Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Disney+

Options
1…2324262829…81

Comments

  • Options
    #752
    murpho999
    Registered Users Posts: 28,391 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »
    It's pure marketing spiel on their part to make people think sitting in their front room or bedroom watching this is in any way comparable to the immersive experience of attending a cinema. Imagine the FAI trying to convince Ireland supporters to pay up €50, or whatever the ticket price, to watch an Ireland game on the telly as they can't go to the match at the moment. (Actually, I shouldn't give them ideas)

    Not to mention the fact if you're in Dublin at this time of year, there's a fair chance you're hearing fireworks going off outside non-stop to make you feel like you're watching it as the fall of Fallujah happens outside. So yeah, I would definitely suggest waiting until December and save the money. But to each their own.

    It's not a marketing spiel at all. It's simple business.

    They're substituting going to the cinema with streaming at home.

    Your comparison with sports is not valid. Large sports events make money from attendance and TV whereas big films make most of their money from cinema tickets.

    The film cost US$200m to make and you can add on marketing costs as well so you must see that it has to make the money back.

    I don't understand your gripes at all to be honest.


  • Options
    #753
    Mr.Nice Guy
    Registered Users Posts: 45,535 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    murpho999 wrote: »
    It's not a marketing spiel at all. It's simple business.

    They're substituting going to the cinema with streaming at home.

    Your comparison with sports is not valid. Large sports events make money from attendance and TV whereas big films make most of their money from cinema tickets.

    The film cost US$200m to make and you can add on marketing costs as well so you must see that it has to make the money back.

    I don't understand your gripes at all to be honest.

    It is a marketing spiel. They aren't substituting the immersive cinema experience at all, same as how watching a sporting event on the box is no substitute for the immersive experience of watching a spectacle amongst people. Simply saying they are substituting it doesn't make it so, no matter how much Disney may 'wish upon a star'.

    I don't understand why someone who earlier said they didn't find the film appealing, and that they didn't like the live action remakes, is championing this Disney tactic. One would think you'd want the model to fail, resulting in less of them in future. Why favour this approach over the one with Artemis Fowl where they just put it on Disney+? Wouldn't backing the latter be more beneficial to the customer? I don't know why anyone would support and defend this model unless they worked for Disney. It's a bit like championing sporting events being on PPV rather than one of the main Sky channels. It's a bit odd really.

    'It is better to walk alone in the right direction than follow the herd walking in the wrong direction.'



  • Options
    #754
    ShaneU
    Registered Users Posts: 14,821 ✭✭✭✭ShaneU


    The movie is added to your account permanently. It's not like going to the cinema or renting you can watch it as many times as you want.


  • Options
    #755
    harr
    Registered Users Posts: 4,478 ✭✭✭harr


    While Mulan wouldn’t appeal to my kids at the moment but if it did I would definitely pay the extra and have a cinema night at home and yes I know it wouldn’t be the same experience in any sense of going to cinema but it would be the next best thing and cheaper by a long shot.
    Sky are doing similar all summer and I have used it an number of times.
    Same goes for sports on box office if I am interested I will pay it .. costs us a lot less over here than in the states where pay per view is huge.
    The cinema costs a fair whack for a family of four to attend and going to cinema for a lot of people can be a struggle. So why not not have the option to watch it at home if we want to , I love the cinema experience and bringing the kids but it’s getting cost prohibitive at this stage.
    Was talking to a friend in shop yesterday giving out that the kids wanted to watch it and how it was a shocking waste of money for one movie. This was after she had bought starch tickets to the value of €15 and a box of fags


  • Options
    #756
    Dodge
    Registered Users Posts: 10,155 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »
    Imagine the FAI trying to convince Ireland supporters to pay up €50, or whatever the ticket price, to watch an Ireland game on the telly as they can't go to the match at the moment.

    Pay per view sports has existed for years so that analogy doesn’t really help your argument.

    Elsewhere on boards there’s a ‘will you go to the cinema?’ thread and there are loads and loads who say they prefer to stay at home at watch films on their own set ups at home anyway


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #757
    kerplun k
    Registered Users Posts: 2,377 ✭✭✭kerplun k


    I don’t see how anyone can begrudge a person or organisation from making money from goods/service that they provide. Especially something like this thats had so many hard working people pour countless amount of hours into it.


  • Options
    #758
    paulboland
    Registered Users Posts: 1,403 ✭✭✭paulboland


    Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »
    It is a marketing spiel. They aren't substituting the immersive cinema experience at all, same as how watching a sporting event on the box is no substitute for the immersive experience of watching a spectacle amongst people. Simply saying they are substituting it doesn't make it so, no matter how much Disney may 'wish upon a star'.

    I don't understand why someone who earlier said they didn't find the film appealing, and that they didn't like the live action remakes, is championing this Disney tactic. One would think you'd want the model to fail, resulting in less of them in future. Why favour this approach over the one with Artemis Fowl where they just put it on Disney+? Wouldn't backing the latter be more beneficial to the customer? I don't know why anyone would support and defend this model unless they worked for Disney. It's a bit like championing sporting events being on PPV rather than one of the main Sky channels. It's a bit odd really.

    It's not marketing spiel
    Its to offer the chance to see the film at home due to a lot of cinemas around the world that are still closed and the few that are open in some countries have fastly reduced capacity per screenings due to covid-19 social distancing requirements.

    Disney need to make revenue back from the film they would not be in a position at the moment to make a profit from just having a cinema release
    Its been shown in cinemas in countries open for screenings that don't have disney+ service.

    Its no different to what universal and some other film studios did with a few of their new films releases

    Universal charged €19.99 for 48 hour access for their films
    If you want to watch those films after 48 hours you had to pay again each time

    The difference is disney price of €21.99 has no playback restrictions you can watch as many times as you want.

    There is lots of films from various film studios been launched early to video on demand rental that normally would have been cinema release only before home media and digital purchase was released.

    Its not just disney doing this cinema and home streaming at same time of new films

    The film studios can't make the money back on just cinema release at the moment due to how fastly reduced number of customers who can see films each day in the few cinemas that are open and there is still a lot of cinemas around the world still closed.

    Universal for example made more revenue from trolls world tour with video on demand rental than it would of had made if it had of been cinema release only.

    Warner Bill and Ted Face the music also a new film is cinema release and video on demand rental release same time in USA
    UK will be cinema release only but I would not be surprised if you see this get early release to video on demand after they see the revenue take from cinemas when released later this month.

    Until cinemas around the world get back to normal you will see lot more films be cinema and home video on demand rental same time.

    Those who have disney+ subscription can wait until December 4th to watch the film if they don't want to pay the €21.99 and they are getting lot earlier access than normally would have as new films are usually not added to disney+ until at least 3-4 months or longer after Blu-ray/DVD home media release.


  • Options
    #759
    Nigzcurran
    Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭Nigzcurran


    Mulan only getting low to average reviews at the moment so I’m finding it hard to justify the extra money if my son is going to lose interest halfway through


  • Options
    #760
    Mr.Nice Guy
    Registered Users Posts: 45,535 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    paulboland wrote: »
    It's not marketing spiel
    Its to offer the chance to see the film at home due to a lot of cinemas around the world that are still closed and the few that are open in some countries have fastly reduced capacity per screenings due to covid-19 social distancing requirements.

    Disney need to make revenue back from the film they would not be in a position at the moment to make a profit from just having a cinema release
    Its been shown in cinemas in countries open for screenings that don't have disney+ service.

    Its no different to what universal and some other film studios did with a few of their new films releases

    Universal charged €19.99 for 48 hour access for their films
    If you want to watch those films after 48 hours you had to pay again each time

    The difference is disney price of €21.99 has no playback restrictions you can watch as many times as you want.

    There is lots of films from various film studios been launched early to video on demand rental that normally would have been cinema release only before home media and digital purchase was released.

    Its not just disney doing this cinema and home streaming at same time of new films

    The film studios can't make the money back on just cinema release at the moment due to how fastly reduced number of customers who can see films each day in the few cinemas that are open and there is still a lot of cinemas around the world still closed.

    Universal for example made more revenue from trolls world tour with video on demand rental than it would of had made if it had of been cinema release only.

    Warner Bill and Ted Face the music also a new film is cinema release and video on demand rental release same time in USA
    UK will be cinema release only but I would not be surprised if you see this get early release to video on demand after they see the revenue take from cinemas when released later this month.

    Until cinemas around the world get back to normal you will see lot more films be cinema and home video on demand rental same time.

    Those who have disney+ subscription can wait until December 4th to watch the film if they don't want to pay the €21.99 and they are getting lot earlier access than normally would have as new films are usually not added to disney+ until at least 3-4 months or longer after Blu-ray/DVD home media release.

    It is marketing spiel because it's based on the false and phony premise that watching a movie at home matches the immersive experience of being at a cinema. There's a reason most people in the pre-pandemic days preferred to watch a film in the cinema rather than pirate it at home. They don't compare. And the current climate doesn't alter that.

    Disney's pitch is, "hey, since you are reluctant to go to the cinema right now, we're going to bring the cinema straight to you! And we're going to charge you cinema-style prices! Aren't we great?!' And it seems plenty are lapping this up. I say it's a cod.

    There was nothing stopping Disney from releasing this on Disney+ as they did with Artemis Fowl, or just delaying the release until next year. This notion that they absolutely had to release this as a PPV option, and they absolutely had to do so in order to protect the poor devils that worked on the movie, is pure tosh. Anyone that thinks Disney is a company that has the best interest of the common man at heart is very naive indeed. They don't care about Mulan. They care about moolah.

    The PPV model has been very good from a financial standpoint for those in power in sport, but absolutely dreadful for the sports fan. I see it having a similar effect on films, which is why I hope this idea flops spectacularly. If this model works, before you know it they'll be routinely offering you the chance to watch an upcoming film on their services for 50 quid a pop before it hits the cinema. Kids will be badgering their parents to fork out rather than wait a fortnight or whenever for it to hit cinemas. 'But Anto's parents are getting it for him, so why should I have to wait!' Can't see that being helpful for the movie theaters should this be the intended direction of travel. Then again we'd probably have people on here claiming it was really wonderful on Disney's part to do this out of the goodness of their hearts.

    Anyway, I'm belabouring the point at this stage. Personally, I think it's bonkers to fork out over 20 quid on a film you'll be able to see in 12 weeks but whatever floats your boat. I suspect most of those who are making a case for it won't go anywhere near it in the end.

    'It is better to walk alone in the right direction than follow the herd walking in the wrong direction.'



  • Options
    #761
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,475 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    I hope that Mulan and it's ridiculous additional charge gets a very low uptake from subscribers.
    The additional charge, on top of the subscription cost will surely be a toe in the door for additional extra premium charges.

    Aside from the current and justified sentiment around the movie and the support offered by the lead to the CCP in their crackdown on HK democracy protests.
    It is hardly a value for money proposition.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #762
    Dodge
    Registered Users Posts: 10,155 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    You’re overthinking it. They’re not trying to cod anyone into thinking it’s the same as a cinema. They’re just looking to lose as little as possible on it. The same as every other studio offering films on demand.

    As for the price, €22 isn’t even close to a ‘cinema price’ when we’re talking Disney’s clear target market - families


  • Options
    #763
    murpho999
    Registered Users Posts: 28,391 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »
    It is a marketing spiel. They aren't substituting the immersive cinema experience at all, same as how watching a sporting event on the box is no substitute for the immersive experience of watching a spectacle amongst people. Simply saying they are substituting it doesn't make it so, no matter how much Disney may 'wish upon a star'.

    I don't understand why someone who earlier said they didn't find the film appealing, and that they didn't like the live action remakes, is championing this Disney tactic. One would think you'd want the model to fail, resulting in less of them in future. Why favour this approach over the one with Artemis Fowl where they just put it on Disney+? Wouldn't backing the latter be more beneficial to the customer? I don't know why anyone would support and defend this model unless they worked for Disney. It's a bit like championing sporting events being on PPV rather than one of the main Sky channels. It's a bit odd really.

    When I said substituting the cinema, I was talking about the seeing the actual content.
    Now you're talking about immersive experiences: that sounds more like marketing spiel than anything Disney are doing here.

    I have checked their promotions on this and they're just saying with premium access you can view the film as often as you like up to November 3rd and then it will go on general release on Disney+ on December 3rd.

    To me that is no different to how things would be normally as in the film would only be available at first in cinemas and then after a similar time frame would be released on streaming services and DVD for people who still want physical media.

    Disney have not claimed to be simulating or substituting the cinema experience.

    Also just because Mulan and the other live action remakes (which I think is fair to say that the majority of them have been poor) does not mean that i do not understand that having spent €200m on a film's production that they need to make money back.
    Just because I don't like the genre does not mean that I can't understand why they follow this path with it. I also don't expect the world to revolve around my taste.
    It's not the actual film that's at question here but the new delivery of it.I am not championing it as you say but understanding it and I think it makes perfect business sense.

    I don't get your complaints about it at all If you don't want to pay for it then don't and watch it as part of your sub in December. Which is the exact same option you would have had if they had released the film in cinemas.


  • Options
    #764
    Elias79
    Registered Users Posts: 15 ✭Elias79


    Disney plus having a section with over 15 rated movies and shows, you'll have to enter a pin to access the content.


    https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/disney-rumored-adding-rrated-adult-content/


  • Options
    #765
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,148 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »
    It is marketing spiel because it's based on the false and phony premise that watching a movie at home matches the immersive experience of being at a cinema. There's a reason most people in the pre-pandemic days preferred to watch a film in the cinema rather than pirate it at home. They don't compare. And the current climate doesn't alter that.

    Not if you have kids there's not, it's much better to stay at home in the evenings, have some beer or wine and have a takeaway or bunch of crap. There's not a huge amount of appeal in going to the cinema as a family other than an occasional expensive treat.


  • Options
    #766
    Nigzcurran
    Registered Users Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭Nigzcurran


    My personal opinion of the cinema is usually crap uncomfortable seats, terrible view and sound, overpriced sweets and snacks but for some bizarre reason I still like going the odd time.


  • Options
    #767
    JP Liz V1
    Registered Users Posts: 85,042 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    A female-led reboot of 'Doogie Howser, M.D.' has been ordered to series at Disney+
    https://forumofgames.com/




  • Options
    #768
    JP Liz V1
    Registered Users Posts: 85,042 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    Orphan Black star Tatiana Maslany has landed the title lead role in Marvel's Disney+ series She-Hulk
    https://forumofgames.com/




  • Options
    #769
    Spon Farmer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,187 ✭✭✭Spon Farmer


    JP Liz V1 wrote: »
    Orphan Black star Tatiana Maslany has landed the title lead role in Marvel's Disney+ series She-Hulk

    Just signed in to report this.

    Terrific actress.


  • Options
    #770
    CastorTroy
    Registered Users Posts: 28,796 ✭✭✭✭CastorTroy


    Yeah, I like her.
    Not sure how it'll be done since don't think She-Hulk changes form like Bruce and Hulk.
    And Tatana isn't exactly Lou Ferrigno. :)


  • Options
    #771
    Spon Farmer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,187 ✭✭✭Spon Farmer


    CastorTroy wrote: »
    Yeah, I like her.
    Not sure how it'll be done since don't think She-Hulk changes form like Bruce and Hulk.
    And Tatana isn't exactly Lou Ferrigno. :)

    She-Hulk isn’t ripped like Hulk and other than the height (and colour) looks like an athlete.

    All easily done in no-cap and with a training routine.

    She isn’t permanently Hulked-Out. She changes back and forth and can do it at will from the very beginning but I think she can also lose control in moments of anger or fear.

    since it was announced I was hoping that this show would lead to a Banner prequel show (make Universal play ball) but now I’m also just looking forward to it because of Maslany.

    Get her in Star Wars next. :p


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #772
    paulboland
    Registered Users Posts: 1,403 ✭✭✭paulboland


    Mulan has been a financial hit for Disney just from Disney+ itself

    29% of U.S. households that subscribe to Disney+ purchased the $30 “Mulan” film through September 12th


    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nearly-onethird-of-us-households-purchased-mulan-on-disney-for-30-fee-data-221410961.html


  • Options
    #773
    Spon Farmer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,187 ✭✭✭Spon Farmer


    paulboland wrote: »
    Mulan has been a financial hit for Disney just from Disney+ itself

    29% of U.S. households that subscribe to Disney+ purchased the $30 “Mulan” film through September 12th


    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nearly-onethird-of-us-households-purchased-mulan-on-disney-for-30-fee-data-221410961.html

    It is doing very well.

    It is a pity that it didn't get a cinema release in a world without Covid. It would have done even better at the box office and would have had studios take notice that a movie doesn't need a big Hollywood name or a "bunch of white guys".

    Movies like this is how to address the "imbalance" in Hollywood. Not that nonsense the Oscars crowd are up to.


  • Options
    #774
    OU812
    Registered Users Posts: 6,035 ✭✭✭OU812


    Spon Farmer wrote: »

    Movies like this is how to address the "imbalance" in Hollywood. Not that nonsense the Oscars crowd are up to.

    Disagree. It's aimed directly at the significant Asian market. It's a complete anomaly in terms of mainstream studio output.


  • Options
    #775
    Spon Farmer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,187 ✭✭✭Spon Farmer


    OU812 wrote: »
    Disagree. It's aimed directly at the significant Asian market. It's a complete anomaly in terms of mainstream studio output.

    Disagree with what?

    Are you about to claim that only Asian customers watched it?


  • Options
    #776
    Dodge
    Registered Users Posts: 10,155 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    OU812 wrote: »
    Disagree. It's aimed directly at the significant Asian market. It's a complete anomaly in terms of mainstream studio output.

    Disney don’t do niche marketing. This, like the original animation, is aimed at families, all families


  • Options
    #777
    Mr Crispy
    Registered Users Posts: 7,651 ✭✭✭Mr Crispy


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj9J2ecsSpo


  • Options
    #778
    Tom Mann Centuria
    Registered Users Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭Tom Mann Centuria


    Dodge wrote: »
    Disney don’t do niche marketing. This, like the original animation, is aimed at families, all families
    Mr Crispy wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj9J2ecsSpo


    I would say in the grand scheme of things Wandavision marketing is incredibly niche?

    Oh well, give me an easy life and a peaceful death.



  • Options
    #779
    S.M.B.
    Registered Users Posts: 9,350 ✭✭✭S.M.B.


    I might actually watch this as it looks like something a little different to the standard MCU output.

    And Kathryn Hahn is in it....


  • Options
    #780
    Spon Farmer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,187 ✭✭✭Spon Farmer


    Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »
    I would say in the grand scheme of things Wandavision marketing is incredibly niche?

    No.

    Disney want everyone to watch it. They hope the weirdness of it is something people enjoy.

    If it doesn't get a large enough audience there won't be a season 2 or another project like it again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #781
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Disney+ isn't blockbuster cinema though, so it isn't immediately beholden to the "Four quadrants" demographics that ultimately shape the mediocrity of modern popular cinema. Not to mention the structural reality that this is serial TV, not a 2 hour excuse to eat popcorn. The same approach won't cut it - The Mandolorian was a good opening salvo on that front. For all its flaws it has been significantly different tonally and narratively from the films. Equally, with the MCU that franchise's stable is wire enough with a staggering number of characters that a variation in tone or approach is not just easier - but kinda warranted.

    Mind you, that's all assuming what we've seen wasn't just from the pilot - and the rest of the series will be cookie cutter MCU fare.


Advertisement