香港電影產業自1920年代開始發展，整體電影產業發展的過程中受到了內、外在的因素影響著，但香港電影產業具有「彈性」調整的特性，使得當整體香港電影產業在不同的時代遇到不同的挑戰時，整體的電影產業都能夠順利調整發展策略因應當時所面臨的狀況以保產業持續發展。不過，隨著時間步入21世紀，香港電影產業在受到1997年香港回歸與亞洲金融風暴以及2003年大規模爆發的SARS疫情等多重因素的影響下，造成整體香港電影產業走向低潮。但是2003年6月，香港與中國大陸政府簽訂了《內地與香港關於建立更緊密經貿關係安排》(Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement，簡稱CEPA)後，香港電影產業因此開始與中國電影產業有了更密切的合作，也改變了華語電影產業的合作模式，並且提升了香港電影產業的產值。而中港之間成功的合作經驗，也使得臺灣在兩岸合拍電影時能有參考的案例，能更快得到兩岸間合適的合作模式。

電影作為跨文化傳播的重要媒介，反映當下他國與該國權力結構的認知，對一國的國家形象塑造有著重大作用。國家形象就是他國人民對一個國家的概念性印象，在傳統好萊塢的商業大片上，中國的形象多半遭受「東方主義」的臆測，中國政府亟於透過文化宣傳的方式來改善中國的國家形象，其中中美合拍電影傳達出的中國意象扮演重要角色。觀察近年來的中美合拍片，相較於過去的好萊塢電影，中美合拍電影的中國形象似乎獲得大幅提升，但仍存在東方主義對「他者」的視角。 中美合拍片有將「中國國家形象」與「中國人形象」與之區分，分別對應「專制的中國政府」與「順從無主見」的人民，最終只能希冀西方的拯救者來救贖之現象。就連東方的導演都「自我東方化」，電影傳達的中國形象，其實是透過中國導演觀察與西方的差異，自我建構出的「東方形象」。 雖然中美合拍片裡中國形象仍是西方對東方的「再現」，但中國政府透過合拍的攝製法規與審查制度，「一手拿棍棒，一手拿紅蘿蔔」。一方面獎勵遵守中國規則的劇組，提供資源協助，一方面針對不符合中國期望的電影情節，在審查過程中要求刪除甚至擱置。 中美合拍片不但存在國際社會的文化爭霸，更有一國之內政治社會與市民社會的交互作用，在國際社會上，中美合拍電影的中西方文化元素交相呼應，同樣的符號在個別電影中有不同的詮釋。在政治社會與市民社會的面向上，中國政府以電影審查制度控制電影內容，來維護既有的意識型態；但電影劇組仍可以透過導演或主演的個人聲望、隱晦的針砭手法，迫使官方妥協，重構出新的意識型態。中國政府與合拍片商在彼此爭霸中，互有消長與妥協，故中美合拍片中的中國形象，呈現正負面兼有之的特徵。 / Film as an important medium for intercultural communication, it becomes one of the effective ways to promote a nation’s image. The national image is the conceptual impression of the people from other countries. In traditional Hollywood commercial movies, the image of China suffered “Orientalism” speculation. By co-producing films with American, government of China has tried to get rid of the stereotype of China’s national images. In recent year, compared to the previous Hollywood movies, the images of China in Sino-U.S. co-production films seem to get significantly improved. However, some of them still implicate Orientalism speculation. Sino-U.S. co-production films distinguish “the national image of China” from “the image of the Chinese people”, describing a society that an autocratic government and a crowd of lackey, hoping a savior from the west would liberate them. Even Chinese directors have “self-orientalization” issues, the image of China that they described in the movie is just a reflection compared with the west. Although the image of China in Sino-U.S. co-production film is the “representation”, the government of China still could use “carrot and stick” to receive the hegemony. On the one hand, they encourage and reward the producer for obeying the regulations; on the other hand they use censorship as a punishment. Sino-U.S. co-production film not only consists of the cultural hegemony of the international community, but also includes the interaction between political society and civil society in the domestic system. In the international community, the same symbols of Western/Eastern cultural elements has different interpretations of individual Sino-US co-production films, and in the political society and civil society, the Chinese government regulates movie contents building the movie censorship system to secure the existing ideology; But the director or big shots still can use their expand their personal Influence, or metaphor in the script, to force the authority to compromise and reconstructs a new ideology.

本研究旨在探討台灣和中國電視劇產業合作狀況，以及深入理解從解嚴初期至今，兩岸電視劇交流無論是法規或產業的變化對台灣影視工作者的勞動條件和創作自主性的影響。本文援引Ryan（1992:108）對文化生產的概念，將台灣影視工作者，據其不同的生產位置分成「創意階段」和「再製階段」工作者，分別探討其勞動條件的變化。最後，再回歸兩岸合拍電視劇之政策，企圖給予台灣合拍電視劇之政策建議。 研究結果發現在兩岸電視劇的合作模式從「中國協拍，台灣主導」轉而變成「中國主導，台灣委製」的情況，而這樣的變化使台灣影視工作者的勞動處境顯得更為嚴苛。兩岸開放初期，中國電視劇製作業未臻成熟，使無論是創意或再製階段的台灣影視工作者在中國皆有較佳的工作機會與酬勞；然而，隨著中國電視劇產業的成長，投入於電視劇之製作費用明顯高於台灣時，台灣影視工作者的工作機會漸受限於中國市場的需求。在酬勞上，因中國資方會比照台灣電視劇製作費用來衡量，使得台灣影視工作者的酬勞漲幅低於中國影視工作者。 在創作自主上，本研究發現中國電視劇政策上的變化，對兩岸合作電視劇無論在人員選用和劇本安排上皆有很大的影響。同時，因為台灣缺乏鄉土劇和偶像劇以外劇種的生存空間，使得出走到中國的台灣影視工作者選擇服膺於中國電視劇的生產邏輯，傾向不牴觸中國當前的社會文化脈絡，如：台灣電視製作團隊為了通過中國官方的審批制度，製作出分別討好海外與中國市場之不同版本的電視劇。 綜合上述，兩岸電視劇產業呈現「中國大而台灣弱」的景況，台灣影視人才、技術外移中國的結果可能使台灣影視產業面臨「產業空洞化」的危機。因此，建議政府應有黃金時段限播外片之政策，建立良善的獎勵與輔導機制，例如：影視基金的規劃與落實。如此才有機會吸引台灣影視工作者回流，增加本地影視工作者之工作機會和多元劇種的生存空間。 / Increasingly, seeing as domestic TV market shrank could leave local TV drama workers jobless, Taiwan TV workers chose to develop their career within larger market. Due to linguistic and cultural similarities, Chinese vast market becomes the best choice for Taiwan TV workers who are looking for new opportunities. The study aims to explore the TV drama cooperation between Taiwan and China, and to review two side’s TV drama co-production policies from 1988 until now, and to figure out the impact of the two side’s TV drama industrial change on Taiwan television workers which involve labor condition and creativity autonomy. According to Ryan （1992:108）’s conception, the essence of the organizational division of labor in corporate production systems is divided into two distinct stages: creation and reproduction. Therefore, the definition of television workers includes creation stage workers and reproduction stage workers. As the result of the study, the rise of China TV drama industry has changed the partnership between Taiwan and China. In the past, China was represented as the assistance in the process of TV dramas production. Recently, China holds the initiative completely from research and pre-production stage to post-production stage. This situation forces the labor of Taiwan TV drama facing the more stringent labor condition. Compare to the initial Taiwan -China TV drama co-production period, Taiwan television labors’ wages do not grow. Even more, Taiwan reproduction stage workers facing the crisis of jobless in TV drama co-production model. Although the creative stage labors still have the advantage of job opportunities in Taiwan-China TV drama co-production, their creativity autonomies are limited by china’s censorship regime. For example, Taiwan TV production team might produce two different kinds of drama products catering to overseas markets and Chinese censorship required. In conclusion, to prevent the crisis of Taiwanese TV drama industrial hollowing-out effect such as the emigration of talent and technology. The study recommends our government must emphasize the importance of this phenomenon through prime time broadcast restrictions and audio-visual fund.