Disney World Pricing, No Mulan Theatrical Release?

Tom P.

Well-Known Member
It’s laughable to suggest a capacity RESTRICTION through 2022. Perhaps actual attendance will remain down due to a recession, as you say. During the 2008-9 recession, for comparison, WDW attendance plummeted a full 1% (one percent) and rebounded by 2011. After 9/11, it fell 5%. To suggest it will still be down 25% in 2022 is just silly.
After the financial crisis of 2008, many people could not afford to go to Walt Disney World. After 9/11, many people were scared of air travel. But in neither case did people actually worry much about the parks themselves.

With COVID-19, there is at least the potential that people will think that the parks themselves are unsafe. No, I don't think that will tank attendance by 25% or 50%, but you don't think it could be more than the 5% drop after 9/11?
 

MansionButler84

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Advertisement
After the financial crisis of 2008, many people could not afford to go to Walt Disney World. After 9/11, many people were scared of air travel. But in neither case did people actually worry much about the parks themselves.

With COVID-19, there is at least the potential that people will think that the parks themselves are unsafe. No, I don't think that will tank attendance by 25% or 50%, but you don't think it could be more than the 5% drop after 9/11?
I think people were more fearful, longer, after 9/11. I went to the beach today. And I am in the “hotbed” New York tri-state area. No one looked afraid to me. Folks around here were fearful much longer after 9/11. Fear of travel, I imagine, is what would fuel a decline for Disney. Apparently locals will still come. It’s tourism that is the worry.

I think no one knows what will happen so stories like the one posted by the OP are stupid. Much will depend on the severity of any second wave. To predict, without knowing, that it will remain awful and people will be fearful in two years when we are just 3 months in is reckless and bad journalism. FWIW, researchers from MIT announced that they do not expect a significant 2nd wave up here.
 

Goofy Ninja

Member
I'd rather watch Mulan at home anyways. I'm getting my money's worth w/ Disney Plus because I waited for Frozen 2 and Onward.

I'm so glad I didn't pay for movie tickets. F2 had too much singing and a crappy story and Onward was just pretty, pretty good. Also neither had a strong villain in it, which is why I probably didn't love either.
 

rreading

Premium Member
I think people were more fearful, longer, after 9/11. I went to the beach today. And I am in the “hotbed” New York tri-state area. No one looked afraid to me. Folks around here were fearful much longer after 9/11. Fear of travel, I imagine, is what would fuel a decline for Disney. Apparently locals will still come. It’s tourism that is the worry.

I think no one knows what will happen so stories like the one posted by the OP are stupid. Much will depend on the severity of any second wave. To predict, without knowing, that it will remain awful and people will be fearful in two years when we are just 3 months in is reckless and bad journalism. FWIW, researchers from MIT announced that they do not expect a significant 2nd wave up here.
South Padre Island over the Memorial Day weekend as well was packed, and no one looked afraid.

If anything, what will keep folks from returning to WDW will be the stipulation that everyone need wear a mask and the shorter operating hours. Once those go away, then I expect that they'll be back to full capacity. If capacity continues to be restricted, then demand will probably be even higher.
 

rreading

Premium Member
I'd rather watch Mulan at home anyways. I'm getting my money's worth w/ Disney Plus because I waited for Frozen 2 and Onward.

I'm so glad I didn't pay for movie tickets. F2 had too much singing and a crappy story and Onward was just pretty, pretty good. Also neither had a strong villain in it, which is why I probably didn't love either.
We say Onward online, and don't think that we missed anything.

But for Frozen 2 - even though it wasn't amazing - the big screen/big sound experience made it worth seeing once. Even when we pull out our projector at home, it's still not the same effect of being in the theater. We would almost certainly look for the real experience for Mulan
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
Theaters won’t yes, but they will have many more movies coming out over the next year. Could be another beneficial move for Disney by adding it to plus. Not sure of the exact numbers but the base did increase on Disney + when onward was sent there earlier then planned.
There is a 0% chance they go straight to Disney+ with any high budget movie. At minimum it would be a $19.99 or more pay per view release.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
I think people were more fearful, longer, after 9/11. I went to the beach today. And I am in the “hotbed” New York tri-state area. No one looked afraid to me. Folks around here were fearful much longer after 9/11. Fear of travel, I imagine, is what would fuel a decline for Disney. Apparently locals will still come. It’s tourism that is the worry.

I think no one knows what will happen so stories like the one posted by the OP are stupid. Much will depend on the severity of any second wave. To predict, without knowing, that it will remain awful and people will be fearful in two years when we are just 3 months in is reckless and bad journalism. FWIW, researchers from MIT announced that they do not expect a significant 2nd wave up here.
I would bet a lot of money that if WDW opened with no protective measures tomorrow it would be relatively crowded. At least 70% of the crowd that was there in the week before the closure, probably more.
 

robhedin

Well-Known Member
South Padre Island over the Memorial Day weekend as well was packed, and no one looked afraid.

If anything, what will keep folks from returning to WDW will be the stipulation that everyone need wear a mask and the shorter operating hours. Once those go away, then I expect that they'll be back to full capacity. If capacity continues to be restricted, then demand will probably be even higher.
I'd agree with this. I've spent the past 5 days here in the Orlando area doing touristy stuff and Disney Springs, City Walk, and Kennedy Space Center seem to be the exception rather than the norm. At the SpaceX launch, the minority around us were in masks and there was a LOT of people there.

I suspect Disney et al are applying the restrictions they are in order to explicitly to keep crowds low at the moment. I came down now in spite of the restrictions and have plans to come back in July as well. At the same time, I've got a number of friends who would normally be joining me, but they have zero interest with the current restrictions.
 

DisneyDebRob

Well-Known Member
There is a 0% chance they go straight to Disney+ with any high budget movie. At minimum it would be a $19.99 or more pay per view release.
I disagree. I can see them releasing them on Disney +, watching there subscription base go up like it has with Onward. I realize that movie was released in the theater but they saw how much more money it made being sent to plus. Also, not only do they get more subscribers, they rent it for 15 or 20 bucks for people that don’t subscribe. Its the way of the future. Others are starting to do the same thing. I don’t think theaters will be around in 15 years. IMO
 

tirian

Well-Known Member
I'd rather watch Mulan at home anyways. I'm getting my money's worth w/ Disney Plus because I waited for Frozen 2 and Onward.

I'm so glad I didn't pay for movie tickets. F2 had too much singing and a crappy story and Onward was just pretty, pretty good. Also neither had a strong villain in it, which is why I probably didn't love either.
I felt the same way. Both were meh IMO. Neither kept my niece’s attention, and she loves the first Frozen.

I don’t have the link here, but I read another analyst who said Disney can’t afford to skip theatrical windows because they only release tentpoles. His point was that most of their movies depend on big-screen experiences to draw viewers. Again, that’s just one guy’s opinion based on the facts he typically studies—which makes it just as legitimate as theme park experts who weigh in. :D

I know this thread is in the wrong forum, but I hope people keep up with it when a mod moves it to “Film.”

EDIT:
Here’s the link from the Hollywood Reporter.

Plus, here’s the quote (which is almost a throwaway line):
In terms of Hollywood stocks, Durkin said this means that he sees "studios with vertically integrated distribution like Universal (Comcast) and Warner Bros. (AT&T) as capturing outsized PVOD economics versus a Paramount (ViacomCBS) or a Sony (Sony Corp.), while Disney’s mega-blockbuster strategy is highly dependent on healthy theatrical distribution and might continue to eschew a PVOD window."
 
Last edited:

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
I disagree. I can see them releasing them on Disney +, watching there subscription base go up like it has with Onward. I realize that movie was released in the theater but they saw how much more money it made being sent to plus. Also, not only do they get more subscribers, they rent it for 15 or 20 bucks for people that don’t subscribe. Its the way of the future. Others are starting to do the same thing. I don’t think theaters will be around in 15 years. IMO
Subscription based streaming services can not support the business model for movies with $200 million budgets. If they could, HBO etc would have been putting out exclusive movies with those kind of budgets for the last 30 years.

If movie theaters don't exist in 15 years, what defines a movie will be different. If people get all you can watch streaming for $12 a month (for a family), "movies" will have much lower budgets. Eventually, the subscriber growth slows to a crawl.

For example, Game of Thrones was a high budget production and cost $60 - $90 million for a season. On an hourly basis the peak for the final season was $15 million. Translated to a feature film that would be a $30 - $40 million budget for something the length of a marvel movie. That's a fraction of what those cost to produce.

The only way for high budget movies to exist without movie theaters is if large numbers of people are willing to pay $50 or more for a premium pay per view window. I don't believe a large enough market exists. If you will eventually see Avengers 57 included with your Disney+ subscription, would you pay $50 additional to view it on the same TV in the same living room a few months earlier?
 

DisneyDebRob

Well-Known Member
Subscription based streaming services can not support the business model for movies with $200 million budgets. If they could, HBO etc would have been putting out exclusive movies with those kind of budgets for the last 30 years.

If movie theaters don't exist in 15 years, what defines a movie will be different. If people get all you can watch streaming for $12 a month (for a family), "movies" will have much lower budgets. Eventually, the subscriber growth slows to a crawl.

For example, Game of Thrones was a high budget production and cost $60 - $90 million for a season. On an hourly basis the peak for the final season was $15 million. Translated to a feature film that would be a $30 - $40 million budget for something the length of a marvel movie. That's a fraction of what those cost to produce.

The only way for high budget movies to exist without movie theaters is if large numbers of people are willing to pay $50 or more for a premium pay per view window. I don't believe a large enough market exists. If you will eventually see Avengers 57 included with your Disney+ subscription, would you pay $50 additional to view it on the same TV in the same living room a few months earlier?
For now, major blockbusters can’t make their money back by going to on demand or screening. That’s common sense. No way you can make that kind of money back.
You are seeing many more movies, not at that high end doing well in the 2 platforms I just mentioned. That’s because attendance has been dwindling for years in the theaters and will continue as more and more people want to sit at home, with their big screens in their pj’s and not overpaying for food and such. Profits from theaters have been dropping for years.
The whole landscape of movie watching is changing just like cutting the cord from cable has been going on for years. Blockbusters are safe for now but give it time, things will change.
As for paying 50 bucks to see a movie earlier? I wouldn’t by myself but with a group of friends, all paying a small price at someone’s house for a party, I would. It’s happening more and more.
 

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
For now, major blockbusters can’t make their money back by going to on demand or screening. That’s common sense. No way you can make that kind of money back.
You are seeing many more movies, not at that high end doing well in the 2 platforms I just mentioned. That’s because attendance has been dwindling for years in the theaters and will continue as more and more people want to sit at home, with their big screens in their pj’s and not overpaying for food and such. Profits from theaters have been dropping for years.
The whole landscape of movie watching is changing just like cutting the cord from cable has been going on for years. Blockbusters are safe for now but give it time, things will change.
As for paying 50 bucks to see a movie earlier? I wouldn’t by myself but with a group of friends, all paying a small price at someone’s house for a party, I would. It’s happening more and more.
What people want to do and what they'll pay a high price to do are two different things. What people want to do is watch movies for free (or perceived free as part of a streaming service) at home.

"Cutting the cord" is interesting. It would be a good research project to figure out, on average, how much people who "cut the cord" spend now on several streaming services vs. what they were spending before.

I don't want to derail the thread too much so we should probably table this discussion.
 

Disney Crazed

Active Member
Either way with the Mulan release I will be skipping it. Not because of no songs because I could live with that but no Mushu is what got me. I just cannot get with that.
 

Goofnut1980

Well-Known Member
Why couldn't Disney go away from theaters like Netflix and Amazon has. They could even charge $10 to rent the new movie for a week through Disney+. They would not only have the Disney+ membership, but then $10 for a new movie. If only 10 million people were to rent it. That's $100MM right there. They would pay ZERO in advertising.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
Why couldn't Disney go away from theaters like Netflix and Amazon has. They could even charge $10 to rent the new movie for a week through Disney+. They would not only have the Disney+ membership, but then $10 for a new movie. If only 10 million people were to rent it. That's $100MM right there. They would pay ZERO in advertising.
How do you think they would get millions of people to spend money on a film if they didn’t advertise it?
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Why couldn't Disney go away from theaters like Netflix and Amazon has. They could even charge $10 to rent the new movie for a week through Disney+. They would not only have the Disney+ membership, but then $10 for a new movie. If only 10 million people were to rent it. That's $100MM right there. They would pay ZERO in advertising.
Disney’s tentpole films regularly cost more than $100 million. Rentals don’t charge per person, so that 10 million rentals actually represents more than 10 million people.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
I felt the same way. Both were meh IMO. Neither kept my niece’s attention, and she loves the first Frozen.

I don’t have the link here, but I read another analyst who said Disney can’t afford to skip theatrical windows because they only release tentpoles. His point was that most of their movies depend on big-screen experiences to draw viewers. Again, that’s just one guy’s opinion based on the facts he typically studies—which makes it just as legitimate as theme park experts who weigh in. :D

I know this thread is in the wrong forum, but I hope people keep up with it when a mod moves it to “Film.”

EDIT:
Here’s the link from the Hollywood Reporter.

Plus, here’s the quote (which is almost a throwaway line):
The tentpole strategy is relatively recent, but obviously successful. They could certainly shift their approach, but those low-mid range cost movies have essentially disappeared from the theaters and are largely produced now for streaming platforms.

I imagine that the higher production value series shows will be the true cost / driver of Disney+ so when the Marvel and additional Star Wars shows can launch that will certainly help fuel their sales.
 
Top Bottom