Mulan coming to Disney Plus

  • September 4th for $30 and have access to the movie as long as you stay as a member.

    Personally I like the idea as it's cheap and something I would have paid more to go see now it's cheaper and can watch at home. What does everyone think?

  • I know theaters cost a lot but people go to them for the experience and all that. Even owning a Blu-Ray or DVD at least you have a physical item on your shelf. Thirty dollars for just a digital download (or more accurately just a stream) seems ridiculous personally. Especially considering A) from some quick research that's more expensive than a lot of other recent movies to go the same route and B) you could watch the (almost inevitably better) original movie this is a remake of on the same service without paying extra. I also have to assume this will just be on Disney+ without costing extra a few months down the line, unless it sells insanely well or something. Unless you're experiencing serious FOMO I'd personally recommend against paying that much when you're already paying for a service that includes a vast library to keep you busy anyway.

  • I pay like $20 a month to see whatever I want - up to 12 movies a month in movie theaters. *when movie theaters are open
    I pay $5 for Disney + to watch... well... mostly NatGeo stuff, honestly.
    I pay $16 a month for Netflix to watch... well... mostly Great British Bake-off and Kantaro: The Sweet Tooth Salaryman

    $30 to watch a single movie? Nah.

  • Banned

    Absolute lunacy.
    If I'm paying 30 bux for a movie, I better own that shit for life. Having to pay thirty dollars ON TOP of a subscription to watch it streamed? Get fucked, Disney.

  • Lol, I guess I'm the only sucker here :D The way I'm thinking is if I went to the movies to watch something new I would pay more (I don't have the luxury of having a cinema pass like TokyoSlim)

  • You pay over $30 to see a movie?! Not even including the Disney sub, that's an absolutely insane ticket price.

  • I guess from a business standpoint, even though the movie is probably opening in select theaters, this was supposed to be one of the biggest fiduciary money makers for the studio this year. With the state of things, even if the movie opens in theaters, it's doubtful it would see the the reception financially that it would receive otherwise. Onward was already a really large financial hit after they released it for free on Disney+. As a free to stream movie, the team simply wouldn't make their money back that way.

    I recognize that this is a way to try and get paid for a big project, but the reality is that most people won't buy it. They'll pirate it if they're interested, or wait until it's free to stream, and will not go to a theater because the cheaper options are there. If things were different, I would gladly go and pay full price at a movie theater, but to stream in my home, it's a difficult proposition for something that isn't a physical movie, at least for me. However I would like to pay the actors and people behind the movie if I watch it.

    Having worked and managed at several movie theaters in my life, that ~$12 ticket price is typically already split between the movie theater and the studio, starting with a heavier cut to the studio, and goes more towards the theater after roughly two weeks. It's easier to get less profit over a longer period of time if people are going to watch something, and repeatedly doing so, so this is in my eyes a steep way to attempt to make their profits back in a poorly communicated experiment of trying to even those graphs back.

  • I hope they don't do it with Black Widow. I want to see that in theaters before people spoil everything.

  • Obviously not worth it if you watch alone, but in a group this is an absolute steal, IMO. Ticket prices back home cost $22+, so if I were to watch this with my family (7 people), I'd be saving over $100. Obviously subscription services like A-list add a wrinkle, but with theaters closed that's sort of a non-starter.

  • Yeah, the above it literally the only reason this makes any sense at all, and that justification of it being a "family" film would make this more profitable than attempting this with something like Halloween Kills. That's one of the main reasons Trolls made 100m this year in VOD. People with kids are starved for content right now.

    This is essentially "take one kid to a movie" price. Which makes little sense for those without kids, but "we" aren't the target demographic here.

  • @tokyoslim So it "makes sense" because "they can get away with it".

  • @mbun You didn't read what I wrote?

    It makes sense because to the target market, it represents value.

  • @tokyoslim I still say that argument falls flat because while it is cheaper than taking a family to a theater it's not a remotely comparable experience. When I was growing up going to the movies was a whole event, watching something on Disney Channel was a "we've got nothing better going on" night. Loading up a streaming service is definitely more in the latter category. And if a parent wants to treat it like it is an event, then I'd hope they'd have more common sense and save the money by just watching something else already on the service. Maybe share a childhood classic with their kids or something. Or even just watch some other recent movie their kids missed out on when it was brand new. There's so many movies and shows you can stream these days that the idea of paying extra for something just to stare at the same screen with the same experience because it's new feels silly to me and even if I really had to see it $30 is way, way too much to justify it.

  • @hanabi said in Mulan coming to Disney Plus:

    I still say that argument falls flat

    Ok, so then why are they doing it? If it's not a gambit to market a "family movie" to "families"
    then what exactly are they doing?

    I am not saying it's a good idea, I'm saying that is what the reasoning and justification behind the pricing scheme is. If you have another idea that "doesn't fall flat" I'd like to hear, based on market data and precedent, what you believe the strategy to be?

  • @tokyoslim trying to recoup losses? look at the recent sonic or scooby doo movies on amazon video. they cost far less to rent and still less than mulan to just buy outright digitally.

  • @hanabi that argument falls flat. Pricing Mulan at $30 is not going to recoup your losses. Nothing you price Mulan at for VOD is going to recoup your losses unless it's the best selling VOD of all time. And pricing it at $30 plus a subscription guarantees that it won't be.

  • If you sold Mulan to the same number of people who bought Scoob! or Trolls World Tour on VOD (my rough averages, based on what we know as sales aren't reported as accurately for VOD), you'd have to charge $47 to break even. So your assertion is they are trying to outsell by more than 2x the two biggest VOD releases of 2020, by limiting where you can get it, and charging 1.5x more... Doesn't seem to hold any water.

    Sonic came out theatrically, so isn't really a great comp. It made it's money back before it even went to VOD.

  • Wow, I totally wasn't even thinking of how much it would cost to take a family to the movies. The $30 price kind of makes sense, in that light.

  • I'm sorry, but literally all you've said is it makes sense because people will pay it, because families are desperate for entertainment right now. That's not a great argument, whether it is the reality of what Disney is doing or not, and it basically lines up exactly with me saying they're pricing it this way because they can get away with it. Comparing movie theatre value with a from home viewing is kind of silly too. They're not remotely the same kind of experience. Everything about this is seedy, but sadly I imagine many will still bite anyways, because you can't put a price of "Disney Magic", right? That's how Disney has bled their fans time and time again over the years. This is just the newest scheme, and as long as enough of their fans defend it, they can normalize this too within the public perception.

  • Considering that is not literally what I said, I'd propose you go back and read it again without your bias.

    "Because they can get away with it" is an oversimplification of motive. You're seemingly not comprehending the entire nature of business by oversimplifying things that far. WHY can they get away with it? It's not one sided. That's what I'm talking about.

    Since we've determined that per the fiscal evidence recouping their losses doesn't appear to be their primary goal, defaulting to believing they are pricing things "because" is just ignorant. Disney thinks they are providing a good or service the people they are trying to sell to want, at a price or cost that seems like a reasonable deal. (that's called sales)

    The questions you aren't asking is:
    What is that good/service?
    What differentiates it from other similar products?
    Who is the target market?
    Why is the cost fair?

    I've already stated that from my perspective it seems overpriced, and I'm uninterested in paying it. Does that mean that it's bad? No, it just means that I'm not the target demographic. I've explained from my perspective a justification for the above.

    I mean, both @iboshow and @naltmank have spelled it out pretty succinctly. There are people who are going to view this as a value. Those people belong to a demographic that aligns directly with the product Disney is providing. To see this as a "coincidence" is a deep and fundamental misunderstanding about how things actually function