Entertainment
Sponsored by

Disney + Premier Access

2,812 Views | 39 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by _lefraud_
texasaggie04
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:59a, 9/8/20
AG
Anybody out there know what the deal is with Premier Access? Is it just Disney trying to upsell their service? Looks like $35 to watch Mulan as many times as you want, or else just wait three months to get it for free. Do we think Disney is going to start releasing Premier-only content now?

Not a fan of this idea, wonder if others have more insight...
Reply Quote
powerbelly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:05a, 9/8/20
AG
I would have spent more than $35 to see it in the theaters so I don't mind too much. Most movies I am willing to wait for.
Reply Quote
6
TXAG 05
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:22p, 9/8/20
AG
You think they should release their $200 million movie to the world for free? Like the poster above said, you would spend much more to see it in the theater.
Reply Quote
7
HoustonAg2106
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAG 05 • 12:27p, 9/8/20
AG
TXAG 05 said:
You think they should release their $200 million movie to the world for free? Like the poster above said, you would spend much more to see it in the theater.


I don't have a problem with charging $30+ for a movie that should have gone to the movie theater first, I just don't have enough interest in Mulan so I can wait a few months.

However, I would spend that amount for a movie like Tenet and not think twice about it
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Quad Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to powerbelly • 12:34p, 9/8/20
AG
Plus the cost of buying the DVD to watch again and again at home. $30 is a bargain compared to the original Mulan if you saw it in theaters with a family, bought the VHS, DVD, and Blu-Ray.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Fat Bib Fortuna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:57p, 9/8/20
paying $29.99 to watch it at home last Saturday was a slam-dunk no-brainer for my family. We're a Disney family - we were leaving Magic Kingdom on March 12 when the world started shutting down and our girls were disappointed watching one film after another that they were hoping to see get pulled from the theaters.

$30 = family time spent on the couch enjoying an excellent film with strong moral messages for kids and adults, gorgeous scenery of China and NZ, being able to stop the movie whenever someone had a question or we wanted to explain things a little better, and ample time for me to keep dropping in the line "Let's get down to business" over and over.

If you have kids that are in the Disney wheelhouse, this is the easiest decision of the year.
Reply Quote
9
cajunaggie08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:41p, 9/8/20
AG
The bigger beef I have with the service isn't the asking price, its the fact that you have to sign up for the subscription service to then pay for the movie. Its not a $29.99 movie if you dont have Disney+. It is a $39.98 movie and possibly more if you forget to cancel your subscription. It is very similar to how you have to pay for ESPN+ to be able to watch UFC fights. Now of course the vast majority of people interested in a live action Mulan movie probably are already Disney+ subscribers, but does this open the floodgates to Disney releasing all of their movies behind the Disney+ pay wall. Does a future Fox Studios release have the same requirements on it? I doesnt bother me at this time because with 2 small kids, there isnt any movie that exists where I can't wait 3-4 months for so that I can rent or stream via a subscription.
Reply Quote
1
AliasMan02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cajunaggie08 • 2:06p, 9/8/20
AG
The most recent Lion King is $20 digitally to buy on Amazon and it a year old. Even $40 for a new release that should be in theaters right now seems like a steal.
Reply Quote
1
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cajunaggie08 • 2:08p, 9/8/20
AG
My beef is with the whole thing in general.

But let's be honest, anyone willing to dish out $30 for Mulan is probably already a Disney+ subscriber.
Reply Quote
5
Fat Bib Fortuna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:36p, 9/8/20
if it wasn't for covid none of this would be happening. Disney is trying a business model and seeing if it works.
Reply Quote
12
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fat Bib Fortuna • 3:45p, 9/8/20
AG
Isn't that fairly obvious? Not sure what your point is.
Reply Quote
1
cajunaggie08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Earl Spilner • 3:54p, 9/8/20
AG
Absolutely. The only people who I have seen talking about Mulan on my social media feeds are the ones that follow disney content the way most texags users follow sports. I dont currently pay for Disney+, but with as much as the mouse owns in terms of studios and established properies, I know there will be something someday that will make me consider coughing up the extra $9.99 to get access to it.
Reply Quote
caleblyn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:22p, 9/8/20
Bait and switch!

Mandalorian and all future Marvel stuff will most definitely be, "Premier Only!"
Reply Quote
3
texasaggie04
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAG 05 • 4:35p, 9/8/20
AG
TXAG 05 said:
You think they should release their $200 million movie to the world for free? Like the poster above said, you would spend much more to see it in the theater.

I didn't realize it was a new release. That makes more sense then. Though I am certainly concerned about what somebody else posted above of a bait & switch. Don't want this to set a precedent that suddenly you have to pay more to get content like the Mandalorian "early" or else wait until it's free.

EDIT: I'm clearly not Disney's target market for a $30 Mulan purchase. I don't have kids so $30 just to watch a live-action Mulan a couple months before other people seems insane to me. If I went to the theater to see it, it'd cost me $6. But I wouldn't bother seeing it in theaters anyway...
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAG 05 • 5:09p, 9/8/20
AG
TXAG 05 said:
You think they should release their $15 million per episode series to the world for free?
If the Mandalorian was released "for free", why can't Mulan?

Sure, it was designed and planned to be a Disney+ release to drive new subscriptions, so why can't Disney pivot and do the same for Mulan?

Would it hurt their bottom line in the immediate future? Sure. Would it also drive new subscribers to the platform, make it more of a "prestige" service that gets huge blockbuster movie exclusives, and also bring piracy numbers way down? Undoubtedly.

Disney has taken some huge hits this summer, so it wouldn't be that crazy of an idea to write off Mulan as a "loss" and use it as a way to drive new subscribers. $200M is nothing compared to what they lost in parks this summer.
Reply Quote
Fat Bib Fortuna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Earl Spilner • 6:18p, 9/8/20
Brian Earl Spilner said:
Isn't that fairly obvious? Not sure what your point is.
My point is they are trying to make money in the COVID-19 landscape by trying something new. I find it extremely unlikely they'll continue doing so once things are "back to normal" because the might of the box office is way beyond this format. This is an anomaly in the Disney plan, not a new standard. They're not going to have Frozen 3 and Toy Story 14 and Tangled 2: Untangled just come out streaming, that's not how the Empire works.

I would suspect they've looked at how many parents are keeping kids out of school - my kids' elementary is at 60% on campus and it's the highest in its district - they know those parents sure as hell aren't taking their kids to the Coronvirus Cinemark to see Mulan, so they're doing what makes the next most sense.
Reply Quote
1
cp2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:53p, 9/8/20
AG
Comparing the cost of ownership of a DVD/Amazon buy versus pay-to-play monthly subscription is not apples to apples. What if you cancel Disney+?

What really irks me about this is that probably some spreadsheet jockey was doing an analysis of what they lost in box office & what they'd need to surcharge to make up x% of that number, probably also taking into account some probability of subscribers that would pay $20, $30, $40.

Whatever the cost/benefit analysis, it just feels wrong to have to pay for the right to watch something when that is ostensibly what you were getting with the "basic" level, especially given the current streaming landscape. I'd rather Disney+ be $8/month & release everything to everyone at once than have to pay an additional toll
Reply Quote
1 edit
powerbelly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cp2011 • 7:59p, 9/8/20
AG
AGCP3 said:
Comparing the cost of ownership of a DVD/Amazon buy versus pay-to-play monthly subscription is not apples to apples. What if you cancel Disney+?

What really irks me about this is that probably some spreadsheet jockey was doing an analysis of what they lost in box office & what they'd need to surcharge to make up x% of that number, probably also taking into account some probability of subscribers that would pay $20, $30, $40.

Whatever the cost/benefit analysis, it just feels wrong to have to pay for the right to watch something when that is ostensibly what you were getting with the "basic" level, especially given the current streaming landscape. I'd rather Disney+ be $8/month & release everything to everyone at once than have to pay an additional toll


No kidding. Businesses do analysis instead of just guess. What the **** do you expect.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Quad Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to powerbelly • 8:47p, 9/8/20
AG
Isn't that basically how the price of everything is determined?
Disney employes a lot of people and have shareholders that they need to make money for. Of course a bunch of accountants and lawyers sat around deciding what the price for their first ever major movie straight to streaming should be. Did you expect them to use a dartboard?
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
TXAG 05
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Brian Earl Spilner • 8:53p, 9/8/20
AG
Brian Earl Spilner said:
TXAG 05 said:
You think they should release their $15 million per episode series to the world for free?
If the Mandalorian was released "for free", why can't Mulan?

Sure, it was designed and planned to be a Disney+ release to drive new subscriptions, so why can't Disney pivot and do the same for Mulan?

Would it hurt their bottom line in the immediate future? Sure. Would it also drive new subscribers to the platform, make it more of a "prestige" service that gets huge blockbuster movie exclusives, and also bring piracy numbers way down? Undoubtedly.

Disney has taken some huge hits this summer, so it wouldn't be that crazy of an idea to write off Mulan as a "loss" and use it as a way to drive new subscribers. $200M is nothing compared to what they lost in parks this summer.


Because Mandalorian is just a tv show. Mulan was supposed to be in theaters worldwide bringing in big bucks for the Mouse. For the people that really want to watch it right now $30 is nothing, that's about what all other new releases have been going for, this is nothing new. For other people, they can wait til it's no longer "premium" or whatever they call it.
Reply Quote
2
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAG 05 • 9:40p, 9/8/20
AG
Putting it on a paid subscription service and charging extra for it IS something new.
Reply Quote
TXAG 05
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:06p, 9/8/20
AG
Not really. Like said above, they've been doing it with UFC fights all year.

And like someone else said, the people that care enough to watch it now most likely have Disney+ already anyway so that $7 isn't an extra cost.

Just don't see what the big deal is.
Reply Quote
3
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to caleblyn • 1:44a, 9/9/20
AG
caleblyn said:
Bait and switch!

Mandalorian and all future Marvel stuff will most definitely be, "Premier Only!"

I'll bet you a year subscription of Disney+ that this never happens. Those series are *made for* Disney+. Mulan was *made for* theaters. Two completely different revenue streams/platforms, only crossing streams like this because of a global pandemic. Could Disney+ one day have pay tiers, like Netflix and Hulu, for 4K, no commercials, etc? Sure. And admittedly there *is* talk of Disney+ putting their more mature content (i.e. most of the 20th Century Fox library they obtained) behind a parental password, which I could one day maybe see costing an extra buck or two as well. But the second they charge more for the content that has traditionally been specifically made for the base, $5.99 subscription fee, that's the second they start shedding subscribers.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:47a, 9/9/20
AG
Overall, as others have said, I just don't get so many of the complaints here.

Disney was expecting to make hundreds of millions of dollars off of this movie. So why would they just throw it up at no additional cost on Disney+ for people who are already paying for Disney+? For a movie this big, that had already spent millions on theatrical advertising pre-pandemic, on what planet is that a rational business plan? Especially when, while big, it's not the kind of massive title that would bring in enough new subscriptions to even remotely offset the cost.

The bending-over-backwards level of complaining in this thread proves how much some of y'all are either grasping to be upset at this, don't understand how lucrative theatrical blockbusters are for Disney+, or are skirting right past the fact that, as Muck said, in so many words, this will prove to be the exception, not the rule.

I mean, Spilner, you said it yourself - Disney already took some huge hits this summer. So why write off yet ANOTHER loss? That makes no sense. Especially when Mulan was really the only big movie they could try this with. They release Black Widow in this fashion and that suddenly sets a precedent and expectations for Marvel going forward, so they can't go that route.

My favorite complaint, though, is AGCP3's, which basically boils down to, "I bet those businessmen at the Disney business ran the numbers and figured out how not to lose even more money doing business!" I mean, really? We're now complaining about a company trying to make up for lost revenue during a global pandemic (in which they had to fire and furlough hundreds of employees)? By going ahead and releasing a movie so many here would have paid MORE than $30 to see, and would have had to wait 'til next year to see in theaters at that?

Seriously?
Reply Quote
6
6 edits
20ag07
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:21a, 9/9/20
Quote:
Whatever the cost/benefit analysis, it just feels wrong to have to pay for the right to watch something when that is ostensibly what you were getting with the "basic" level, especially given the current streaming landscape. I'd rather Disney+ be $8/month & release everything to everyone at once than have to pay an additional toll
And you'll get to do that in December. As with everything in life, people willing to spend more money will get things you won't now.
Reply Quote
1
CapCityAg89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:17a, 9/9/20
AG
I honestly thought it was two days for the 30 bucks. Similar to other PPV options. My "youngest" (12 so still adult ticket) and I watched Monday so that's $26 in a theater just us two. My wife and oldest were going to scramble to watch but now waiting until the weekend. Regardless, that would've been another 26 if paying individually so I'm way ahead.
Reply Quote
cp2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 10:31a, 9/9/20
AG
I'm not faulting them for running a business. I understand that many families have and will continue to go for the premier option. I'm simply stating that it feels wrong to me to charge for access to a streaming service, announce that a feature film will now be available on that service, and then, on the release date, say "oh, well, if you want to have *special* access, that'll be an additional $30". That's like saying you buy the October $150 calls on Disney stock, are in the money at expiration, and then they tell you "oh, actually your strike price was $180".

As a single guy, I'll just wait until December. Why can't you just let people vent about it here without disparaging them?
Reply Quote
1
HummingbirdSaltalamacchia
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:42a, 9/9/20
AG
How is what Disney did with Mulan any different than Amazon having their Prime videos but then having movies/shows for rent/purchase? i doubt the people complaining about Disney charging 29.99 for premier access complain about having to pay to rent something thru Amazon.
Reply Quote
cajunaggie08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HummingbirdSaltalamacchia • 11:36a, 9/9/20
AG
The shows that are available to rent/buy through amazon prime video are available to rent/buy through all of the other digital video markets (google play, apple, xfinity, etc.). They are not Prime Video exclusives. The Netflix equivalent of doing what Disney is would be making a movie like Birdbox available to purchase for $29.99 within the Netflix platform only.

I don't fault Disney for charging money to watch a movie meant for theatrical release. Other studios did it this summer. This difference is in order to see this movie, you have to sign up for a subscription service rather than buying it through any of the other providers.
Reply Quote
powerbelly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cajunaggie08 • 11:38a, 9/9/20
AG
cajunaggie08 said:
The shows that are available to rent/buy through amazon prime video are available to rent/buy through all of the other digital video markets (google play, apple, xfinity, etc.). They are not Prime Video exclusives. The Netflix equivalent of doing what Disney is would be making a movie like Birdbox available to purchase for $29.99 within the Netflix platform only.

I don't fault Disney for charging money to watch a movie meant for theatrical release. Other studios did it this summer. This difference is in order to see this movie, you have to sign up for a subscription service rather than buying it through any of the other providers.
Only if you want to see it early. Similar to the movie being in the theater.

I can't believe people are so upset about this.
Reply Quote
3
double aught
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cp2011 • 12:30p, 9/9/20
AG
AGCP3 said:
I'm simply stating that it feels wrong to me to charge for access to a streaming service, announce that a feature film will now be available on that service, and then, on the release date, say "oh, well, if you want to have *special* access, that'll be an additional $30".
I thought the price structure was announced weeks before Mulan was released. Am I remembering that wrong?
Reply Quote
cp2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to double aught • 1:05p, 9/9/20
AG
You're probably right, but I wasn't aware of it until last Friday. Reality just didn't meet expectation and I was disappointed. Not trying to defend my position as rational - just the opposite, in fact - and wanted to express a concurrent opinion with the OP. But I can see I'm in the minority and I don't think carrying on about it here is helpful, so I'll just hang up now
Reply Quote
1
Fat Bib Fortuna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cp2011 • 1:08p, 9/9/20
AGCP3 said:
I'm not faulting them for running a business. I understand that many families have and will continue to go for the premier option. I'm simply stating that it feels wrong to me to charge for access to a streaming service, announce that a feature film will now be available on that service, and then, on the release date, say "oh, well, if you want to have *special* access, that'll be an additional $30". That's like saying you buy the October $150 calls on Disney stock, are in the money at expiration, and then they tell you "oh, actually your strike price was $180".

As a single guy, I'll just wait until December. Why can't you just let people vent about it here without disparaging them?
They announced on August 4 that it would be $30. They released it on September 4.
Reply Quote
TXAG 05
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:26p, 9/9/20
AG
If you don't have to see it right now, just wait a couple months and it will be available as part of the standard Disney+ subscription.

This just isn't that hard guys.
Reply Quote
4
cajunaggie08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to powerbelly • 1:28p, 9/9/20
AG
powerbelly said:
cajunaggie08 said:
The shows that are available to rent/buy through amazon prime video are available to rent/buy through all of the other digital video markets (google play, apple, xfinity, etc.). They are not Prime Video exclusives. The Netflix equivalent of doing what Disney is would be making a movie like Birdbox available to purchase for $29.99 within the Netflix platform only.

I don't fault Disney for charging money to watch a movie meant for theatrical release. Other studios did it this summer. This difference is in order to see this movie, you have to sign up for a subscription service rather than buying it through any of the other providers.
Only if you want to see it early. Similar to the movie being in the theater.

I can't believe people are so upset about this.
Except when you go to an AMC, you dont have to sign up for a monthly membership like you were going to a gym in order to buy the movie ticket.

The new Trolls movie came out this summer as a digital release at the same price point except you didnt have to sign up for a subscription. Perhaps if Peacock was rolled out earlier, Universal/Comcast would have tried to make it so that you signed up for their service to buy the movie.
Reply Quote
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.