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

@ralphmoustaccio: It's a rental fee, sure. I'm also renting a big seat, surround sound, and a huge screen. Who is actually paying $30 per person to see a movie, even including concessions?

@navster15: I think it really depends on how well managed and clean your local theater is VS. how not ideal your home theater is and how easily you can be interrupted / distracted at home by family/ pets / whatever.

There is an IMAX 5 mins from me and I have never had a bad experience there.

@bladeofcreation: C’mon, that’s not even taking the other side of the argument seriously. No one is paying $30 for a single ticket. But for the demographic that Mulan is going for, namely families, $30 is pretty reasonable given the average ticket price in North America.

Maybe that doesn’t apply to you, but be honest, were you actually planning to go to see Mulan in theatres by yourself?

@arcitee: That’s fair, and sure I get that people can prefer the theatre. But the argument being presented here is that the price of a movie ticket means you’re paying for ambience and a nice theatre setup. That’s not necessarily universal and so this Mulan rollout could work for some people.

@navster15: I was absolutely planning on seeing this in theaters with my roommate. Same with Black Widow, which will likely get the same treatment. I'm sure as hell not renting either one to watch at home for $30.

Charging $30 for a family may be a justification for some movies. It won't work for every movie, but I bet the prices won't change to reflect this.

@bladeofcreation: Ok, so you don’t spend the $30 to watch it now and wait until it’s on Disney Plus or other services at regular prices. Is that really a major loss? I mean, I get that maybe $30 between yourself and your roommate is a bit more than the price of a ticket (Google tells me it’s $9 on average in the US), but the alternative is that Disney has to come up with a way to tell how many eyeballs are watching the screen. Or they just assume 3.5 people will watch a single rental and price accordingly.

Mulan is not a movie I had any interest in seeing in the first place so, any price would be too high of a price for me. For a movie that I do want to see, like the new Dune for example, I'd only pay $30 for a Blu-Ray copy because, that is way too much to see a movie with compression artifacts.

@bladeofcreation: Me, if my wife and child go, too. Even fewer people in a party in other parts of the country. That is a major factor in how this is being marketed. I don't think too many people are looking at it as a solo movie watching experience. Some are, and I'm sure the pricing is a bummer, but it's not realistic for most of the crowd who are planning to see Mulan.

With regard to your reply to Navster about the pricing, I actually think we'll see a pretty significant fluctuation in pricing based on the individual movie and/or studios involved. A significant number of people in this thread said they'd be willing (or at least consider) spending $30 to see other movies released in such a way. I am quite sure that Disney knows its market, and they think $30 is a price that many families will pay for a couple of hours of ignoring the catastrophe raging all around us. I'm also quite sure that Orion knows that such a price is unlikely to be successful for Bill & Ted Face the Music, so my guess is we'll see that come in closer to the $15 or $20 mark. It also helps that its budget was almost 1/10 that of Mulan's.

Movies have always been weird in the world of consumable media, in that the prices are not consistent across the country (or even across different theaters), but are consistent across content. A huge-budget movie in the same format and at the same theater as an indie movie command the same prices. I think we'll see that model change drastically if digital distribution takes hold.

@navster15: No, it's not a loss at all as far as I'm concerned. I'll watch other stuff. I just think the price is ridiculous for a rental. That's all. I'm not upset or up in arms or threatening to boycott over it.

Personally, no. If a new movie was coming out that I wanted to see on release I'd prefer to watch it at the cinema rather than at home. My favourite movie watching experiences have been at the cinema (watching 2001 in IMAX was an utter joy) so I'd prefer that option usually.

Only if it's a big movie with a lot of zeitgeist surrounding it ( Black Widow for example) and to avoid spoilers for the upcoming months.

I'll for for the 4K release to buy that amount of money, wish they just sent the movies straight to bluray instead of streaming.

For $30 I want pizza delivery thrown in as well. And ice cream.

@ralphmoustaccio: I did say $30 per person, not total for everyone.

I hope the different companies do different pricing based on what they expect people to want to pay! If this movie at this price is successful, I just don't have a lot of faith that huge media companies will actually do that.

For me? Personally? Absolutely. My wife and I spend $20 on tickets, another $10 on popcorn, $10 on snacks etc., so some dipshit can play amateur MST3K and try out their "tight 5" on who's fuck-worthy while we're trying to watch America's Ass save the day.

Honestly, that's about what other streaming services are charging for "new" movies (Invisible Man, Trolls World Tour, etc.), but the fact that it's on their already-existing streaming service is definitely a bone of contention. The other is: just because I hate the experience of going to a theater, doesn't mean I want it to be unavailable for anyone.

So in a vacuum: I'm gonna grumble, but I'm fine paying for it (not this one in-particular, the whole 'live-action remake of our IPs for copyright reasons" is a whole other kettle of hands), but I do not want movie theaters to all shut down permanently, especially the smaller ones going for a boutique experience (more expensive tickets, but bigger seats, better concessions, etc.).

So I'd still love to go to theaters for stuff like a special screening or a smaller experience, but paying $20-30 to stream onto my TV while we make nachos and enjoy the silence? I'm here for it.

@bladeofcreation: Fair, I missed the "per person" part. Unfortunately, the pricing can't be a factor of per person for streaming, since there is no way for a company to know how many people are watching. Of course, it could have been per person if Microsoft had made good on that patent for a just such a possible Kinect usage.

The whole 'it's a family movie' kinda rubs me the wrong way in justifying the price.If you have 2 kids that are stoked for Mulan, they want to see it no matter what it might cost. Disney could put a 50$ price on that movie and the kids would still tell their parents that they want to see the movie. Surely such a price would turn most price-sensitive folk away, and it would cause friction in families. But it's Mulan! The kids saw the trailer and are stoked for it! Suddenly you're in the position where you either roll with it and have a fun family evening and happy kids or you make a stand and you have war with the kids at home. `You know we were looking ahead for this! Billy and Jane and everyone on school will see it too!`

I don't know, it just bums me out that when you put kids in the equation that you can go buckwild with pricing because no one wants to rob their kid from something they really really want. Or ruin an entire night over less than 50$

I assume they're charging $30 on the assumption that the average Disney+ household is some kind of couple or family, so they're averaging out the cost of 2-5 movie tickets as $30.

So basically get fucked, single people who live alone.

I personally wouldn't pay that much, mostly because I probably wouldn't have seen Mulan in theatres under normal circumstances, unless people were going around saying it's the greatest Chinese epic ever made or something.

@onemanarmyy: No one here is saying that this is a shakedown of families. $30 is about the cost, give or take, for a family of four to go to the theatre. That’s it. If families can’t afford it, that would certainly suck, but I’m not sure how in an alternate universe without COVID they would be able to afford to see Mulan anyway.

@navster15: No one was saying it , until you brought it up :)

But yeah i just think back on how i made my uncle spend like 100$ on Moto Racer 2 for my birthday and how aware i was that it was an outrageous price, yet i really really wanted it. And he knew i wanted it. So he ponied up the money, because it was the 1 thing i kept mentioning. Guy might've been unemployed at the time too, i think :/ Kids change the price-elasticity of goods.

Fuck no, and it grosses me out to see kinda famous (wink wink) people on Twitter bragging they’d pay even more. Especially this fucking year when goddamn rent is hard enough for a lot of folks.

I would consider paying that much for something made by a small/independent studio, like an art house movie or a niche documentary. People pay $40+ for those criterion collection editions of movies they like, I own a few but it's been a few years since I got a new one because it's a bit much. I would definitely not pay that much for a new blockbuster movie like the new Marvel thing though. I know many people work hard on those movies too but it's harder to justify the purchase when I feel like the money wouldn't really be going to them.

@onemanarmyy: Legitimate question: do you have children? Because a hell of a lot of parenting comes down to telling children that they can't necessarily have everything they want. Budget is a factor for everyone, and there are a ton of times that I've had to tell my child that she can't have or do something she wants because it was not affordable. I don't just bite the bullet and blow my budget because I want to avoid ruining an evening. I find alternatives, or, y'know, use it as a teaching moment to illustrate that just because Billy and Jane and the others did something that she didn't, it doesn't have an impact on her own self-worth.

@onemanarmyy: I mean, didn’t you imply that this was a shakedown based on kids wanting things? Or maybe I’m misreading what you’re writing.

I dunno, it seems like part of having kids is saying no when they ask for things outside the family’s budget. I know I heard no a lot growing up, even when I saw other kids getting the very things I asked for. It certainly wasn’t the end of the world, despite my protestations at the time.

Absolutely not. I could get 2 tickets at a theater and a small bucket of popcorn for around that price, sure, but in this case I'm not watching it at the theater with their theater setup so I'm not getting what I pay the theater for. And I don't pay the theater monthly just to have access to buy a ticket for that price.

I'd be paying $30 for the ability to stream one movie on my tv under a service that I already pay monthly for. That's insane.

Really feels like they are struggling to find a way to recoop anything from this movie so they're instead trying to use a nostalgic favorite to test a crazy model they'd love to be able to do regularly. They probably don't mind eating the cost on this one if it has a chance to potentially get people accustomed to whatever the hell this rent a movie for $30 plus your monthly fee model is.

@ralphmoustaccio: Nope i don't have children. Don't worry :) And yes you're right, boundaries need to be set and you can't just give kids whatever they want. My parents were like that, and i like to think it has helped me in life and kept me out of the red. But even i ,as a kid that never asked for much, had a few occasions where i made a family member spend money on something that they wouldn't have gone for themselves. I too have cried or shouted or thrown the toys out the metaphorical pram because i couldn't get what i wanted, this one time i asked for something i really wanted. I'd probably even use that as an argument. This is the one thing! C'mon, i never ask for anything!

One of those occasions could be a Mulan movie. A happy family evening, no drama, a fun movie for less than 50$. That sounds quite reasonable when you frame it like that. But at the same time, if there was no danger of people getting upset, a smaller % of households would go for it. There are other ways to have a good evening with the family. The price-elasticity of products does change when kids are involved.

I have a hard enough time justifying $30 on a Bluray these days. We have maybe seen 2 -3 movies at the cinema within the last 5 years, everything else we are happy to wait until it's on Netflix or Prime. The only thing I am missing out on is Star wars really (I still haven't seen the last one) as we can't justify Disney+. It used to be a real social thing but less movies have come out that interest people we know enough to justify a venture to the cinema, it's also hard to find a time when we can all get together. I'd much rather lie on my own couch than sit in a cinema with strangers these days too (even before covid).

Disney is delusional. Yes, I'm sure some people will pay this. Yes, I'm sure those people should be separated from their money.

Woof, let's please not get into the hour per dollar ratio with movies. It's bad enough with games.

Would I pay $30 for a Disney movie? No. I don't really like them. Some folks love them though, and if you're watching it with at least one other person you're quarantined with, it's already pretty close to an opening day ticket price. If you're a whole ass family, it's actually kind of a killer deal. You don't have to buy four tickets, you get to stay home, you can (presumably) pause/rewind/put on subtitles. I feel like this is for folks with children more than anybody else. And if you're that demographic, you probably already have Disney+. Obviously it's a crazy surcharge for it being new. But I guess I see where they're coming from on it.

If a movie I was super interested came out, let's say Fast & Furious 9, and was priced at $30. I think it would be in my best interest to try to plan a way I could watch it (safely) with multiple people. But, honestly, I'd be pretty content to just have a night in to watch by myself too.

Wow.

This more or less became stadia levels of "it is not for me so it is the worst idea in the world" coupled with a master class on beating the hell out of the "just wants to waste money" strawman.

I will admit I totally forgot people have kids but yeah, if you are dealing with actual family outings than 30 bucks to go see a film is probably a straight up bargain. Beyond that: it is a luxury and just like you probably shouldn't spend 60 bucks for a new game you shouldn't spend 30 bucks for a new movie. But people will because they don't want to wait.

Pay per view is a thing and people still pay for it. I don’t see any issue with paying 30 bucks to view it at home vs the theater. I like options and no one can ruin my viewing experience at home.

I def think it should be a little cheaper, considering there is a subscription price on top of it, and you're not getting everything a theatre offers (for better or worse). I'd be happy if it was more towards regular digital rental prices.

But I say that as a single dude. $30 is a little more than what I would spend on a ticket, popcorn, and drink. And since this won't come with any snacks, it seems like something's missing. But my sister and her family, they're looking at $70 just in tickets alone, so this is a huge deal to them.

Like fuck I would. I rarely go to the cinema anyway but when I do I'm as much paying for the "outing", and the "experiance" as I am the movie.

*leans into mic*... No

I've paid $50+ to watch a wrestling PPV, so clearly I am willing to pay that sort of money for a few hours of content if it's something that I'm interested in.

If you have a group of family/friends of even just 2-3+ people, it could be very easy to justify $30 when comparing it to theater prices.

Absolutely not. I love movies to death, but twice the price of a theater ticket for a lesser experience? They HAVE to be joking.

For Mulan, no. For a movie I wanted to see, yes. See below.

If there was a movie that I really, really wanted to see (and right now I can't think of anything that'd be releasing in the near future), I could maybe consider it. It's still steep, since I just watch movies alone. The Invisible Man had a rental price of 20€ and I waited that one out until it dropped to a normal rental price, so don't have a problem doing that with other movies either that I'm not dying to see.

My understanding is that movie theaters take half the ticket price. The movie studios would save money on marketing as well. I don’t know what the cut is on streaming services but I imagine it has to be less than 50%. I think $20 is appropriate to download/stream a big movie. More than that and I’m out.

@sweep: I don't think it's ok,but for a family of 4 it costs us 60 just for tickets alone before popcorn and drink, if we're not smuggling snacks movies cost a hundred bucks to see. But without the giant screen or surround sound, 30 is still too much.

@zoofame: The norm for rentals is to wait until after the theatrical release. But this isn’t a normal rental. If you want the normal rental experience, wait six months.

@navster15: Depending on how bad the pandemic will effect theaters once they do re-open it's normally three months with premium cable airings six months after. The process sped up over the last decade or so for most releases.

Mulan is a movie that I'm excited to see. However, in our market, my family can see a movie with free popcorn (before noon showings) for less than $15. I'm not going to pay double the price for none of the benefits that a theater provides. It's not even providing a steep discount on the digital version once it hits Movies Anywhere.

Count me out.

No

30 dollars is too much money to pay, just because its a new release. I'd rather wait if I want to see the film badly enough. Truth be told, most of the good quality entertainment these days can be found in series you can stream from Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc. And slowly but surely, even some of the exclusive movies that are coming out for these services are starting to equal that of theater releases.

I hear a lot of the people arguing that as a group/family experience this is a reasonable price barrier. I'd counter that with;

• This is happening during a pandemic (Arguably that's why this is happening) when gatherings of people are actively being discouraged by health authorities around the world
• There are legit concerns that when you set the barrier to entry this high you automatically encourage people to find free alternatives. I'm sure there are accountants over at Disney who did the math and landed on this number after weeks of deliberation rather than just arbitrarily, but I'd be surprised if they'd factored piracy into that equation.

So, follow up questions;

How much would you be prepared to pay?

I'd probably land on $15 - that would still feel like I'm getting gouged, but it's not high enough to prompt a knee-jerk "Fuck that" reaction.

Is there ANY movie worth $30 to stream?

I don't know about you guys but if they'd tried this experiment with the initial Avengers: Endgame release rather than Mulan then I would be much more conflicted right now...

I think this especially is what's really rubbing me the wrong way about this whole thing. The global economy is fucked, thousands of people are dying, there's a huge wave of mental health issues incoming due to depression/fear/isolation, mass unemployment, and during all this Disney decides that now is the time to trial a new ultra-high price-point which is immediately going to lock out the majority of their audience. I'm not surprised this is coming from the biggest corp on the planet (and I used to work for them, so I know how they do business firsthand) but it seems especially cruel and shortsighted timing.

It also seems like a lower pricepoint, say $5, would encourage a lot of people who had absolutely no interest in the movie to take a gamble just because they have nothing better to do. They'd probably stream it multiple times as well, if their kids enjoyed it. So the logic behind charging $30 is just baffling to me, especially for a live action remake which have been extremely hit or miss the past few years. Imagine how pissed you'd be if you paid $30 to stream Dumbo!

I wonder if they'll reduce the price if the reviews are bad?

Ya'll that say you would pay $30 to stream a movie... How many of you own a bunch of 4k blu-rays? I'm guessing the number is 100%, if not, I am very confused about how you make financial decisions, and/or what makes you interesting in buying movies. I'm also guessing that those of you who say "yes, I do! and would also pay $30 to stream a movie", you would pay like, 2x, 3x as much for 4k blurays?

I mean, I own a handful, and this is *waaay* to much. I can also appreciate the difference between streaming 4k and 4k blurays.

Just buy disney stock and wait two months.

For this case specifically (Mulan), definitely not. I wouldn't have gone to see it anyway.

But for a movie i'd like to see, still no. It's triple the price of seeing it in the theater, and I am not even getting the big screen surround sound experience. (without spending hundreds on a setup that just isn't feasible in an apartment)

If the cinema charges $10-16 for a movie, I am not going to pay more than that to watch it at home. I will just wait and spend the $30 on a blu-ray if its something I am really anticipating, or pay significantly less than $30 when it pops up on a digital rental service.

Yeah it's a no for me, but I feel like this is still a good thing? Regardless of COVID; there was no way theaters were maintaining the audience rates they did in the golden era. So seeing some big companies start to examine some sort of situation where streaming and theaters get things on the same date and day is a start. But the pricing is just so far off.

I feel like given the enthusiasts, and even the overall casual appeal of the cinema experience; companies could probably get away with charging more to attend a screening than they traditionally have provided they also do same date and release with streaming services. However I feel like the best way to handle the streaming side of it would be to charge a premium monthly service price that grants one access to all theater releases the company plans on including in such a program.

You'll always be able to charge more for the theater experience because at some point your not charging casuals out and about anymore your charging for people who are specifically looking to watch this thing on a big screen with that experience in mind. But you'll never be able to sustain any streaming version of this system that charges extra per movie to see it same day and date. Paying for access to a one time limited viewing just isn't reasonable in a world where the internet exists. Many things still try to do that and do pretty poorly.

But I'd totally bet that many of the people who are paying the subscription fee would have no problems paying a premium provided it was a guaranteed catalog of theater releases. In Disneys case; there's probably many a parent would shell it out to put the new Pixar things on loop just as an example. You can't really sell that when it's $30 per viewing.