Mulan Coming to Disney+

[Lethologica]

I wouldn't bet on vaulting. The point of vault rotations and seasonal/event exclusives is to make old content attractive via artificial exclusivity, which works for skins (which you can show off) but not for movies. Owning Mulan won't become a status symbol even if it gets vaulted. The only parallel in streaming is services losing (or dropping) content rights, which doesn't apply to the service's own content, just the stuff it licenses from other people.

Still, a $30 price point is just wild. Comparing it to theater tickets doesn't track - I didn't pay to build the theater before paying to watch movies in it, the way I paid for my home entertainment system. Nor did I pay the theater a subscription for access to its movies before finding out there was a premium theater I'd have to pay extra to enter.

And it's not like there are no closer parallels to examine. If I want to watch premium content on Amazon Prime, I can pay a few bucks to rent it, or a few more to own it outright - ownership I will retain even if I cancel my Prime subscription. Disney is charging 5x more for a product I won't own even if I buy it. Hard pass.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

How would putting something back in the vault make people pay twice? Like Steam, they'd keep a record of anything you paid for. In fact, I'd wager that the premium content would stay available to those who bought it even after it's no longer available for purchase.

Normal subscription price + ‘buy’ price before it goes away. (If it makes it clearer I wasn’t talking about the premium content, I was talking about the stuff currently included in the subscription.)

[Psyren]

Normal subscription price + ‘buy’ price before it goes away. (If it makes it clearer I wasn’t talking about the premium content, I was talking about the stuff currently included in the subscription.)

That's two different things you're paying for. No different than subbing to Netflix and then going to the theater.

I wouldn't bet on vaulting. The point of vault rotations and seasonal/event exclusives is to make old content attractive via artificial exclusivity, which works for skins (which you can show off) but not for movies. Owning Mulan won't become a status symbol even if it gets vaulted. The only parallel in streaming is services losing (or dropping) content rights, which doesn't apply to the service's own content, just the stuff it licenses from other people.

Indeed.

Still, a $30 price point is just wild. Comparing it to theater tickets doesn't track - I didn't pay to build the theater before paying to watch movies in it, the way I paid for my home entertainment system. Nor did I pay the theater a subscription for access to its movies before finding out there was a premium theater I'd have to pay extra to enter.

But you are paying to build (or rather, maintain) the theater. All that overhead, they pay for by cramming 50-100 of you in the same room, prohibiting all of you from bringing in your own food and drinks, and charging you every time you want to watch the same movie again and again.

And it's not like there are no closer parallels to examine. If I want to watch premium content on Amazon Prime, I can pay a few bucks to rent it, or a few more to own it outright - ownership I will retain even if I cancel my Prime subscription. Disney is charging 5x more for a product I won't own even if I buy it. Hard pass.

We've yet to see Amazon Prime simulcast anything that is (or would have been) currently in theaters, so this parallel doesn't really work either.

[Lethologica]

But you are paying to build (or rather, maintain) the theater. All that overhead, they pay for by cramming 50-100 of you in the same room, prohibiting all of you from bringing in your own food and drinks, and charging you every time you want to watch the same movie again and again.

Of course I'm paying to build the theater - with my ticket price, not in addition to my ticket price. Which is why I don't expect to pay theater ticket prices to watch movies at home on an entertainment system I already paid for.

We've yet to see Amazon Prime simulcast anything that is (or would have been) currently in theaters, so this parallel doesn't really work either.

Of course we have. A ton of streaming services, including Amazon, release original content that 'would have been' currently in theaters. The difference is, I don't have to pay Netflix a bonus fee to watch The Irishman because Netflix considers that a core offering of the service. So I went to an example of premium paid streaming content instead, because it's more comparable.

[Dragonus45]

Yea I was planning to see this in theaters, but I have zero interest in paying twice the cost of a ticket to watch it on a small screen at home. Ontop of having to pay the D+ subscription. This is going to be a disaster.

[Ramza00]

We've yet to see Amazon Prime simulcast anything that is (or would have been) currently in theaters, so this parallel doesn't really work either.

That is because the theatre chains have deals with movie producers and distributors to have so many days between the theatre release and the movie being available for sale or rental. The old rule was 90 days or longer.

That rule is starting to change this very week. AMC theatres, the largest theater chain in the US but also the World, made a deal with Universal where Universal may start offering renting options within 17 days (or a longer number) after theater release.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN24T2SP

Now this does not mean you will be able to rent Fast and the Furious within 17 days of the theater release. It does mean though Universal may decide X movie bombed in the theaters and it is better to release it on rental immediately and that way you do not waste money trying to market it later, and hopefully marketing dollars from the theater run (which bombed) will convince people to at least rent it before something else grabbed their attention. Theaters would never have agreed to 17 days prior to this pandemic but their leverage is changed and thus a new detente between rental and theater is being forged.

Oh yeah literally yesterday Cinemark (#2 theater chain in the US) 's CEO laughed at the idea and said "no deal." Now each movie chain and each distributor and producers are different and they all make these small deals but they add up. Last year Universal was the number 4 distributor of movies in the US based off ticket sales with 11.6% of the gross. By contrast Disney was 33.3% and number 1 spot. Oh yeah Disney did that with only 13 movies while Universial did it with 26 movies. (side note these figures are not counting 20th century fox's 13 movies, 4.4% gross, and #7 in market share. Disney now owns 20th century fox and thus they may release more movies or they may decide to downsize and focus their funding and marketing dollars on a few blockbusters. Like I complained about earlier Disney is eating the world in my mind )

-----

No movie theater wants to play ball with Netflix unless they get an exclusive period in Theaters prior to Netflix like a couple films have occured.

Likewise Netflix is actually buying specific theaters themselves in order to get around this problem for the goal of oscar nominations. Yet to my understanding this has problems with some 1940s supreme court cases about earlier anti-trust law and whether the movie industry was vertically integrated too much with who makes the movies, the theaters, and so on.

In sum it is complicated.

[Psyren]

In sum it is complicated.

It's the last gasp of a dying business model.

Of course I'm paying to build the theater - with my ticket price, not in addition to my ticket price.

You did see where I mentioned concessions and repeat viewings, right? Three guesses what the margin on those are.

Of course we have. A ton of streaming services, including Amazon, release original content that 'would have been' currently in theaters. The difference is, I don't have to pay Netflix a bonus fee to watch The Irishman because Netflix considers that a core offering of the service. So I went to an example of premium paid streaming content instead, because it's more comparable.

I'd say those are analogous to straight-to-video releases. And they get to sidestep AMC/Regal/Cinemark etc.'s cut by doing so.

[Lemmy]

What censorship?

An example that comes to mind is they censoring a butt in Splash...

And honestly, if they censor something as mild as a 2-seconds-long butt display in a 30+ yo film, then I do not trust them to not cut content from other media.

[Ramza00]

An example that comes to mind is they censoring a butt in Splash...

And honestly, if they censor something as mild as a 2-seconds-long butt display in a 30+ yo film, then I do not trust them to not cut content from other media.

Do you also complain about movies which are not shown in their original aspect ratios, aka pan and scan?

[Lethologica]

You did see where I mentioned concessions and repeat viewings, right? Three guesses what the margin on those are.

Yeah, because I'm paying to go to the theater, not to own the movie. However you want to look at it, we're eventually going to reach the conclusion that this is a bad analogy. So why don't we skip straight there?

Especially since your position is that theaters are a dying business model, so you shouldn't be trying to make comparisons to theaters anyway if your goal is to show that this is a healthy pricing model.

I'd say those are analogous to straight-to-video releases. And they get to sidestep AMC/Regal/Cinemark etc.'s cut by doing so.

And Mulan isn't? Which theaters are getting paid for the release of Mulan on D+? How is this not confirming the accuracy of my comparison over yours?

[Lemmy]

Do you also complain about movies which are not shown in their original aspect ratios, aka pan and scan?

Do you honestly those are equivalent cases? Because I don't.

[snowblizz]

An example that comes to mind is they censoring a butt in Splash...

And honestly, if they censor something as mild as a 2-seconds-long butt display in a 30+ yo film, then I do not trust them to not cut content from other media.

That's not exactly news though is it? They've always cut out stuff. They've censored pornographic content out of some of the old Disney classics, like animators drawing penisie on the forehead of the animation characters, visible for like 1 frame and from The Rescuers they cut an actual nude photo someone slipped into the theatrical release.

You have old classics (I guess arguable) that are completely unshowable in modern times for their insensitive or racist portrayal of stuff. Don't expect you'll find Song of the South on Disney+ either?

Censorship already happens the day a movie is made, the day it enters the cutting board and when it is adapted to fit certain ratings categories.

Which of those modificatiosn do we get upset by?

Basically it sorta ends up with you can't watch anything made by anyone.

I do not see how any of it can be described as even semi-historical.

It is semi-historical in that it portrays an actual historical literary character whose centuries (millennia?) old stories exist in various forms. If they still have a talking dragon in it I'll give you the fantasy though. You can say it portrays what historical people thought had happened, which arguably IMO makes it semi-historical, since usually such stories are inspired by something real.
I would compare it to making a movie about Robin Hood. Ironically also done by Disney. Robin Hood would also end up in the semi-historical bin, it covers a historical literary character but all the specifics of it is very vague. Most adaptations wouldn't render it fantasy either, though the Kevin Costner Prince of Thieves version skates awfully close IMO. In both Mulan and Robin Hood you could make historical, semi-historical or fantasy versions, depending on how you write it.
Though the historical option is going to be awfully tricky as there is precious little known.


As to paying for it , well I can't get D+, I don't have any interest in this pander to China movie, and am not sure I can be upset at the business model because isn't this exactly what everyone thought would happen like 1 day after D+ was announced? It's kinda interesting though, the pandemic is going to be permanently changing the business models of the industries here. I don't think there's any way to put the go to cinema genie in the bottle once it is out.

[SallyOsaku]

I may watch this at home. At lease, I can save money on popcorn and drink.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

That's two different things you're paying for. No different than subbing to Netflix and then going to the theater.

No, it would be the same movie on the same screens through the same service but paying for it twice. Nothing like Netflix and theater.

It is semi-historical in that it portrays an actual historical literary character whose centuries (millennia?) old stories exist in various forms. If they still have a talking dragon in it I'll give you the fantasy though.

You should watch the trailer; they have a witch-lady that turns into a hawk in it. Also guys running straight up a wall like it’s flat ground, no climbing equipment. And based on the rest of the trailer it looks like the red bird with the long tail is supposed to be a phoenix.

[Dienekes]

It is semi-historical in that it portrays an actual historical literary character whose centuries (millennia?) old stories exist in various forms. If they still have a talking dragon in it I'll give you the fantasy though. You can say it portrays what historical people thought had happened, which arguably IMO makes it semi-historical, since usually such stories are inspired by something real.
I would compare it to making a movie about Robin Hood. Ironically also done by Disney. Robin Hood would also end up in the semi-historical bin, it covers a historical literary character but all the specifics of it is very vague. Most adaptations wouldn't render it fantasy either, though the Kevin Costner Prince of Thieves version skates awfully close IMO. In both Mulan and Robin Hood you could make historical, semi-historical or fantasy versions, depending on how you write it.
Though the historical option is going to be awfully tricky as there is precious little known.

Sorry, I just don’t see much a difference in talking dragon that wasn’t in the original stories to shapeshifting witch that wasn’t in the original stories.

Like in Robin Hood if Friar Tuck started casting Healing Word while Robin shoots arrows at the ground with enough force to make himself fly upward I’d consider that fantasy too. Which is about the equivalent of what’s happening in the trailers.

[Psyren]

No, it would be the same movie on the same screens through the same service but paying for it twice. Nothing like Netflix and theater.

No, it's still not The premium cost is for the new movie, and the sub is for everything else on the platform. Two different content streams.

Yeah, because I'm paying to go to the theater, not to own the movie. However you want to look at it, we're eventually going to reach the conclusion that this is a bad analogy. So why don't we skip straight there?

Especially since your position is that theaters are a dying business model, so you shouldn't be trying to make comparisons to theaters anyway if your goal is to show that this is a healthy pricing model.

In which case you're comparing it to a DVD release of something that is still in theaters, in which case $30 is still not unreasonable. There, skipped.

And Mulan isn't? Which theaters are getting paid for the release of Mulan on D+? How is this not confirming the accuracy of my comparison over yours?

None are, that's the point. That's why they can afford to charge $30 for a whole family to see it as many times as they want, something a theater couldn't dream of doing.

Don't get me wrong, if it were less than $30 I wouldn't complain at all. But I think the "DLC model" itself is sound (even if the "DLC" is eventually added to the base service later down the line) and I don't think the price point is too heavy given the benefits of experiencing movies this way vs. in a theater.

[Peelee]

That said, the actual movie experience is often not great. My local theater has weekly matinees which are discounted and usually almost empty, but even then there are issues, and good luck finding someone to fix them. At least at home I can have Thai while I watch.

No matter how they cut back on employees, there's always someone in box. Weekday matinee when there's a staff of maybe three? One is in box, guaranteed. They'll have a radio and can call in whatever complaint you have.

Affer that, whether it gets fixed or not is up to the manager, but you can absolutely find someone to relay it pretty quickly.

Except for the places that can sell tickets at the concession stand.

[Lethologica]

In which case you're comparing it to a DVD release of something that is still in theaters, in which case $30 is still not unreasonable. There, skipped.

Well, no, I said which comparison I made and you're putting a different one in my mouth for your own purposes.

Not sure why, though. I don't have to pay a subscription to earn the right to purchase the DVD. Nor do I have to continue paying the subscription in order to be able to watch the DVD. I'm paying ownership prices to not own the product. This comparison you've chosen isn't making the deal look as reasonable as you claim.

None are, that's the point. That's why they can afford to charge $30 for a whole family to see it as many times as they want, something a theater couldn't dream of doing.

So when another streaming service releases a film with no additional charge you want to compare it to direct-to-video, but for some reason only this release is comparable to a theater release. That's convenient. But not persuasive. (E: unless the direct-to-video thing was actually about other services' premium content, but that comparison doesn't even match up.)

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Well, no, I said which comparison I made and you're putting a different one in my mouth for your own purposes.

I noticed this too, but you put it more eloquently than I could have.

But on topic, my big concern is that Disney is going to jump to bad conclusions as a result of their MMO DLC pricing stunt. If said stunt succeeds, business-wise, Disney will D+ lock more movies, which would be annoying enough. But if it fails, I worry that they’re going to take the wrong lesson away - “people don’t want to watch movies at home” instead of “people don’t want to be price gouged”.

Either way, I don’t see this ending well for the general movie-watching public.

[Psyren]

Well, no, I said which comparison I made and you're putting a different one in my mouth for your own purposes.

Not sure why, though. I don't have to pay a subscription to earn the right to purchase the DVD. Nor do I have to continue paying the subscription in order to be able to watch the DVD. I'm paying ownership prices to not own the product. This comparison you've chosen isn't making the deal look as reasonable as you claim.

As already stated, the sub fee gets you many other things besides "right to ownership."

So when another streaming service releases a film with no additional charge you want to compare it to direct-to-video, but for some reason only this release is comparable to a theater release. That's convenient. But not persuasive. (E: unless the direct-to-video thing was actually about other services' premium content, but that comparison doesn't even match up.)

You're referring to things like Bright and Bird Box, right?

I'm not opposed to that model either (i.e. adding a film to the service for no additional charge) - but neither of those films were budgeted or marketed the way a planned theatrical release would be. As a specific example, Mulan has almost twice the budget of Bird Box and Bright combined. So expecting a model that has worked for lower-budget movies to be used for the higher-budget ones is specious.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No, it's still not The premium cost is for the new movie, and the sub is for everything else on the platform. Two different content streams.

False. For it to be true, you would need to be able to purchase it without subscribing. But since subscribing is a sine-qua-non, the subscription price is part of the costs of obtaining the legal right to watch Mulan.

As already stated, the sub fee gets you many other things besides "right to ownership."

Irrelevant. First, because you do not get right of ownership at all - it is rental at best, since, again, paying the subscription is sine-qua-non to continue to have the right to watch Mulan. Second, because getting other things doesn't actually mean anything - you cannot get a discount on watching Mulan by refusing the other things. If you don't care about them, you are still paying double to watch the movie.

Grey Wolf

[Lethologica]

As already stated, the sub fee gets you many other things besides "right to ownership."

Everyone agrees with this statement already. Indeed, it was part of my original comment. So you are not contradicting my viewpoint in any way by reiterating this. It remains the case that any ownership I get from my $30 is entirely contingent on continuing to pay the sub fee, which is a distinct step backwards from pretty much all comparables.

You're referring to things like Bright and Bird Box, right?

I'm not opposed to that model either (i.e. adding a film to the service for no additional charge) - but neither of those films were budgeted or marketed the way a planned theatrical release would be. As a specific example, Mulan has almost twice the budget of Bird Box and Bright combined. So expecting a model that has worked for lower-budget movies to be used for the higher-budget ones is specious.

You're stretching really hard to avoid the example I already gave which also had a similar budget to Mulan. I don't know why, but it still contradicts your argument.

[Psyren]

False. For it to be true, you would need to be able to purchase it without subscribing. But since subscribing is a sine-qua-non, the subscription price is part of the costs of obtaining the legal right to watch Mulan.


Irrelevant. First, because you do not get right of ownership at all - it is rental at best, since, again, paying the subscription is sine-qua-non to continue to have the right to watch Mulan. Second, because getting other things doesn't actually mean anything - you cannot get a discount on watching Mulan by refusing the other things. If you don't care about them, you are still paying double to watch the movie.

Grey Wolf

"If you don't care about them" then I agree, this is a poor value proposition for you - though I think caring about just a single new Disney movie and none of their other content is enough of an edge case that it can be disregarded in any serious business model planning discussion.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

"If you don't care about them" then I agree, this is a poor value proposition for you - though I think caring about just a single new Disney movie and none of their other content is enough of an edge case that it can be disregarded in any serious business model planning discussion.

So you agree on all my other arguments, then, and acknowledge that you were wrong about all other particulars. As well, it seems, as dismissing my actual situation as "an edge case that can be disregarded", which is insulting in and of itself.

GW

[Psyren]

So you agree on all my other arguments, then, and acknowledge that you were wrong about all other particulars. As well, it seems, as dismissing my actual situation as "an edge case that can be disregarded", which is insulting in and of itself.

GW

I acknowledge no such thing, and my goal isn't to insult you, but it is a reasonable conclusion that people who ONLY care about watching Mulan 2020 and don't see ANY value whatsoever in the rest of the D+ offering is not a common circumstance. And for those people, it wouldn't surprise me if some kind of DVD/Blu-Ray release doesn't turn up eventually anyway.

You're stretching really hard to avoid the example I already gave which also had a similar budget to Mulan. I don't know why, but it still contradicts your argument.

I went back through the thread and I don't see the example you're referring to, mind resurfacing it?

[Ramza00]

An example that comes to mind is they censoring a butt in Splash...

And honestly, if they censor something as mild as a 2-seconds-long butt display in a 30+ yo film, then I do not trust them to not cut content from other media.

Do you also complain about movies which are not shown in their original aspect ratios, aka pan and scan?

Do you honestly those are equivalent cases? Because I don't.

Yeah Pan and Scan bothers me far more than, pixeling out someones but. (though in this case they cgi longer hair to cover up more of the butt.)

Do not get me started on the evils ^{insert man yelling at clouds simpson image} that is Pan and Scan, and how some companies such as HBO still do this stuff even today with their streaming. (Disney+ is at least fixing that issue due to the outrage over The Simpsons on cropping 4:3 material to a 16:9 tv.)

Sidenote what is even worse than the two conversations topics we are talking about is how with Cable TV movies they aired the movie but cut it for content so they can put more Ads in or they can remove dirty words and so on in order to meet some form of targeted rating goal with the audience. If this is the first time experiencing the movie you could be missing 5 to 25 minutes worth of content for things were cut for time or some other desire.

-----

*Shrug* talking out loud right now and I realizing that there are always sacrifices in a collaborative art space. The platforms are never neutral actors, even if we think they are and then get outraged things are edited in half a dozen ways. I am now feeling a melancholic longing of how my Batman Forever could have been 40 minutes longer, and Batman means a giant bat that is larger than he is. Release the Schumacher Cut you cowards. (The producers and distributors wanted a shorter movie than 170 minutes, and they did not like some scenes.)

Spoiler: Links to Famous Scene that never aired

Show

[Lethologica]

I went back through the thread and I don't see the example you're referring to, mind resurfacing it?

The Irishman. Not that Bright actually had a small budget by theater release standards, but it's nice to erase the gap anyway.

[Psyren]

The Irishman. Not that Bright actually had a small budget by theater release standards, but it's nice to erase the gap anyway.

I'd still call 50 million dollars a material gap, but regardless - The Irishman was considered a flop, so it's not exactly helping your case that Netflix made the right choice business-model-wise. It also had a (albeit limited) theatrical release, and wasn't released under pandemic conditions.

[Lemmy]

That's not exactly news though is it? They've always cut out stuff. They've censored pornographic content out of some of the old Disney classics, like animators drawing penisie on the forehead of the animation characters, visible for like 1 frame and from The Rescuers they cut an actual nude photo someone slipped into the theatrical release.

You have old classics (I guess arguable) that are completely unshowable in modern times for their insensitive or racist portrayal of stuff. Don't expect you'll find Song of the South on Disney+ either?

Censorship already happens the day a movie is made, the day it enters the cutting board and when it is adapted to fit certain ratings categories.

Which of those modifications do we get upset by?

Basically it sorta ends up with you can't watch anything made by anyone.

Those are, again, false equivalences. Like everything else, there's nuance to it. Cutting out a 1-frame **** picture or choosing not to display ultra-racist stereotypes is not the same as literally mutilating a classic film that is quite innocent and milquetoast even by today's standards... And this is just one example I could remember off of the top of my head due to being recent and super lazy.

Besides... Even if they were equivalent... So what? Because it happened before I should be fine with it? What other unethical practices should I forgive (and support with my money) because it's done frequently enough?

I can't stop all censorship... But I can choose not support a product full of censorship (as well as other flaws).

I don't think there's anything unreasonable about that stance. If people are fine paying for over-sanitized material, good for them... I have better uses for my money.

[Lethologica]

I'd still call 50 million dollars a material gap, but regardless - The Irishman was considered a flop, so it's not exactly helping your case that Netflix made the right choice business-model-wise. It also had a (albeit limited) theatrical release, and wasn't released under pandemic conditions.

First, this is a single estimate, not general consensus, so you are misrepresenting the article's conclusions. Second, if you're going by Entertainment Strategy Guy's budget estimates, it's 50 to 150 million dollars the other way. Third, we have no idea if ESG's subscription retention model in any way accurate, a fact repeatedly emphasized in the article and acknowledged by ESG. Fourth, the reality is there is no consensus on what constitutes a 'hit' or a 'flop' for Netflix movies either financially or in pure viewership numbers. And fifth, the cost-benefit analysis of a prestige project is even murkier than is typical for movies, even streaming movies.

All of which is to say, there are shortcomings in the "google 'did The Irishman make/lose money' and make a confident assertion based on the subheading of the first search result" strategy.

The Irishman had a token theater release purely to qualify for Oscar consideration. Totally irrelevant to overall business considerations. And it's not at all clear what impact you think the pandemic is having on the pricing model - there are a number of factors going both ways.

I suppose Mulan's price point accomplishes one thing: we'll have a concrete public lower bound on Mulan's revenue generation.

None of this changes the principal conclusion:

It remains the case that any ownership I get from my $30 is entirely contingent on continuing to pay the sub fee, which is a distinct step backwards from pretty much all comparables.