Mulan coming to Disney+

[Jedijax719]

I would have loved to see this go straight to D+ like Hamilton and Artemis Fowl but that would have been GREATLY selfish of me. They NEED to make something from this movie. $30 is higher than BR but there will be lots of families and groups (hopefully with masks and social distancing and not too big of course) who can all see this for one fee.

It will make the film some money, but there will still be a LOT of $$$ los. Millions actually. Many will just wait until it come to D+ for free in a few months. That's inevitable.

Same for Soul and probably Black Widow.

 

[Giss Neric]

A family of four watching a movie in the theatre is the same amount so I don't know why everybody has a problem with it. If it's only for a one time viewing then that's wrong but if it's there on your library for as long as you're a subscriber then that's fine.

Now, regarding Mulan, I'm a little iffy, but a Marvel movie would make me pay.

 

[MisterPenguin]

In the forums, I've seen a lot of speculation that basically says, "no one's interested in Mulan" and therefore, shouldn't be called a tent pole movie, and also no one's going to pay the VoD fee for it.

A question to those saying that or something similar: You base this on what data?

 

[Brer Oswald]

So I did the conversion. $30 USD is about $39.89 CAD.

That’s about $40.

If it were in theatres, I’d be paying $14 for a ticket ($8 if it was a Tuesday). Popcorn is about $20, but I typically get a large, and movie theatre popcorn is better than regular popcorn.

For additional comparison, Trolls and Scoob were $26 to rent and $30 CAD to buy.

 

[doctornick]

That's great! In the comparison made Hamilton is less Disney and therefore less likely to have Disney subscribers. Mulan IS Disney. Mulan could bring subscribers. It's not mutually exclusive though. In Disney's case I think they'd prefer brand retention over one-off subscribers. Non-Disney fans are less likely to subscribe. But I fear we're getting off topic.

I'm not really understanding your premise. "Disney fans" who are interested in Mulan likely already subscribe to Disney+ so putting it for free on the service would be unlikely to drive new subscriptions and thus make any additional revenue. Maybe it might deter people from cancelling who are already members. But I don't see it as being something that would drive new subs.

Hamilton OTOH is something very different and far more likely to get people to try Disney+ who otherwise might not have done so or even thought about the service. If even a small number of those people then experience the service, enjoy and decide to keep it then you've just expanded subscriptions to a whole bunch of folks. That make sense. At worse, they get a month's subscription from a bunch of people who cancel and that's not nothing.

Mulan on Disney+. Could have been a boon for "new" subscribers. Instead it could very well cause current subscribers to cancel. $30 is steep ask for the one-off Disney+ viewer.

Why would people cancel over this? Would they have cancelled if Mulan came out in theaters over the summer and wasn't on Disney+ for 6 months or whatever? If they aren't interested enough to pay the $30, then people can just wait until it appears on the service for free down the line.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

So I did the conversion. $30 USD is about $39.89 CAD.

That’s about $40.

If it were in theatres, I’d be paying $14 for a ticket ($8 if it was a Tuesday). Popcorn is about $20, but I typically get a large, and movie theatre popcorn is better than regular popcorn.

For additional comparison, Trolls and Scoob were $26 to rent and $30 CAD to buy.

Theater prices is a better comparison for this than DVD prices IMO. This option of seeing a theatrical release before it hits traditional home video is a fairly new business model. I'd expect to pay a premium price.

The high price point is no different than paying more for a hardcover book vs. a paperback. It's a new release and if you want to see it right now it's going to cost you more than a standard digital movie purchase. Anyone who wants to wait a few months will still be able to buy it through traditional means at typical prices.

 

[doctornick]

Same for Soul and probably Black Widow.

We've seen the rumors about Soul going to Disney+ and I thought that seemed odd unless they viewed it as a likely flop like Artemis Fowl (what a bad movie, by the way). But I could totally see Soul being distributed much like this announcement for Mulan.

I don't think there's any way Black Widow goes to VOD. There's too much money being left at the table by not releasing it into theaters. I expect they'll simply keep pushing it back until theaters open normally. Disney would be all to happy to hype up "the return of Marvel" and I think the general populace would eat it up with massive ticket sales.

 

[Brer Oswald]

People seem to be comparing this to DVD prices or other things, whem


Theater prices is a better comparison for this than DVD prices IMO. This option of seeing a theatrical release before it hits traditional home video is a fairly new business model. I'd expect to pay a premium price.

The high price point is no different than paying more for a hardcover book vs. a paperback. It's a new release and if you want to see it right now it's going to cost you more than a standard digital movie purchase. Anyone who wants to wait a few months will still be able to buy it through traditional means at typical prices.

Sure. I’m just comparing the astounding price point to theatre tickets and other VOD releases. $40 for a digital movie is practically unheard of, whether your renting or purchasing

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Sure. I’m just comparing the astounding price point to theatre tickets and other VOD releases. $40 for a digital movie is practically unheard of, whether your renting or purchasing

I was agreeing, or thinking your movie theater cost comparison was a good benchmark for comparison.

$40 is unheard of, because this is a new phenomena, so the pricing may seem high but for the option to watch a new blockbuster movie at home, during the theatrical window, is going to cost more than a traditional movie rental or purchase.

Heck, I remember when VHS movies were $100 to buy. The only option to watch at home was initially to rent them. It was a year or more before one could own a copy of a movie.

This is a steal, comparatively speaking.

 

[MisterPenguin]

unless they viewed it as a likely flop like Artemis Fowl (what a bad movie, by the way)

We can't say that enough. In these divided times, we can all surely rally around the commonly held belief regarding how awful Artemis Fowl was.

 

[Lucky Rabbit]

Posted this in the regular D+ thread. If this rep is accurate it’s a pretty solid value even at $30.

'Mulan' is coming to Disney Plus on September 4 — but fans will need to pay $29.99 to watch it

The film was originally supposed to be released March 27 before the coronavirus pandemic pushed its release date multiple times.

www.insider.com

A representative for Disney Plus confirmed to Insider the $29.99 is not a one-time rental charge. Disney Plus subscribers "will have continuous access to the film for as long as they remain subscribers to the service."

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Hard pass.

 

[Rickster7]

How ‘bout I cancel Disney+ and save 12.99! Sounds better.

 

[ElvisMickey]

Posted this in the regular D+ thread. If this rep is accurate it’s a pretty solid value even at $30.

'Mulan' is coming to Disney Plus on September 4 — but fans will need to pay $29.99 to watch it

The film was originally supposed to be released March 27 before the coronavirus pandemic pushed its release date multiple times.

www.insider.com

The fact that the $29.99 price point gets you unlimited access to Mulan as long as you have an active subscription totally should have been brought up on the call yesterday. And since Chapek didn’t clarify, someone should have at least asked him when it was time for questions. The lack of clarification seemed to leave everyone just a little confused. I mean, I’m still not paying it, but it’s definitely a better value than just a one time rental.

 

[celluloid]

How ‘bout I cancel Disney+ and save 12.99! Sounds better.

I cancelled mine starting now for awhile. Not enough of the classic library for my liking. The original content is pretty meh sans for a very select few.

 

[Jedijax719]

I never understood the "not enough content" argument against D+. Other than Song of the South, what essential content is actually missing? I know there are some (Enchanted and On Stranger Tides come to mind) but most are obscure or are coming soon.

As far as Mulan goes, if $30 gives you unlimited access, does that mean it will never be available as a free part of D+? And will they just not release it on BR? Everyone's gotten so used to movies being released relatively quickly onto streaming now (with COVID-19) that this could put a shock to the system.

 

[Ripken10]

The fact that the $29.99 price point gets you unlimited access to Mulan as long as you have an active subscription totally should have been brought up on the call yesterday. And since Chapek didn’t clarify, someone should have at least asked him when it was time for questions. The lack of clarification seemed to leave everyone just a little confused. I mean, I’m still not paying it, but it’s definitely a better value than just a one time rental.

The target audience of the call yesterday was their investors. Investors don't care about minor details like that.

 

[ElvisMickey]

The target audience of the call yesterday was their investors. Investors don't care about minor details like that.

OK, for one, I listened to the entire call. And two, I work in Finance. So I’m not so sure about that. If you read all of the Facebook, Twitter, etc. comments after the call, you would have seen that it’s kind of a big deal as to whether someone would pay the $29.99 or not. Personally, I’m not paying $29.99 for a one time rental. Potentially “owning” something, so to speak in Disney + terms, is much more appealing. So yeah, it’s a valid point.

 

[HoustonHorn]

For me, this isn't about the $30 for Mulan. If I took my daughter to a theater, we'd pay more than that for tickets and concessions.

The problem I have with this is Disney monetizing content on a service I'm already paying a subscription price for. This is an extension of "freemium" games on your phone, or the extra-fee dessert party for the extra-fee MVMCP.

I am wary that the next thing is "We're glad you love the Mandalorian. New episodes drop weekly for the low-low price of $4.99, or you can subscribe to the season for just $44.99."

Slippery slope is slippery.

 

[Jedijax719]

From a theatrical release perspective, Disney is very "lucky" covid-19 didn't hit last year!