Film distribution is about to undergo a trial by fire.
As the status quo of a viral pandemic continues to ravage the world at large, the entertainment industry continues to contend with the fact that traditions that they've stuck to for nearly a century will require compromise in the name of survival.
On the heels of AMC Theatres and Universal Studios burying the hatchet of a laughable feud that the former believed that they ever had real leverage in, Disney has made the recent announcement that "Mulan" will forego a domestic theatrical release in favor of a premium video on demand release exclusive to their Disney+ streaming service.
For the price of $30, subscribers will be allowed to unlock indefinite access to the film on September 4 to be streamed freely as long as their Disney+ accounts remain active.
The concept of the premium on demand release has been gaining a lot of traction as an alternative business model as the current state of the world prevents the tradition of theater going from being experienced but Disney's decision to hop on board the home release bandwagon has raised more than a few concerns moving forward, some short sighted but others valid.
Is what ostensibly amounts to a rental of a theatrical film worth such a high price tag? As the more frugal among us prepare for the hardship of a post-COVID ravaged economy, the easy answer may seem to be no but truthfully, it just depends.
Bearing in mind that Mulan exists for me as a curiosity that I can mine content out of as a lover of film and a scholar of media studies, the idea of paying what amounts to an expensive digital copy of the movie that I can never export to offline media doesn't quite hold much appeal but I accept the fact that I'm not Disney's target demographic for this sort of thing. I've been to the theater to watch roughly 30 or so films over the course of the last year and I can count on 1 hand how many of those viewings were done with the company of other people.
That sort of upcharge may be more than a single viewer is willing to pay but there's a reason that this model is being most extensively explored with children's films right now. The $20-30 price tag that's a tad too high to justify a viewing from a single customer is a potential goldmine in financial savings and spared headaches if viewed by a group.
I've been fortunate enough to speak with several usual filmgoers that can provide perspective on this idea and the single common thread that seems to arise is that $20-30 for a rental viewing that the customer is in full control of is more often than not preferable to the more expensive monetary cost and energy spent coordinating a theater experience for more than one ticket holder, especially when children are involved.
Imagine watching a movie with dinner at no extra cost or time lost in the comfort of one's living room or a watch party amongst a group of friends that can practically pay for itself if everyone chips in $4-7 like a pay per view viewing party.
While there's undoubtedly an inconvenience to having a certain lack of options as a more solitary viewer, the sad truth is that this model is being pushed for the films that are most likely to be viewed in large groups that were willing to pay more to begin with because these are the productions with the most on the line.
At a projected budget of about $200 million, "Mulan" would need about most likely need roughly 8.5 million purchases to break even from a Disney+ subscriber base that is slowly growing towards 61 million total, which seems very feasible when considering the prospect of dangling a high profile family feature for viewing and revisiting at leisure in front of a base attracted to the service based on a legacy of family content.
It's a bold decision to be sure but one with a potentially substantial payoff for a project that will be lucky to break even after quite possibly becoming one of the worst financial victims of the entertainment industry due to the proximity of its initial release.
I would dare to say that the only thing hurting "Mulan's" successes as a wildfire premium VOD success are an unwillingness to embrace the model in favor of clinging onto an unhealthy control over their branding that they may wish to review if they really aim to be such a major media empire moving forward.
The unprecedented nature of trying to see some sort of profit in such unprecedented times has me more than willing to give the $30 cost of "Mulan" given the circumstances but that doesn't change the fact that a premium streaming service is charging for products that the service has promised to provide in the subscription fee.
That's not simply a question of how premium VOD items are perceived in comparison to any other piece of content but simply a matter of looking at the status of Disney+ as a repository for Disney items.
After "Mulan" wraps up a "theatrical release period" of some sort, the film is most likely to be made available to view on Disney+ anyway, raising the question of whether or not the $30 price point will be worth a few viewings if the film will be free to view for subscribers after about a month or so anyway. This possibility hasn't escaped some notice given the early streaming release of "Frozen 2" and the early release of "Onward" early this year, the latter of which saw release to the service less than 4 weeks after its theatrical debut.
The more insidious implication of this model however is of course the notion of piling premium charges atop the cost of a premium service. I sympathize with Disney investors for having to figure out how to make this work in the face of circumstances opposing them at every corner but the idea of paying a fee in addition to the monthly or annual fee one is already paying for a subscription service at a time when the entertainment industry at large is struggling to grasp that not everyone can have the biggest slice of the streaming revenue pie is not exactly the best optics for presentation.
Perhaps this could have been a chance to incentivize cooperation rather than strong arm brand reinforcement.
Maybe the "Mulan" could have been released as Premium VOD via usual venues such as Amazon, Vudu, or iTunesfor $25-30 while renting it on Disney+ would net a $5-10 discount on that price. Perhaps timed exclusivity could have helped by providing a window of opportunity to catch it on Disney+ at a bargain or for an indefinite viewing period as opposed to the higher rate and 48 hour viewing period provided by other services, provided the contracts that allow for such releases support said cooperation.
This model is definitely in need of a fair bit of tweaking as it stands but in the hands of a company so notoriously guarded with its properties that it successfully change the face of copyright law, there's an unshakably gross implication presented presented in an entertainment conglomerate's willingness to pile additional transactions onto a service that was clearly meant to be an easy answer to rising costs of the outdated cable model, and all on a platform that they exclusively control.
Regardless of "Mulan's" performance and the event horizon that the industry is moving towards regarding such distribution models however, I honestly think that it's here to stay, regardless of what it ultimately evolves into.
As much as I adore a great theater experience and question the idea of spending $20-30 for a movie viewing on my own, even I'll admit that as a critic, the prospect of watching some things to write up without time limitations in the comfort of my own home, as well as the ability to immediately pause or rewind a first viewing experience to analyze more closely has my curiosity if not my attention.
This industry was moving towards grappling with questions like these as it is but the Coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the conversation out of necessity.
Things are about to become very different but that doesn't mean that they have to be bad. They're just going to be the beginning of a new normal.
No comments:
Post a Comment