fujishig

Sorry, Draven, this is not leading me to believe that this is being posted by a rational person, let alone someone who's opinions on pricing I should listen to...

SmackDaddy

Is this a Dollar Theater? While we take in the occasional matinee to save a few bucks (usually for more low key films), if we're going to see a movie it's usually an event movie where we want to make an evening of it. Reserved seat tickets at out largest screen are around $15 each, plus food and drinks. Heck, if we spring for the a flick at an IPIC theater, it will be around $120 (2 person pods with fully reclining seats, blanket/pillows, popcorn included, and really good food/drinks).

Sure, we've got some older, cheaper theaters, but if I'm paying to see a movie, I want quality screen/sound/amenities.

DJariya

I think Mike lives in South Dakota, so the cost of living there must be extremely low compared to other big cities.

Mike86

It’s not a dollar theater. Smaller town and like I say the theater isn’t the greatest. We only have one main theater in town that’s a multiplex. There’s another theater that mainly does plays, but also does movies (they only have one screen though and don’t get things right away).

Correct. I am in South Dakota. So yeah it is lower than where a lot of you are at.

~~ PAL ~~

I think that most people already have their decision made up one way or another, and I doubt anyone actually changed their mind after seeing another person's stance or opinion here. For myself, I would have to say no the $30 "offer".

If a person actually went ahead and rented Mulan for 30 bucks, then cancelled the service because it was not used year round. Subsequently, this same person at a later date decided to get the Disney+ sub again, would that Mulan rental still be there or will it be gone with the first cancellation?

MLBFan24

My local Cinemark theater has first showing matinee at $6.75, so I usually go with my dad to watch the blockbuster films on a Sunday morning. So if premium VOD streaming is the new way to go, I've mentioned before that $20 is my price point. I'm not sure about $30 yet, and definitely not $30 to watch Mulan right away. I can wait.

My opinion would probably change about the $30 price if this pertained to a new Star Wars film (just so I could watch it before spoilers appear everywhere)

fujishig

I would think so, but bottom line is we don't know because this is basically unprecedented on the service. But that's why I and others say this is a weird precedent, because they're going to have to put some work in to enable this and I can't see them only doing it for one movie, but we'll see.

As far as the pricepoint of seeing a film, again, if you're regularly paying like 30 to 80 bucks on watching a movie, you're doing so mainly for the experience, not the movie itself (since even the most expensive places can have cheap Tuesday tickets and matinees and cheaper venues). If that helps to justify in your head the price that's fine (and as I said earlier I might do it if my family shows interest) but it's not really comparable. We need zyzzle in here to tell us how to go to a movie the cheapest way possible and compare that.

Lastly, one thing I didn't think of: I always thought a barrier to on-demand first release stuff was not only the theaters but the threat of piracy. Without getting into the hows and whys, are these streaming services secure enough now that someone can't just capture the stream and record it? Because otherwise that's going to be a problem.

edited to add: And I just saw this:

Brian T

The Chinese malls and plazas up here are still home to bootleg shops that are stuffed to the rafters with discs featuring pristine copies of just about everything new or popular on Netflix, HBOMax, Hulu, Prime, Crave, you name it, and now Disney+. Compared to a few years ago when this kind of counterfeiting took a serious chunk of studio theatrical and DVD profits, I'm sure the smaller number of stores at present barely makes a dent in streaming revenue. But I gotta say, they sure don't wait; new movies and shows are on boots within a day or two. And plenty of people still buy them, at least here, presumably because they just want certain shows rather than paying for the galactic wasteland of forgettable content that now exists on most of these services.

Obi-Wanma

Tuesday is usually a deal day regardless of where live. It's really not just where you live, it's whether or not being frugal matters to you and to what lengths you're willing to go to pinch a penny. I've detailed some of my tricks earlier in this thread, but here's an example, I live in the Detroit area (not the city itself but a large enough suburb) which while obviously isn't among the biggest markets in the country, it's far from a small town, and a movie can be seen for $5 all day every Tuesday at any theater in this area (including AMC, which is a deal that I believe can be had nationally if you are a member of stubs premiere, which is $15 per year and basically pays for itself if you go to the movies with any regularity). This includes the nicer theaters with recliners and all of the modern amenities. At at least two of the biggest chains in this area, you can also get a free popcorn on Tuesday if you are members of their free rewards programs. AMC does not offer this one, but they do offer a discounted popcorn/soda combo on Tuesdays.

At some of the cheaper theaters (usually also AMC theaters, still first run movies, but the older theaters that lack recliner seating and are generally less trafficked) you could even get tickets cheaper than $5 in the early hours of the day.

Also for me, even though I have a family of 5 (three daughters ages 11, 11, and 10) it's usually a struggle to get anyone but my friend (in which case I'm buying one ticket) or one of my daughters (who is basically my other movie buddy, in which case I'm buying two) to go to the movies with me. I can get my wife out of the house for a movie maybe 2 times a year, and the other two daughters rarely are interested enough to want to go to anything. They're at that age where all they want to do is stare into their electronics.

Anyway, the point is, I'm usually spending 5 to 10 dollars on tickets (or a little more if we don't make it on Tuesday), and on the weekend I can go to any movie at a nice theater for as little as $7 per ticket until 6PM, which is often the best choice for me and my daughter. I spend maybe $10 to $15 on top of that for concessions (I really don't do anything else but popcorn and soda, and if I'm without my kids, I don't get any concessions unless it's Tuesday).

So usually regardless of how I'm doing it, I'm usually spending much less than $40 on the whole deal, and it's a cheap experience that I can share with my friend or my daughter. I'm often paying more for the theatrical experience than I am for the actual movie. If Mulan was in a theater in regular non-pandemic times, I would likely see it with my daughter and it would be a fun experience, but neither of us is that excited to see it right now that I would go and spend $40 to watch it from my couch. It will be the same experience when it comes to Disney Plus for free.

All that said, as some others have already voiced here, if say Black Widow were to become a similar experience, I would have a much more difficult time staying away, because my daughter and I are very much invested in the MCU. I still wouldn't be happy about it, but I can't say that I wouldn't pay it. Neither of us are that excited about a live action remake of Mulan, and I'm tiring of these live action Disney remakes anyway.

E Unit

This article pretty much sums up what we’ve been talking about.

https://apple.news/AlQBSx7BZQWKO5k2kcaL4pQ

tanman

Not when they've budgeted the movie accordingly to generate much higher revenue in the theaters. Your heart doesn't have to bleed for them, mine certainly doesn't, but just understand they aren't running a charity.

Agreed but how did they get to be so large. Not by giving away $200 million dollar movies for free.

agreed

The article brings some good points but is really just click bait. Like why does he think it will fail because it unlocks it and isn't a rental? Unlocking it is actually a lot better than a rental. At least you have way longer than 24 hours to watch it. Brings the value up a little bit and isn't a negative. Also he acts like Disney wants to do this. I guarantee they'd rather release it in theaters like it was planned. But things have been bonkers lately.

I think the biggest point he has is with the theaters. They're certainly not going to like this at all. But they are not in a position to make any kind of demands. Unfortunately all of the power rests in the studios actually making the movies. I don't like the way Disney has recently been strong arming theaters think this is just going to make it worse.

Sonny Corinthos

While 30 bucks is cheaper than what it would cost my family and I to go, I will pass. Maybe if it was a film we were really looking forward to, maybe.

Michael Corvin

Oh you get Disney+ for free, because most people don't. It's a service they run that they make billions on. If they want to maintain subscribers they have to provide content. Nothing on Disney+ is "free."

I think the problem is locking you to their ecosystem to watch it. If they just.said Mulan will be $30 to rent, there would be some complaints but people "get it" versus going to the theater. But since they're making you subscribe to purchase and locking you into $7 a month if you want to watch the thing you bought then we're free to criticize their greed. It's an asinine way to release something and they likely know it. They're just testing people's limits on cost and accessibility.
​

Draven

I don’t understand why it’s “greedy” when this is not a movie that was in theaters 3 months ago (like a typical rental). This is the practical application of the age-old question “what would you pay to see a first-run theatrical movie at home the day it comes out in theaters?”. We’re about to find out what people would pay.

For a family that can easily drop at least close to $30 on tickets, even on a “cheap” day at the theater - with the added benefit of pausing, eating your own food and rewatching it...it just doesn’t seem that far out of line to me.

I know parents who paid $20 to rent Trolls World Tour (again, cheaper than the theater) only to lose it after 24 hours...this seems like a better solution all around.

Even if it comes out to purchase on iTunes or Blu-Ray six months later, it’s STILL a good deal.

Me and my wife buying tickets: $20
Concessions: $15
Buying digital release: $15
Total: $50

Me renting on Disney+: $30
Buying digital release: $15
Total: $45

Dan

Fucking hell...
I know this is true, but... damn.
Damn...

Jay G.

Well, people are complaining about it being tied to Disney+ as well. And if my math is right, $6.99 is less than $30, and that $6.99 comes with a lot more content than just Mulan.

They have. They produce content specifically for it, as well as adding content that was originally released theatrically first. They have a specific budget for the service, and Mulan, as a theatrical film, was budgeted with the assumption it'd recoup some of its cost from a theatrical release and home video sales before eventually joining Disney+.

They've also already tried just adding a movie that was formally going to be released theatrically, both Artemis Fowl and Hamilton, for no additional cost. Disney likely looked at the numbers to see how those films affected D+ subscriber rates, and determined it wasn't something that was possible for Mulan without losing a lot of money. Basically, Mulan likely wasn't going to affect new subscriber or subscriber retention rates enough to justify just including it for free from day one.

Disney is also releasing this theatrically in some places. They don't want those people to feel ripped off and "have to" pay for a theatrical experience while others are getting Mulan on D+ for no additional cost, just because their area managed COVID-19 better and can re-open theaters. Going straight to D+ for no additional cost devalues the movie.

If you're fine with a 48 hour rental or whatever at $30, I don't see how Disney is "locking you into" D+. At worst, it's $37 for a 30 day rental of the movie, and that's assuming you watch only Mulan while subscribed for that month, as opposed to also binging season 1 of Mandalorian, Artemis Fowl, Hamilton, maybe that last season (or all of) Clone Wars, some Marvel films, etc.

DJariya

We've been going around in circles with this. I totally understand your feelings with justifying the cost. From a money standpoint, it works for you, then that's great.

But, I think for some, when you're paying $30 for a movie, you want to make it a experience and a special night out (which obviously we can't do right now) Not just sitting in your house and watching TV on your couch, which we do all the time anyways. That's why I think there's so much pushback and negativity and the fact that 3 maybe 4 months later it will be on Disney + anyways. If Disney wants to attempt to get more people on this, they need to explain it better with some marketing. Right now the majority don't get it or just think that $30 is an outrageous amount of money to pay for a movie. Especially for the young people with no families.

We don't know if this will work. It could be a bomb for Disney.

fujishig

In some respects, it doesn't matter, though, this is a worthwhile endeavor with little risk:
If this bombs spectacularly, they don't have to release the results. They just bundle the numbers in with total sales of Mulan in other formats way down the line. Which they will still do. Basically if they make no money off of this, they just release to Vudu and the like earlier than they would.

They keep all the money. The only upfront cost is the cost of modifying the service to have a paid model, which they will definitely use in the future. The money for making the movie is already a sunk cost, they can probably hide that in the dire Covid financials if they really want.

They gauge the willingness of their core audience to pay for services above and beyond their streaming model. From a financial standpoint, this could mean a lot of things: More early releases (obviously they have to make things work with theaters but they were already trying to bend them over before this), tiered pricing (get new releases earlier), etc. Basically whatever the consumer is willing to pay for. How many people here have said that they would be in if this were Marvel or Star Wars, for even greater prices?

Jay G.

Wow, you jumped from "for some" to "the majority" really quickly. But don't forget, that for any major theatrical release, the majority of Americans don't go to see it. Looking at the numbers for something like The Lion King last year, it sold ~60 million tickets in the US, based on average ticket price. The US consists of ~320 million people, so even assuming nobody saw it twice, that's only ~19% of the population:
https://www.the-numbers.com/market/2019/summary

What proportion of people does Disney need to get to make this profitable for them? The two online polls suggest 15% of people are willing to pay $30 to see it:
https://movieweb.com/mulan-disney-pl...illing-to-pay/

Of course, the Mulan purchases would be per household, not per person, so 15% of 130 million households is 19.5 million households. At $30 each, that's $585 million, That would put the revenue above The Lion King.

Disney isn't hoping to get everyone, or even a majority of people, to pay $30 for the early access. Rather, they're looking to get enough to supplement/replace the theatrical run. Others will wait for a more traditional home video release, or for Disney+ to included it with the subscription for no additional cost, just like they would've done for a theatrical release of a film.


If it is a bomb, that means that Disney is more likely to just hoard its other big films until it can release them theatrically, instead of releasing anything else for home viewing before/instead/concurrent with a theatrical run.

DJariya

You're right. I should have said Some. Some people simply don't get or don't give a crap about all these financials. Only the hardcore movie fan or pundit understands any of this.

Koby

Exactly this is what I was saying ^^^

tanman

I agree with that. It is a weird decision to lock it to their streaming service. They likely know with a movie like a Mulan remake they can likely hedge on the primary audience being Disney fans. But I get why they're trying it. Keeping 100% of the profits is an appealing aspect of releasing it this way, from their perspective of course. Either way it's all experimental and will be interesting to see what this means for the future. Unfortunately I doubt it if we will get any real solid numbers on how it does.

And of course it's not free but again when they budget a movie this large they are doing so with theater profits in mind. A show like Mandalorian is a real subscription driver but its not going to have a budget of $200 million for 2 hours worth of content.

tanman

That's true too. Honestly it's one big giant experiment. I think it's fascinating to see all the different responses to this announcement. I really wonder what the predominant feeling is from the general target audience for this movie. Or any movie really. Me personally I kind of hope if fails in some way. I'm not fond of the idea of day and date digital releases. I think that will really kill the theater industry. Unfortunately I fear I'm in the minority and most people prefer the convenience of digital. And honestly even if they did both it would still kill some of the experience of actually going to the theater. Because even though I love going to the theater if its available on digital at home I might not go through all the "trouble" of doing it.

If people are disagreeing with you I think most people are just trying to show why Disney is doing this from their business POV.

Ash Ketchum

I'm really torn about this. I'm angry at the lead actress for issuing a statement supporting the Hong Kong police in their crackdown on demonstrators, but at the same time it's so rare to get an all-Asian cast film from a Hollywood studio that I want to support it. If I opt to see it, I would prefer to wait till I get the opportunity to see it in a theater.

In any event, I have no thoughts about what Disney should or shouldn't do myself, but I appreciate the lively discussion here.

csant

For me its parking, 6 tickets, concessions which can easily equal $100. Which I think $30 might be a bit on the high side, at the end of the day I would still save some money.