Would you pay $30 to stream a new movie instead of going to the cinema?

In the age of piracy they should take 20 bucks and be happy they got that

I'm extremely confused by this as a counterpoint. I don't think anyone here who's suggesting that it is a reasonable price to pay for a family viewing is referring to that beyond it being in the context of their immediate family, with whom they live. You can't be suggesting that we shouldn't be the in the same space with our family in our own home.

Now as to your follow up of how much would be reasonable to pay for Mulan, it's worth noting that the $30 price for it is allowing unlimited viewings for as long as you are a Disney+ subscriber. Sure, that's not the same thing as true ownership (to the degree that's possible with any purely digital purchase) since you would be locked out of access if you let your sub lapse, but it's a hell of a lot better than a time-limited rental period. This also feeds back into the value proposition argument, since you could share your login if you so chose with family and/or friends you can't otherwise see because of the pandemic to allow them to watch it if they wanted to do so.

No, unless it was a viewing party and everyone pitched in in some way, in which case absolutely.

30 bucks and we can all watch in comfort and pause and all that shit? Not have to deal with shit-heads in a theatre? Are you kidding me?

100%

If it's something I just wanna watch alone though, no, definitely not.

$30? Not a chance.

I think I could justify $15, since my wife and I usually try to hit the matinees when we can (read: in the beforetime) and that's about $15.

As someone in Australia who should be able to see it for roughly AUD$10 (cinemas are open in my state unless something bad happens in the next month), then yes, US$30 for a Disney 'cartoon to live action' movie (the best of which is still only ok) is bad. Although if you get enough people around to watch it, then you can probably justify the price that way.

I am a patient man. I like watching movies in theaters, but I'm not risking that any time soon. I can wait for this movie to either be free on D+ or cheap on DVD.

If Disney wanted to take full advantage of dying theaters they would give a direct middle finger to that industry by immediately putting the movie up for purchase through standard VOD channels and not putting it behind their streaming service. Pretty sure they're putting this out in such a fucked way in order to compromise with theaters. That said I would agree with your sentiment about Disney if they continued this kind of practice well into next year because by then I'm expecting most theater chains to be either bankrupt or on life support with practically zero negotiating leverage.

Personally though, I wouldn't even pay $30 to own this movie (or any movie at that price) outside of their streaming service which I'm sure they would charge because they also need recoup revenue.

A movie ticket in my country is around $10 and a Blu-Ray needs to be a special edition with tons of extras to even go past $30. So no, I wouldn't pay $30 to stream a movie.

I would rather pay less than the price of a movie ticket for VOD and only watch it once than paying $30 to only own it while I keep subscribed to a streaming service.

Not for anything. Especially not for another Disney remake.

No. I'm preparing for grad school, and a life after that. I hardly have time to watch movies, and going to the movies fulfilled a social need to go out in public which isn't going to happen at home unless I write a blog about the movie I watched.

No, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. And it's double shitty since this is pretty important film for asian americans I think.

And you still don't own the movie? what in the fuck are they even thinking. Sad for the creators of that film.

Not to even mention in the middle of recession caused by a pandemic where unemployment is at a all time high.

I like the idea, and I'm sure I would use it for some movies, but $30 USD is too expensive in my opinion.

No, and not only is it 30 dollars but the fact that it's just a rental is terrible. I don't rent movies, but 30 dollars is too much. Heck, 30 dollars for a 4k Blu-ray to own is too much. I don't go to the theater much, and I actually prefer or at least am very happy with my home setup for picture and sound so I feel like there's less need in that to get the most out of a film. At least to me, the theater vs. watch a 30 dollar rental at home is a bit redundant to the conversation as all the matters is the question 'would you pay 30 dollars for a movie rental at home?'

@tom_scherschel: Honestly, while I understand that take, I would just say 'You know what? Let's just wait until we can buy the movie (or watch it when it comes to Disney Plus for "free").' I'd rather wait until I can buy a movie to watch it, instead of paying 30 dollars to watch it early and not have the benefit of keeping it. I am speaking in general here, I don't necessarily even want to see Mulan specifically. Is the benefit of watching a film early really good enough to justify that price? Not to me.

I get into low-intensity arguments with my collegues all the time about piracy. Since I started earning my own money 15 years ago I haven't done it, while my collegues are all 'I pay for Netflix so if the movie isn't on there I can download it'. 30 bucks and a subscription? I'm staying out of this one...

Speaking of misguided principles, really looking forward to the RottonTomatoes and Amazon review bombs.

No. I just do what I have done for a decade or so. Wait til it's on Netflix

Nope. I would pay $15 to stream a movie playing in theaters, but not $30.

I would pay up to $12 or whatever Bloodshot (or any other "direct-to-tv" movie) cost at the beginning of the quarantine on Prime. That's the price at the theaters, so that's as high as I'll go.

I wouldn't pay $30 to stream a new movie especially Mulan. I can just wait for whatever newly released movie to bit Bluray or just wait till it goes digital and goes on sale for $9.99. Besides most movies are remakes now and aren't worth seeing now. I stopped going to the movies last year and would normally spend $15 total just for 3 tickets for me and my nephews. That's not including snacks which would be $20 so around $35 total.

Absolutely not, when you go to the cinema, you're not just paying for the movie, you're paying for the full experience, which you can't replicate at home. There are advantages of watching a movie at home of course, but at that point your $30 movie is competing with thousands of movies which I could legally watch for free or almost free (suppose you're already paying for a Netflix subscription, or you could borrow a DVD from somewhere). I don't think any new movie is good enough to compete with that. I could see it for $10 at most, and that's if I could find at least one other person to share the cost.

Do I think it’s a rip off?

Yes.

Would I pay it?

Hmmmmmmm......it depends on the film. Mulan no, the Black Widow film. I’d have thought about It. Disney have picked the wrong film to start this with. I can’t name many people that are interested in Mulan.

The price is outrageous but the film Disney have chosen for this ”trial” is laughable .

Take Tenet for example. That releases in UK cinemas next week. If WB had chosen to put that straight to streaming services I would have happily thrown 20 quid at them to sit and watch it at home.

Hey my local shop does Tango Ice Blasts, I could have popped and got one of those for the real cinema feel.

For a single person it may be too much. Though, for three or more to watch, not that expensive at all. Also, comparing a LOTR purchase to a 2020 release, not comparable. Furthermore, there will be those who want to see it first. Then there are those too tight to pay anything without complaint. l personally believe the price is targeted at multiple viewers watching from the same household.

I'm single with no kids. I don't have a family to "share" the cost with. So even though I have avery nice TV and sound bar I'll never get my money's worth.

That's the problem they will have with this system, it works for affluent couples and even families, but doesn't work for small families or couples.. I would fully understand why they might work for many people, but just not me. But, I will never play $30 to stream a single movie, unless I planned a streaming party...which won't because of my tiny apartment. If someone wanted me to pitch-in for a movie night...I might do that but only if they had bone-in chicken wings.

I don't necessarily have an issue with what they are charging but I'll also never pay it. I'll wait until it is jon Netflix/Disney Plus/Prime/Whatever or at least the ability to buy the movie outright. Though I also have three young kids so going to a movie theater is a bit of a nightmare anyway and not something I do very often even in normal times.

People seem to construe this as a new "Disney" rental price structure. I don't think Disney is saying that all all. They are saying during the typical theatrical release window, if you wnat to "view' a movie early before it is renttable - its $30.

No, I would no pay it. but I can see the logic in their minds that a 'nuclear family' does pay that much, or more, now.

This is that same argument we had in 1980 when VHS tapes cost $30.

People said, "THIRTY DOLLARS! I aint paying that!"

And, Disney said, "Oh look, it is gone, you missed getting Snow White on VHS. We will put it back in the vault you won't see it again for years."

So people said, "Oh, I better reserve MY limited run my copy next time!"

Then, Disney said, "Lick the rod slower, you dirty whores..."

For a movie I want to watch when it first comes out, I'd pay extra to watch it at home instead of having to go out somewhere to watch it with other people.

@monkeyking1969: Can we maybe not slur sex workers?

I already have, I bought Bloodshot when they released it to Streaming.

This is me saying that I won't be doing this for Mulan 2020 and I don't want to encourage this business model while also admitting I do not know what movie/show would make me recant. The "Clear the paywall to purchase" is not something I like about this at all. But I guess we're all talking about it here because Disney found a way to offer DLC for Disney+. From that angle and at this price, this is some shiny horse armor that I am going to pass on.

For a rental, I think it is obscene.

And considering you already need a Disney+ subscription – a real head scratcher.

It would be interesting to see Disney be transparent and break down how it came to this price.

@wabi-sabi: Apparently it's only a rental if you unsub, but it will be there when/if you resub. I called it dlc but in this instance it's more akin to PS Plus. (Source)

@petesix0: Thanks for linking that story – at least the movie stays with your subscription.

Interestingly, the end of the article mentions that Disney says that Mulan is a 'one-off' as movies return to cinemas – but it still feels like they are absolutely scalping their fans; however maybe not those who will be watching as a family.

@ethanielrain: I suppose any amount of money is a lot when you just steal everything anyway.

I have no interest in watching any Disney movie, but $30 doesn’t seem like too much to me. The calculations Disney did was likely about how elastic is demand for likely viewers. If there is a group of people who will absolutely watch it for $30, then charging $10 will leave a huge amount of money on the table for those viewers. And how much do they pickup from everyone else by charging $10? Probably not enough. The target for these movies is already probably skewed to families. People with children are more likely to be older and spend a lot on their children’s entertainment. If they used to take their whole family to the theatre to see the big new Disney movie, in comparison, it’s not a lot of money. A lot of people who wouldn’t pay $30 wouldn’t pay $10 and probably wouldn’t even watch it for free. So it doesn’t sound like a bad price to me.

I buy the vast majority of my entertainment, but when one of the largest companies on Earth is asking me to sign up for their streaming service, drop another $30 and then also maintain my subscription to have access to that movie...it's just too much.

I’m a big fan of Nolan and love Inception so despite my general reservations against this becoming a thing at this point in time I would gladly pay the $30 to stream Tenet at home despite getting a much worse experience in the end.

@kmj2318: Yeah i agree with you. I imagine that the amount of families & Disney fans that pay the price far outweighs the amount of potential viewers looking at the price and deciding to not go for it.

But as someone that's pretty firmly outside of their target group i'll still look at the whole paygate to purchase situation and do a 180.

@petesix0: It's worse than PS+. If I buy a game with my PS+ discount I keep the game even if I don't keep PS+. You don't keep access to Mulan if you drop Disney+.

@ethanielrain: I totally get you. That is so offensive that I can't possibly wait a few months for "normal" pricing. Those bastards

Seriously: Do whatever you want. But don't pretend you are somehow righteous or being forced to do this. You don't want to pay and you don't want to wait so you are going the piracy route.

@ry_ry: Sure, I was just pointing out that Disney seem intent on calling it a rental, which it does not seem to be because currently there is no timescale for them to take it back. That I've seen. Like, I'm going to finish watching the movie I rented yesterday because I started it yesterday and if I don't finish it soon I'd have to pay for Suicide Squad 2016 again, but I haven't seen any indication that Disney means to withdraw Mulan later.

(idk if Apple take less of a cut if Disney call it a "Rental" or if this is simply indicative of Disney wanting this to be a special case for them releasing first-run movies like this, this just feels like "wait for the sale" to me)

I already pay $20 to watch a movie in theaters. Paying $30 to see it at home by myself isn't all that bad. But with the ability to also split costs with other people I'm watching with to make it cheaper than the cost of going to the movies if I want, awesome.

@ethanielrain: My guy, the “I wouldn’t have paid for it anyway” wasn’t even a good defense in the Limewire days. You’re still spending time with the media, so it clearly has some value to you. And hey, if you don’t have a lot of money, I totally get the urge to pirate. I did it as a teenager, but I grew up and came to the realization that if I’m not willing to pay for something, maybe I just shouldn’t experience it because it’s not that important to me. But don’t come in here and defend piracy like it’s a virtue. You want to watch shit and don’t want to pay for it, simple as that.

@ethanielrain: Yeah, that is still a load of toss

Let's ignore time for a moment (we'll get to that). You obviously care enough to consume that media so it clearly IS worth something to you. And if all you need is something to leave on in the background: TBS is great for that if you have a TV subscription. Or get Netflix. Or set up a plex server with the content you do have. Or just turn on youtube/twitch. There are plenty of options that don't require you to refuse to pay for media you consume.

But the real issue is that time is more important than money these days. We all laughed when epic claimed fortnite compets with netflix but they are right. The time you spend on "games you wouldn't buy anyway" is time you could be spending on games you DO feel are worth the purchase. So maybe you REALLY don't feel CoD is worth the money. But the five hours you spent on that campaign are five hours you could have spent with an indie game you DO feel is worth the money. And so forth

I paid $20 or $30 to rent Invisible Man at the start of the lockdown. My wife and I used to go to the movies a lot and a trip would easily cost over $30 just in tickets.

The Mulan situation is kind of fucked up though. I am already paying for the service. It should be $30 if you don’t subscribe, and a reduced price if you do.

@ethanielrain: we prohibit discussion of illegal activities on these forums and that includes piracy. We're not in denial that piracy exists and it's OK to talk about it in a general sense, but we're not going to tolerate people who actively endorse it or attempt to personally justify it.

Let's get back on topic, please.

I didn't realize that. Thank you for the warning - I won't break this rule again.