How Trump’s Tariffs and China’s Rise Could Destroy Hollywood Blockbusters Forever

by

America enjoys a substantial cultural trade advantage; we primarily export culture rather than import it. For example, American movies are popular worldwide, while foreign films with subtitles rarely achieve the same level of success as domestic productions. This cultural exchange generates billions of dollars for the U.S. and provides millions of jobs. Over time, China, one of the largest movie markets globally, has become increasingly important to America and Hollywood. However, this balance is poised to shift, potentially reshaping the foundations of America’s film industry. Exciting times ahead!

It was almost unavoidable that the United States and the People’s Republic of China would find themselves engaged in an economic conflict akin to the Cold War; this was the path the U.S. chose when neoliberals advocated for globalized free trade and opted for cheaper imported goods over domestic manufacturing, which could have been managed more effectively. However, President Donald Trump’s actions suggest he may be suffering from Tariff Derangement Syndrome, leading to escalating tariffs between the two nations – with China imposing 145% tariffs on U.S. goods and America responding with 125% tariffs of their own.

Although Hollywood might not be the primary casualty in this trade dispute (Trump commented that he’s heard of worse issues regarding the film industry), its global impact on culture is undeniable and substantial. Given the challenges the movie business has been grappling with, including the impact of COVID-19, labor disputes, the rise of streaming platforms, and AI, losing the Chinese market could be the decisive blow. And I must admit, I’m eager to see how things unfold in this situation.

How China Became a Hollywood Importer

First, how did China, once seen as America’s “Communist enemy,” come to matter so much for Hollywood? Well, they have a vast audience. Makes sense, doesn’t it? Take the 1982 blockbuster “First Blood” for example; it was the first Hollywood movie to be screened in China and sold an impressive 76 million tickets. Roughly 63% of its earnings came from international markets, primarily China.

It was the first Hollywood blockbuster to be shown in China and sold 76 million tickets; 63% of its profits came from international markets.

In this scenario, a valiant individual, who had loyally served his nation during the Vietnam War, encounters harsh treatment from authoritarian capitalist forces. Dressed in military uniforms and emblematic of the U.S., these forces include Army troops, state police, and a sheriff with a US flag on their shoulder patch. This citizen, distraught but unyielding, feels compelled to stand up against the unjustified violence meted out by his own government. In response, he instigates an exhilarating sequence of events that combines violent action and champions one man’s determination to defy authority.

From 1993, when “The Fugitive” became another major hit in Hollywood, there was a pause in exports to China until then. Due to complications with trade, culture, and politics, China only allowed 20 foreign films to be distributed annually, with minimal distribution fees (the amount paid to American companies like Warner Bros. or Disney). However, everything changed in 2012 when Vice President Joe Biden negotiated a deal with Presidents Xi Jinping and the China Film Group Corporation. As reported by The Wrap, this agreement expanded the number of imported films to 14 more and increased the distribution fee they paid (from 13% to 25%).

During that period, the deal was primarily advocated by Disney’s CEO Bob Iger, Jeffrey Katzenberg from DreamWorks Animation, and Chris Dodd, who served as the chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America. This move made perfect sense; Disney was eager to penetrate China’s market significantly, having acquired the Star Wars franchise that year (not forgetting their profitable Marvel and Pixar productions). It’s astonishing to imagine the amount of revenue the movie studios have generated since this deal, particularly when they tailor their films to suit Chinese authorities. Things were going swimmingly (Avengers: Infinity War earned $200 million in China during its opening weekend), but all along, China was growing its own studio and distribution network at an accelerated pace.

The People’s Republic of China No Longer Needs Hollywood or America

By 2012, China had approximately 8,000 movie theaters; by 2024, that figure more than doubled to an astounding 90,000. This rapid expansion was necessitated by the surge in popularity and production of Chinese movies. Between 2002 and 2012, only two Chinese films managed to top the annual box office charts; however, from 2013 to 2025, no less than eight Chinese productions claimed that coveted position. The local studios are now producing larger and more impressive films, while Chinese audiences are increasingly favoring homegrown productions over American ones.

The path for the Chinese box office isn’t just about movies, it mirrors China’s overall growth trajectory. Today, China stands as a significant global supplier, with many nations dependent on them for goods. This self-reliance makes China resilient against tariffs since they import less compared to America. Conversely, America lacks the necessary production infrastructure and workforce to produce items like iPhones or broadcasting equipment. In essence, China no longer needs American films, and likewise, American products are becoming less essential. As a result, tariffs disproportionately impact Americans over the Chinese.

In response to queries regarding potential impacts of U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods, China’s Film Administration has issued a statement clarifying their stance on U.S. film imports.

The U.S. government’s mistake of imposing tariffs indiscriminately on China could lead to fewer people in the U.S. liking American movies. Instead of forcing movies, we’ll abide by market rules, respect audience preferences, and somewhat decrease the number of imported American films. China is the second-largest film market globally, and we’ve consistently promoted openness to other nations. To cater to market demand, we plan to introduce more high-quality films from various countries around the world.

With escalating tariffs affecting various nations and China strengthening its ties with them, it’s plausible that more countries could impose quotas or laws limiting American films, including Canada, the European Union, Latin America, and others. Furthermore, the materials essential for filmmaking are increasingly being hit with tariffs, driving up costs. Given the crucial role of the international box office in Hollywood’s success, such developments could lead to disastrous outcomes.

How China Will Change Hollywood for the Better

Personally speaking, I firmly believe this change is beneficial for several reasons. Initially, it’s crucial to me that no one loses their job or faces wage reductions, even though it might be an unavoidable consequence of America’s latest economic policy. The film industry, as we know, provides employment for approximately 2.3 million people and is projected to generate over $23.5 billion by 2025 (MPA data).

While I, like many others, might casually say, “I think I’ve heard of worse things,” it’s essential to acknowledge the real, negative impact this change could have on America. Moreover, as more countries start incorporating foreign films into their markets, they will inadvertently embrace a broader range of cultures, thereby slowing the global dominance of American cultural norms.

There’s a potential benefit to Hollywood’s upcoming financial struggles: it might lead to a shift away from the bloated budgets and monotonous productions that have dominated the industry for years. The excessive inflation of Hollywood budgets over the past two decades has resulted in a studio system and cinematic culture that is bland, uniform, and predictable, relying heavily on established intellectual properties like superhero movies, Star Wars titles, and Fast & Furious films, as well as endless remakes and reboots.

The upcoming movie “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” estimated to cost a staggering $400 million, necessitates earning an enormous sum. Such high budgets often mean that studios’ marketing expenses are largely consumed by big-ticket films like these, leaving fewer theater screens for other productions. In essence, the expense of one blockbuster could fund 20 smaller, potentially more impactful movies. For example, film company A24 managed to produce a full 16 movies with the same budget that was allocated for Dwayne Johnson’s holiday movie “Red One” (around $250 million) in the year 2024.

Burning Down the House

It’s promising to consider the potential impact on Hollywood from the actions of the Trump administration and China. Instead of churning out generic, oversized films designed to rake in massive profits in China, studios might be compelled to reduce their spending per film. This shift could mean fewer big-budget productions, allowing for a greater number of smaller, even niche movies to be made. Consequently, an increased number of jobs may become available if studios opt to produce 20 films with $20 million budgets, rather than just one with a whopping $400 million budget.

In comparison to its time, the production budget for “The Godfather” was approximately $6 million; “Star Wars,” the original version, had a budget of $11 million, surpassing the $10.5 million spent on “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Notably, these were high-priced productions for their era. Contrastingly, the first season of “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power” is said to have cost around $58 million per episode, while “Stranger Things” increased its budget to $30 million per episode in its fourth season. In stark contrast, “The Twilight Zone” faced issues with the network due to its production costs of roughly $65,000 per episode (equivalent to about $710,000 when adjusted for inflation). Even hit series like “The Office” and “The X-Files” had production costs ranging between one and two million dollars per episode during their peak.

Essentially, what I’m trying to convey is that exceptional art doesn’t necessarily require large sums of money; quite the contrary, more money often means more complications. As the budget increases, production companies tend to become more intrusive, which in turn diminishes the originality, excitement, and distinctiveness of a project. We’ve all heard tales of directors and actors recounting studio executives interfering with their films, ultimately ruining them. With fewer resources at stake, creators have more freedom to explore, and I tend to favor the filmmakers over the producers when it comes to artistic success.

brace yourself, China, brace yourself, Trump. At times, the path forward requires endurance, and hardship can spur transformation and growth. Every so often, a controlled burn is necessary to revitalize the landscape, and I’m ready for the big studios to face challenges if it leads to the rise of more compelling independent films. The coming years promise to be an exciting era for cinema, even as we find ourselves in challenging times. A glimmer of optimism remains within me.

Read More

2025-04-18 05:33