I don't understand the value calculations including the cost of a babysitter. Why would the kids not be at the theater watching the movie with you? What kind of parents would leave their kids at home with a babysitter while the adults went off to see a Disney movie?
I don't understand the value calculations including the cost of a babysitter. Why would the kids not be at the theater watching the movie with you? What kind of parents would leave their kids at home with a babysitter while the adults went off to see a Disney movie?
You know parents can have more than child, right? And that one or more children could be of the age for seeing a live-action movie like Mulan while others might be too young? Please tell me you’re not the kind of asshole that takes an infant to a movie theater because you’re too cheap and/or impatient to have someone stay home.
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?
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?
Just release it as rental on those services that are rental models, like iTunes. If you can’t see this as a Trojan horse that ends up with most movies that are interesting costing more on top of a Disney + subscription, you deserve what you end up with.
I am happy to wait a longtime. I would also be happy to pay a rental on a service I am not already paying a subscription. If you are weak, the hyena corporates will drag you down.
this is what happened to cable. At first it was worth paying to avoid advertising, then before you know it you were paying for the service and then getting ads anyway. Don’t be a sucker.. And don’t encourage them.
The crappy part is, if it's too successful Disney may skip iTunes altogether and now we have a fragmented mess. Who will be next?
Imagine having to subscribe to 5 services just to view your movie library?
I don't understand the value calculations including the cost of a babysitter. Why would the kids not be at the theater watching the movie with you? What kind of parents would leave their kids at home with a babysitter while the adults went off to see a Disney movie?
I respect his opinion but I on the other hand enjoy the experience and the $10,000 equipment and sound acoustics I can't afford.
Maybe he has a bad ass home theater room or maybe he just doesn't give a damn and prefers to watch it at home on his 32" screen?
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.
Pay-per-view has been around for a long time. You pay a lot more for a boxing match than for this movie. I would not pay it for this movie, but there will be movies I am willing to pay for.
30 bucks is a bargain on its face, if you factor in the snacks, travel, and so on. However, part of the theater experience is the huge screen and surround sound. So I’ll wait until I can rent it.
I don't understand the value calculations including the cost of a babysitter. Why would the kids not be at the theater watching the movie with you? What kind of parents would leave their kids at home with a babysitter while the adults went off to see a Disney movie?
You know parents can have more than child, right? And that one or more children could be of the age for seeing a live-action movie like Mulan while others might be too young? Please tell me you’re not the kind of asshole that takes an infant to a movie theater because you’re too cheap and/or impatient to have someone stay home.
No, I am a different kind of a$$hole.
You missed the point of my post entirely. I was highlighting the absurdity of hiring a babysitter in order to watch a kids movie. You also seem to think that your situation is typical, instead of a minority case. And, you completely ignore the value of watching a movie at the theater, with the huge screen and superior sound. When movie theaters start using 65-inch screens and cheap sound bars, you can re-start your calculations.
Until then, You do you! Just don't use the babysitter cost to justify the price of this movie on Disney+.
I don't understand the value calculations including the cost of a babysitter. Why would the kids not be at the theater watching the movie with you? What kind of parents would leave their kids at home with a babysitter while the adults went off to see a Disney movie?
You know parents can have more than child, right? And that one or more children could be of the age for seeing a live-action movie like Mulan while others might be too young? Please tell me you’re not the kind of asshole that takes an infant to a movie theater because you’re too cheap and/or impatient to have someone stay home.
No, I am a different kind of a$$hole.
You missed the point of my post entirely. I was highlighting the absurdity of hiring a babysitter in order to watch a kids movie. You also seem to think that your situation is typical, instead of a minority case. And, you completely ignore the value of watching a movie at the theater, with the huge screen and superior sound. When movie theaters start using 65-inch screens and cheap sound bars, you can re-start your calculations.
Until then, You do you! Just don't use the babysitter cost to justify the price of this movie on Disney+.
I was the one that first mentioned in this thread how this is a good value when you consider, among other things, not having to pay for a babysitter. I also mentioned that I wouldn’t do it for Mulan but would for other movies. Neither I nor @Xed has said we would hire a babysitter to watch a kid’s movie, but rather reference the model in general. In fact, @Xed specifically said, “I hope other follow suit sooner rather than later because I do want to see Tenet, Black Widow, Wonder Woman 1984, and many others.” None of those are “kid movies” and I would also pay extra to see those as first run movies in my home.
BTW, Mulan isn’t even the first to do this, it’s just that’s it’s through Disney+ instead of iTunes.
If it helps to put things into perspective, yes, we have a 110” screen, 4K HDR projector and Atmos in a dedicated theater room so I realize that it’s different for us than someone who has a 55” TV in their living room.
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.
BTW, Mulan isn’t even the first to do this, it’s just that’s it’s through Disney+ instead of iTunes.
The last I looked when you rent off iTunes you don’t pay a subscription first. The reason it won’t on iTunes, Prime, google movies and YouTube rentals at a $25 to $30 rate like other new movies that couldn’t be released in theatres this year is because some evil bastard MBA* at Disney thought it might be a way to increase revenue from Disney + with an exclusive, on top of the subscription.
And yet we have suckers on here defending it, not realising what the end result will be. Next up TheMandalorian for a premium over the subscription.
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.
BTW, Mulan isn’t even the first to do this, it’s just that’s it’s through Disney+ instead of iTunes.
The last I looked when you rent off iTunes you don’t pay a subscription first. The reason it won’t on iTunes, Prime, google movies and YouTube rentals at a $25 to $30 rate like other new movies that couldn’t be released in theatres this year is because some evil bastard MBA* at Disney thought it might be a way to increase revenue from Disney + with an exclusive, on top of the subscription.
And yet we have suckers on here defending it, not realising what the end result will be. Next up TheMandalorian for a premium over the subscription.
*I hate those guys.
It won't be on there because it's not priced for those systems. Sure, it helps advertise for their service (just like Apple throwing $70M to buy rights to Greynhound helps promote Apple TV+. The difference is that Disney has a viable service today and Apple is doing what Netflix did a decade ago with original content leases. Apple ߑ說mp;nbsp;and ߑ說mp;nbsp;Disney ߑ說mp;nbsp;are ߑ說mp;nbsp;not ߑ說mp;nbsp;the ߑﳡme. Maybe in a decade or two, but not in 2020.
More importantly, if you made a Venn diagram of homes that subscribe to D+ and homes with individuals interested in Mulan you'd get a lot of overlap. Do you really not see that? Of course not as you said that "The Mandalorian" would be next up to cost subscribers $30 per episode to rent despite it having been created for the service.
BTW, Prime has always had physical sales mixed with digital sales mixed with physical rentals mixed with included with Prime streaming mixed with included Prime streaming so long as you also buy one of the countless other streaming add-ons. This isn't uncommon to Prime, either. Hulu and others offer various paid options for what content for which you have access.
As I've said, this movie doesn't really interest me, but I hope it's successful so that others will see that there's a better way than holding onto quality, big-budget content indefinitely. My guess is that it won't break even despite being a better option than the laughable iTunes suggestion, but we'll have to wait and see. Even if it is a success it may only be a success within the confines of D+ as very few have direct and complete ownership of the content being made and the service its launched. That's life and sometimes there is no good option, but it's odd how you and others want so hard for this to fail just to see it burn. Do you really think the theaters will simply open again if it does? They won't.
It seems like a lot of people who are upset here are worried that Mulan will cost $30 forever. Obviously Disney doesn’t want to say that it will eventually be added to the Disney+ roster, because it would encourage people to wait, but it’s pretty unlikely that they will be charging $30 (or anything close to that) for very long. It’s the premium that you pay if you want to see it as a new release. Even Apple charges more for new home video releases (which typically come long after the theatrical release) than for movies that have been available on home video for a while, and in some cases you can only buy the newer films instead of renting them. Plus this is the price to see it as soon as it is released to the public, with no delay for theatrical release. Yes, $30 seems like a lot to stream a movie these days, but as others have noted, it’s still cheap for a new release if more than one person is watching it.
BTW, Mulan isn’t even the first to do this, it’s just that’s it’s through Disney+ instead of iTunes.
The last I looked when you rent off iTunes you don’t pay a subscription first. The reason it won’t on iTunes, Prime, google movies and YouTube rentals at a $25 to $30 rate like other new movies that couldn’t be released in theatres this year is because some evil bastard MBA* at Disney thought it might be a way to increase revenue from Disney + with an exclusive, on top of the subscription.
And yet we have suckers on here defending it, not realising what the end result will be. Next up TheMandalorian for a premium over the subscription.
*I hate those guys.
So, as a Disney+ subscriber, you’re OK with Disney offering Mulan as a $30 rental through iTunes but not through Disney+? I don’t see what the difference is. Either way, I have no issue at this price with first-run at-home movie rentals. If it doesn’t work out for Disney then I expect we’ll see fewer offerings like that which would kinda suck. As you mentioned earlier, you’re fine with waiting, so it won’t affect you anyway.
BTW, Mulan isn’t even the first to do this, it’s just that’s it’s through Disney+ instead of iTunes.
The last I looked when you rent off iTunes you don’t pay a subscription first. The reason it won’t on iTunes, Prime, google movies and YouTube rentals at a $25 to $30 rate like other new movies that couldn’t be released in theatres this year is because some evil bastard MBA* at Disney thought it might be a way to increase revenue from Disney + with an exclusive, on top of the subscription.
And yet we have suckers on here defending it, not realising what the end result will be. Next up TheMandalorian for a premium over the subscription.
*I hate those guys.
So, as a Disney+ subscriber, you’re OK with Disney offering Mulan as a $30 rental through iTunes but not through Disney+? I don’t see what the difference is. Either way, I have no issue at this price with first-run at-home movie rentals. If it doesn’t work out for Disney then I expect we’ll see fewer offerings like that which would kinda suck. As you mentioned earlier, you’re fine with waiting, so it won’t affect you anyway.
I really hope it's a successful first-run streaming solution, but as I've said, I'm not convinced it will. I think people are still expecting theaters to start operating as normal again soon. I wish there was no pandemic and that we were able to have a singular message to lock down the nation, wear masks, socially distance, and be patriotic by helping keep each other safe, but that ship sailed a long time ago. We're in this and I'm not sure all the movie theaters will survive this now.
I’m late to the party, but I don’t think this is complicated — for $30, you can add it to your Disney+ subscription before it would appear there otherwise. Nothing else changes.
Their only other choice was to release it as a “first-run” rental like other would-be theatrical releases. This is basically the same — you can rent it for a month for $36.98. They no longer offer a free trial period, so that’s moot.
If you think Tenet, which cost twice as much to make as Mulan, will cost less to rent, let alone buy, you’re likely to be mistaken.
[EDIT: The same economies that Disney is taking advantage of here also apply to AT&T (which owns both Warner Brothers and HBO), so I’ll predict Tenet will be released first on HBO Max.]
BTW, Mulan isn’t even the first to do this, it’s just that’s it’s through Disney+ instead of iTunes.
The last I looked when you rent off iTunes you don’t pay a subscription first. The reason it won’t on iTunes, Prime, google movies and YouTube rentals at a $25 to $30 rate like other new movies that couldn’t be released in theatres this year is because some evil bastard MBA* at Disney thought it might be a way to increase revenue from Disney + with an exclusive, on top of the subscription.
And yet we have suckers on here defending it, not realising what the end result will be. Next up TheMandalorian for a premium over the subscription.
*I hate those guys.
So, as a Disney+ subscriber, you’re OK with Disney offering Mulan as a $30 rental through iTunes but not through Disney+? I don’t see what the difference is. Either way, I have no issue at this price with first-run at-home movie rentals. If it doesn’t work out for Disney then I expect we’ll see fewer offerings like that which would kinda suck. As you mentioned earlier, you’re fine with waiting, so it won’t affect you anyway.
Why yes, yes I am. I have no trouble paying $30 for an iTunes rental as a first release. That is the clear alternative to attending a cinema (ps I never said anything about waiting for first release, you might be confusing me with some other clear eyed dude).
What Disney+ is doing is charging you first for entry to the cinema and then charging a second time for the movie.
BTW, Mulan isn’t even the first to do this, it’s just that’s it’s through Disney+ instead of iTunes.
The last I looked when you rent off iTunes you don’t pay a subscription first. The reason it won’t on iTunes, Prime, google movies and YouTube rentals at a $25 to $30 rate like other new movies that couldn’t be released in theatres this year is because some evil bastard MBA* at Disney thought it might be a way to increase revenue from Disney + with an exclusive, on top of the subscription.
And yet we have suckers on here defending it, not realising what the end result will be. Next up TheMandalorian for a premium over the subscription.
*I hate those guys.
So, as a Disney+ subscriber, you’re OK with Disney offering Mulan as a $30 rental through iTunes but not through Disney+? I don’t see what the difference is. Either way, I have no issue at this price with first-run at-home movie rentals. If it doesn’t work out for Disney then I expect we’ll see fewer offerings like that which would kinda suck. As you mentioned earlier, you’re fine with waiting, so it won’t affect you anyway.
Why yes, yes I am. I have no trouble paying $30 for an iTunes rental as a first release. That is the clear alternative to attending a cinema (ps I never said anything about waiting for first release, you might be confusing me with some other clear eyed dude).
What Disney+ is doing is charging you first for entry to the cinema and then charging a second time for the movie.
I must have misunderstood your first comment where you said, “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.” To me that implies a couple of things: 1) that you pay for Disney+ already and 2) that you don’t mind waiting to see what was initially intended as a theatrical release.
I guess I just look at it differently than you do. To me the Disney+ subscription is for their back catalogue and a few made-for-Disney+ shows and movies. Mulan doesn’t fall into that category so charging extra for it doesn’t bother me. To me it’s similar to the science museum my family has a membership to. We paid our membership and that gives us admission to the museum for the year but if we want to see the 3D dinosaur movie that’s playing or go to the Bodies Revealed exhibit we have to pay extra.
I also hope Disney is wildly successful with the Disney+ release of Mulan and it encourages more such releases in the future, not just from Disney but from other studios. If I have to pay $7 to join some service for a month just to watch their back catalogue and have to pay extra to get the opportunity to see a big, new release movie I’ll likely do that, too.
Comments
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?
The crappy part is, if it's too successful Disney may skip iTunes altogether and now we have a fragmented mess. Who will be next?
Imagine having to subscribe to 5 services just to view your movie library?
I respect his opinion but I on the other hand enjoy the experience and the $10,000 equipment and sound acoustics I can't afford.
Maybe he has a bad ass home theater room or maybe he just doesn't give a damn and prefers to watch it at home on his 32" screen?
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.
You missed the point of my post entirely. I was highlighting the absurdity of hiring a babysitter in order to watch a kids movie. You also seem to think that your situation is typical, instead of a minority case. And, you completely ignore the value of watching a movie at the theater, with the huge screen and superior sound. When movie theaters start using 65-inch screens and cheap sound bars, you can re-start your calculations.
Until then, You do you! Just don't use the babysitter cost to justify the price of this movie on Disney+.
BTW, Mulan isn’t even the first to do this, it’s just that’s it’s through Disney+ instead of iTunes.
If it helps to put things into perspective, yes, we have a 110” screen, 4K HDR projector and Atmos in a dedicated theater room so I realize that it’s different for us than someone who has a 55” TV in their living room.
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.
The reason it won’t on iTunes, Prime, google movies and YouTube rentals at a $25 to $30 rate like other new movies that couldn’t be released in theatres this year is because some evil bastard MBA* at Disney thought it might be a way to increase revenue from Disney + with an exclusive, on top of the subscription.
And yet we have suckers on here defending it, not realising what the end result will be. Next up The Mandalorian for a premium over the subscription.
*I hate those guys.
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.
More importantly, if you made a Venn diagram of homes that subscribe to D+ and homes with individuals interested in Mulan you'd get a lot of overlap. Do you really not see that? Of course not as you said that "The Mandalorian" would be next up to cost subscribers $30 per episode to rent despite it having been created for the service.
BTW, Prime has always had physical sales mixed with digital sales mixed with physical rentals mixed with included with Prime streaming mixed with included Prime streaming so long as you also buy one of the countless other streaming add-ons. This isn't uncommon to Prime, either. Hulu and others offer various paid options for what content for which you have access.
As I've said, this movie doesn't really interest me, but I hope it's successful so that others will see that there's a better way than holding onto quality, big-budget content indefinitely. My guess is that it won't break even despite being a better option than the laughable iTunes suggestion, but we'll have to wait and see. Even if it is a success it may only be a success within the confines of D+ as very few have direct and complete ownership of the content being made and the service its launched. That's life and sometimes there is no good option, but it's odd how you and others want so hard for this to fail just to see it burn. Do you really think the theaters will simply open again if it does? They won't.
Their only other choice was to release it as a “first-run” rental like other would-be theatrical releases. This is basically the same — you can rent it for a month for $36.98. They no longer offer a free trial period, so that’s moot.
If you think Tenet, which cost twice as much to make as Mulan, will cost less to rent, let alone buy, you’re likely to be mistaken.
[EDIT: The same economies that Disney is taking advantage of here also apply to AT&T (which owns both Warner Brothers and HBO), so I’ll predict Tenet will be released first on HBO Max.]
I guess I just look at it differently than you do. To me the Disney+ subscription is for their back catalogue and a few made-for-Disney+ shows and movies. Mulan doesn’t fall into that category so charging extra for it doesn’t bother me. To me it’s similar to the science museum my family has a membership to. We paid our membership and that gives us admission to the museum for the year but if we want to see the 3D dinosaur movie that’s playing or go to the Bodies Revealed exhibit we have to pay extra.
I also hope Disney is wildly successful with the Disney+ release of Mulan and it encourages more such releases in the future, not just from Disney but from other studios. If I have to pay $7 to join some service for a month just to watch their back catalogue and have to pay extra to get the opportunity to see a big, new release movie I’ll likely do that, too.