Merah Putih One For All Sparks Backlash

The animated film Merah Putih: One For All, released just ahead of Indonesia’s 80th Independence Day celebrations, has quickly become a lightning rod for public criticism. Intended as a patriotic showcase, the production instead triggered a wave of backlash over subpar animation, alleged use of low-cost stock assets, and a budget that producers claim reached 6.7 billion rupiah. The controversy has rippled across social media, drawing responses from government officials, industry insiders, and audiences both at home and abroad.

Public Outcry Over Quality

From the moment the trailer for Merah Putih: One For All debuted, online platforms filled with negative reactions. Many viewers argued the animation looked unfinished but was pushed to release regardless. Comparisons were inevitable with other Indonesian animated works such as Jumbo, widely praised for its high-quality visuals. Critics targeted stiff character movements, sluggish scene pacing, and backgrounds that appeared generic and reused.

Audience members at early screenings reported jarring scene transitions reminiscent of a PowerPoint presentation. They noted that up to 80 percent of the runtime consisted of static close-up shots, reducing visual dynamism. Sound quality was another sore point, with voices described as amateur-level and a near-constant background score that lacked audio breaks, giving the film an unpolished feel.

Allegations of Cheap Stock Assets

The controversy deepened after YouTube content creators began dissecting the film’s visual elements. The channel Yono Jambul claimed a street sequence matched the “Street of Mumbai” asset available on Daz3D. Several characters bore striking similarities to ready-made models from Reallusion and other 3D asset marketplaces, sold for as little as a few dozen dollars. These findings fueled debates over production ethics and transparency in budget allocation.

The 6.7 Billion Rupiah Budget Dispute

The production budget itself became a flashpoint. Executive producer Sonny Pudjisasono stated the film cost 6.7 billion rupiah to make. However, director Endiarto said he had no knowledge of how the budget was calculated or distributed. This discrepancy in statements raised further public suspicion about financial oversight, particularly for a project carrying national symbolism.

Government Clarification

Amid growing speculation, the Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy stepped in. Deputy Minister Irene Umar stressed that the government did not provide any funding or promotional support for the project. She explained that her team’s involvement was limited to offering feedback on the plot, visuals, and trailer during a meeting with the production crew. The clarification aimed to dispel rumors that the film had been financed through public funds.

International Media Coverage

The controversy soon crossed borders. International outlets, including The Jakarta Post, framed the incident as an example of the gap between nationalist intent and creative execution. For many observers abroad, the episode served as a cautionary tale on how national symbols in art can backfire if the final product fails to meet professional and creative standards.

Lessons for Indonesia’s Animation Industry

The Merah Putih: One For All case offers pointed lessons for Indonesia’s creative sector. Projects carrying patriotic themes demand higher-than-average production standards, rigorous budget transparency, and a genuine commitment to quality. The scale and speed of public backlash demonstrate that Indonesian audiences have become more discerning, especially toward works that position themselves as national tributes.