I mean its lose lose for Disney.
Do the right thing, get shut out from billions in revenue (as this would impact Marvel films release too)
Do nothing and get rightfully called on their shit, lose money and good will domestically,
They probably calculated (not inaccurately I’d guess) option B was better financially, since most westerners would barely be aware of this.
This is where today’s kids are, and for a number of them the Live Action movies are THE Disney movies for them. I’m fine with that. They’re enjoyable and well made.
This film looks massive. The extreme wide shots of the city and landscapes look amazing! If the Disney logo hadn’t been attached to this film, I seriously wouldn’t have guessed this was a Disney film!
Cross-posting from the COVID theater thread.
For $30 why would they require a Disney Plus subscription?
$30 is a price point seemingly engineered to irritate me. I’d be good with $20. Even $25 would be ok. But that extra 5 bucks makes me pretty grumpy. It’s more expensive than two tickets in my area, and it’s not like seeing it in a theater is an alternative.
If $30 is going to be the baseline I guess I’ll just hold out for the standard rental.
I am ignorant on the finances behind this stuff, but I feel like if they released the new Wonder Woman for at home viewing at a $20 price point, they would make mint. Everyone would watch that. Another Disney live action at $30? Meh.
It would cost my family of four $60 to see a movie in the major theater chains around us ($44-60, depending on if we go with the place we like to with reserved seating and really comfy chairs, which is $60 and really the only place we ever went before the pandemic). That’s not including snacks which my wife and the kids insist on. Seeing a movie was an Event and we all miss it, but for $30 and we can all make a night of it and order pizza and pause the film to take a leak? They have my attention.
Paying $30 to stream a movie on top of a monthly subscription? I so want this to fail just so it gets the stink of non-viability.
Streaming movies is not the same as seeing it on the big screen so I wouldn’t compare this to that.
I don’t think this is about viability, it’s about cutting their losses for big expensive movies they already shot. This isn’t viable for them either. If the future is viable, it’s not a future that includes the expensive blockbusters we’re used to in any release format.
They’re obviously going to lose massive amounts of money just converting from a per-person model to a per-household one. Not to mention the loss of 3D and IMAX profits. It’s not surprising that they’re experimenting with what’s viable. We want this to succeed, because the alternative is no movies being made at all.
So it’s a subscrental, got it.
AKA some last ditch effort to save the film industry before it dies forever…
Ridiculous hyperbole.
Not forever, but it could definitely hamper production of movies while we’re in covid mode if they can’t make back money. I guess they could move to very low-cost movies instead.
Horrorwood!
But we’re talking about Disney here…if anything they deserve to lose money. Lots of money. LOTS.
And I hope they do!
Their copyright lobbying comes to mind. Also I’m not saying this is necessarily the case for you, and I’m not gonna dig into your comment history to try to find out, but the same sorts of people who are always suddenly concerned with people losing jobs when companies lose money are generally mysteriously silent when it comes to basically any other kind of protections or welfare for those workers and in general say things like, “if they don’t like it they can get a job somewhere else”. Well, they can get a job somewhere else this time, too, I guess, or maybe we could have an actually civilized country where losing your job isn’t a gigantic hardship, and if companies like Disney didn’t (almost always successfully) try to avoid paying taxes we might be able to take a step toward having that actually civilized country.
I’m certainly not a fan of their copyright lobbying, but I also don’t think it’s a huge deal.
Seems like you just linked to a random article. If you read the article, it presents a complicated relationship between Disney and Anaheim, the city where Disneyland resides. Disney gives the city a lot of benefits, and the city gives Disney benefits to stay. Some think the benefits are too much. This is a very common interaction that happens anywhere in the world when you have a powerful company in a certain locality.
In any case, job loss is always disruptive and difficult. Welfare, even if it’s really good, doesn’t make up for that. I do think healthcare should never be tied to a job, but that’s a different story and is even more tangential to the discussion about Disney the actual company and why we should wish for it (and the people employed by it) to suffer.
Why? What did they and their employees do to you? Somehow Disney is the great satan now?