The streaming service that blooms in adversity
August 5, 2020 12:30 PM Subscribe
Along with reporting a $4.7 billion loss in the last quarter, Disney announced its next major movie, Mulan, will be premiering to Disney+ subscribers at a cost of $30 to rent. This is only the latest shock in the movie industry, which last month saw AMC Theatres agree for Universal’s movies to become available rent merely 17 days after they’ve started playing in theatres.
Meanwhile, Disney+ now has over 60 million subscribers.
Meanwhile, Disney+ now has over 60 million subscribers.
Wait. It costs more to "rent" the movie on an subscription service (as in, it goes away if you cancel your subscription) than it does to buy it on Blu-Ray?
posted by Foosnark at 12:55 PM on August 5, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by Foosnark at 12:55 PM on August 5, 2020 [14 favorites]
Also, wait. Mulan? Again? Didn't they screw it up enough the first time?
posted by nosila at 12:59 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by nosila at 12:59 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
Well, it costs infinity to buy on Blu-Ray, since it's not going to be released there for some time, if ever.
posted by sideshow at 12:59 PM on August 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by sideshow at 12:59 PM on August 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
Say what you will about Disney+, at least you can watch it on a damn Roku, unlike at least two other streaming services I could name.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 1:02 PM on August 5, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 1:02 PM on August 5, 2020 [14 favorites]
To rent it on its release day (in theaters in countries where COVID-19 is under control). It won't be available for purchase at that time. Presumably, by the time it's released for purchase, rental costs would come down.
posted by JiBB at 1:03 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by JiBB at 1:03 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
Eventually it'll be on Disney+ for the price of the regular subscription, but who knows when that'll be.
posted by jmauro at 1:03 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by jmauro at 1:03 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Also, before we go way down the road of "but Mulan sucks!": live-action Mulan with an asian cast was a big deal in the industry, and that fact that James Bond/Tenet get to wait for theaters, but Mulan goes straight to video (I know, I know, it's more nuanced than that...) is similarly a huge deal, industry-wise.
So, ask your asian friends, specifically those with ties to Hollywood, how they feel about this before you shit all over people caring one way or the other about Disney doing this.
posted by sideshow at 1:03 PM on August 5, 2020 [23 favorites]
So, ask your asian friends, specifically those with ties to Hollywood, how they feel about this before you shit all over people caring one way or the other about Disney doing this.
posted by sideshow at 1:03 PM on August 5, 2020 [23 favorites]
Meanwhile, Disney+ now has over 60 million subscribers.
Are these paying customers on just on one of the many freebies? I just got my second free subscription with a phone deal. I watched everything I wanted to see in the first week.
posted by biffa at 1:04 PM on August 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Are these paying customers on just on one of the many freebies? I just got my second free subscription with a phone deal. I watched everything I wanted to see in the first week.
posted by biffa at 1:04 PM on August 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
It takes some monster balls to allow people to rent a movie for a mere thirty dollars only after they pay to subscribe to your streaming service.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:04 PM on August 5, 2020 [36 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:04 PM on August 5, 2020 [36 favorites]
I really hope that this doesn't mean the end of movie theaters. I mean I'm in no hurry to go sit in one right now and won't until the pandemic is under control but going to the movies is the #1 thing that I miss right now and I'll be very sad if that goes away.
posted by octothorpe at 1:07 PM on August 5, 2020 [31 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 1:07 PM on August 5, 2020 [31 favorites]
See, this is the part of cord cutting that the streaming industry just doesn't get....its been going on for a while, in different forms. For example back in the Before, we would only go to 2nd run theatres (they're cheaper, comfier, the food is better, they're closer....the one we go to had free fucking childcare), but the releases were like 3-6 months old. But if that's the ecosystem you live in, and just ignore the first run theatres, you get used to it. "Is it at the Academy (theatre)" was a common ask around our house.
We maintain a Hulu/Disney, Netflix and Amazon subscription (oh, and we keep our netflix DVD subscription for things we specifically can't find on those three services). Between those and the occasional grab from my local library, we really don't watch anything else. I'm completely decoupled from the 'release hype' with the exception of a few properties that I'm fanatically obsessed with (I'm looking at you The Expanse). I don't know when shit is coming out. I'm happy to be surprised by it, and I'm not going to go out of my way to watch something because I'm impatient. I'm already used to the ecosystem of "it has been released, it will appear to you when you're ready."
Once in a great while, (this was the case with the expanse when it was on syfy) I'll like something sooooo much that I'll go out of my way to buy it or get it, but I'm not going to subscribe to a whole new streaming service for one movie or one show, and I'm certainly not going to pay on top of that to watch something because it's new. If that trend continues I'll have to dust off the torrent machine which I haven't used in years.
posted by furnace.heart at 1:08 PM on August 5, 2020 [21 favorites]
We maintain a Hulu/Disney, Netflix and Amazon subscription (oh, and we keep our netflix DVD subscription for things we specifically can't find on those three services). Between those and the occasional grab from my local library, we really don't watch anything else. I'm completely decoupled from the 'release hype' with the exception of a few properties that I'm fanatically obsessed with (I'm looking at you The Expanse). I don't know when shit is coming out. I'm happy to be surprised by it, and I'm not going to go out of my way to watch something because I'm impatient. I'm already used to the ecosystem of "it has been released, it will appear to you when you're ready."
Once in a great while, (this was the case with the expanse when it was on syfy) I'll like something sooooo much that I'll go out of my way to buy it or get it, but I'm not going to subscribe to a whole new streaming service for one movie or one show, and I'm certainly not going to pay on top of that to watch something because it's new. If that trend continues I'll have to dust off the torrent machine which I haven't used in years.
posted by furnace.heart at 1:08 PM on August 5, 2020 [21 favorites]
Yeah, this is a baffling move. No one is clamoring for yet another live action remake of an animated film, and $30 is a stiff price for such a thing.
But. If this had been floated to the Disney bigwigs three months ago, they could have certainly charged $30 for a certain filmed phenomenally popular Broadway show that no one can get tickets for. Then they would have something.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 1:20 PM on August 5, 2020 [20 favorites]
But. If this had been floated to the Disney bigwigs three months ago, they could have certainly charged $30 for a certain filmed phenomenally popular Broadway show that no one can get tickets for. Then they would have something.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 1:20 PM on August 5, 2020 [20 favorites]
Looking at my letterboxd diary, I saw 25 movies in the theater last year which is pretty typical. This year, only 9 and I assume that will be it.
posted by octothorpe at 1:22 PM on August 5, 2020
posted by octothorpe at 1:22 PM on August 5, 2020
I suspect though that Hamilton drove a lot of new D+ subscriptions. Certainly did ours.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 1:22 PM on August 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 1:22 PM on August 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
Big missed detail: Mulan is $30 to watch but only as long as you're a Disney+ member.
So it's $30 now plus $70/year until it's on the standard service. And then it's still $70/year.
posted by JoeZydeco at 1:25 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
So it's $30 now plus $70/year until it's on the standard service. And then it's still $70/year.
posted by JoeZydeco at 1:25 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Disney is basically writing off hope of Mulan making them money in the US. I think they're relying on China, which has begun reopening cinemas since late July, and any money they make from the US is just a bonus.
posted by PenDevil at 1:26 PM on August 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by PenDevil at 1:26 PM on August 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Wait what it's going to be $30 to rent
What the fuck is this
I would have paid $30 to see Hamilton for sure because it's not original content
But $30 just to RENT
No
posted by Kitchen Witch at 1:26 PM on August 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
What the fuck is this
I would have paid $30 to see Hamilton for sure because it's not original content
But $30 just to RENT
No
posted by Kitchen Witch at 1:26 PM on August 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
As a Chinese American I will be boycotting Mulan because 1. it looks like any other generic wuxia film, but doesn't even look like it has the saving grace of a sense of humor and 2. Liu Yiufei/Crystal Liu's public statements about Hong Kong are awful and I don't want to support any of it. Hell, I can't even bring myself to watch the latest Ip Man (freely available on Netflix) because of Donnie Yen's politics, and I loved watching his movies.
posted by toastyk at 1:28 PM on August 5, 2020 [36 favorites]
posted by toastyk at 1:28 PM on August 5, 2020 [36 favorites]
I seem to have seen similar for Black Widow and ... to rent the movie that feels like a ridiculous sum. I don't blame Disney for exploring options to charge extra for films they had planned to release in theatres where that's not going to be possible, but ... damn. I think they're wildly overshooting the mark.
What are the terms of the rental, anybody know? 24, 48 hours? Might get more traction if it's a longer period where you can at least watch something 2 or 3 times before it expires.
posted by jzb at 1:28 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
What are the terms of the rental, anybody know? 24, 48 hours? Might get more traction if it's a longer period where you can at least watch something 2 or 3 times before it expires.
posted by jzb at 1:28 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
No, it's more like "$30 to unlock it on your Disney+ subscription". But, yeah, you still don't have a physical disc to hold.
posted by JoeZydeco at 1:28 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by JoeZydeco at 1:28 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
Looks like the "announcement" that Black Widow would go the same route is a FAAAAAAAAKE. (For now.)
posted by Halloween Jack at 1:29 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Halloween Jack at 1:29 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
They’re charging $30 for it because that is the kind of money a family would pay to go and see it in a theater.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 1:38 PM on August 5, 2020 [31 favorites]
posted by 1970s Antihero at 1:38 PM on August 5, 2020 [31 favorites]
While $30 is pretty steep for a rental, it's also cheaper than 2 tickets at a theater, which I think is the more appropriate comparison in this instance (than to, say, renting Avengers 2 on Amazon in 2020).
posted by miguelcervantes at 1:39 PM on August 5, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by miguelcervantes at 1:39 PM on August 5, 2020 [13 favorites]
I don’t think they’re writing it off, but testing the waters on the straight to streaming release. If this is going to go on for a while it makes sense to give it a try and see what happens.
posted by jmauro at 1:39 PM on August 5, 2020
posted by jmauro at 1:39 PM on August 5, 2020
I think we only pay $10.50 for a ticket at Cinemark but Mulan is a kids picture so families would have been buying three or four tickets plus drinks and snacks which would go way over $30.
posted by octothorpe at 1:42 PM on August 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 1:42 PM on August 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
Two full price tickets, non-IMAX, non-3D, non-Atmos. Also, no concessions to purchase at exorbitant prices.
How many families could afford and would have gone to see this in theaters?
How many of them have Disney+ already or would subscribe to rent this?
I think Disney ran the numbers and that $30 mark was the sweet spot.
posted by linux at 1:43 PM on August 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
How many families could afford and would have gone to see this in theaters?
How many of them have Disney+ already or would subscribe to rent this?
I think Disney ran the numbers and that $30 mark was the sweet spot.
posted by linux at 1:43 PM on August 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
I suspect though that Hamilton drove a lot of new D+ subscriptions. Certainly did ours.
Same here. I don't know if we'd keep it in the long term. Though there are some of the better Pixar films we'd want to watch again (Up, Coco), it's probably not worth the fee on top of the network bill.
Disney would need to keep bringing in fresh stuff, and charging $30 on top of the subscription for exclusive content is definitely a gamble. It will be interesting to see how subscription numbers change over time.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:43 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Same here. I don't know if we'd keep it in the long term. Though there are some of the better Pixar films we'd want to watch again (Up, Coco), it's probably not worth the fee on top of the network bill.
Disney would need to keep bringing in fresh stuff, and charging $30 on top of the subscription for exclusive content is definitely a gamble. It will be interesting to see how subscription numbers change over time.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:43 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I'm not sure I understand the negative responses about the pricing. It's a major studio film that, had it been released in theaters first and had I wanted to take my family of four to see it, would have cost us about $50 to walk in the door. Had I not wanted to spend that money up front to see it in the first 6 months or so of release (I would not have), I would have waited for it to be released to stream on D+, which I'm guessing will still happen in the future once the people willing to pay $30 have done so.
posted by patrick rhett at 1:43 PM on August 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by patrick rhett at 1:43 PM on August 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
I think we only pay $10.50 for a ticket at Cinemark but Mulan is a kids picture so families would have been buying three or four tickets plus drinks and snacks which would go way over $30.
Well, if Disney is also supplying drinks and snacks then maybe.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:44 PM on August 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
Well, if Disney is also supplying drinks and snacks then maybe.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:44 PM on August 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
We are really excited about this finally coming out, but I can't stomach the idea of paying a really high PPV fee when we're already paying for D+. Can't bring myself to do it. My mom, on the other hand, says that if this was opening in the theaters, we would go and pay far more plus overpriced snacks and not even think about it. So I can see the logic. But I'd still only do it on her dime.
posted by Mchelly at 1:44 PM on August 5, 2020
posted by Mchelly at 1:44 PM on August 5, 2020
Yeah, I'm kinda... okay about this as an offer? For the longest time I've have just wanted the option to watch a new cinema release at home. Seems the pandemic has pushed Disney into giving it a go and calling my bluff.
I think I could be swayed at $30 for a movie I'd be buzzing to see, and it's always easier to make the next movie a bit cheaper in price as Disney finds the sweetspot in the market.
An offer like $30 now, and then get a free digital copy when the bluray drops could sweeten the pot (not that I can remember the last movie I ever actually purchased...)
Disney+ still not in my geographic region though /grumble/
posted by Static Vagabond at 1:55 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think I could be swayed at $30 for a movie I'd be buzzing to see, and it's always easier to make the next movie a bit cheaper in price as Disney finds the sweetspot in the market.
An offer like $30 now, and then get a free digital copy when the bluray drops could sweeten the pot (not that I can remember the last movie I ever actually purchased...)
Disney+ still not in my geographic region though /grumble/
posted by Static Vagabond at 1:55 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
I understand the model, too. When you're a parent of young kids, going to see a first-run movie means at least $100 in movie tickets, food, and - let's not forget - babysitters. I can't recall how many times I've bailed on seeing something in the theater just because of the time, cost, or sheer effort involved.
posted by JoeZydeco at 2:05 PM on August 5, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by JoeZydeco at 2:05 PM on August 5, 2020 [13 favorites]
Pro-tip: tempted to make another comment about a “$30 rental“? Try R’ingTFA first.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:08 PM on August 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 2:08 PM on August 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
Yes, I should’ve been more specific in the summary, it’s not like you really “own” the movie for $30 since you still need to subscribe to D+, but if you were planning to stay subscribed, it’s kind of like that.
posted by adrianhon at 2:13 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by adrianhon at 2:13 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Looks like Disney is hoping to follow in the footsteps of Trolls World Tour, which rented for $20. CNBC: 'Trolls World Tour' made more for Universal in 3 weeks on demand than 'Trolls' did in 5 months in theaters. Gross revenue was lower, but the studio kept 80% of the proceeds (compared to 50% for a theatrical release).
Mulan is a much bigger gamble. It sounds like it's a family-friendly war movie rather than a musical. Hollywood Reporter: Inside Disney's Bold $200M Gamble on 'Mulan': "The Stakes Couldn't Be Higher".
In the Chinese market, I'm wondering if Disney will be able to top the 2009 war movie Hua Mulan, aka Mulan: Rise of a Warrior, starring Zhao Wei (the filmmakers didn't attempt to make her passable as a man). Since the Disney version is aimed at the world market, it won't be able to make a straightforward appeal to Chinese nationalism.
posted by russilwvong at 2:17 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
Mulan is a much bigger gamble. It sounds like it's a family-friendly war movie rather than a musical. Hollywood Reporter: Inside Disney's Bold $200M Gamble on 'Mulan': "The Stakes Couldn't Be Higher".
In the Chinese market, I'm wondering if Disney will be able to top the 2009 war movie Hua Mulan, aka Mulan: Rise of a Warrior, starring Zhao Wei (the filmmakers didn't attempt to make her passable as a man). Since the Disney version is aimed at the world market, it won't be able to make a straightforward appeal to Chinese nationalism.
posted by russilwvong at 2:17 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
In Atlanta, tickets at the AMC at the run-down mall were still $5 on March 13.
$30 is still a lot of money for many of us who don't live in NYC/LA/Chicago to see a movie.
posted by hydropsyche at 2:17 PM on August 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
$30 is still a lot of money for many of us who don't live in NYC/LA/Chicago to see a movie.
posted by hydropsyche at 2:17 PM on August 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
It seems like an odd choice to do this with a family movie, but maybe I just misunderstand the marketing dynamics of family movies. To my mind, the place to do this would be Black Widow an MCU movie about a boy person that the internet nerds are going to fanboy over. Cuz they would pay the bucks for early access so that they can see it and talk about it online with their friends before SPOILERS. But how alert is the average kid to release dates and the next big movie, especially at a time when they aren't in school talking to their friends? Are parents going to shell out $30 for their kids to watch a movie in the den that they can see as part of their regular subscription in 6 months?
posted by jacquilynne at 2:28 PM on August 5, 2020
posted by jacquilynne at 2:28 PM on August 5, 2020
RV sales are exploding and I doubt most Metafilter members would pay $150K+ for an RV... you people are not the target customer here. Post-pandemic life is different. Theaters are the walking dead. $30 new release rentals are the new normal. But yes, you can still watch your fave indie film for free on Kanopy.
posted by GuyZero at 2:34 PM on August 5, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 2:34 PM on August 5, 2020 [11 favorites]
Are parents going to shell out $30 for their kids to watch a movie in the den that they can see as part of their regular subscription in 6 months?
All movies have already been watched over the summer lockdown.
Besides, they'd spend more than $30 to do the same thing in a theater.
posted by GuyZero at 2:35 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
All movies have already been watched over the summer lockdown.
Besides, they'd spend more than $30 to do the same thing in a theater.
posted by GuyZero at 2:35 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Gross revenue was lower, but the studio kept 80% of the proceeds (compared to 50% for a theatrical release).
This is what I was wondering about. You can't compare directly to ticket prices without taking into account the fact that a lot of that revenue goes to the theater and not to Disney. (And I'm pretty sure Disney doesn't benefit from popcorn and snack revenues, right?)
Pro-tip: tempted to make another comment about a “$30 rental“? Try R’ingTFA first.
I did! Not sure what I'm missing.
posted by trig at 2:36 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
This is what I was wondering about. You can't compare directly to ticket prices without taking into account the fact that a lot of that revenue goes to the theater and not to Disney. (And I'm pretty sure Disney doesn't benefit from popcorn and snack revenues, right?)
Pro-tip: tempted to make another comment about a “$30 rental“? Try R’ingTFA first.
I did! Not sure what I'm missing.
posted by trig at 2:36 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure, either. You spend $30 and you get to watch it as long as you have a D+ account, which has an ongoing fee. That seems like a rental. What am I missing?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:05 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:05 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
This is what I was wondering about. You can't compare directly to ticket prices without taking into account the fact that a lot of that revenue goes to the theater and not to Disney. (And I'm pretty sure Disney doesn't benefit from popcorn and snack revenues, right?)
It’s a very small percentage of ticket sales that goes to the theater for first-run releases. That’s why concessions are so expensive; it’s the money from food and drink that keeps the theaters in business.
But yes, the model that’s being used for this release sees 100% go to Disney, and all is more than most. And the fact that customers don’t separate the cost of tickets and concessions in their mind means they’re willing to pay more for one if they’re not paying for the other.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 3:07 PM on August 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
It’s a very small percentage of ticket sales that goes to the theater for first-run releases. That’s why concessions are so expensive; it’s the money from food and drink that keeps the theaters in business.
But yes, the model that’s being used for this release sees 100% go to Disney, and all is more than most. And the fact that customers don’t separate the cost of tickets and concessions in their mind means they’re willing to pay more for one if they’re not paying for the other.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 3:07 PM on August 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
It doesn't cost $30 to(r)rent the movie....
posted by Pendragon at 3:12 PM on August 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by Pendragon at 3:12 PM on August 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
All movies have already been watched over the summer lockdown.
Does that matter to kids? When I was a kid, there was a summer when my BFF and I just watched Adventures in Babysitting every day until the VHS tape snapped.
Besides, they'd spend more than $30 to do the same thing in a theater.
Sure, but is a family outing, rather than just very expensive screen time.
posted by jacquilynne at 3:15 PM on August 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
Does that matter to kids? When I was a kid, there was a summer when my BFF and I just watched Adventures in Babysitting every day until the VHS tape snapped.
Besides, they'd spend more than $30 to do the same thing in a theater.
Sure, but is a family outing, rather than just very expensive screen time.
posted by jacquilynne at 3:15 PM on August 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
I really hope that this doesn't mean the end of movie theaters.
I think the only way out for theaters is to embrace the old "road show" model, and make theatergoing an event, with the experience to match. Theaters have been heading that way for some time now anyways - they may as well just lean into it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:15 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
I think the only way out for theaters is to embrace the old "road show" model, and make theatergoing an event, with the experience to match. Theaters have been heading that way for some time now anyways - they may as well just lean into it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:15 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
You spend $30 and you get to watch it as long as you have a D+ account, which has an ongoing fee. That seems like a rental. What am I missing?
Same thing as the rest of us: access to the “rental” terms, which seriously hinders any sort of nuanced discussion of the matter. At this point, the grar in this thread is nothing more than free advertising for Disney.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:53 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Same thing as the rest of us: access to the “rental” terms, which seriously hinders any sort of nuanced discussion of the matter. At this point, the grar in this thread is nothing more than free advertising for Disney.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:53 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
If it is approximately 2 hours and your kids watch it 15 times, then it is $1/hour childcare.
posted by snofoam at 4:11 PM on August 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 4:11 PM on August 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
This is what I was wondering about. You can't compare directly to ticket prices without taking into account the fact that a lot of that revenue goes to the theater and not to Disney. (And I'm pretty sure Disney doesn't benefit from popcorn and snack revenues, right?)
It's been a while since I managed a movie theatre, so I can only tell you how things worked late in the last century in my country; from what I understand, the situation is still substantially similar.
There are two layers between the movie company and you: the distributors and the exhibitor (i.e. the movie theatre). In Disney's case, the production company is formally The Walt Disney Studios, and the distribution (and marketing) is handled by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (né Buena Vista Film Distribution Company, Inc). You might notice a similarity in names there: Disney owns their own distribution company.
The distributors lease the films to the exhibitors in return for a fairly hefty portion of the box office haul. I don't know what the percentage is currently, but it used to be in the range of 90-95% for a new release. You pay twelve bucks at the box office, and the theatre sees maybe a dollar of that.
It is a sliding scale and it drops each week; by the third or fourth week, the distributor's slice is diminished. Not as many people are keen to see Fast Furious Fourteen a month after it opens, though.
The way the theatre makes money is at the snack bar. This is why fourteen cents worth of soft drink syrup and some carbonated water along with eleven cents of popcorn kernels and two cents of coconut oil are sold to you for sixteen dollars. I suspect this is why cinemas are opening where I am as soon as they legally can -- if you're only making a dollar per customer, it doesn't mean that much that fifty people turn up instead of five hundred, as long as they are buying the Jumbo Combo. This sliding scale is also why the places that are reopened are showing old favourites rather than the meagre selection of new releases: the three-screen drive-in near me currently has Forrest Gump, Wedding Crashers, Austin Powers, Mean Girls, Groundhog Day, and 21 Jump Street, six movies all between eight and twenty-seven years old. I would note that of course drive-ins here got the all-clear to reopen well before conventional cinemas, but they deferred initially because they could not legally open the concession stands.
(As a side note, and because retail is suffering, a nearby mall has arranged to become a pop-up drive in for a few weekends by showing movies on an external screen. I have no idea how it is going but I note that the first movies start at 6:00 PM... sunset here is 8:35 tonight, and the one thing I thought pretty much everyone understands abut drive-ins is that they show movies only after dark. If the linked illustration is accurate, people will be watching an outdoor movie in daylight with the setting sun in their eyes.)
Anyway, Disney -- having already bought the distribution channel -- has seemingly found a way to cut out the other middle man. I think anti-trust laws still prevent them from owning the cinemas as well, so I guess the other way to maximize profits is to cynically use a major health crisis to augment your bottom line. No more movie theatres? Too bad, so sad, but look what is streaming next month!
(It occurred to me as I typed this that it is conceptually something akin to voter suppression: if you cannot get a majority to vote for your guy, just make sure that as many people as possible who might vote for the other guy cannot vote and the problem solves itself.)
posted by ricochet biscuit at 4:17 PM on August 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
It's been a while since I managed a movie theatre, so I can only tell you how things worked late in the last century in my country; from what I understand, the situation is still substantially similar.
There are two layers between the movie company and you: the distributors and the exhibitor (i.e. the movie theatre). In Disney's case, the production company is formally The Walt Disney Studios, and the distribution (and marketing) is handled by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (né Buena Vista Film Distribution Company, Inc). You might notice a similarity in names there: Disney owns their own distribution company.
The distributors lease the films to the exhibitors in return for a fairly hefty portion of the box office haul. I don't know what the percentage is currently, but it used to be in the range of 90-95% for a new release. You pay twelve bucks at the box office, and the theatre sees maybe a dollar of that.
It is a sliding scale and it drops each week; by the third or fourth week, the distributor's slice is diminished. Not as many people are keen to see Fast Furious Fourteen a month after it opens, though.
The way the theatre makes money is at the snack bar. This is why fourteen cents worth of soft drink syrup and some carbonated water along with eleven cents of popcorn kernels and two cents of coconut oil are sold to you for sixteen dollars. I suspect this is why cinemas are opening where I am as soon as they legally can -- if you're only making a dollar per customer, it doesn't mean that much that fifty people turn up instead of five hundred, as long as they are buying the Jumbo Combo. This sliding scale is also why the places that are reopened are showing old favourites rather than the meagre selection of new releases: the three-screen drive-in near me currently has Forrest Gump, Wedding Crashers, Austin Powers, Mean Girls, Groundhog Day, and 21 Jump Street, six movies all between eight and twenty-seven years old. I would note that of course drive-ins here got the all-clear to reopen well before conventional cinemas, but they deferred initially because they could not legally open the concession stands.
(As a side note, and because retail is suffering, a nearby mall has arranged to become a pop-up drive in for a few weekends by showing movies on an external screen. I have no idea how it is going but I note that the first movies start at 6:00 PM... sunset here is 8:35 tonight, and the one thing I thought pretty much everyone understands abut drive-ins is that they show movies only after dark. If the linked illustration is accurate, people will be watching an outdoor movie in daylight with the setting sun in their eyes.)
Anyway, Disney -- having already bought the distribution channel -- has seemingly found a way to cut out the other middle man. I think anti-trust laws still prevent them from owning the cinemas as well, so I guess the other way to maximize profits is to cynically use a major health crisis to augment your bottom line. No more movie theatres? Too bad, so sad, but look what is streaming next month!
(It occurred to me as I typed this that it is conceptually something akin to voter suppression: if you cannot get a majority to vote for your guy, just make sure that as many people as possible who might vote for the other guy cannot vote and the problem solves itself.)
posted by ricochet biscuit at 4:17 PM on August 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
Not to abuse the edit window, but I find it faintly amusing that the mall doing the outdoor screenings above had a thirteen-screen cinema until maybe twenty years ago. I am not sure I have ever set foot in Sherway Gardens, but maybe some Torontonian can confirm that it was where the Sears Nordstrom's Saks Fifth Avenue now is.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 4:23 PM on August 5, 2020
posted by ricochet biscuit at 4:23 PM on August 5, 2020
Our local cinema put up the live-action Mulan banner just before everything shut down. It's looking a bit faded now, as these clearly aren't made to be up for more than a couple of months.
posted by scruss at 4:38 PM on August 5, 2020
posted by scruss at 4:38 PM on August 5, 2020
I wondering if they are factoring in the ease and speed of pirating high-quality copies of it on launch? Hamilton appeared in every conceivable encode immediately after it appeared on D+
posted by rtimmel at 4:51 PM on August 5, 2020
posted by rtimmel at 4:51 PM on August 5, 2020
Disney is not engaged in the production of happiness, but in its redistribution.
posted by Cardinal Fang at 5:08 PM on August 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Cardinal Fang at 5:08 PM on August 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
I too will not be watching Mulan. As much as I want more Chinese and Asian American representation in Hollywood--this is SO badly needed--I will not be paying $30 to watch anything that involves the lead actress, who supports police brutality in Hong Kong. Especially now, at a time when Hong Kong's freedoms are rapidly being stripped away and its pro-democracy activists jailed and marginalized under the new National Security Law.
There's also this icing on the cake--director Niki Caro's remarks in Hollywood Reporter: "To those still upset that an Asian filmmaker didn't get the job, Caro responds: "'Although it's a critically important Chinese story and it's set in Chinese culture and history, there is another culture at play here, which is the culture of Disney, and that the director, whoever they were, needed to be able to handle both — and here I am.'"
Yeah, I'm over it.
posted by so much modern time at 5:31 PM on August 5, 2020 [12 favorites]
There's also this icing on the cake--director Niki Caro's remarks in Hollywood Reporter: "To those still upset that an Asian filmmaker didn't get the job, Caro responds: "'Although it's a critically important Chinese story and it's set in Chinese culture and history, there is another culture at play here, which is the culture of Disney, and that the director, whoever they were, needed to be able to handle both — and here I am.'"
Yeah, I'm over it.
posted by so much modern time at 5:31 PM on August 5, 2020 [12 favorites]
Sorry, no. I already have D+, I loved the original Mulan (my favorite film of the Disney Renaissance), and was looking forward to this...but we may not have seen it in the theater anyway (and $30 is cheaper than it would have cost the whole family), and that's the only way I would pay that much. Hamilton would have been a different story; I knew going it would have been worth $30.
We have a pretty broad range of streaming services, (D+, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix, AppleTV+ thanks to a new iPhone last fall), a couple of OTA channels that come in well enough, and a Redbox down the street. That works pretty well, all in all.
posted by lhauser at 5:52 PM on August 5, 2020
We have a pretty broad range of streaming services, (D+, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix, AppleTV+ thanks to a new iPhone last fall), a couple of OTA channels that come in well enough, and a Redbox down the street. That works pretty well, all in all.
posted by lhauser at 5:52 PM on August 5, 2020
Our town also has a new pop-up drive-in showing 90’s-00’s movies, with online ticketing and drive-through concessions. I heard they’ve been sold out every night.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 6:01 PM on August 5, 2020
posted by The Underpants Monster at 6:01 PM on August 5, 2020
This particular movie isn’t for me, but I am super curious to see if this pricing model will work. Of note, once you buy a ticket for it (ha), you’ll have it as long as you keep your subscription. From The Verge piece:
The company told Insider that the $30 acts as a purchase — as long as people subscribe to Disney Plus, they’ll be able to access the film.
This isn’t a small gambit, I don’t think. I could easily see Disney leveraging this IRL when things start to return to a new normal - it can be a fee for a park perk, a toy, swag, whatever. Basically, it’s: can a streaming service be another platform for selling other things directly.
I mean, many people pay for their console’s subscription and then buy games on top of it - this feels like an inversion of that.
Anyway, you’ll need to get your own popcorn.
posted by hijinx at 6:06 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
The company told Insider that the $30 acts as a purchase — as long as people subscribe to Disney Plus, they’ll be able to access the film.
This isn’t a small gambit, I don’t think. I could easily see Disney leveraging this IRL when things start to return to a new normal - it can be a fee for a park perk, a toy, swag, whatever. Basically, it’s: can a streaming service be another platform for selling other things directly.
I mean, many people pay for their console’s subscription and then buy games on top of it - this feels like an inversion of that.
Anyway, you’ll need to get your own popcorn.
posted by hijinx at 6:06 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
I think anti-trust laws still prevent them from owning the cinemas as well
Actually, that stems from a consent decree the studios agreed to with the DOJ to settle an antitrust lawsuit triggered by studio ownership of theaters. It didn't technically forbid studio ownership, but it regulated the film booking process enough that studios felt it wasn't worth it, especially since ownership would continue to invite antitrust scrutiny. The decree never applied to Disney (at the time, they were a producer but not a distributor), but Disney has voluntarily abided by it too under the assumption that they'd be held to it too if they tried anything. Barr, of course, has announced that he wants to stop enforcing it (the courts will still need to rule on the request, which I believe is still pending).
posted by gsteff at 6:09 PM on August 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Actually, that stems from a consent decree the studios agreed to with the DOJ to settle an antitrust lawsuit triggered by studio ownership of theaters. It didn't technically forbid studio ownership, but it regulated the film booking process enough that studios felt it wasn't worth it, especially since ownership would continue to invite antitrust scrutiny. The decree never applied to Disney (at the time, they were a producer but not a distributor), but Disney has voluntarily abided by it too under the assumption that they'd be held to it too if they tried anything. Barr, of course, has announced that he wants to stop enforcing it (the courts will still need to rule on the request, which I believe is still pending).
posted by gsteff at 6:09 PM on August 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
plus drinks and snacks
Do parents not make their kids wear the big pants to the movies anymore? You know, the ones with the pockets that'll hold a whole can of coke and a hershey bar. Who buys snacks at a movie theater? Is everyone rich now and I missed it?
Looking back, I guess my parents are lucky we came of age during the years of carpenter jeans and cargo shorts or it would have wrecked the family budget.
posted by phunniemee at 6:17 PM on August 5, 2020 [15 favorites]
Do parents not make their kids wear the big pants to the movies anymore? You know, the ones with the pockets that'll hold a whole can of coke and a hershey bar. Who buys snacks at a movie theater? Is everyone rich now and I missed it?
Looking back, I guess my parents are lucky we came of age during the years of carpenter jeans and cargo shorts or it would have wrecked the family budget.
posted by phunniemee at 6:17 PM on August 5, 2020 [15 favorites]
I always buy something, because I remember what it was like to grow up in a town with no movie theaters and I want to make sure our local stays in business.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 6:38 PM on August 5, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 6:38 PM on August 5, 2020 [14 favorites]
Who buys snacks at a movie theater? Is everyone rich now and I missed it?We used to smuggle snacks in, too, but clearly that’s gone out of style. When we walked by the local theaters in the before times there was always a sizable concession line visible and no shortage of people walking out with containers. This is not surprising given how heavily theaters relied on those profits – there’s no way they aren’t pushing any promotional means possible, even cutting their profit margin from 90% to 80%.
posted by adamsc at 6:38 PM on August 5, 2020
I always buy something, because I remember what it was like to grow up in a town with no movie theaters and I want to make sure our local stays in business.
Same rationale with me, if different circumstances. I grew up in a town with plenty: at age 18, I was within fifteen minutes’ drive of, I think, seventeen different theatres in my city, and maybe five or six more in a nearby city within that range. Two still operate today, three decades later.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:01 PM on August 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Same rationale with me, if different circumstances. I grew up in a town with plenty: at age 18, I was within fifteen minutes’ drive of, I think, seventeen different theatres in my city, and maybe five or six more in a nearby city within that range. Two still operate today, three decades later.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:01 PM on August 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
You folks living in big cities really overpay for your movies!
I just checked the confirmation for the last movie we went to, $13.40 for 2 tickets in the theater with the fancy reserved seats, and that includes the $3 "convenience fee" for buying online.
posted by madajb at 7:10 PM on August 5, 2020
I just checked the confirmation for the last movie we went to, $13.40 for 2 tickets in the theater with the fancy reserved seats, and that includes the $3 "convenience fee" for buying online.
posted by madajb at 7:10 PM on August 5, 2020
Who buys snacks at a movie theater? Is everyone rich now and I missed it?
I very deliberately don't sneak snacks because, for us, going to the movies is an outing.
I take the kids to one movie a year (the day before school starts) and loading up at the concession stand on a bunch of junk not normally allowed is part of the experience.
Besides, it's awfully hard to smuggle an ICEE no matter how big your pockets are.
posted by madajb at 7:13 PM on August 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
I very deliberately don't sneak snacks because, for us, going to the movies is an outing.
I take the kids to one movie a year (the day before school starts) and loading up at the concession stand on a bunch of junk not normally allowed is part of the experience.
Besides, it's awfully hard to smuggle an ICEE no matter how big your pockets are.
posted by madajb at 7:13 PM on August 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
I thought "the streaming service that blooms in adversity" was piracy.
posted by Quackles at 7:26 PM on August 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by Quackles at 7:26 PM on August 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
Disney has voluntarily abided by it too under the assumption that they'd be held to it too if they tried anything
Disney owns the El Capitan on Hollywood Blvd, and has since it was restored and reopened for the premier of The Rocketeer, which (checks IMDB) came out in 1991. So, they "tried" it just under 30 years ago.
posted by sideshow at 7:43 PM on August 5, 2020
Disney owns the El Capitan on Hollywood Blvd, and has since it was restored and reopened for the premier of The Rocketeer, which (checks IMDB) came out in 1991. So, they "tried" it just under 30 years ago.
posted by sideshow at 7:43 PM on August 5, 2020
It hadn't really dawned on me until reading this thread, but my parents did not take me to a movie during my entire childhood, and I would have said no if they'd offered. And doubly no to Disney, which I thought was completely sappy.
My partner, on the other hand, forced me to watch a double handful of Disney movies with her, and I liked every one of them — and loved the Hayley Mills Parent Trap and the Jodie Foster Freaky Friday (those are Disney movies, right?).
posted by jamjam at 8:02 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
My partner, on the other hand, forced me to watch a double handful of Disney movies with her, and I liked every one of them — and loved the Hayley Mills Parent Trap and the Jodie Foster Freaky Friday (those are Disney movies, right?).
posted by jamjam at 8:02 PM on August 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
I immediately thought of the El Capitan, too. But I think that’s kind of a different animal than the large studio-owned chains there were before the Paramount decrees of ‘48.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:02 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:02 PM on August 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
I mean, many people pay for their console’s subscription and then buy games on top of it - this feels like an inversion of that.
Well it's not an inversion, it's exactly like that for many games. You paid $60 to "buy" Overwatch for Playstation. But it can only be played multiplayer... so you need to pay $80 per year to keep your PS Plus subscription current.
If your subscription lapses, you can't play Overwatch.
I'm pretty excited for Mulan. I know it's a low bar but they at the least didn't cast Scarlett Johansson as Mulan and the trailer look great.
posted by xdvesper at 9:16 PM on August 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Well it's not an inversion, it's exactly like that for many games. You paid $60 to "buy" Overwatch for Playstation. But it can only be played multiplayer... so you need to pay $80 per year to keep your PS Plus subscription current.
If your subscription lapses, you can't play Overwatch.
I'm pretty excited for Mulan. I know it's a low bar but they at the least didn't cast Scarlett Johansson as Mulan and the trailer look great.
posted by xdvesper at 9:16 PM on August 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
They cast a lead actress who, as privileged daughter of a Embassy official for China in France, spouted anti-Enlightenment propaganda to help oppress Hong Kong, that is actually 100x worse in a concrete way, and so I'd much rather Black Widow was playing it. My only request to those who want to pay for the film thereby enabling and normalizing political oppression to at least talk about it with the family members and friends they are watching it with.
posted by polymodus at 10:00 PM on August 5, 2020 [13 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 10:00 PM on August 5, 2020 [13 favorites]
My wife still has the VHS of the original from her nannying days, we'll probably somehow manage to survive if we stick with that.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:17 PM on August 5, 2020
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:17 PM on August 5, 2020
Comparing the price of "renting" a movie streaming over the Disney+ service to the price theaters were charging is what Disney is hoping people will do, even though that price is an artificial one, which is why Disney was able to net many billions of dollars in profit each year. What the price should be for them to make a respectable profit and still provide service is many times less than the price they will charge, but people are used to throwing their money at Disney for "must see events" so they'll continue to rake in the extra dough and somehow make it seem like a deal.
That's setting aside the ongoing problem of Disney wanting to be the gatekeeper of the entire world's cultural product, made fit to Disney's own business interests of course. If that sounds like a good thing, go for it. Disney spectacle is what everyone likes to talk about after all.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:39 AM on August 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
That's setting aside the ongoing problem of Disney wanting to be the gatekeeper of the entire world's cultural product, made fit to Disney's own business interests of course. If that sounds like a good thing, go for it. Disney spectacle is what everyone likes to talk about after all.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:39 AM on August 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Ugh, I bet the stream will be bitrate-starved so I'll have to pirate it again when it comes out on bluray.
*shakes fist*
posted by ryanrs at 1:52 AM on August 6, 2020
*shakes fist*
posted by ryanrs at 1:52 AM on August 6, 2020
The price would be fine with me if it were a movie I were impatient to see.
I don't remember what it felt like to be so busy and so impatient to see a movie that I would be happy to pay a lot more to see it at home early in its theatrical run.
But I have felt that way. The amount I would have paid is more than $30, no matter the terms, as long as the quality was decent.
On the other hand, I don't know if I'll feel that way again while quarantine lasts. I've just gotten used to waiting indefinitely for things I want a lot more than to see a movie. And I'm not going to see the friends I'd want to talk about the movie with anytime soon. And I don't even really have the attention span to watch movies anyway.
So I guess for me the more interesting thing will be how this kind of thing goes in the long term.
posted by lampoil at 4:49 AM on August 6, 2020
I don't remember what it felt like to be so busy and so impatient to see a movie that I would be happy to pay a lot more to see it at home early in its theatrical run.
But I have felt that way. The amount I would have paid is more than $30, no matter the terms, as long as the quality was decent.
On the other hand, I don't know if I'll feel that way again while quarantine lasts. I've just gotten used to waiting indefinitely for things I want a lot more than to see a movie. And I'm not going to see the friends I'd want to talk about the movie with anytime soon. And I don't even really have the attention span to watch movies anyway.
So I guess for me the more interesting thing will be how this kind of thing goes in the long term.
posted by lampoil at 4:49 AM on August 6, 2020
Who buys snacks at a movie theater? Is everyone rich now and I missed it?
On one hand, I completely feel this. On the other hand, you can (could?) order a milkshake—from your seat!—at Alamo Drafthouse.
posted by thivaia at 5:15 AM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
On one hand, I completely feel this. On the other hand, you can (could?) order a milkshake—from your seat!—at Alamo Drafthouse.
posted by thivaia at 5:15 AM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
On the other hand, you can (could?) order a milkshake—from your seat!—at Alamo Drafthouse.
Yes, you still can and not just any milkshake, but "adult milkshakes".
Maker's Milk Punch is the best (Maker's Mark Bourbon, Nutmeg, Vanilla Ice Cream).
posted by jeremias at 5:27 AM on August 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
Yes, you still can and not just any milkshake, but "adult milkshakes".
Maker's Milk Punch is the best (Maker's Mark Bourbon, Nutmeg, Vanilla Ice Cream).
posted by jeremias at 5:27 AM on August 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
This is one of those times that I feel like my family and I are living in a universe alternate to Metafilter threads.
I am disappointed to learn about Liu Yifei's post, which I had missed. I'm thinking about that.
But in general, a female-led martial arts (or martial arts-esque) movie is something we celebrate and enjoy here at the warriorqueen household. My kids and I have missed every usual celebration this year - cancelled our road trips, our camping reservations were cancelled, our camps were cancelled, our concert tickets were cancelled, our tickets to the Van Gogh immersive were not bought, every birthday party has taken place on the sidewalk or on Zoom, the Strawberry Festival fundraiser was cancelled, our Academy picnic (and in person classes) was cancelled, all our usual Toronto street and art festivals were cancelled or moved weakly online, Easter was greatly reduced, my son's debut art show was cancelled, we usually pick a movie to go see to celebrate report cards (WITH SNACKS, because I was made to eat cold popcorn hidden in my coat as a child and snacks are still thrilling for me at the theatre) and that was cancelled, I'm sure I could go on.
Of course we have created some of our own celebrations and traditions. We have picnicked, hiked, kayaked, built things, painted things, planted things, fixed things, made bread/cakes/pies/piecaken/cannoli, Zoomed to approximately 1,200 online things, and we just finished Thor: Ragnarok for our Saturday Evening Movie With Homemade Pizza Marvel-thon, which should end about a week before school starts.
But...$30 to just feel like there is An Event Happening In Which We Can Participate seems, even from my Covid-unemployed, CERB-is-ending's rear end like a reasonable price and an interesting possibility. Sure, it's a bit of a lame-ass Disney remake, but I once stood in the rain to get into the Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom premiere and I still remember it fondly.
Before I get slaughtered, again, I am going to consider the politics.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:44 AM on August 6, 2020 [14 favorites]
I am disappointed to learn about Liu Yifei's post, which I had missed. I'm thinking about that.
But in general, a female-led martial arts (or martial arts-esque) movie is something we celebrate and enjoy here at the warriorqueen household. My kids and I have missed every usual celebration this year - cancelled our road trips, our camping reservations were cancelled, our camps were cancelled, our concert tickets were cancelled, our tickets to the Van Gogh immersive were not bought, every birthday party has taken place on the sidewalk or on Zoom, the Strawberry Festival fundraiser was cancelled, our Academy picnic (and in person classes) was cancelled, all our usual Toronto street and art festivals were cancelled or moved weakly online, Easter was greatly reduced, my son's debut art show was cancelled, we usually pick a movie to go see to celebrate report cards (WITH SNACKS, because I was made to eat cold popcorn hidden in my coat as a child and snacks are still thrilling for me at the theatre) and that was cancelled, I'm sure I could go on.
Of course we have created some of our own celebrations and traditions. We have picnicked, hiked, kayaked, built things, painted things, planted things, fixed things, made bread/cakes/pies/piecaken/cannoli, Zoomed to approximately 1,200 online things, and we just finished Thor: Ragnarok for our Saturday Evening Movie With Homemade Pizza Marvel-thon, which should end about a week before school starts.
But...$30 to just feel like there is An Event Happening In Which We Can Participate seems, even from my Covid-unemployed, CERB-is-ending's rear end like a reasonable price and an interesting possibility. Sure, it's a bit of a lame-ass Disney remake, but I once stood in the rain to get into the Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom premiere and I still remember it fondly.
Before I get slaughtered, again, I am going to consider the politics.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:44 AM on August 6, 2020 [14 favorites]
To my mind, the place to do this would be Black Widow an MCU movie about a boy person that the internet nerds are going to fanboy over. Cuz they would pay the bucks for early access so that they can see it and talk about it online with their friends before SPOILERS.
Yeah, I would have paid to see Endgame at home and watch it multiple times. My son cried big tears at [sad part]. For him, it's real stuff.
So maybe Disney has calculated there's a market like that for Mulan.
Personally, I'd love a way to watch new release movies without having to go to the theater where people rudely look at their phones and talk to each other and popcorn costs more than a fast food combo meal.
It's not the theater I dislike, it's the rude people and exorbitantly priced concessions.
posted by Fleebnork at 5:48 AM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I would have paid to see Endgame at home and watch it multiple times. My son cried big tears at [sad part]. For him, it's real stuff.
So maybe Disney has calculated there's a market like that for Mulan.
Personally, I'd love a way to watch new release movies without having to go to the theater where people rudely look at their phones and talk to each other and popcorn costs more than a fast food combo meal.
It's not the theater I dislike, it's the rude people and exorbitantly priced concessions.
posted by Fleebnork at 5:48 AM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Who buys snacks at a movie theater? Is everyone rich now and I missed it?
I usually just get a 20oz Dogfish. Amusingly they make you put on a paper wristband to prove that you're > 21.
posted by octothorpe at 6:55 AM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
I usually just get a 20oz Dogfish. Amusingly they make you put on a paper wristband to prove that you're > 21.
posted by octothorpe at 6:55 AM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Maybe I'm alone in this but the idea of going to the theater for a first-run movie is not so much fun as it used to be. Back in the '90s (I was NOT in a very famous TV show) when I was in high school, a first-run movie was affordable as a date for a kid with a high school job, I could take my girlfriend and get popcorn + Junior Mints and a drink. Maybe $20 total. Enough leftover cash that we could hit Taco Bell for dinner afterwards, hooray.
Today, pre-COVID? Now that we're married with a kid, going to a movie as a family means taking out a 2nd mortgage. (Not really, but almost!) Tickets to get in are $12-16 per person, the cheapest possible combo they have on offer is $20 ($16 for the "kid combo") and features a soda cup that holds approximately 2 gallons, plus an oil-drum sized popcorn bucket. But we get "more for the money" right? Not really, it just means we end up feeling stuffed and bloated and spend the last half of the movie trying to decide if missing 5 minutes of the movie is worth it to relieve the bladder pain, or can I possibly hold it until the credits roll...? At home, there is a "pause" button if someone has to pee. Or needs a snack refill, or wants to ask a question, and we can back the movie up a bit if someone missed a bit of key dialog.
The theaters have gone from "movie theater seating" to giant overstuffed easy chair recliners that must be reserved in advance, including the accompanying "convenience charge" (so named because the theater company finds it convenient to squeeze a few bucks extra out of you for no real reason). Are those chairs comfy? Yeah, sure. But (a) if I wanted to sit in a big comfy chair, I have one at home in front of the 70" UHD flatscreen my wife insisted we buy (seriously, she said "get the big one") and (b) those chairs mean the theater now holds about 1/4th of its former capacity, which creates artificial scarcity (theater sells out faster!) and makes me feel like I am getting squeezed for more money to make up for all the people who would otherwise be subsidizing the cost of the film through THEIR ticket sale. It's simple math, if you bring in fewer people, everyone must get charged more to make the same profit.
But the theater has high-def THX surround audio! Yes, yes they do. And they seem to have set the volume to "make everyone's ears bleed". The default audio in the theater is literally painful until attenuation sets in. My ears are pretty good, I have taken care of my hearing. I am not sure going to a theater is a good idea for ear health though. It's at LEAST rock concert volume, intended to either drown out the sounds made by your neighbors or to make sure the folks with bad hearing (like my father-in-law) can understand what's going on. I'm not joking, I keep wondering how some group hasn't forced the theater to turn it down some due to excessive decibel readings putting customers in danger. We should have to sign a waiver before entering. I have surround at home, and I can make sure it is loud enough without venturing into HEARING PROTECTION REQUIRED territory.
First-run movies became a thing we did maybe once a year, for the new Star Wars or when I went by myself because Hateful 8 was playing in 70 mm, that sort of thing. Not a regular occurrence. I'm hard pressed to name 4 first-run movies we have seen in the overstuffed chair theater in the past 5 years.
Everything is streaming now. Rentals are fairly cheap. Picture is 4K with Dolby surround. I don't feel like I am missing out. I no longer see the allure of the big screen. They've managed to take all the fun out of it, to be honest. Their only selling point now seems to be that the theater is just like watching it at home, except more expensive and less convenient.
(Local historic single-screen 2nd run theater, with old-school seats, small portions, and real butter on the popcorn - all for under $20 for the whole family? Yeah that was a staple for us though. We'll keep going back there, because it is a well-run place and isn't trying to gouge anyone.)
posted by caution live frogs at 7:00 AM on August 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
Today, pre-COVID? Now that we're married with a kid, going to a movie as a family means taking out a 2nd mortgage. (Not really, but almost!) Tickets to get in are $12-16 per person, the cheapest possible combo they have on offer is $20 ($16 for the "kid combo") and features a soda cup that holds approximately 2 gallons, plus an oil-drum sized popcorn bucket. But we get "more for the money" right? Not really, it just means we end up feeling stuffed and bloated and spend the last half of the movie trying to decide if missing 5 minutes of the movie is worth it to relieve the bladder pain, or can I possibly hold it until the credits roll...? At home, there is a "pause" button if someone has to pee. Or needs a snack refill, or wants to ask a question, and we can back the movie up a bit if someone missed a bit of key dialog.
The theaters have gone from "movie theater seating" to giant overstuffed easy chair recliners that must be reserved in advance, including the accompanying "convenience charge" (so named because the theater company finds it convenient to squeeze a few bucks extra out of you for no real reason). Are those chairs comfy? Yeah, sure. But (a) if I wanted to sit in a big comfy chair, I have one at home in front of the 70" UHD flatscreen my wife insisted we buy (seriously, she said "get the big one") and (b) those chairs mean the theater now holds about 1/4th of its former capacity, which creates artificial scarcity (theater sells out faster!) and makes me feel like I am getting squeezed for more money to make up for all the people who would otherwise be subsidizing the cost of the film through THEIR ticket sale. It's simple math, if you bring in fewer people, everyone must get charged more to make the same profit.
But the theater has high-def THX surround audio! Yes, yes they do. And they seem to have set the volume to "make everyone's ears bleed". The default audio in the theater is literally painful until attenuation sets in. My ears are pretty good, I have taken care of my hearing. I am not sure going to a theater is a good idea for ear health though. It's at LEAST rock concert volume, intended to either drown out the sounds made by your neighbors or to make sure the folks with bad hearing (like my father-in-law) can understand what's going on. I'm not joking, I keep wondering how some group hasn't forced the theater to turn it down some due to excessive decibel readings putting customers in danger. We should have to sign a waiver before entering. I have surround at home, and I can make sure it is loud enough without venturing into HEARING PROTECTION REQUIRED territory.
First-run movies became a thing we did maybe once a year, for the new Star Wars or when I went by myself because Hateful 8 was playing in 70 mm, that sort of thing. Not a regular occurrence. I'm hard pressed to name 4 first-run movies we have seen in the overstuffed chair theater in the past 5 years.
Everything is streaming now. Rentals are fairly cheap. Picture is 4K with Dolby surround. I don't feel like I am missing out. I no longer see the allure of the big screen. They've managed to take all the fun out of it, to be honest. Their only selling point now seems to be that the theater is just like watching it at home, except more expensive and less convenient.
(Local historic single-screen 2nd run theater, with old-school seats, small portions, and real butter on the popcorn - all for under $20 for the whole family? Yeah that was a staple for us though. We'll keep going back there, because it is a well-run place and isn't trying to gouge anyone.)
posted by caution live frogs at 7:00 AM on August 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
(insert old_man_yells_at_cloud.gif here I guess)
posted by caution live frogs at 7:01 AM on August 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by caution live frogs at 7:01 AM on August 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
It is good to consider the politics of it.
In my very diverse team I work with both Hong Kong citizens and Chinese citizens. Some of them are likely CCP members. I'm ethnically Chinese, but Australian, but as a Cantonese I have more in common with Hong Kong.
From my small sample neither side debates that the return of Hong Kong to China is seen as putting right a century of injustice. After all, Hong Kong was given up in duress to the British, with a horribly unequal and punitive treaty after a war about Britain's right to force opium onto Chinese citizens and keep them addicted. It's not like the British ever gave a single thought to giving Hong Kong citizens the right to vote in the last 100 years. And the BLM protests have dramatically improved the perception of how restrained the Hong Kong police and CCP federal response has been relative to the police response in the US, how quickly Trump threatened to bring in the military and sent black ops federal agents into Portland. If that's what universal suffrage looks like, many people are thinking that sticking with the CCP is safer. And protest for what gain? Any "rights" won would not last half a generation as full integration looms in 2047.
posted by xdvesper at 7:04 AM on August 6, 2020 [4 favorites]
In my very diverse team I work with both Hong Kong citizens and Chinese citizens. Some of them are likely CCP members. I'm ethnically Chinese, but Australian, but as a Cantonese I have more in common with Hong Kong.
From my small sample neither side debates that the return of Hong Kong to China is seen as putting right a century of injustice. After all, Hong Kong was given up in duress to the British, with a horribly unequal and punitive treaty after a war about Britain's right to force opium onto Chinese citizens and keep them addicted. It's not like the British ever gave a single thought to giving Hong Kong citizens the right to vote in the last 100 years. And the BLM protests have dramatically improved the perception of how restrained the Hong Kong police and CCP federal response has been relative to the police response in the US, how quickly Trump threatened to bring in the military and sent black ops federal agents into Portland. If that's what universal suffrage looks like, many people are thinking that sticking with the CCP is safer. And protest for what gain? Any "rights" won would not last half a generation as full integration looms in 2047.
posted by xdvesper at 7:04 AM on August 6, 2020 [4 favorites]
‘Mulan’ Going On Disney+ & Theaters In September; CEO Bob Chapek Says Decision Is “One-Off”, Not New Windows Model, Deadline, Anthony D'Alessandro, 8/4/2020:
posted by cenoxo at 7:27 AM on August 6, 2020
...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.When you own the film library, the digital distribution channel, and generations of loyal family audiences, you can do what you want. Brick & mortar theaters — especially in the highest infected country in the world — aren’t immune during the COVID-19 era, and the $how must go on.
...Chapek said ... it was important to find new avenues of distribution during the pandemic and that “in the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, and number of countries, we will be offering on Disney+, the epic Mulan on a premiere access beginning September 4, with the price point being $29.99 in the U.S.”
…”We’re looking at Mulan as a one-off as opposed trying to say that there’s a new business windowing model.” What Disney will be keeping an eye on with Mulan is the uptick in subscribers as well as transactions generated on the service with that new price point. So, exhibition, don’t lose your hair yet: Disney isn’t planning to take Black Widow out of theaters this November (at least not yet).
In regard to pricing Mulan..., Chapek added, “as you know it’s fairly expensive to produce for consumers the quality we’re known for. Rather than simply rolling (the movie) into a free offering, we thought we can test anything when you have your own platform. We’re trying to establish a new premiere access window to capture that investment we got (in the film). We’ll have a chance to learn from this. From our research under a premiere access offering, not only does it get us revenue from our original transaction of PVOD, but it’s a fairly large stimulus to sign up for Disney+.”
God knows this decision will be a crushing blow for those U.S. movie theaters planning to reopen and in need of a big title. However, nobody knows how such a reopening will look and perform. Also, New York and California have yet to give a full clearance for hard-top cinemas to reopen....
posted by cenoxo at 7:27 AM on August 6, 2020
I think the only way out for theaters is to embrace the old "road show" model, and make theatergoing an event, with the experience to match. Theaters have been heading that way for some time now anyways - they may as well just lean into it.
In my adult life I haven't been much of a movie watcher until the Alamo Drafthouse / Nitehawk Cinema model with actual real food and (adult) beverages came out. I'd say I went from watching on average 1 movie per year to 3-4 with the Alamo/Nitehawk model.
Maybe I'm just buying into the hype, but something about being able to have a real burger and a beer/glass of wine, even if overpriced, does in fact make it an experience/event for me. Assuming movie theaters don't all go bankrupt before the end of this and it's safe to do it again, that's definitely the future of moviegoing for me personally.
I too will not be watching Mulan. As much as I want more Chinese and Asian American representation in Hollywood--this is SO badly needed--I will not be paying $30 to watch anything that involves the lead actress, who supports police brutality in Hong Kong. Especially now, at a time when Hong Kong's freedoms are rapidly being stripped away and its pro-democracy activists jailed and marginalized under the new National Security Law.
I don't have to actively make a watch-or-boycott decision because I am not a Disney+ subscriber, nor do I have any plans to join, but regardless I am so torn.
While I think that more Asian, and non-white, representation in Hollywood is so important, as a American who has lots of family in Taiwan -- which, incidentally, has universal suffrage and, while by no means perfect, is a Chinese-speaking society with robust civil liberties and civil society -- the support for the PRC government's crackdown in Hong Kong I think is a deal-breaker for me.
But then I wonder, am I just applying more stringent personal ethics to this because I am a lot more familiar and closer to the issues at hand? I'm sure if I took a closer look at the books I read (my main media consumption) I wouldn't be perfect by any means either. In the end I'm glad I don't have to make an actual decision, I think...
posted by andrewesque at 7:35 AM on August 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
In my adult life I haven't been much of a movie watcher until the Alamo Drafthouse / Nitehawk Cinema model with actual real food and (adult) beverages came out. I'd say I went from watching on average 1 movie per year to 3-4 with the Alamo/Nitehawk model.
Maybe I'm just buying into the hype, but something about being able to have a real burger and a beer/glass of wine, even if overpriced, does in fact make it an experience/event for me. Assuming movie theaters don't all go bankrupt before the end of this and it's safe to do it again, that's definitely the future of moviegoing for me personally.
I too will not be watching Mulan. As much as I want more Chinese and Asian American representation in Hollywood--this is SO badly needed--I will not be paying $30 to watch anything that involves the lead actress, who supports police brutality in Hong Kong. Especially now, at a time when Hong Kong's freedoms are rapidly being stripped away and its pro-democracy activists jailed and marginalized under the new National Security Law.
I don't have to actively make a watch-or-boycott decision because I am not a Disney+ subscriber, nor do I have any plans to join, but regardless I am so torn.
While I think that more Asian, and non-white, representation in Hollywood is so important, as a American who has lots of family in Taiwan -- which, incidentally, has universal suffrage and, while by no means perfect, is a Chinese-speaking society with robust civil liberties and civil society -- the support for the PRC government's crackdown in Hong Kong I think is a deal-breaker for me.
But then I wonder, am I just applying more stringent personal ethics to this because I am a lot more familiar and closer to the issues at hand? I'm sure if I took a closer look at the books I read (my main media consumption) I wouldn't be perfect by any means either. In the end I'm glad I don't have to make an actual decision, I think...
posted by andrewesque at 7:35 AM on August 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Andrewesque, for me, it's just a personal decision. I'm not asking anyone else to boycott, just telling you where my own line is. I've watched plenty of Jackie Chan movies growing up, and as I mentioned, loved watching Donnie Yen's movies before finding out that he financed an anti-Occupy fund in 2014. Wuxia/martial arts movies are one of my favorite genres of film, but the number of HK actors/celebrities who have publicly supported Hong Kongers, I can literally count one, Wong He. Every one else fell in line.
Does that mean I'm going to stop watching HK movies/TV series forever? Probably not, but I just can't stomach it right now.
posted by toastyk at 7:46 AM on August 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Does that mean I'm going to stop watching HK movies/TV series forever? Probably not, but I just can't stomach it right now.
posted by toastyk at 7:46 AM on August 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
toastyk -- I apologize for giving the impression I was judging you (either way) for your decision or implying that you were calling for a boycott by others! I only wanted to offer my own thoughts as someone who finds himself in a similar quandary.
posted by andrewesque at 8:05 AM on August 6, 2020
posted by andrewesque at 8:05 AM on August 6, 2020
> live-action Mulan with an asian cast was a big deal in the industry
Good thing Disney hired new writers to redo the original script which featured a White Male Savior co-lead.
posted by mbrubeck at 8:18 AM on August 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Good thing Disney hired new writers to redo the original script which featured a White Male Savior co-lead.
posted by mbrubeck at 8:18 AM on August 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'm someone else who had cut down on his moviegoing drastically even before The Current Situation; a combination of the expense, behavior of other moviegoers, and the absurd embarrassment of riches via the streaming services that I subscribe to have all combined to make me reluctant to go to the trouble unless it's something extraordinary that I really want to see on the big screen, i.e. seeing Infinity War/Endgame at a local museom that has a huge screen. The new Mulan is problematic for the reasons already listed, but I'll gladly lose my D+ cherry for Black Widow.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:31 AM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:31 AM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
The Black Widow movie seems too little and too late for the character. They should have made it ten years ago after she was introduced in Iron Man 2.
posted by octothorpe at 9:33 AM on August 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 9:33 AM on August 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
Big missed detail: Mulan is $30 to watch but only as long as you're a Disney+ member.
So it's $30 now plus $70/year until it's on the standard service.
Plus you have to provide the viewing hardware and the internet connection. This is almost as ridiculous as if your employer told you had to work from home and provide the network connectivity, computer hardware, lighting, microphones and furniture in a sound isolated home office suite all on your own dime! With no tax deduction.
posted by srboisvert at 9:50 AM on August 6, 2020
So it's $30 now plus $70/year until it's on the standard service.
Plus you have to provide the viewing hardware and the internet connection. This is almost as ridiculous as if your employer told you had to work from home and provide the network connectivity, computer hardware, lighting, microphones and furniture in a sound isolated home office suite all on your own dime! With no tax deduction.
posted by srboisvert at 9:50 AM on August 6, 2020
xvdesper, you claiming knowledge about a debate and yet in the next breath your comment repeat four well-known anti-HK propanda talking points. That is profoundly offensive to do, by normalizing such notions. It is personally offensive that you did so as an apparent response to my comment. I am leaving this note here and reporting this to the mods.
posted by polymodus at 9:57 AM on August 6, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 9:57 AM on August 6, 2020 [4 favorites]
Movie theaters will be what theaters have become: niche. There will be art house movie houses like Alamo, which I think has a solid business model, and there will be grand auditoriums for lavish productions, something the larger chains are scrambling to figure out, and some had been working on expanding the movie going experience for some time, but in the grand scheme of things, that form of entertainment and entertainment for the masses, has had its time in the sun.
We have large TVs and surround sound at home, and mobile devices on the go, with a lot of quality content; the war for domination is heating up as a plethora of subscription services, including the one discussed here, are becoming available.
The subscription model was proved by Netflix, and gaming has already shown the way, with in-game purchases, that a critical mass of the public will pay for early access content.
COVID just accelerated what was already going to happen. And unlike practicing physical distancing and wearing masks, I don't think anything can flatten this curve. It is inevitable.
posted by linux at 9:58 AM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
We have large TVs and surround sound at home, and mobile devices on the go, with a lot of quality content; the war for domination is heating up as a plethora of subscription services, including the one discussed here, are becoming available.
The subscription model was proved by Netflix, and gaming has already shown the way, with in-game purchases, that a critical mass of the public will pay for early access content.
COVID just accelerated what was already going to happen. And unlike practicing physical distancing and wearing masks, I don't think anything can flatten this curve. It is inevitable.
posted by linux at 9:58 AM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Plus you have to provide the viewing hardware and the internet connection. This is almost as ridiculous as if your employer told you had to work from home and provide the network connectivity, computer hardware, lighting, microphones and furniture in a sound isolated home office suite all on your own dime! With no tax deduction.
Watching D+ doesn't put food on the table, so that's not really a valid comparison. Also, literally thousands upon thousands of jobs require all of that.
In any case, literally tens of millions of people are going to have D+, an internet connection, electricity, a TV, all the all the other paraphernalia required to watch Mulan indefinitely either way, so trying to tie in all costs up to and including building the municipal power plant is disingenuous. For probably 50,000,000 people, 5 years from now the only difference in cost between owning and not owning Mulan will only be $30.
If you aren't one of those people, and you sign up for D+/get an internet connect/buy a TV/turn on the electricity to your home, then Mulan can just not be for you.
posted by sideshow at 10:11 AM on August 6, 2020
Watching D+ doesn't put food on the table, so that's not really a valid comparison. Also, literally thousands upon thousands of jobs require all of that.
In any case, literally tens of millions of people are going to have D+, an internet connection, electricity, a TV, all the all the other paraphernalia required to watch Mulan indefinitely either way, so trying to tie in all costs up to and including building the municipal power plant is disingenuous. For probably 50,000,000 people, 5 years from now the only difference in cost between owning and not owning Mulan will only be $30.
If you aren't one of those people, and you sign up for D+/get an internet connect/buy a TV/turn on the electricity to your home, then Mulan can just not be for you.
posted by sideshow at 10:11 AM on August 6, 2020
I actually had an entire reply typed up for xdvesper, but I'm not sure if I should post it due to NSL regulations
posted by airmail at 11:30 AM on August 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by airmail at 11:30 AM on August 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
So many interesting issues here. Is it a derail to talk about Chinese repression in the context of a Disney movie? Probably not. Films are the dominant art form of our age. The Honest Trailer for Transformers: Age of Extinction illustrates just how bad the pandering to a Chinese audience can get.
1. Artistic merit. Is the movie any good? Does it tell a good story?
I really liked the 2009 movie because of its focus on sacrifice (very common in Chinese movies). I'm curious what the themes of the new movie will be.
2. Commercial success. Do a lot of people see the movie, or is it a flop? Is the online release strategy successful? Are studios likely to make more movies targeting an Asian and Asian-American audience, like Crazy Rich Asians?
3. International politics. There's high tension between the US, backing the international status quo, but facing increasingly difficult internal problems; and China, which is ramping up its might-makes-right diplomacy. Disney is apolitical, but it's a giant American corporation that's trying to appeal to a Chinese audience. In this situation, trying to make a blockbuster movie that will appeal to both an American audience and a Chinese audience isn't easy; any hint of political content is likely to cause controversy. I'd guess that it's probably easier to market a blockbuster movie which is explicitly escapist (like the Marvel movies).
In the reverse direction, I'm also intrigued by Chinese movies which attempt to appeal to a global audience. Zhang Yimou's Hero was a successful example.
posted by russilwvong at 1:47 PM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
1. Artistic merit. Is the movie any good? Does it tell a good story?
I really liked the 2009 movie because of its focus on sacrifice (very common in Chinese movies). I'm curious what the themes of the new movie will be.
2. Commercial success. Do a lot of people see the movie, or is it a flop? Is the online release strategy successful? Are studios likely to make more movies targeting an Asian and Asian-American audience, like Crazy Rich Asians?
3. International politics. There's high tension between the US, backing the international status quo, but facing increasingly difficult internal problems; and China, which is ramping up its might-makes-right diplomacy. Disney is apolitical, but it's a giant American corporation that's trying to appeal to a Chinese audience. In this situation, trying to make a blockbuster movie that will appeal to both an American audience and a Chinese audience isn't easy; any hint of political content is likely to cause controversy. I'd guess that it's probably easier to market a blockbuster movie which is explicitly escapist (like the Marvel movies).
In the reverse direction, I'm also intrigued by Chinese movies which attempt to appeal to a global audience. Zhang Yimou's Hero was a successful example.
posted by russilwvong at 1:47 PM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
regardless I am so torn
Me too. I have two Asian daughters. Finding a family media with female leads that doesn't enforce really bad gender stereotypes is hard enough. Finding said media where the female leads are Asian is all but impossible. Representation is so important to me, for me kids. But... What she said was terrible. Sigh.
Choice is out of my hands anyway as no D+ here in Singapore yet.
posted by smoke at 5:12 PM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Me too. I have two Asian daughters. Finding a family media with female leads that doesn't enforce really bad gender stereotypes is hard enough. Finding said media where the female leads are Asian is all but impossible. Representation is so important to me, for me kids. But... What she said was terrible. Sigh.
Choice is out of my hands anyway as no D+ here in Singapore yet.
posted by smoke at 5:12 PM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Finding a family media with female leads that doesn't enforce really bad gender stereotypes is hard enough. Finding said media where the female leads are Asian is all but impossible.
Have you tried Studio Ghibli? (Most of their back catalog appeared on Netflix recently, at least in Canada.) The Avatar series and the Legend of Korra sequel series are also supposed to be pretty good.
posted by russilwvong at 8:58 PM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Have you tried Studio Ghibli? (Most of their back catalog appeared on Netflix recently, at least in Canada.) The Avatar series and the Legend of Korra sequel series are also supposed to be pretty good.
posted by russilwvong at 8:58 PM on August 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
To reiterate: It's $30 DLC that works as long as you have a Disney+ account. So it isn't $30 to watch this weekend, it's $30 to unlock the new Mulan 12-24 months earlier than everyone else.
That isn't horrible, I guess? Family of four going to the movies is paying way more than that (as an example).
Most people won't want to buy this, and I guess that is ok too. They can buy it on DVD/BluRay at Christmas or in March or whenever, or they can wait until it's on D+ for everyone (again, I'm guessing in March 2022).
posted by andreaazure at 10:57 PM on August 6, 2020
That isn't horrible, I guess? Family of four going to the movies is paying way more than that (as an example).
Most people won't want to buy this, and I guess that is ok too. They can buy it on DVD/BluRay at Christmas or in March or whenever, or they can wait until it's on D+ for everyone (again, I'm guessing in March 2022).
posted by andreaazure at 10:57 PM on August 6, 2020
Me too. I have two Asian daughters. Finding a family media with female leads that doesn't enforce really bad gender stereotypes is hard enough. Finding said media where the female leads are Asian is all but impossible.
If your kids are old enough to read subtitles easily, I'd really recommend looking at movies and shows produced in Asian countries. There's a lot of really good stuff being made and it's easier to access today than ever.
posted by trig at 3:37 AM on August 7, 2020
If your kids are old enough to read subtitles easily, I'd really recommend looking at movies and shows produced in Asian countries. There's a lot of really good stuff being made and it's easier to access today than ever.
posted by trig at 3:37 AM on August 7, 2020
Disney is apolitical
I don't quite agree. If it wasn't apparent already, I think the last six months has proven that no one can be seen as apolitical. And even if you can somehow discount those statements on Hong Kong because they happened a year ago, Disney is still doing some bad stuff now by reopening Disney World in Florida and trying to open Disneyland in California but not regularly testing cast members because COVID-19 testing is "not viable as a screening tool".
I'm not going to be seeing this film either.
posted by FJT at 2:16 PM on August 7, 2020
I don't quite agree. If it wasn't apparent already, I think the last six months has proven that no one can be seen as apolitical. And even if you can somehow discount those statements on Hong Kong because they happened a year ago, Disney is still doing some bad stuff now by reopening Disney World in Florida and trying to open Disneyland in California but not regularly testing cast members because COVID-19 testing is "not viable as a screening tool".
I'm not going to be seeing this film either.
posted by FJT at 2:16 PM on August 7, 2020
I want to say one word to you. Just one word. . . . Stremio
posted by Tom-B at 4:41 PM on August 7, 2020
posted by Tom-B at 4:41 PM on August 7, 2020
I'm not going to be seeing this film either.
I'm going to gently push a little here. Are you boycotting future Marvel movies (like Black Widow) as well? Or is it that your interest in seeing Mulan is marginal? (I'm not planning to see Mulan myself - I don't see how it could outdo the 2009 film, which I really liked - but it has nothing to do with Disney.)
When I say "Disney is apolitical," I mean that Disney is not taking sides in the international conflict between the US and China, despite being a major American corporation. Their goal is to make money, which means producing movies which will do well in the Chinese market. By way of contrast, see Operation Red Sea, which has a very obvious political viewpoint ("China now has special forces which are comparable to the Americans, hooray"). I don't mean to say that Disney has no domestic political impact.
posted by russilwvong at 12:03 PM on August 8, 2020 [1 favorite]
I'm going to gently push a little here. Are you boycotting future Marvel movies (like Black Widow) as well? Or is it that your interest in seeing Mulan is marginal? (I'm not planning to see Mulan myself - I don't see how it could outdo the 2009 film, which I really liked - but it has nothing to do with Disney.)
When I say "Disney is apolitical," I mean that Disney is not taking sides in the international conflict between the US and China, despite being a major American corporation. Their goal is to make money, which means producing movies which will do well in the Chinese market. By way of contrast, see Operation Red Sea, which has a very obvious political viewpoint ("China now has special forces which are comparable to the Americans, hooray"). I don't mean to say that Disney has no domestic political impact.
posted by russilwvong at 12:03 PM on August 8, 2020 [1 favorite]
Oh, man, Operation Red Sea is really something. It goes all out in a way that's a bit shocking really, as it both matches some of the kinds of more typical propaganda-ish ideology from Hollywood military films but with an added intensity that shows itself in how the film views depicts the violence around its themes of sacrifice and order. Absolutely brutal and revealing in that way.
As a it of an aside, I watched it the same weekend I watched the Hindi film Tiger Zinda Hai, which shares a very similar storyline around international terrorism, but from an India/Pakistan perspective. It's much closer to a Hollywood heroic take on the subject in terms of style, but it too carries a different attitude towards the role the US has taken on in regards to their "global cop" attitude that has some echo with the stance asserted in Operation Red Sea. It's all very different than the paternalistic Disney perspective.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:14 PM on August 8, 2020
As a it of an aside, I watched it the same weekend I watched the Hindi film Tiger Zinda Hai, which shares a very similar storyline around international terrorism, but from an India/Pakistan perspective. It's much closer to a Hollywood heroic take on the subject in terms of style, but it too carries a different attitude towards the role the US has taken on in regards to their "global cop" attitude that has some echo with the stance asserted in Operation Red Sea. It's all very different than the paternalistic Disney perspective.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:14 PM on August 8, 2020
See also the Wolf Warrior films. The second one made $870M at the box office, so lots of business in Chinese nationalism, as there has long been in US nationalism. I do find the different political perspective within those film's story telling fascinating.
posted by biffa at 2:11 PM on August 8, 2020
posted by biffa at 2:11 PM on August 8, 2020
Are you boycotting future Marvel movies (like Black Widow) as well? Or is it that your interest in seeing Mulan is marginal? (I'm not planning to see Mulan myself - I don't see how it could outdo the 2009 film, which I really liked - but it has nothing to do with Disney.)
Yes, I am probably going to avoid all Disney films and products as much as I can from now on, including Marvel movies. As for seeing Mulan, it's more complicated. I live pretty close to Disneyland and like a lot of people in the US, I grew up with Disney. Before the pandemic, I would probably see 10 -15 films in theaters a year, and maybe another 30-40 at home. I saw both Crazy Rich Asians and Searching when they were released in theaters and enjoyed both films. Without the political issues caused by the Party, I would say I would have had comparable interest to see Mulan as I would have had those other films. I do admit that the disruption caused by the pandemic has made it easier to make changes like this too. And I guess we'll see how true to my word I am once the pandemic is over. However, I also haven't eaten or stepped into a Chick-Fil-A for probably a decade now, so take that as you will.
I know what was originally meant by the "Disney is apolitical" argument and I still don't really agree. Your definition of apolitical seems to only include US and China. It doesn't include Hong Kong, Taiwan, or several of the other nations and people affected by these issues.
And also what is considered apolitical is moving beneath our feet as the Party's influence increases during the last few decades (and US influence has waned). For example, international businesses used to be able to mention Hong Kong and Taiwan separately from China on their products and published media, but nowadays China is pushing back more and more often on that. So, being apolitical means the US accomodating China, but it also a means a slow strangulation for Hong Kong.
posted by FJT at 2:55 PM on August 8, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yes, I am probably going to avoid all Disney films and products as much as I can from now on, including Marvel movies. As for seeing Mulan, it's more complicated. I live pretty close to Disneyland and like a lot of people in the US, I grew up with Disney. Before the pandemic, I would probably see 10 -15 films in theaters a year, and maybe another 30-40 at home. I saw both Crazy Rich Asians and Searching when they were released in theaters and enjoyed both films. Without the political issues caused by the Party, I would say I would have had comparable interest to see Mulan as I would have had those other films. I do admit that the disruption caused by the pandemic has made it easier to make changes like this too. And I guess we'll see how true to my word I am once the pandemic is over. However, I also haven't eaten or stepped into a Chick-Fil-A for probably a decade now, so take that as you will.
I know what was originally meant by the "Disney is apolitical" argument and I still don't really agree. Your definition of apolitical seems to only include US and China. It doesn't include Hong Kong, Taiwan, or several of the other nations and people affected by these issues.
And also what is considered apolitical is moving beneath our feet as the Party's influence increases during the last few decades (and US influence has waned). For example, international businesses used to be able to mention Hong Kong and Taiwan separately from China on their products and published media, but nowadays China is pushing back more and more often on that. So, being apolitical means the US accomodating China, but it also a means a slow strangulation for Hong Kong.
posted by FJT at 2:55 PM on August 8, 2020 [1 favorite]
Yes, I am probably going to avoid all Disney films and products as much as I can from now on, including Marvel movies.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
being apolitical means ... accommodating China
Absolutely true. It's basically appeasement. I think a more confrontational stance, whether over Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Xinjiang, is going to have to be led by the US government.
Tiger Zinda Hai
Looks interesting!
I haven't seen either of the "Wolf Warrior" movies yet - I heard that "Operation Red Sea" was a better movie. (The intensity and brutality makes it feel at times like an anti-war movie.)
posted by russilwvong at 6:04 PM on August 8, 2020
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
being apolitical means ... accommodating China
Absolutely true. It's basically appeasement. I think a more confrontational stance, whether over Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Xinjiang, is going to have to be led by the US government.
Tiger Zinda Hai
Looks interesting!
I haven't seen either of the "Wolf Warrior" movies yet - I heard that "Operation Red Sea" was a better movie. (The intensity and brutality makes it feel at times like an anti-war movie.)
posted by russilwvong at 6:04 PM on August 8, 2020
The linked review of Tiger Zinda Hai isn't wrong exactly about the way the movie plays, but it too conveniently brushes aside the political subtext, as if it were just another movie made to be enjoyed by US audiences. That kind of points towards one of the big problems with how many audiences, particularly those in the US, have become accustomed to seeing movies, just as something to be "liked" or not, without really bothering with anything more.
Tiger Zinda Hai is indeed something of a violent romp ala Hollywood in most ways, but at the same time it posits a view of the world that is pretty critical of the US and suggests the tension, if not outright hostility, in India/Pakistan relations is both what is holding the two nations back from having a greater role on the world stage and that is because, in part, the US likes it that way. The motivation behind the terrorist threat in the movie differs a bit from how such things generally tend to play out in US films and also from how it plays out in Operation: Red Sea. In US films, there is a pronounced tendency to treat terrorists cynically, where they act not out of belief, but out of an individual desire for gain, that is if the movies treat the perspective of the attackers with much of any real consideration at all, as it is now perhaps even more common for the movies to just use terrorism as an excuse to examine the feelings of the heroes, the threat is just something the heroes become better by overcoming.
In Tiger Zinda Hai the terrorists act out of a desire to gain group power, playing off the US as a means to reach that goal. The US and its military is portrayed as neither heroic nor villainous exactly, but as something above those considerations, acting to its own desires alone on the world stage without consideration for the interests of any others. The terrorists are the villains, but the US is the real threat in the film, where they essentially cause and then accelerate the conflict and then threaten to erase it all by use of overwhelming force without regard for the innocents who might suffer. The second half of the movie is a race against time to beat the terrorists before the US destroys everyone.
One of the things that makes Operation: Red Sea so disturbing is that it treats the terrorists and the entirety of the situation with complete and utter sincerity. The movie is a battle of ideology as much as a physical fight. The terrorists are shown to be committed to their actions because it is their belief and the Chinese soldiers respond with like commitment. Unlike US movies and Tiger Zinda Hai, Operation: Red Sea minimizes the individuality of those involved, suggesting some individual differences in history and method, but making that wholly secondary to the mission at hand.
The way the movie handles the deaths of both the terrorists and soldiers goes to solidify the importance of the higher good in the ideology behind the battle. People in the movie don't just die as in US films, they are mangled, mutilated, and dismembered in the fight and continue on until they finally die. The movie almost seems to revel in this, not backing away from the brutality of the fight, but showing the characters the audience is to identify with being horribly disfigured before they die, but not giving up. It treats the opponents in like fashion. It's all out warfare, a battle for more than the lives of those involved, its for the belief set that motivates them and the Chinese Navy's Special Forces will not give a single inch as those values are absolutely precise.
This all kinda goes towards why there is such difficulty in assigning value to a movie/story like that of Mulan, the competing industries that might film it would do so to further their own interests as much as anything else. It isn't about the quality of craft, Operation: Red Sea is as well made and "good" in that sense as virtually any Disney film, its more about the values behind the production of the film. Disney makes films to entertain, to be "liked", but to also placate the audience into more or less accepting the status quo as Disney is on top of the entertainment industry in the world as it is, seeking something like near monopoly control over a broad range of culture.
Making a film for Disney is to accede to their values. Filmmakers have some control over their product, but they are beholden to the values of the Disney corporation for the opportunity to have limited control. Chinese filmmakers must follow the dictates of the Chinese government if they wish to get the big projects and continue working/avoid arrest and also have limited control over the projects otherwise. In the latter case there is the threat of government censorship for not complying, while in the former case it is only a matter of capital control that is the threat filmmakers face, which is how Disney and the other major studios kept so many filmmakers who aren't interested in following a set formula from working.
It isn't equivalent to the threat Chinese filmmakers face, but it all goes towards limiting how movie stories can be told. Audiences want to just "like" movies, fair enough, but that only amplifies the problem where meaningful representation can only be found in a mass audience work, those mass audience works are increasingly controlled by fewer hands, which means representation is all but controlled by Disney fit to their corporate interests, which means making movies that don't threaten anyone, which means making movies that are comfortable for white people, the Chinese government, and fit to whatever other restrictions might create a significant threat to profits. It all serves more to reaffirm power than challenge it.
posted by gusottertrout at 9:21 PM on August 8, 2020 [2 favorites]
Tiger Zinda Hai is indeed something of a violent romp ala Hollywood in most ways, but at the same time it posits a view of the world that is pretty critical of the US and suggests the tension, if not outright hostility, in India/Pakistan relations is both what is holding the two nations back from having a greater role on the world stage and that is because, in part, the US likes it that way. The motivation behind the terrorist threat in the movie differs a bit from how such things generally tend to play out in US films and also from how it plays out in Operation: Red Sea. In US films, there is a pronounced tendency to treat terrorists cynically, where they act not out of belief, but out of an individual desire for gain, that is if the movies treat the perspective of the attackers with much of any real consideration at all, as it is now perhaps even more common for the movies to just use terrorism as an excuse to examine the feelings of the heroes, the threat is just something the heroes become better by overcoming.
In Tiger Zinda Hai the terrorists act out of a desire to gain group power, playing off the US as a means to reach that goal. The US and its military is portrayed as neither heroic nor villainous exactly, but as something above those considerations, acting to its own desires alone on the world stage without consideration for the interests of any others. The terrorists are the villains, but the US is the real threat in the film, where they essentially cause and then accelerate the conflict and then threaten to erase it all by use of overwhelming force without regard for the innocents who might suffer. The second half of the movie is a race against time to beat the terrorists before the US destroys everyone.
One of the things that makes Operation: Red Sea so disturbing is that it treats the terrorists and the entirety of the situation with complete and utter sincerity. The movie is a battle of ideology as much as a physical fight. The terrorists are shown to be committed to their actions because it is their belief and the Chinese soldiers respond with like commitment. Unlike US movies and Tiger Zinda Hai, Operation: Red Sea minimizes the individuality of those involved, suggesting some individual differences in history and method, but making that wholly secondary to the mission at hand.
The way the movie handles the deaths of both the terrorists and soldiers goes to solidify the importance of the higher good in the ideology behind the battle. People in the movie don't just die as in US films, they are mangled, mutilated, and dismembered in the fight and continue on until they finally die. The movie almost seems to revel in this, not backing away from the brutality of the fight, but showing the characters the audience is to identify with being horribly disfigured before they die, but not giving up. It treats the opponents in like fashion. It's all out warfare, a battle for more than the lives of those involved, its for the belief set that motivates them and the Chinese Navy's Special Forces will not give a single inch as those values are absolutely precise.
This all kinda goes towards why there is such difficulty in assigning value to a movie/story like that of Mulan, the competing industries that might film it would do so to further their own interests as much as anything else. It isn't about the quality of craft, Operation: Red Sea is as well made and "good" in that sense as virtually any Disney film, its more about the values behind the production of the film. Disney makes films to entertain, to be "liked", but to also placate the audience into more or less accepting the status quo as Disney is on top of the entertainment industry in the world as it is, seeking something like near monopoly control over a broad range of culture.
Making a film for Disney is to accede to their values. Filmmakers have some control over their product, but they are beholden to the values of the Disney corporation for the opportunity to have limited control. Chinese filmmakers must follow the dictates of the Chinese government if they wish to get the big projects and continue working/avoid arrest and also have limited control over the projects otherwise. In the latter case there is the threat of government censorship for not complying, while in the former case it is only a matter of capital control that is the threat filmmakers face, which is how Disney and the other major studios kept so many filmmakers who aren't interested in following a set formula from working.
It isn't equivalent to the threat Chinese filmmakers face, but it all goes towards limiting how movie stories can be told. Audiences want to just "like" movies, fair enough, but that only amplifies the problem where meaningful representation can only be found in a mass audience work, those mass audience works are increasingly controlled by fewer hands, which means representation is all but controlled by Disney fit to their corporate interests, which means making movies that don't threaten anyone, which means making movies that are comfortable for white people, the Chinese government, and fit to whatever other restrictions might create a significant threat to profits. It all serves more to reaffirm power than challenge it.
posted by gusottertrout at 9:21 PM on August 8, 2020 [2 favorites]
Very interesting! Now I definitely have to watch "Tiger Zinda Hai."
In US films, there is a pronounced tendency to treat terrorists cynically, where they act not out of belief, but out of an individual desire for gain -
That's a great observation. "Die Hard" (which spawned an entire subgenre of action movies) comes to mind. "Die Hard" also strikes me as expressing a very American ethos, with a heroic blue-collar individual battling not just European terrorists (who are actually thieves) but inept authorities - the 911 operator, the police lieutenant, and the FBI.
I interpreted the motivation of the Chinese forces in "Operation Red Sea" as being protection of Chinese civilians abroad, rather than ideology. (I think of this as a historical sore point: there were many anti-Chinese pogroms in southeast Asia.)
Disney makes films to entertain, to be "liked", but to also placate the audience into more or less accepting the status quo as Disney is on top of the entertainment industry in the world as it is, seeking something like near monopoly control over a broad range of culture.
There's definitely a noticeable tendency towards escapism in modern blockbusters.
I have no idea how studios like Disney actually work, but to me it looks like (a) blockbusters are hugely risky, with spectacular failures like Disney's "John Carter" and "The Lone Ranger" losing up to $200 million; (b) studios try to minimize the risk by imitating past blockbusters (not just the MCU and "Star Wars" but "Harry Potter", "Pirates of the Caribbean", "Transformers"), and by desperately trying to launch new series ("Mortal Engines", "Artemis Fowl", etc.); (c) nobody really knows what will make a blockbuster successful or not. The big difference between the CCP and Disney is that the CCP doesn't really care if the movie ends up making money or not.
From an artistic point of view, I think Netflix is a pretty significant development, making it possible for a movie to reach a worldwide audience without the need for a huge marketing campaign. I doubt I would have seen Jeremy Saulnier's movies ("Blue Ruin", "Green Room") without Netflix. Or "Margin Call" and "A Most Violent Year" (J. C. Chandor), or "Hell or High Water" and "Wind River" (Taylor Sheridan), or the Canadian thriller "The Decline", or Korean movies like "Train to Busan" and "The Host."
posted by russilwvong at 7:58 PM on August 9, 2020
In US films, there is a pronounced tendency to treat terrorists cynically, where they act not out of belief, but out of an individual desire for gain -
That's a great observation. "Die Hard" (which spawned an entire subgenre of action movies) comes to mind. "Die Hard" also strikes me as expressing a very American ethos, with a heroic blue-collar individual battling not just European terrorists (who are actually thieves) but inept authorities - the 911 operator, the police lieutenant, and the FBI.
I interpreted the motivation of the Chinese forces in "Operation Red Sea" as being protection of Chinese civilians abroad, rather than ideology. (I think of this as a historical sore point: there were many anti-Chinese pogroms in southeast Asia.)
Disney makes films to entertain, to be "liked", but to also placate the audience into more or less accepting the status quo as Disney is on top of the entertainment industry in the world as it is, seeking something like near monopoly control over a broad range of culture.
There's definitely a noticeable tendency towards escapism in modern blockbusters.
I have no idea how studios like Disney actually work, but to me it looks like (a) blockbusters are hugely risky, with spectacular failures like Disney's "John Carter" and "The Lone Ranger" losing up to $200 million; (b) studios try to minimize the risk by imitating past blockbusters (not just the MCU and "Star Wars" but "Harry Potter", "Pirates of the Caribbean", "Transformers"), and by desperately trying to launch new series ("Mortal Engines", "Artemis Fowl", etc.); (c) nobody really knows what will make a blockbuster successful or not. The big difference between the CCP and Disney is that the CCP doesn't really care if the movie ends up making money or not.
From an artistic point of view, I think Netflix is a pretty significant development, making it possible for a movie to reach a worldwide audience without the need for a huge marketing campaign. I doubt I would have seen Jeremy Saulnier's movies ("Blue Ruin", "Green Room") without Netflix. Or "Margin Call" and "A Most Violent Year" (J. C. Chandor), or "Hell or High Water" and "Wind River" (Taylor Sheridan), or the Canadian thriller "The Decline", or Korean movies like "Train to Busan" and "The Host."
posted by russilwvong at 7:58 PM on August 9, 2020
Oh, I agree about the basic motivation for the Chinese Special Forces, but the movie spends a great deal of time having in defining and justifying the mission parameters in their activities, suggesting a significant concern around a kind of geo-political ideology around how China will use its military and how that relates to things like borders and national identity. It definitely isn't ideology as it tends to be thought of in US films, where the debate is more around justifying the moral values in doing whatever it is the characters deem as right, that's something that accompanies the focus on exceptional individualism as the signature trait of Hollywood movies.
There's certainly nothing new about or wrong with escapism to some degree. I'm not trying to suggest everything has to be deeply earnest or arty or whatever, but that doesn't mean escapism is value neutral or that excessive indulgence doesn't carry problems of its own. It isn't just the escapism itself that is the issue with Disney, but the particular way they leverage nostalgia, or even layered nostalgia, where the fondness for something of the past/childhood that calls on an even further back history of adolescent memory for its hook. The way they use that leverage to hook audiences to stick to the know, the familiar, and to pass that on to the next generation as a Disney owned cul-de-sac of stories. It's a planned neighborhood approach to story-telling with Disney as HOA and as reliant on the same want of order and control. They are okay with inclusion as long as it's on their terms. They have a remarkable talent for feinting towards saying something meaningful, but do so in a way that allows for contradictory understanding over what is exactly being said. Which just means the viewer takes from their movies what they bring into it.
Blockbusters should be a risk, but Disney has mitigated that risk to an extreme extent by grabbing up these nostalgia properties and creating "universes" around them that limit their downsides, at least for now. That comes from the other part of the problem, that of the sense of viewer entitlement to having their wishes fulfilled around fandom properties. In itself that too isn't necessarily a bad thing, but taken to extremes it radically changes how people respond to entertainment and how discussions about it are framed. It becomes about Disney and serving the fandoms' desires, rather than about anything more wide ranging and open to alternative possibilities. That framing problem, to me, comes up in so many of the discussions here about all kinds of different mass audience culture. The recent posts on Buster Keaton, representation of mental illness in films, Spielberg's place in movie history and many others outside film. There is something very American about the way these questions are framed that matches that sense of the individual and their wants being at the center of the story.
The internet did/does carry the promise of greater access to a world of culture, but I'm not convinced the Netflix/ Disney model of corporate control by the few is the best path to realizing that promise, but that too goes back to the desire to get what one wants by the easiest path possible. We talk about all the problems with near/would-be monopolies, but always have some reason why we keep using them. While those reasons sometimes make sense with Twitter, Facebook, Uber, or whatever, with Disney its more nakedly revealed as just choice for ease and likes. It isn't as if the many complaints or wants people express about media, in threads here like those I mentioned above, aren't valid and important, its just that the way the discussions are framed about culture, keeping it within a narrow space of "my wants" and major corporations, makes it incredibly difficult to really look towards addressing anything other than in slight increments that least threaten the status quo. But then again maybe its just me and my interest in these things talking and the way it works will go to best serve others as we go on. I can't know, I can only say that it seems to me that the discussions on these things, here and elsewhere, often seem to get caught up in some sense of mistaking "It's good because I like it" for "I like it because it's good."
posted by gusottertrout at 2:28 AM on August 11, 2020
There's certainly nothing new about or wrong with escapism to some degree. I'm not trying to suggest everything has to be deeply earnest or arty or whatever, but that doesn't mean escapism is value neutral or that excessive indulgence doesn't carry problems of its own. It isn't just the escapism itself that is the issue with Disney, but the particular way they leverage nostalgia, or even layered nostalgia, where the fondness for something of the past/childhood that calls on an even further back history of adolescent memory for its hook. The way they use that leverage to hook audiences to stick to the know, the familiar, and to pass that on to the next generation as a Disney owned cul-de-sac of stories. It's a planned neighborhood approach to story-telling with Disney as HOA and as reliant on the same want of order and control. They are okay with inclusion as long as it's on their terms. They have a remarkable talent for feinting towards saying something meaningful, but do so in a way that allows for contradictory understanding over what is exactly being said. Which just means the viewer takes from their movies what they bring into it.
Blockbusters should be a risk, but Disney has mitigated that risk to an extreme extent by grabbing up these nostalgia properties and creating "universes" around them that limit their downsides, at least for now. That comes from the other part of the problem, that of the sense of viewer entitlement to having their wishes fulfilled around fandom properties. In itself that too isn't necessarily a bad thing, but taken to extremes it radically changes how people respond to entertainment and how discussions about it are framed. It becomes about Disney and serving the fandoms' desires, rather than about anything more wide ranging and open to alternative possibilities. That framing problem, to me, comes up in so many of the discussions here about all kinds of different mass audience culture. The recent posts on Buster Keaton, representation of mental illness in films, Spielberg's place in movie history and many others outside film. There is something very American about the way these questions are framed that matches that sense of the individual and their wants being at the center of the story.
The internet did/does carry the promise of greater access to a world of culture, but I'm not convinced the Netflix/ Disney model of corporate control by the few is the best path to realizing that promise, but that too goes back to the desire to get what one wants by the easiest path possible. We talk about all the problems with near/would-be monopolies, but always have some reason why we keep using them. While those reasons sometimes make sense with Twitter, Facebook, Uber, or whatever, with Disney its more nakedly revealed as just choice for ease and likes. It isn't as if the many complaints or wants people express about media, in threads here like those I mentioned above, aren't valid and important, its just that the way the discussions are framed about culture, keeping it within a narrow space of "my wants" and major corporations, makes it incredibly difficult to really look towards addressing anything other than in slight increments that least threaten the status quo. But then again maybe its just me and my interest in these things talking and the way it works will go to best serve others as we go on. I can't know, I can only say that it seems to me that the discussions on these things, here and elsewhere, often seem to get caught up in some sense of mistaking "It's good because I like it" for "I like it because it's good."
posted by gusottertrout at 2:28 AM on August 11, 2020
The internet did/does carry the promise of greater access to a world of culture, but I'm not convinced the Netflix/Disney model of corporate control by the few is the best path to realizing that promise, but that too goes back to the desire to get what one wants by the easiest path possible.
Do you have other models in mind?
Netflix hasn't been around long enough for me to make confident predictions about how it'll evolve, but I think a key advantage Netflix has in fighting off its many competitors is the sheer size of its library of movies and TV shows. If you watch the same movies over and over again, and they happen to be Disney movies, then the Disney+ service may be a good fit, but otherwise Netflix seems like a much better value: the chance of there being a movie or TV show available that (a) is worth seeing and (b) you haven't seen before is much higher on Netflix than on Disney+. And when people have a lot of free time (like now), it seems better to have a huge library to explore instead of watching your favorites over and over again. The larger Netflix's library is, the bigger this advantage.
This in turn suggests that Netflix is unlikely to exert a lot of control over exactly what shows appear in its library, and that it'll continue to include a wide range of movies and TV shows, including those from different countries (which are helpful in attracting viewers overseas). It's not necessarily going to include the largest number of recent big-budget hits - those are going to be the most valuable properties and the ones that Netflix competitors will try to use to lure subscribers - but I would expect it to continue to include a wide range of mid-budget movies and TV shows, as well as older big-budget movies and Netflix original programming (like Stranger Things).
One interesting difference between Disney and Netflix is that while Disney has to be very careful about any kind of controversy, nobody thinks Netflix including a controversial show in its library constitutes an endorsement.
posted by russilwvong at 1:32 PM on August 15, 2020
Do you have other models in mind?
Netflix hasn't been around long enough for me to make confident predictions about how it'll evolve, but I think a key advantage Netflix has in fighting off its many competitors is the sheer size of its library of movies and TV shows. If you watch the same movies over and over again, and they happen to be Disney movies, then the Disney+ service may be a good fit, but otherwise Netflix seems like a much better value: the chance of there being a movie or TV show available that (a) is worth seeing and (b) you haven't seen before is much higher on Netflix than on Disney+. And when people have a lot of free time (like now), it seems better to have a huge library to explore instead of watching your favorites over and over again. The larger Netflix's library is, the bigger this advantage.
This in turn suggests that Netflix is unlikely to exert a lot of control over exactly what shows appear in its library, and that it'll continue to include a wide range of movies and TV shows, including those from different countries (which are helpful in attracting viewers overseas). It's not necessarily going to include the largest number of recent big-budget hits - those are going to be the most valuable properties and the ones that Netflix competitors will try to use to lure subscribers - but I would expect it to continue to include a wide range of mid-budget movies and TV shows, as well as older big-budget movies and Netflix original programming (like Stranger Things).
One interesting difference between Disney and Netflix is that while Disney has to be very careful about any kind of controversy, nobody thinks Netflix including a controversial show in its library constitutes an endorsement.
posted by russilwvong at 1:32 PM on August 15, 2020
« Older Persepolis: Story of young Iranian girl during the... | Mind the Gap: A Handbook of Clinical Signs in... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Some might say it is ONLY a $4.7 billion loss, as Disney's stock has jumped 10% today.
posted by scottatdrake at 12:44 PM on August 5, 2020 [5 favorites]