'Mulan' Tests Subscribers' Desire To Pay Up for Big-Budget Film (bloomberg.com) 79
An anonymous reader shares a report: "Mulan" producer Jason Reed was in Mexico City last March promoting his soon-to-be-released film when he got the call that Walt Disney was postponing its debut due to the coronavirus. What followed was a summer of discussions between Disney, Reed and director Niki Caro as the company wrestled with when and how to release the $200 million live-action remake of its 1998 animated hit. This weekend they'll all get to see if they made the right call. Disney is making "Mulan" available on its Disney+ streaming service for an extra $30 starting Friday. The film now joins others, including Universal's "Trolls World Tour" and Warner Bros.' "Scoob!," in bypassing theaters and going directly to consumers. It's a trend that has many in Hollywood concerned about the future of films in theaters. They might be worrying too much. Without theaters, Disney and other studios would struggle to replace the revenue they have historically gotten from releasing big-budget films first in cinemas, then home video and later TV.
"They understand how important the theater is as a channel for distribution," said Steve Nason, research director at the consulting firm Parks Associates. "They just couldn't wait any longer." Prior to the pandemic, "Mulan" had been scheduled to hit theaters March 27. The company had already held the red-carpet premiere and spent heavily on advertising. But the film was postponed three times before its Disney+ debut was set. Reviews so far are fairly strong. "Disney's spectacular do-over deserves the biggest screen possible," read the headline in Variety. Rotten Tomatoes gives the movie a 79% fresh rating, showing most critics agree. Disney is trying a hybrid approach. It's releasing the film in theaters in Asia, where cinemas have been back open longer and the Asian cast and story are likely to have strong appeal. In the U.S. and Europe, "Mulan" will be online, where Disney+ has already built a sizable subscriber base.
"They understand how important the theater is as a channel for distribution," said Steve Nason, research director at the consulting firm Parks Associates. "They just couldn't wait any longer." Prior to the pandemic, "Mulan" had been scheduled to hit theaters March 27. The company had already held the red-carpet premiere and spent heavily on advertising. But the film was postponed three times before its Disney+ debut was set. Reviews so far are fairly strong. "Disney's spectacular do-over deserves the biggest screen possible," read the headline in Variety. Rotten Tomatoes gives the movie a 79% fresh rating, showing most critics agree. Disney is trying a hybrid approach. It's releasing the film in theaters in Asia, where cinemas have been back open longer and the Asian cast and story are likely to have strong appeal. In the U.S. and Europe, "Mulan" will be online, where Disney+ has already built a sizable subscriber base.
Asia (Score:5, Informative)
It's releasing the film in theaters in Asia, where cinemas have been back open longer and the Asian cast and story are likely to have strong appeal.
Except for all those Asians that are currently boycotting because of the pro-CCP statements by the lead actress.
Re:Asia (Score:4, Informative)
This sums it up nicely. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6udk1B0... [ytimg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Spam about human milk in every damn thread. I guess this is a new thing now. Join the club, ask the "Internet today is crap" guy, he'll give you a membership card.
Re:What good is a boycott there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Future revenue > current revenue.
Make her an industry pariah (by not rewarding those who hired her), and she'll be much less likely to be hired again.
The boycott is an appropriate step and will hopefully be effective.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's releasing the film in theaters in Asia, where cinemas have been back open longer and the Asian cast and story are likely to have strong appeal.
Except for all those Asians that are currently boycotting because of the pro-CCP statements by the lead actress.
At the risk of falsely being branded a CCP supporter, which I am not, she didn't exactly say "pro-CCP statements". She said something vague about supporting the Hong Kong police. That is kind of pro-government, but it's also certainly vague. And by the way, my understanding is she lives in China so The Powers That Be probably forced her to say something.
Re: (Score:1)
And by the way, my understanding is she lives in China so The Powers That Be probably forced her to say something.
If she lives in China she probably thinks American notions of freedom are a quaint weakness that will lead to our demise. It would not have mattered if Mao had lost—we would have still found ourselves in this same predicament with China. Confucianism was always baked in and trumped any economic system. Considering their size and resources, it was pretty inevitable that China would eventually be a world power. The Confucian tradition ensured that this state would be dangerously nationalistic and have a
Re: Asia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Just wanted to followup and say, it goes a lot deeper than the pro-CCP statements by the lead actress, so I decided not to buy it after all even though I would like to support same-day releases being available online...
It's just exactly a boycott in my case, more like I just don't want to support it at all for a variety of reasons.
But thanks for letting me know.
Very interested to see how this turns out (Score:2)
I think it's a really good idea to release things simultaneously in movie theaters, and for home... I plan to buy Mulan more to show support for the concept, than out of desire to see the movie.
There are quite a lot of movies I'd prefer to see this way. Some things I'd still go to the theater for but a lot of things I'd be willing to pay extra for day of release to just be able to see it at home on my own schedule.
Re: (Score:2)
don't bother. every review I have read states that is one of the worst live action adaptations Disney has done so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never got the point of the Live Action Cartoons anyways. If they were going to do that, they really should had redone the story and not try to bank on Nostalgia.
There is already too much Nostalgia based media.
New Star Trek, New Star Wars, Revamped Classic Disney Movies, More Doctor Who, Heck lets bring back Bill and Ted while young were lovable scrappy dummies, which now decades later are old looser.
Yes I know Nostalgia is an easy cash grab. Because "Hey!, I Remember that reference!" can make up for a l
Re: (Score:3)
Disney's live-action adaptations follow an escalating formula of sucking the fun out of the movie, and from the reviews it seems that Mulan has suffered from its most severe application. I've noticed that each live-action Disney movie so far doesn't contain the funniest scenes from the animated version. If some major element is just too funny or ridiculous for live action it may simply be left out entirely, like the dragon character in Mulan.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true of pretty much every remake, unfortunately, whether live-action or not, whether Disney or not....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They problem as I see it is cowardice. Too cowardly to commit to just faithfully adapting the animated movie because it would supposedly offend too many Chinese, yet at the same time too cowardly to just faithfully adapting the original fable because it would supposedly not appeal to too much of the western audience and finally too cowardly to not go through everything with a fine tooth comb to see if it would offend the metoo crowd.
Too much time spend cowering, not enough time left to make a good movie.
Re: (Score:2)
They problem as I see it is cowardice.
I wouldn't call it cowardice. This is Disney. I call it shamelessness—shamelessly letting market considerations write and direct their films rather than letting aesthetic considerations guide their writers/directors/producers.
Turns out its pretty good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like Disney is first at this... There have been a number of films "released" online since the COVID thing closed the theater doors nation wide. Others have already done this with varying degrees of success. Disney is apparently running out of cash and needs to start seeing some income here.
See "Uncle Tom" https://www.uncletom.com/ [uncletom.com] (A political documentary)
Universal released 'Trolls World Tour" online (and to some theaters )
Not to mention all the Netflix releases..
Re: (Score:2)
Not for $30 to support the concept.
Being the expensive tickets is about $20 however I usually go to a smaller theater where I pay $6 (in 2019 money)
That $20 or even the $6 paid for the making of the movie and profit to the studios. But it also went to the jobs of people in my area who operate the theater keep it clean, and take tickets.... So I am paying for more money that will just go directly into the studios pocket. Vs my own local economy.
I am not saying I am a big fan of movie theaters, and
Re: (Score:2)
The only time I ever spent $30 to watch a movie were times where I thought it would get me laid. And even if I didn't, for that price I paid for my date's ticket along with popcorn, pop, and candy.
I guess the difference is, with streaming from Disney, while you won't get any snacks, you're guaranteed to get fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a really good idea to release things simultaneously in movie theaters, and for home... I plan to buy Mulan more to show support for the concept, than out of desire to see the movie.
I feel the same way. I'm not that excited about the movie but I am very excited about the new content delivery option. I'll be buying it later today.
Tenet on the other hand won't get a penny from me until it hits streaming even though I am very excited about the movie. Forcing people into theaters during a pandemic just to see the movie a few months earlier is unconscionable. We are fighting to get our kids back to school yet are willing to increase community spread to watch a movie we could be watching fro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow...WTF do you live?
$80 for baby sitting, does that include full medical benefits, workman's comp and retirement or something?
Way overpriced for a worthless movie. (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, $30 is way, way overpriced for viewing a movie in my living room. Yes, I know, if theaters were open I'd be paying that much. So what? I'm not getting any of the purported benefits of a theater viewing experience. Why should I pay it just because Disney is used to getting it?
Second, this particular movie is absolutely worthless in my view. The animated feature didn't appeal to me particularly; I think I may have watched it with friends but I have never re-watched it and don't anticipate ever doing so. A live-action remake of a movie whose plot doesn't appeal to me? Not planning to watch it. Certainly not planning to spend $30 on it even if the theater was open.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only this overprice, but why release through Disney's own streaming service? Lots of people don't have it. There are plenty of PPV streaming services that don't require a subscription, for example Red Box.
Anyways, I'll personally do the thing I often do, wait for a few months then watch it for 6 bucks on Red Box or Prime.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hmm, I didn't understand at first that $30 was the digital "purchase" price, not "rent" price -- i.e. once purchased, Disney+ would provide unlimited viewings of the movie forever. That makes it a bit more acceptable. I'm not going to buy this particular movie though for reasons already stated.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Way overpriced for a worthless movie. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or for as long as Disney+ exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Way overpriced for a worthless movie. (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm, I didn't understand at first that $30 was the digital "purchase" price, not "rent" price -- i.e. once purchased, Disney+ would provide unlimited viewings of the movie forever. That makes it a bit more acceptable. I'm not going to buy this particular movie though for reasons already stated.
I believe you are paying $30 for access to the movie from Sep 4th to Dec 4th as long as you continue to be a Disney+ subscriber. After Dec 4th all Disney+ subscribers will have access to the movie. At least for the US market, other countries may differ.
You are paying to see the movie earlier, which is just about the same as why many people pay extra for movie theater viewings. But you and other viewers in your home can see it as many times as you wish for one payment, as opposed to one viewing per person per ticket in movie theaters.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you are paying $30 for access to the movie from Sep 4th to Dec 4th as long as you continue to be a Disney+ subscriber. After Dec 4th all Disney+ subscribers will have access to the movie. At least for the US market, other countries may differ.
Dec 4 is plenty soon enough. No rush
Re: (Score:2)
You are paying to see the movie earlier, which is just about the same as why many people pay extra for movie theater viewings.
Yeah except many people who pay extra do so by paying half to see the movie in 3D on a 17m wide dual laser projected Dolby Cinema, or maybe 1/3 to 1/4 to see it on a normal 10m wide cinema.
That is a bargain (Score:1)
First off, $30 is way, way overpriced for viewing a movie in my living room.
For that price I can watch the movie whenever I want, on my most comfortable chair/couch, using whatever kind of food and drink I want, as many times as I want?
And then consider all these factors, where there are multiple people that want to see it together....
And you think that it should be CHEAPER than going to the theater? Interesting.
Second, this particular movie is absolutely worthless in my view.
The action and the cinematog
Re: (Score:2)
$30 is VERY steep, considering that you're already paying monthly for a Disney+ subscription to use the service.
It's like charging $100 to enter an amusement park, and then charging $5 for a soda on a hot day... Oh, wait, that sounds like par for the course with Disney. Out of the businesses that are suffering because of COVID-19, I'm finding them the hardest to feel sorry for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like an awfully directional question to bring up while discussing double dipping.
I think it's a fair question. I'd honestly like to know what they feel would be a reasonable price to see a new release. Also, how does a "directional question" apply here? "Where is the bathroom" or "How do I get to Pizza Hut from here" are directional questions. (You know, questions that involve direction.)
A collectively price is easy to determine as excessive.
Huh? This one needs some clarification.
An individual's price scale is an interpretable joke that you can easily defend or poke holes in with equal amounts hand-waving.
Sure. Different people have different ideas of what "expensive" is. I think a $40,000 car is expensive. There are plenty of people out there that would ask why
Re: (Score:1)
>> First off, $30 is way, way overpriced for viewing a movie in my living room. Yes, I know, if theaters were open I'd be paying that much. So what? I'm not getting any of the purported benefits of a theater viewing experience. Why should I pay it just because Disney is used to getting it?
If I had points I'd vote you up!
Re: (Score:2)
But him paying 30 bucks to Disney does nothing for the theater owner who would have gotten the other 70, now the theater owner goes hungry and then bankrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
now the theater owner goes hungry and then bankrupt.
I guess all the minimum wage teenagers the theater owners paid to run their businesses will have to go work at some other minimum wage job. As far as the theater owners, my heart goes out to them along with all the haberdashers, buggy whip makers, steam boat operators, coal drivers, telegraph operators, blacksmiths, candle makers, telephone operators, ice cutters, lamp lighters, elevator operators, milk men, scribes, switchboard operators, pin setters, and coopers as well.
Has it been posted to torrent sites yet? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! Bunch of idiots paying for a bunch of zeroes and ones, wasting their hard-earned money.
Me? I pay to be a Netflix member every month. The fact that they let me watch movies and TV shows is just a nice side-effect.
Screw the CCP (Score:1)
The lead actress is some Communist Party boss's kid who got her US citizenship and promptly went back to capitalize on her family's party connections.
Boycott communism.
Greed is not good. (Score:2)
Of course, if something is too expensive, the simple answer is not to buy. I, for one, would have pr
Re: (Score:3)
I think the rationale is, compared to the price for a family of 4 watching the movie in a theater, this is cheap. But that's not how it works.
And the Disney+ choice is also ridiculous. Make it available on Google Play, iTunes, whatever ... no extra subscription needed. And for the standard $15 max. In fact given Disney+ has a strategy of a fairly low price given their catalog, I was thinking they'd apply the same strategy to get a lot of people to watch it. Like, between $5 and $10. That could have been a
THIRTY DOLLARS!!!! (Score:2)
I thought I'd check if COVID-19 changed reality in anyway way. Nope. The local cinema is still showing movies in 3D in a top of the line Dolby Cinema for $15.
Were they frigging high when they put a $30 price on this? Holy crap that's a hard pass for me. Halve the price and put it on a 17m wide screen with dual 8K Christie projectors and an earth shaking Dolby Atmos sound, and then we can talk. If you can't achieve those, then halve the price again and you *may* start getting into the realm of possibility th
Re: (Score:3)
I'd take a correctly normalized VHS audio track over anything done in the past 15 years. I only have left and right speakers so the audio goes through a studio compressor before my power amp. No more hearing damage or turning on subtitles because dialogue is sitting at -20db while music or action is at +20db. Also takes care of loud commercials too.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you like many people don't realise that compression, normalisation and in some cases downmixing is according to the standards the task of playback equipment. Sound quality has improved significantly "in the past 15 years". You just need to know how to setup your playback system (and buy some made by competent designers). I for one am glad we don't pander to the lowest common denominator.
Also you're not going to get hearing damage in a cinema. The sound is highly dynamic an even when Dave Baut
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry my hearing sensitivity has offended you.
Re: (Score:2)
Your hearing sensitivity hasn't. The way you went about resolving it has.
Re: (Score:2)
That reaction seems a little excessive. How much would it cost you to bring your wife and kids* to see it in a theater? Where you have to deal with everyone else's snotty little brats? *Based on the typical American household. YMMV.
If I cared about movies enough that I'm concerned with seeing them right away I'd probably already have a pretty decent home setup, and would be thrilled to be able to sit at home in my lazy-boy in my underwear to watch it on opening day. The rest of us don't give a crap an
Re: (Score:2)
That reaction seems a little excessive. How much would it cost you to bring your wife and kids* to see it in a theater?
My what? At best I'd take the girlfriend but since she has a gold subscription she gets in for free. (Subscription, like that thing you're already paying Disney for).
Where you have to deal with everyone else's snotty little brats?
Brats? I don't go to the cinema just after school finishes or saturday afternoon. Plus if there were brats I'm sure mum and dad would take them to the normal cinema at half the price.
If I cared about movies enough that I'm concerned with seeing them right away I'd probably already have a pretty decent home setup, and would be thrilled to be able to sit at home in my lazy-boy in my underwear to watch it on opening day.
Yeah horses for courses. I care enough about movies that I see them on the big screen at a quality not remotely matchable by anything any normal upper class person
Re: THIRTY DOLLARS!!!! (Score:2)
Which March? (Score:2)
In 2019 this guy was in Mexico City and they were already holding off due to covid-19? Talk about foresight!
For those who will whine about being pedantic, you wouldn't say last year when talking about something which happened in the current year. You would say this past year.
It's like 12 PM all over again.
Re: (Score:2)
Please (Score:2)
....everyone, please don't buy into this.
It's a FILM and this is the world of 2020. You are not beholden to studio or television scheduling.
If you don't see it TODAY, you might see it next week, or in 5 weeks. It will be the same. YOU will be the same.
DO NOT VALIDATE THEIR "pay for sub, PLUS pay for (new)" model. Disney has a history of rapacious and stupid release paradigms (remember divx, anyone?). If we just ignore this one, it too will go away. But if you dumb impatient fuckers reward them by pay
Re: (Score:1)
every other studio will feel entitled to launch the same model.
Damn them for providing what their customers are asking for. Damn them all to hell.
You almost certainly have better things to be doing with your time, anyway.
Speak for yourself. No, seriously, who are you to judge what other people find to be worth their time? Or are you the kid that drives by the Harry Potter premier showing screaming "Voldemort Dies! Voldemort Dies!" to the people waiting to get into the theater?
Re: (Score:2)
^ proof that literally anything will find a defender on the internet.
Of course, you probably work for Disney.
Re: (Score:2)
^ proof that literally anything will find a defender on the internet.
Wait, you mean different people want different things? Holy shit, stop the friggin presses!
Here's my side: I don't enjoy going to theaters, at all. There is literally nothing I find enjoyable about it beyond getting to see a movie sooner. The last movie I saw in the theater was the "The Last Jedi", that should give you an idea of how often I go. And had the option of paying $30 for me and my family to watch it at home at release time been available, I would have gladly done that instead.
Of course, you probably work for Disney.
Obviously I must
It's not a valid test (Score:5, Insightful)
They've hamstrung this by saying it'll come to all Disney+ members for "free" in November.
So pay $30 now or wait 2 months...
Most people are going to wait.
Now maybe this is some way for Disney to placate the theaters (See? We release it to streaming after the same amount of time we would've from the box office) and they probably always would've put it on the service. But by announcing it ahead of time, there's no real incentive to pay up front unless you REALLY wanted to see Mulan ASAP. (Probably some MBA execs are thinking this IS customers mindsets when going to the theater - they'd be wrong. Going to the theater is an EXPERIENCE and shared social activity - buying it at home 2 months ahead of time is not)
In the meantime I'm still waiting for the McNugget Szechuan sauce to come back one more time!
Re: (Score:2)
They've hamstrung this by saying it'll come to all Disney+ members for "free" in November.
No they haven't. Movies usually come out in a pay per sitting format prior to being released on steaming channels several months later. How they've hamstrung this is by pricing it at thirty frigging dollars. For that I expect an UHD Bluray special edition in a fancy box.
Yeah.... no. (Score:2)
So let me get this straight -- Disney wants me to pay $30 extra to see a film two months before general consumer release. So I get the theater ticket window experience but still see it on my own TV. That... I have no words. That takes gonads.
At least the raisinettes won't be stale.
5/10 on IMDb. (Score:2)
It was lower earlier too.