Also people keep calling this a "rental" but I cannot find info on that in the article. Let me read it again but this looks like a purchase. Which makes it worse.
That's what pisses me off if it's a Disney+ exclusive purchase.
This is a first-run theatrical release, not a streaming DVD rental coming many months after it left the theater. Why do you people have so many unreasonable expectations with this business model? Do you bitch when a movie this the theater long before coming to iTunes, too?
What a strange reply.
This movie is STREAMING. Movies that STREAM come to iTunes, yes even movies like Trolls and Scoob which either left the theaters early or couldn't have a theatrical release.
This movie may never hit iTunes and Disney may have a catalog of movies you have to subscribe to Disney+ to purchase.
How do you not see how this can be bad for the customer and cause fragmentation?
This isn’t a B-movie that quickly got sold off because it failed in the theater. You know there’s a pandemic, right?!
When this comes to iTunes in 4-8 months then you can pay whatever iTunes charges for a rental. Since it's a major new release that just happens to be during a pandemic when the theaters are closed you have to adopt to the reasonable model that will recoup their cost.
Your shortsightedness on this would force Disney to shelve this and not to release anything under the $6/month plan unless it's older and less (aka: inexpensive). Do you really want the end of the high-value content? I certainly don't.
No one said it was a B-Movie. Neither was Greyhound.
No one said there wasn't a pandemic.
"When this comes to iTunes in 4-8 months then you can pay whatever iTunes charges for a rental. "
That's the problem. It's not guaranteed to come to iTunes and like another poster mentioned, why did they gatekeep the release? Plenty of current theatrical releases are on iTunes now. So your point doesn't stand because facts say otherwise. I literally mentioned Trolls and Scoob and you ignored it.
Trolls and Scoob!are ridiculous so why mention them? Because they're kids movies and that means they all cost the same to make and are from the same distributors? No and no! Scoob! may have cost as little as $20M and Trolls World Tour $90M. Neither one has come close to recouping their costs but your brilliant marketing suggesting is that the $200M Mulan should free on D+ or be served up on iTunes—not a system that Disney already owns and operates but because others used iTunes and failed.
What part about trying to find a financial model that works is confusing you so much? Do you really not want any more big budget films to ever get made? I fucking do! I want Mulan to be a financial success so that other films feel like they can follow Disney's successful rental model. How is this worse than having hundreds of filmed shelved (if they're completed) or all funding cut indefinitely because you want to present the financial failure of Trolls World Wide with the argument "but they did it so why can't Disney." Furthermore, it would be $40 to rent if they did it through iTunes, but somehow that makes more sense to you than $30 on their own streaming system. You'd be OK if it was $40 on iTunes? Is that your argument? You understand that Disney is trying to turn a massive loss into at least a minor profit, right?
You're like the people that complained about how pathetic the iPhone was in 2007 because it had a glass screen and no physical keyboard.
Your replies are so strange they're off-topic.
Let's say Scoob costed $1 to make and Trolls costed 50 cents. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?!!?!
The point is(let me make it more clear) Acoob and Trolls were ALSO theater releases(negating your theater point) but this release INTENTIONALLY skipped iTunes for an in-app-purchase. And this may be news to you but Disney is a multi-billion dollar corporation. They aren't a starving studio that may go our of business if they lose a million dollars from Mulan(they won't).
Do you really think releasing the movie on iTunes would cost Disney money and potentially make them go bankrupt? Either way the point isn't $ but how dangerous this model is. Disney knows damn well people would have paid $30 for it on iTunes.(Scoob and Trolls)
"You're like the people that complained about how pathetic the iPhone was in 2007 because it had a glass screen and no physical keyboard."
I have absolutely ZERO idea how Disney's Mulan release equates to the revolutionary iPhone.
There is so much to unpack here and I haven't got all day so I'll address one of them.
You really don't understand why the cost (or as you just it, costed) of a film matters to the backers of the film when attempting to make a profit on said film? You don't understand why Scoob!'s $16.5 million international gross isn't appealing to Disney when they've invested over $200 million into Mulan? Instead your argument it "well Scoob! released on iTunes so Mulan should, too."
Also people keep calling this a "rental" but I cannot find info on that in the article. Let me read it again but this looks like a purchase. Which makes it worse.
It's kind of both. Here's the deal.
If this were a $30 rental on iTunes, you'd have 48 hours to watch it and that's it. Want to watch it again? Pay another $30.
On D+ you're going to be able to "unlock" it and as long as you're a subscriber you can watch it as many times as you want after you pay the $30. It helps Disney retain subscribers.
Don't like this model? Wait for it to come to iTunes to rent and pay whatever they charge for a 48 hour rental.
Don't like that or the Disney+ unlocked model? Buy it when it becomes available.
Here's more details:
Consumers were confused. Does that $30 mean you own or only rent the film? Neither, as it happens. If you want to watch "Mulan," you have to unlock it in what Disney is calling "Premier Access." In short, the film lives on the service, and you can view it as often as you want as long as you're a Disney+ subscriber.
The article doesn’t say it’s an in-app rental, it says it’s an in-app purchase. So that tells me for $30 I’m actually buying the Movie, so I’ll be able to replay it as much as I want. Considering that Trolls was the first to come out as a rental, and people rented that multiple times, the $30 seems reasonable for a 1 time purchase.
The article doesn’t say it’s an in-app rental, it says it’s an in-app purchase. So that tells me for $30 I’m actually buying the Movie, so I’ll be able to replay it as much as I want. Considering that Trolls was the first to come out as a rental, and people rented that multiple times, the $30 seems reasonable for a 1 time purchase.
I agree, but if the one time purchase also requires a persistent subscription to Disney+ then that's a bit less reasonable.
I saw this mentioned somewhere last week and people were freaking out about it in the comments. Mostly complaining they should get it free since they’re already paying for Disney+.
I’m still of the mindset that $30 at home is still less than tickets for (at least 2), snacks and a babysitter for 4-5 hours, so this sort of thing has a certain appeal. I likely won’t do it for Mulan but there are definitely movies I would pay that for.
Corporate bean counters must just love this point of view. I hope they deliver a hamper to you for Christmas.
I will be damned if I pay extra. I have already told my daughters they can’t watch it until it is part of the subscription. Once subscribers let Disney get away with it once, it will be in for more and more. On top of a subscription.
if you want to rent there is iTunes movies. ,
This was supposed to be released in the theater and was re-scheduled a few times because of COVID. Disney finally decided to release it on Disney+ and not premiere it in Theaters at all. How was the OP thinking out of line? Have you been to the theater recently? I am confused why you think this is a cash grab and the op is buying into it?
He's not even considering it for this movie.. just as a possibility going forward.
"I likely won’t do it for Mulan but there are definitely movies I would pay that for."
Personally I would love to see Tenet, but have no desire to go to the theater at this point. I would absolutely pay $30.00 to have it at home.
( IMAX tickets are $17.00 a piece in my area just for reference.)
Make a nice dinner bottle of wine.. maybe have another of our couple friends over and enjoy the movie from home.No COVID, no gross shit on the seats or on the floor in the theater.. No person talking or cell phones lighting upor any of the annoying crap that is part of the theater experience in 2020.
Comments
You really don't understand why the cost (or as you just it, costed) of a film matters to the backers of the film when attempting to make a profit on said film? You don't understand why Scoob!'s $16.5 million international gross isn't appealing to Disney when they've invested over $200 million into Mulan? Instead your argument it "well Scoob! released on iTunes so Mulan should, too."
If this were a $30 rental on iTunes, you'd have 48 hours to watch it and that's it. Want to watch it again? Pay another $30.
On D+ you're going to be able to "unlock" it and as long as you're a subscriber you can watch it as many times as you want after you pay the $30. It helps Disney retain subscribers.
Don't like this model? Wait for it to come to iTunes to rent and pay whatever they charge for a 48 hour rental.
Don't like that or the Disney+ unlocked model? Buy it when it becomes available.
Here's more details:
Consumers were confused. Does that $30 mean you own or only rent the film? Neither, as it happens. If you want to watch "Mulan," you have to unlock it in what Disney is calling "Premier Access." In short, the film lives on the service, and you can view it as often as you want as long as you're a Disney+ subscriber.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/30/media/mulan-disney-price/index.html