Mulan - Live Action Remake (2020)

K

kathy202

Pro Adventurer
That's an odd business model... Subscribing to a streaming service and still having to pay a significant amount for more stuff on it. How about just pricing it higher and making it purchasable without requiring the subscription? -_- I guess they have lost revenue to make up for...
 
Fade

Fade

SHR
Wow, how much are cinema tickets in the US? Even if you "own" the film for as long as you're subscribed, I could still see it ~4 times at the cinema for that price in the UK. And the average person ain't gonna watch it that many times at home. I could maaaaybe understand a few dollars on top of the sub, but it's not like you're doing Disney a personal favour by subscribing, you know? This is a company making money at a rate best calculated on a geological scale, after all.
 
Tetsujin

Tetsujin

he/they
AKA
Tets
Honestly, I'll take a slightly higher price as an early access fee that lets me circumvent theaters and instead watch it at home in 4K HDR. I vastly prefer my OLED to a regular shitty projection. Especially if they force 3D on me (which the theaters here generally do and the 3D is usually not calibrated right either so it's blurry as fuck).
 
The Twilight Mexican

The Twilight Mexican

Ex-SeeD-ingly good
AKA
TresDias
Strangelove said:
i am bitter and angry at people cheering disney's acquisition of fox on the basis of comic book characters being in different films (despite the detrimental impact on other things from fox caused by their buyout) and will be until the day i die
Click to expand...
I mean, feel however you feel about that. I'm just pointing out that there's nothing bullshit about the example provided. :monster:
 
Makoeyes987

Makoeyes987

Listen closely, there is meaning in my words.
AKA
Smooth Criminal
I definitely don't think it's bullshit and there's nothing wrong with fans of Marvel having excitement over the comic book series and cinematic universe being under a single house now after decades.

But I cannot help but feel utterly disgusted and depressed at how this absurd pricing and user rights ownership model is not only being seriously presented by a corporation as large and profitable as Disney... But that people are so readily and willing to accept it. It speaks to how consumer rights have been so utterly decimated to the point that consumers accept and justify such a laughably bad deal.

Paying 30 dollars to essentially rent a single use movie on a platform that's a subscription service you are already paying for is such a laughably terrible deal, only Disney could get away with doing it and not get laughed at over the sheer chutzpah. Yes, I get they need to try to somehow make money from recycling all their old (and ultimately stolen) films because Disney hasn't yet earned enough money to buy out the sun and control all life in the Milky Way Galaxy, but to essentially double dip their loyal consumer base like this just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

30 dollars should give you something more than a damn single use rental. But people were willing to surrender ownership rights for their hard earned income from labor, for the sake of convenience. So, I can't say I'm surprised at this being acceptable for most people, I just think it's rather messed up.
 
Makoeyes987

Makoeyes987

Listen closely, there is meaning in my words.
AKA
Smooth Criminal
Well that's better, but only a little bit, since you do still have to maintain a Disney Plus membership to watch it, right?

You can ultimately pay 30 dollars on a single movie and still not technically own it. That's messed up to me.
 
Tetsujin

Tetsujin

he/they
AKA
Tets
I mean, I paid upwards of 20 Euros for a movie in IMAX and I certainly didn't get a free copy to own for that either :wacky:
Whether it's theatrical release or this, it all comes down to it being an early access tax imo.
If you wanna own it, you gotta wait until the regular release a few months later. At least I assume the movie isn't gonna be "premiere access" forever.

Eitherway, I'm just hoping for Black Widow because no way anything releases theatrically this year anymore :wacky:
 
Last edited:
Makoeyes987

Makoeyes987

Listen closely, there is meaning in my words.
AKA
Smooth Criminal
I would say that the experience of the venue and seeing a movie in IMAX is what warrants the high cost.

Paying 30 bucks to essentially rent a movie on a subscription service simply to see it early, seems so much like a double-dip.

But alas, I suppose it's a matter of perspective because I imagine for some people, paying 30 bucks for an IMAX showing would be seen as an utter waste. So I can get not seeing a big deal in paying 30 bucks to enjoy a movie in one's home during this time.
 
Strangelove

Strangelove

AI Researcher
AKA
hitoshura
The Twilight Mexican said:
I mean, feel however you feel about that. I'm just pointing out that there's nothing bullshit about the example provided. :monster:
Click to expand...
i feel like perhaps we're talking cross each other here (or i'm not sure what you were getting at but i've had a busy stressful day so maybe i wasn't parsing it properly). i don't really care one way or the other about the rights of use for characters and who owns what (although it's kind of laughable to be taking disney's side in this being that they were largely responsible for the way copyright works now because they didn't want to lose mickey mouse). what bugs me about it is mainly it being celebrated as a win because now x-men and fantastic four (i think those are the only two fox had? idk) are owned by the same company as other marvel character. it's fine to be excited about seeing all the characters together or whatever, but i don't think the fox buyout was a good thing in terms of all the other films and properties previously controlled by fox and the general business. not long after fox was bought you had theatres saying they were denied prints for screenings, the rights to streaming/etc. can now depend of if disney think it's appropriate for their brand image, they cancelled a slate of films upon purchase, they're dissolving things like fox 2000 which would release independent productions among others (although i think fox searchlight is sticking around), it has an impact on job options because you can't exactly move to a different company when your currant one's mistreating you if everything is owned by one conglomerate, less things being produced means less jobs to go around, it has the potential to scale down the range of things being produced because disney probably aren't going to try to compete with its own films or because of their image.

the marvel comment was more about general annoyance at the fox merger being viewed as a positive because of one franchise, ditto for when people hoping disney would buy sony pictures because they want spiderman to be in more marvel movies. i think it's bad for film as a medium and cheerleading a monopoly because you get to watch characters you like interact in one series of films is shortsighted.

plus this is mulan thing is kind of shit not explicitly because it's mulan, but because it sounds like a horrible road to go down as a business model. basically having you buy individual films as if it's dlc for the streaming service you also have to keep paying for. now imagine that for other films they now control the rights to, like what if you wanted to see the new star wars but they were asking for $30 + subscription

actually scratch that, that's a bad example, you're getting a good deal not seeing the new star wars and saving your money
 
Last edited:
K

kathy202

Pro Adventurer
I'm curious how sales is going to look like in the case of Mulan. As a consumer, I'm absolutely not going to pay for this, so to me this feels like a rip off that would backfire miserably. But there'll be people who want it enough to pay for it, just a question of how many... Guess we won't know till the time comes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom