Chinese censors and Tencent change the ending of Fight Club

Despite releasing in 1999, the film just saw its digital release in the country.
Text: Jonas Mäki
Published 2022-01-26

The cult classic Fight Club has recently been released digitally on the Chinese market, and in the process has been given a completely new ending, Vice reports. In David Fincher's original script, as we all know (if not, spoiler alert!), it ends with Norton's character killing his alter-ego Tyler. All while looking out at buildings exploding and collapsing. Which many linked to Tyler's plans for anarchism and wanting to put an end to consumerism is now set in motion.

In the Chinese version, however, this ending has been completely rewritten and the scene of exploding buildings is completely gone. In its place, viewers are instead greeted by a black image with text explaining how the police discovered Tyler's plans, stopped the bombing and sent him to a mental hospital for treatment.

Tencent Video is responsible, but has not commented on the news, and has close ties to state-owned Guangdong TV so it is a reasonable assumption that Fight Club was recut to fit the Chinese doctrine set by Xi Jingping. Fight Club has previously been screened in its entirety and uncut at the Shanghai International Film Festival and elsewhere, and many fans in the country have reacted strongly to this new and censored version. Several outraged comments could be read on the microblog Weibo.

"There is no point watching this film without that scene"

"Probably Ocean's 11 would have all been arrested. The Godfather's entire family would end up in jail"

The Chinese regime has a history of very strict censorship laws on what can and cannot be shown in the country, with the Nicolas Cage film Lord of War, for example, being cut down by 30 minutes by Tencent Video. Instead of the film's normal ending, one is greeted by a text describing how the arms smuggler confessed to all his crimes and was sentenced to life in prison.

What is your opinion on this kind of censorship? Is it right by the state to step in and "protect" its citizens from what they consider harmful?

Back