*** Coronavirus Impact on the Entertainment Industry ***
163,008 Views |
1893 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by TCTTS
It's obviously a better financial decision. Still seems dumb to put it on Disney+, which is a paid subscription service, and charge for it.TCTTS said:
The reason is... money. In lieu of box office dollars. Do you really expect a studio to release a tentpole blockbuster on a streaming platform for only the $5.99 price of a monthly subscription? That would make no sense financially.
That's gonna confuse a lot of people, imo.
I would have just skipped Disney+ altogether until the PVOD period ended, then put it on Disney+.
Because it isn't going to the theater. We're still at home with our regular screen and sound. There isn't anything special about home. I am not willing to pay $30 for a normal experience.
Not paying 29.99 to stream it when I don't pay that right now to take us to a movie and I already have Disney+
This is what I wish people would actually bring up rather than just saying "It's so much cheaper than taking the whole family to the theater!"mrsbeer05 said:
Because it isn't going to the theater. We're still at home with our regular screen and sound. There isn't anything special about home. I am not willing to pay $30 for a normal experience.
Yeah, it's cheaper, but you're watching it on a 42" flat screen rather than a massive screen with a top-of-the-line sound system and recliners.
I mean, he's not wrong. A typical movie date with the wife to a theater with food and drinks will easily cost us $75+ with tickets and dinner.TCTTS said:
Very curious to see how this model holds up and what else we might see come to digital, whether from Disney or others. I feel like Bill and Ted returns may influence lots of others as that'll be the first fairly anticipated film to go straight to VOD.
I think they are bringing it up. They're just implying that the theater experience is not important to them. I agree most of the time. I go to the movies once or twice a year for things like Star Wars, Top Gun, MI6 etc. I'm not going to the effort for Mulan, or Black Widow.Brian Earl Spilner said:This is what I wish people would actually bring up rather than just saying "It's so much cheaper than taking the whole family to the theater!"mrsbeer05 said:
Because it isn't going to the theater. We're still at home with our regular screen and sound. There isn't anything special about home. I am not willing to pay $30 for a normal experience.
Yeah, it's cheaper, but you're watching it on a 42" flat screen rather than a massive screen with a top-of-the-line sound system and recliners.
I have 65" TV and a nice sound system. For 99% of releases going to a theater is added expense and hassle, for zero added value. I can eat better, drink better, have a nice couch, and get up to go to the bathroom whenever I want. There's nobody talking over the movie, or using their phone next to me. Nobody kicking the back of my seat.
I completely understand your point of view, but I think you'd be surprised how many people are like me and my family.
Yeah, I doubt I rent it either, but agree that it's a super smart play for Disney, and I can see it becoming the standard going forward for bigger movies like this that do go to VOD/streaming.
EDIT not a real account.
Ha, was it the Black Widow tweet? I just saw that in my feed.
mrsbeer05 said:
Because it isn't going to the theater. We're still at home with our regular screen and sound. There isn't anything special about home. I am not willing to pay $30 for a normal experience.
How many people are in your family?
Right now, there would be five people in my house who would be gathered around to TV to watch this (we already have Disney+).
That's $6 a person, which is actually about what we would spend on a ticket in B/CS. And we wouldn't have to buy snacks.
Personally, I love the movie-going experience and am truly saddened that I've gone so long without it, but right now I would gladly pay $30 to see this movie at home since I've been waiting to see this movie since March.
We would have 2, maybe three. Not 30 dollars.GiveEmHellBill said:mrsbeer05 said:
Because it isn't going to the theater. We're still at home with our regular screen and sound. There isn't anything special about home. I am not willing to pay $30 for a normal experience.
How many people are in your family?
Right now, there would be five people in my house who would be gathered around to TV to watch this (we already have Disney+).
That's $6 a person, which is actually about what we would spend on a ticket in B/CS. And we wouldn't have to buy snacks.
Personally, I love the movie-going experience and am truly saddened that I've gone so long without it, but right now I would gladly pay $30 to see this movie at home since I've been waiting to see this movie since March.
Plus Benny and I have a tradition of going tp movies where we are getting that boxed candy and bottled drinks to sneak in. It's a 8 year old tradition. I would spend more money on a movie he isn't that interested in.
The real challenge will be if they do this for Bill and Ted. He cannot wait to see this.
Well I'm 100% paying for it. I have a good TV and I have surround sound set up. Its only me and my wife, and its definitely not going to be as nice as seeing it in XD or whatever at Cinemark, but we also will have much better food/snacks, can pause the viewing, will probably be able to watch more than once, and can watch from teh comfort of our own home.
Happily pay 30 bucks for this. The trailer looked awesome and I was very excited to see this movie.
Happily pay 30 bucks for this. The trailer looked awesome and I was very excited to see this movie.
GiveEmHellBill said:mrsbeer05 said:
Because it isn't going to the theater. We're still at home with our regular screen and sound. There isn't anything special about home. I am not willing to pay $30 for a normal experience.
How many people are in your family?
Right now, there would be five people in my house who would be gathered around to TV to watch this (we already have Disney+).
That's $6 a person, which is actually about what we would spend on a ticket in B/CS. And we wouldn't have to buy snacks.
Personally, I love the movie-going experience and am truly saddened that I've gone so long without it, but right now I would gladly pay $30 to see this movie at home since I've been waiting to see this movie since March.
4 Beers- The $30 would probably cover tickets. But again, I care about the experience. To my boys, there is nothing different about watching $30 Mulan at home vs Star Wars for the millionth time. Yes they would watch it, but they would also ask to pause it a million times to get blankets, pee, etc. The movies should be special. I like sitting in the dark, knowing I can't be on my phone, eating candy and popcorn and drinking an Icee. This isn't a movie in willing to waste the experience on (at least for that price point)
Not gonna pay for this one, but I'd pay for others.
Tanya 93 said:We would have 2, maybe three. Not 30 dollars.GiveEmHellBill said:mrsbeer05 said:
Because it isn't going to the theater. We're still at home with our regular screen and sound. There isn't anything special about home. I am not willing to pay $30 for a normal experience.
How many people are in your family?
Right now, there would be five people in my house who would be gathered around to TV to watch this (we already have Disney+).
That's $6 a person, which is actually about what we would spend on a ticket in B/CS. And we wouldn't have to buy snacks.
Personally, I love the movie-going experience and am truly saddened that I've gone so long without it, but right now I would gladly pay $30 to see this movie at home since I've been waiting to see this movie since March.
Plus Benny and I have a tradition of going tp movies where we are getting that boxed candy and bottled drinks to sneak in. It's a 8 year old tradition. I would spend more money on a movie he isn't that interested in.
The real challenge will be if they do this for Bill and Ted. He cannot wait to see this.
Pretty sure they already said Bill and Ted are gonna be released both in theaters and on a streaming service.
Yeah, Bill & Ted is already set for streaming, along with a limited theatrical run, beginning September 1st.
But I don't trust any of this now.wangus12 said:Tanya 93 said:We would have 2, maybe three. Not 30 dollars.GiveEmHellBill said:mrsbeer05 said:
Because it isn't going to the theater. We're still at home with our regular screen and sound. There isn't anything special about home. I am not willing to pay $30 for a normal experience.
How many people are in your family?
Right now, there would be five people in my house who would be gathered around to TV to watch this (we already have Disney+).
That's $6 a person, which is actually about what we would spend on a ticket in B/CS. And we wouldn't have to buy snacks.
Personally, I love the movie-going experience and am truly saddened that I've gone so long without it, but right now I would gladly pay $30 to see this movie at home since I've been waiting to see this movie since March.
Plus Benny and I have a tradition of going tp movies where we are getting that boxed candy and bottled drinks to sneak in. It's a 8 year old tradition. I would spend more money on a movie he isn't that interested in.
The real challenge will be if they do this for Bill and Ted. He cannot wait to see this.
Pretty sure they already said Bill and Ted are gonna be released both in theaters and on a streaming service.
They could change their mind tomorrow.
He is a tween. He starts 6th grade in two weeks.
I don't have this time with him much more.
That could be my last hurrah of fun with him. I want to go to the freezing theatre with the candy and soda in my purse and the biggest tub of popcorn we can get. Then when the movie is over, we get a refill. Eat some on the way home and then put it ziplocs for the the next week for snacks.
I understand they need to make money of these movies.
But I am not paying twice what I would need to pay to see it.
And I think they forget 30 dollars is a lot of money for people when matinees would be cheaper.
Lol, yup. *******s.TCTTS said:
Ha, was it the Black Widow tweet? I just saw that in my feed.
Sine poena nulla lex.
Nobody's going to see new mutants anyway
Sine poena nulla lex.
wangus12 said:
Nobody's going to see new mutants anyway
/obligatory joke about wanting to watch Doug Ramsey die
"The Frugal Moms Special"Tanya 93 said:
I want to go to the freezing theatre with the candy and soda in my purse and the biggest tub of popcorn we can get. Then when the movie is over, we get a refill. Eat some on the way home and then put it ziplocs for the the next week for snacks.
Where I live theaters aren't going to be opening until there is a vaccine. I'm not sure holding these films until next April makes much sense.
Also I've been trapped inside, basically spending no money this summer. No restaurants, no vacations, no camps for the kids. So I'm about to get an 86 inch tv for the basement. Also my popcorn is pretty good.
Also I've been trapped inside, basically spending no money this summer. No restaurants, no vacations, no camps for the kids. So I'm about to get an 86 inch tv for the basement. Also my popcorn is pretty good.
WSJ corrected their article last night as well to refer to it as a "$30 download" but didn't elaborate so this is good context. Being able to view it multiple times over say 4-5 months instead of 48 hours might be enough to justify the higher price for me.
The popcorn refill was his idea. He loves movie popcornCounterpoint said:"The Frugal Moms Special"Tanya 93 said:
I want to go to the freezing theatre with the candy and soda in my purse and the biggest tub of popcorn we can get. Then when the movie is over, we get a refill. Eat some on the way home and then put it ziplocs for the the next week for snacks.
Interesting. Hopefully this sets a new standard. I can understand renting a movie digitally for $5.99 and having access to it for only 48 hours. Similarly, I can (obviously) understand paying a one-time ticket fee to see a movie once in a theaters. But I have to admit, renting The King of Staten Island in June for $20, for 48 hours - the first movie I think I've ever paid that much to rent - didn't quite feel right. I completely understand the economics of it, but it also felt like I should own it for that price as well. This would essentially solve that. Granted, purchasers of Mulan still wouldn't technically "own" it, as their purchase would last only as long as their subscription, I assume, but still.
My main concern at this point is that it becomes a standard going forward for "premium" movies, rather than just putting them on the service for free after a few months. (Like with The Lion King and Aladdin remakes.)
It would essentially just become another Disney Movie Club, which I was so glad to be done with this year after I fulfilled my 5 blu-ray purchases. (The last was after Disney+ premiered, so I only bought Aladdin (original) to be able to remove my membership.)
It would essentially just become another Disney Movie Club, which I was so glad to be done with this year after I fulfilled my 5 blu-ray purchases. (The last was after Disney+ premiered, so I only bought Aladdin (original) to be able to remove my membership.)
I'd be willing to bet that Mulan will eventually be free on Disney+ in a matter of months.
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
10
Angry Beaver
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
9
AeroAg2012
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
9
Aggball2010
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
7
missinAggieland
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
6
Bruce Almighty
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
5
AgEngr12
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
5
country
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
4
RafterAg223
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
4
Harry Stone
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
4