Mass Media & Technology

Disney+ UK Launch Date Confirmed

gottago London London
It's a $200 million film and Disney has a massive funding gap that needs to be filled. They were hardly going to give it away to people paying £6 a month for a largely archive based service with far lower budget originals (which were produced out of Disney+'s budget unlike Mulan). It's a unique situation and I think it's unlikely they'll be doing this in the future. Needs must for Disney right now.

Variety worked out they only need about 14% of subscribers to rent it in order for them to break even on the film.
Neil Jones Founding member Central (West) Midlands Today
There's a lot of competition in the streaming sector (Netflix, Amazon, Disney, Apple, no doubt many others and more to come), so I suppose this may be a calculated risk by Disney, because Mulan was last done by them as an animated features in the late 1990s and was relatively successful, so it's at least a familiar name.

Compared to Artemis Fowl for example, which also made its debut on Disney+ and had no chance of becoming a paid extra and it cost $125m, although of course if they'd released that in theatres when they'd planned to August last year and not kick it into the long grass like they did, it would have still been critically panned but it would have recouped some of its money.
bilky asko Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
The pricing of 'Mulan' will raise eyebrows. Paying the cost of a standard BluRay (£12.99 - £16.99) for substitute streaming cinema launches has been common and reluctantly accepted. For Disney to set £19.99 for Disney Plus Premier Access for the title does seem excessive.

The difference being (I believe) that the Disney+ access allows you to watch the film as many times as you like between the time you pay for it and its general release to Disney+ subscribers in December. The lower cost rentals are time limited, aren't they?

Avatar Credit: © Independent Television News. Avatar Subject: Jonathan George Snow HonFRIBA

Newer posts