.

            Nature, including human nature, doesn't care about individuals unless forced to. It cares about groups. Victories and defeats are always collective. Rewards and punishments, ditto. That applies to everything, from tribes up to entire species. Individuals, by default, only matter from within the lowest group-layer, and expanding that reach of the individual has been a multi-millennia-long, cross-civilizational, multi-generation

            • Yep. I see no problem in extending it.

              Do you then also hold yourself accountable for the war crimes which have been committed? Are the victims responsible for the crimes committed against them? Surely it was their fault that they let the oppressor oppress them.

              • Do you then also hold yourself accountable for the war crimes which have been committed?

                Not personally, but on a collective level, yes, I'm as much a part of the world being the way it is as you are.

                Surely it was their fault that they let the oppressor oppress them.

                That depends on many things. For an example in which it was exactly that, check this. [wikipedia.org] But that's not typical, for the obvious reason that people who act this way go extinct pretty fast, so the ones who do remain, and reproduce, are those who act differently. Rather, it's the fault of humanity as a whole that we all allow subgroups within our species to oppress other subgroups within our species. An

          • By following this logic, you can also blame yourself for not taking down Putin. Don't live in Russia? Why should that make a difference?

            You're being intentionally obtuse.

            The problem with Russian people allowing Putin to do it is that it violates international law. However, international law also prohibits foreign parties from taking their sovereignty from them. The duty of maintaining a lawful government falls to the people of each country.

      • A government is a reflection of the will of the people. The actions of a government rest on the shoulders of those who let that government stay in power. That is as true of democracies as it is of countries attempting to overthrow their dictators via civil war.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      Banning a movie seems extreme because it is such a low stakes largely irreverent thing. Not worth most governments time

      But people will get upset because they want their entertainment. Just like war is mostly about the inconvenience it causes. So the Vietnam war was incompetently pressed resulting in many deaths every day, resulting in great resistance.

      On the other hand, the American people, though given a lot of information, including that Russian failed utterly in Afghanistan, never really opposed the

      • The Afghanistan war was a clear reaction to the destruction of the twin towers. So it was not caused by censorship.

        Arguably the terrorists would not have flown planes into the towers if they had grown up in a world without censorship, but I don't know enough about their culture to give good analysis on that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Well, there is a correlation, but the causality is not that simple. Remember that Russia is a fake democracy only. What the people want does not have a lot of impact.

      • I don't see it as causality, but rather a tool. Censorship is a tool dictators use to convince their people that war is necessary.

        In particular in Ukraine, it is so obvious that war is a bad idea, that if it were not for censorship, I don't think Putin could have invaded without massive and crippling protests. And the army would have been on the side of the protestors.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Well, maybe. But I do not think there would have been massive protests in Russia. We are not seeing massive protests there now and that is at least an indicator. On the other hand, it seems Putin seems to be fully immersed in Groupthink and that would indicate censorship was not used to fool his own population, because he thinks they are supporting him and he also expected this to invasion to go fast and smoothly. Hence I think censorship did not play a role in the decision to start that invasion at all. At

          • We are not seeing massive protests there now and that is at least an indicator.

            That's because protests are illegal. Thousands have been arrested. You can hold a sign that literally says "two words" in Russian and get detained for that [youtube.com].

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by gweihir ( 88907 )

              We are not seeing massive protests there now and that is at least an indicator.

              That's because protests are illegal. Thousands have been arrested. You can hold a sign that literally says "two words" in Russian and get detained for that.

              Yes, so? "Massive protests" are not simply quelled by making them illegal or arresting people. If your require massive protests against the government to be tolerated or allowed by that same government, you are doing it wrong. Hence there would not be massive protests without repression either, because if there were, they could not be suppressed that way.

              • They don't have freedom of speech in Russia either.

                My point is that censorship is a tool that is used by dictators to get the people to approve their wars. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by gweihir ( 88907 )

                  They don't have freedom of speech in Russia either.

                  My point is that censorship is a tool that is used by dictators to get the people to approve their wars. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

                  And I disagree. First, dictators use censorhip not to get people to approve anything, they use censorship to keep them in the dark. And second, it is in no way certain that their populations would have been opposed to that war if they were informed. It is not quite as black&white as you think it is. And there is a reason why some countries have dictatorships and that is that the citizens let it happen.

                  Now, how much moral responsibility for that is with the citizens is usually a difficult question and de

                  • And I disagree. First, dictators use censorhip not to get people to approve anything, they use censorship to keep them in the dark.

                    Ok, let's be clear here, why exactly do you think that dictators want to keep people in the dark?

                  • dictators use censorhip not to get people to approve anything, they use censorship to keep them in the dark. And second, it is in no way certain that their populations would have been opposed to that war if they were informed

                    First point is nonsense, it's a distinction without a difference. But second point is accurate-ish. If they were informed of the existence of the war? Probably true. If they were informed as to the real reasons for the war? Possibly false. There does seem to be a strong thread of fatalism in Russian culture, though, so you could still be right in that scenario.

    • If it weren't for censorship, then it's unlikely that Russia would have invaded Ukraine. If the people in Russia knew what was actually going on, then they wouldn't have supported the war.

      This is true for most wars. Censorship gives dictators the power to start wars.

      That's only part of it, maybe not even the most important part.

      In dictatorships censorship isn't so much about controlling the flow of information as controlling the conversation.

      You see it all the time here. A story starts out one way with various pundits and reporters taking a certain narrative, but then after a few days and weeks the discussion shifts and goes in another direction. It's not necessarily due to the facts, it's just people being able to openly discuss things and this is a big part of what k

    • The west likes to airbrush away inconvenient facts too. We just do it using information overload instead!

      Remember: A search for âa3obâ(TM) on YouTube or even a trip to the wayback machine (to look at what our own media published a few years back) debunks what our own news pushes as being the truth today. Reality is that both Russia and Ukraine arenâ(TM)t countries we really want to support but arming far right militia groups might happen to be the lesser of two evils right now.

      The iron
  • Woah.
  • This isn't something I say often but Keanu Reeves seems to be a very decent and moral person. Fuck china.

    • Glass Egos. That's what China has.

    • My thoughts exactly. Of the army of hypocrites in Hollywood they decided to censor a rare man of principles.

      • My thoughts exactly. Of the army of hypocrites in Hollywood they decided to censor a rare man of principles.

        That's why they had to censor him. China's government can't survive noble principles, so they have to suppress them. Then they wonder why they have a lack of creativity.

  • Not Speed. How will the Chinese people survive without being able to watch that masterpiece? It's inhumane.

  • NotALot.

    OK, I watched Keanu's performance in Coppola's 'Dracula' a few nights ago. You know, the boy might have a career in comedy somewhere in his future.

    • It's funny - his acting can be rather wooden, but in real life he seems to be a very engaging and personable individual.

    • Yep. Because that's the most important point from the story, that Keanu Reeves is a crap actor. You got the deepest and most meaningful part of that story spot on. /s

  • "Democracy, which depends on shared truths, is in retreat, and autocracy, which depends on shared lies, is on the march." https://mobile.twitter.com/rbr... [twitter.com]
  • Keanu won't care too much about being censored in China. On the other hand, if they had killed his dog...

    • Or censored his dog.

    • But it will impact his career. China is a big market, and every hollywood studio wants in. It's very hard to convince China to approve an American movie, and it takes a lot of jumping through regulatory hoops, but that effort is worthwhile: The potential revenue is in hundreds of millions, with the potential of one day soon breaking the billion-dollar box-office mark - and that's just for the theatrical release, before you get in to streaming and disc sales.

      And now every studio knows that if they put Keanu

  • When asked to comment on the situation, [null] replied "".

  • Since, why not, now that the reputation is ruined in China.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • We in the People's Republic of Keanu-esia know not of whom you speak.

  • 1984 (Score:2)

    by HiThere ( 15173 )

    Wasn't that just about Winston Smith's job in Orwell's 1984?

  • Who is the bad actor here?

  • He did a number of film shoots in China including directing Man of Tai Chi in HK and China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
    You don't spend that much time in China without learning what issues trigger Chinese ire.
    He did this knowing his future films will be banned as well. Admire him for putting principles above money or be cynical and say his career was sunsetting anyway.

    • Admire him for putting principles above money or be cynical and say his career was sunsetting anyway.

      I don't doubt that he's principled, or know the state of his career, but I'm pretty sure he could never earn another penny as an actor and still remain quite rich for the rest of his life.

  • Reeves was announced as a performer at the 35th annual Tibet House Benefit Concert. The concert was organized by Tibet House, a nonprofit founded by supporters of the Dalai Lama that Chinese authorities have labeled "a separatist organization advocating for Tibetan independence," ...

    What about references to Tibet House and the Dalai Lama, did they disappear them too? If they did, then there would be no reason to censor Reeves' work as no one would know about the benefit and/or the organizers -- or the issues China has against them. If they didn't, then why not? Seems like blocking info about them would be priority #1. China's actions are dumb either way.

  • Hopefully he won't go the appeasement route

  • Don't tell me they banned Point Break too? That's just wrong, man!

  • I went to look for the latest Matrix movie in one of China's streaming sites (iqiyi.com) and noticed that all the Matrix movies were missing, which is odd because they are pretty popular here.

    There is a workaround though (besides VPNs). If you run Windows, the Microsoft Store is still accessible and you can rent movies there, and I just checked: the Matrix is still there.

    I am not recommending the Microsoft Store as a streaming service in general, but if you are in China and don't have a VPN it is currently

  • The US is so far behind China in technology.

  • How long has it been since there's been a mainstream film with China, or even just an explicitly Chinese character, as the bad guy? The studios know that this means losing millions of dollars in revenue in China. If a film is offensive enough then China can just block all a studio's output: past, present and future.

    This current situation surely means that Keanu will have great difficulty securing future roles because having him in the film is a major financial penalty. He probably doesn't care too much a

Slashdot Top Deals

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Close