22
votes
‘Mulan’ to skip theaters for $30 rental (September 4th on the Disney Plus platform)
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- 'Mulan' to Skip Theaters for Disney Plus Premium Debut
- Authors
- Adam B. Vary
- Published
- Aug 4 2020
- Word count
- 671 words
I figured a big shift in how movie releases work was coming, but $30 seems steep. I guess they assume it will be a whole family watching rather than just 1 or 2 individuals. But for $30 you can easily buy a blu-ray and own it forever, whereas $30 to stream it seems steep.
I suppose this will fix itself over time as people fight for the correct price point, but this seems aggressively high. I hope enough people buy it for other movie producers to make the jump, but I also hope enough people boycott it that competitors will adjust pricing to better reflect the experience.
I might be willing to split the cost with one or more individuals, but it certainly makes it annoying to have to coordinate such an effort in order to watch this movie.
I'm not sure how they could make it much cheaper. Disney movies in particular are dependent on you buying theater tickets for your whole family. $30 is probably a good deal lower than the average ticket sale price per group during first run in theaters.
Netflix has shown that it's entirely possible to have high budget films and still make money off it. If you're comparing the direct sales then you're correct, but with a shift in paradigm comes a shift in revenue and business model.
To be clear I don't know what's most correct route here, but probably no one really does. We need people to start paving the way for effective business models to start to emerge.
Netflix lost $3.3 billion last year. Their approach or business model definitely hasn't proven to be one worth copying yet.
I have no idea how their business model works out in the long term (I bet it’s a gamble, even for them), but that number should be seen in relation to the batshit amounts of money they threw at original content creation. I saw some figures (that was a few years ago) that blew my mind. $8 billion a year or something. That’s 80 Game of Thrones seasons?
Considering the amount of trash Netflix actually produces, just to see what sticks, Disney’s comparably focused, big-name-brand productions should be both cheaper and way more profitable.
Amazon lost a lot of money before becoming profitable. Losing money isn't the only metric to assess a business model (yes I'm aware this is a questionable analogy... there's a lot of other factors that went into Amazon's success).
Also, I think there's confounding factors of other companies finally taking streaming seriously.
Right, but your argument was
which isn't a true statement, seeing as they haven't made any money yet.
Well, that's all a question of what you consider "made any money". Their stock is worth more and people are purchasing it. They also have more subscribers than they did in the past which means there is more future profit. Heck, they've even entered the cultural lexicon with phrases like 'netflix and chill' and popular series like tiger king (although this is reaching into the realm of successful and not necessarily profitable).
It's extremely complicated to try and tease out what influences what, especially with such a complicated business model, but they are clearly in no risk of failing and by many measures are doing quite well as a company so I stand by my original statement.
People are purchasing Netflix stock because they are banking on Netflix eventually being profitable, and even bigger than it is today. But there isn't a guarantee that Netflix ever will be profitable. Plenty of companies have achieved sky high stock prices while burning piles of investor money before realizing their business model just won't work and they either change their business model or go bust. For some companies, the strategy is to start off with a completely unsustainable business model that brings in droves of customers, then slowly pivot to something that actually turns a profit.
Netflix has yet to prove that their current business model is viable. They probably still haven't even figured out the best way to run their business, as their strategy the last few years has been to fling stuff at the wall and see what sticks.
I'm not saying Netflix is doomed or anything. But I can say that if they continue to operate exactly as they are today indefinitely, they will run out of business.
I'm not sure Netflix is really comparable. As you pointed out, their business model is entirely different.
So far they've released only one film (The Irishman) with a budget approaching that of Mulan, and it's doubtful they will be releasing $200m "blockbusters" at the same pace Disney does any time soon.
They probably don't even know yet if these big budget films drive enough subscriptions to justify their cost. Netflix could very well find that putting out four $50m movies is more effective than one $200m special effects extravaganza.
My hot take: Subscription services are going to be a boon for the kinds of mid-budget films and comedies that became increasingly rare at the box office after the recession, and theaters will continue to be dominated by big budget mass appeal special effects movies that benefit from the large screens and communal viewing.
Just wait until facial recognition gets better, then they'll charge per person.
please drink verification can
Don't see anyone else mention this yet. From another news source
I understand that movies cost a lot to make, but all of the services that let you "buy or rent" (read: purchase either a short term or extra-short-term DRM license) movies online always seemed too expensive for me. There's no chance of me spending $10 just to watch Madea's Timely Sequel or Cardigans of the Abnormality Vol. 2, especially if it's only a passing interest. And why would I spend $15-25 for an 'ownership' if I can get a physical copy for roughly the same price that will be playable even if the movie company goes out of business and will also have bonus features?
I assume this is market segmentation and they will sell it or rent it at lower price points later. This is just for people who want to watch it on first release. For some fans it will be worth it and others will wait.
$30? I assume that's US dollars, so it's about $42 Australian dollars - which is equivalent to about 3 cinema tickets, give or take.
And they're just providing the content. I'm providing the screen, the speakers, the seats, and the venue. All those overheads are removed for Disney.
I expect a lower price.
So, wait a year. It's not like the product will go off. It's a movie, It can last for years - up to 100 years, or so we've seen so far.
The fact that they're not willing to hold off for a year to release this movie which needs to be seen in cinemas tells me they're desperate for cash. This isn't about a new business model, or delivering what fans want. Disney needs cashflow - simple as that.
That would on an average be 3 movie tickets in the US as well, however in most cities the cost of 3 tickets for a Disney movie is going to be much more (probably closer to $40-$45). (Anecdotally the last few movies I saw in the theaters have all costed me about ~$45 for just 2 tickets, within the first few weeks of release)
For a lot of families, getting access to a new Disney movie for unlimited number of repeat viewing for $30 would be a no-brainer. Especially in the current climate with people stuck at home. For most American families it would also be much cheaper than actually going to the movies, not having to shell out at the concession stand to get snacks and drinks for the kids, it only get cheaper the more kids in the family!
I am sure Disney has a lot of smart accountants/analysts who arrived at this pricing.
Also, to be honest, most people buying this are not going to be factoring in the cost of TV, seats etc at home when comparing the price of this against the price of taking the kids to the theaters to see this movie. If a movie I really wanted to see was being released this way, I sure wouldn't be considering the cost of my TV, Couch, etc (those exist irrespective of whether I purchase this movie from Disney or not). The cost of snacks at home are also going to be exponentially cheaper than what you would be buying at the concession stand.
Sure, Disney isn't raking in the dough with their parks mostly closed or devoid of patrons. The way I see it Disney is trying a different model. Distributing movies to people for a premium for almost no overhead on their part is just pure profit, and depending on how aggressively they market these movies being released to their platform, I am sure a lot of kids would be clamoring to get their parents to buy the new Disney movie. From a business perspective it makes total sense! Netflix for all its popularity has not been able to be profitable yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if they tried something similar as well.
I am not happy about this model of distributing movies, but I can see the business sense in them wanting to do it. I am also afraid more streaming services are going to follow suit and start releasing "premium" content, which you will have to pay extra for.
Yep. I was thinking something similar.
On the plus side, at least you can pause the movie if you need to go to the toilet. And there's noone else around crinkling their lolly bags.
But it still falls far short of a cinema experience, and should be priced accordingly. Also, almost noone has a 15-metre movie screen at home.
You know, I'm glad it's missing theatres. I saw the CGI cash-in of The Lion King with my mum in our local theatre on Sunday, because there was nothing else on, and it made me pine painfully for the 90s. At one point, it was so depressing that it pushed me over the edge into tears. I think I felt, just for a moment, what those other people were talking about when they said the remake was almost profane.
I enjoyed Mulan when I was kid, and remember it fondly. After seeing what they've done with the other remakes, I don't want to be hearing about Mulan for weeks after a theatre release, followed by analyses that break down all the bad things about it.
I do not believe that for a moment, but now that Disney has your credit card number and a fully operational streaming platform, they are free to "one-off" as the please.
Well I certainly hope that's not the case. Paid subscription services that charge an additional premium to access certain content are a pet peeve of mine. Right up there with paid streaming platforms that still aren't ad-free.
I might be interested in paying extra for certain content if it meant permanent ownership of it, preferably if there was a hard copy option or a DRM-free video file for me to download. But a time-bound, expiring, streaming-only "rental?" Hard pass.
Now only if Christopher Nolan stops being stubborn and release Tenant