It cost too much to do that. It needs a theatrical release. Disney did that with Artemis Fowl because they didn't believe in the film and obviously smelled a flop coming. It lost money too, but they saved money on its actual distribution. Mulan is something that they believe in, and I don't think they are ready to do that yet.Might as well just put it on Disney+ at this point.
Cinemas have reopened in Australia but they are playing to virtually empty houses despite having new release films.If it takes a year, I will be back in movie theaters, but not before I think it is safe for me and my family. I understand the hardship that theater owners face. I think and hope they will get government assistance, but the fact remains that I can't go to a theater until I personally feel okay doing it. But the fact that it takes several months makes no difference. I'm not going to forget about it.
I said it in The New Mutants thread but I think it's because that movie is going to Disney +. If it wasn't, they'd have moved it today.Delaying Mulan makes sense to me.
What doesn't make sense to me is that Disney has both The New Mutants (for 20th Century No Longer Fox) and now aloo David Copperfield (for Searchlight) scheduled for release on August 28. They just moved Copperfield to that date today.
So, saying "It's not safe for Mulan on August 28, but hey, come get corona while you see The New Mutants a week later" does not make sense. It doesn't matter what the movie is; the safety risk is the same regardless of the content. Therefore, keeping those while delaying Mulan is confusing and sends a mixed message.
My understanding is that the $30 is for a 48-hour rental period, and you will need to have an active Disney+ subscription in order to access it.About dang time. If there's a theater open near me, I might go. But really, for $30, I can own a brand spanking new, big budget movie and have as many people as I want watch it as many times as I want? (I'm assuming some of that since we don't have specifics yet.)
If it is just a rental, I'll wait. I didn't see any time frame in the Deadline article; I didn't read the Endgadget one.My understanding is that the $30 is for a 48-hour rental period, and you will need to have an active Disney+ subscription in order to access it.
Definitely not worth it for me, but for large families with cooped up children bouncing off the walls, it very well might be.
I don't think they will be releasing it theatrically at all in the United States. The Deadline article says "Specifically, Disney will be releasing the film theatrically in certain markets where the studio currently has no announced launch plans for Disney+ and where theaters are open (i.e., China). The concern with opening the film in some theaters worldwide and not others, was, of course, piracy-related."If there's a theater open near me, I might go.
I can understand Disney trying to recoup some money on this because it cost in the vicinity of $200 million to make. But that sort of flies in the face of their whole "Disney+ is just $6.99 and you get everything" messaging about the service up to this point.So the $30 is on top of the D+ subscription?!?
Yeah, in terms of price, it's a homerun if you have a family but if it's just you or maybe you & a date, it ain't worth it. That being said, they're obviously targeting families with this.Definitely not worth it for me, but for large families with cooped up children bouncing off the walls, it very well might be.
I still think the entire industry is going to panic when they see how bad Tenet does and the studios will move their movies or force a VOD deal with theater chains. IF studios don't get a VOD deal, Disney will put out New Mutants and King's Man just to get rid of them and after that, they will move their big movies (Black Widow and Soul) and movies that are going to draw an older crowd (Death On The Nile and West Side Story) and that's pretty much all they've got for 2020. IF Disney does that, I can't imagine that the other studios with a grand total of 2 or 3 wide release movies for the year won't move theirs too. Of course, I never imagined that Mulan would be on DIsney + so what the hell do I know?Deadline indicates that Bob Chapek said this is being looked at as a one-off, rather than testing a new release model. But if it works, I wonder if they would do it again for Black Widow or Soul. I want to see those two held until it is safe to go to theaters, but I've got to admit, my interest level in those is way higher than in Mulan. So I might give those more serious consideration.
Hurricane? Are you okay?My power goes out for the day (lousy hurricane) and crazy stuff happens online.
I don't think even Disney expected this result a couple months ago. When they moved Artemis Fowl to Disney+, it was a convenient excuse for them to unload a dud so that they wouldn't lose any more money than they already had doing a theatrical release for it. With Hamilton, it created a new buzz title for Disney+ while keeping the show part of the public conversation during Broadway's shutdown. With this one, I absolutely believe that they would have loved to do a traditional theatrical release for it, but this pandemic has gone on much longer than originally anticipated and has no end in sight. So they probably just got to the point recently where they thought, "It doesn't make sense to hold this any longer."Of course, I never imagined that Mulan would be on DIsney + so what the hell do I know?
As has been mentioned, If you have a family of four or five people, you could easily spend $30 or more to go see it in the theater. So it's not that much of an outlay compared to what an outing for a group would have been to see it there. However, the difference is that families who normally go out to the movies don't necessarily struggle as much financially during a normal situation as many are during this pandemic. So what might not have been a bad price to pay for a theater trip pre-coronavirus might be an expensive outlay for people who are out of work or having other problems right now.I think Disney is miscalculating here.
This is the biggest risk with this endeavor: It risks damaging the Disney+ brand, because being all-inclusive for a reasonable price was a big part of the pitch to consumers.I can understand Disney trying to recoup some money on this because it cost in the vicinity of $200 million to make. But that sort of flies in the face of their whole "Disney+ is just $6.99 and you get everything" messaging about the service up to this point.
Isaias. It's charged its way up the East Coast. My whole area flooded from it, with lots of roads closed but (knock on wood) I haven't lost power yet.