Mulan (Live-action remake)

[Dacey]

I figured those numbers were WAY too high to be accurate, especially given the almost overwhelming amount of negative press the Disney+ streaming "release" has gotten.

[Dan]

I'm thinking somewhere down the middle, maybe $120-$150 range by the time they do their call. The thing that I was raising eyebrows on moreso than whether or not Mulan was making bank was folks wondering if Disney was gonna "experiment" with other films going digital release like Soul and maybe even Black Widow. If anything, I think the whole process might've been too much of a headache for Disney to consider doing again (and that's before you take in all these controversies into account).

[Ben]

As I said in the other thread, no studio is going to throw $200m movies onto streaming and only make $100m back.

Trolls was the experiment that was cushioned by having a simultaneous theatrical release, as was Scoob! internationally, while Disney's gamble was to initially charge more for Mulan and keep it totally exclusive to their own service, so zero share splits with anyone. But bad press and not great reviews prove that a film can flop on streaming just as much as in theatres, and putting huge budget films out at a negative return simply isn’t viable, hence Warners' continued delay for most of their slate.

Tenet has been roughly better than half as successful internationally for them as it would have been without Covid-19, but it’s obviously imploded in the States, where it’s proved that theatrical isn’t viable right now. So films will unfortunately be held back: unviable for theatres and not rewarding enough via streaming. It’s no good being selfish and asking for these films to go to streaming unless people are will to pay a more realistic $75-100 each to get even close to those kinds of $260m Mulan numbers...and even that isn’t really enough of a return on a big film like that to consider it a success, given marketing and profit participation.

Simply put, big budgets need big returns, and that just ain’t happening right now, particularly as the international market is also again under threat from more restrictions

[gaastra]

Ouch!

Note full spoilers in video.

[Ben]

Y'know, after that and Dan's new front page review, I'm kinda thinking that I might bypass watching this entirely...at least until I really run dry of other things to see. Whatever the praise for the admittedly good looking cinematography, it sadly just sounds drab and actually quite dumb. It may not be a total waste of time, but it’s certainly dropped far down my list of things I’m eager to see...

[gaastra]

Mulan coming to vudu/ amazon, itunes and others oct 6.

Still $30 but at least you don't have to pay $8 a month just to keep the digital copy this time!

https://whatsondisneyplus.com/mulan-bei ... platforms/

[Ben]

Well, they need to make up some extra moolah(n) somehow! And they can’t very well offer it for less after setting that $30 point.

So you get to keep it this time??

Bet a few peeps that just shelled out to "buy" this on D+ are peeved they can’t "keep" it without continuing their subs, if that’s the case...

[Ben]

It harms no one.

With respect, the likes of Trolls and Scoob actually did start something that is much bigger than many people realise. Mulan merely rubber stamps the start of the end of the theatrical experience, and the more people that "buy" this film are each hammering one more nail into that coffin...

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... -die-delay

No tentpoles, no tents.

No tents, no tentpoles.

And if you think streaming is going to be able to afford and sustain the kind of $200m blockbusters we apparently love so much, well, get ready for a diet of far fewer $30-60m movies about real people living out dramatically mundane lives...

[Bill1978]

If streaming results in studios having to go back to actually having a story to hold audiences attentions instead of relying on special effects the just maybe there will be some good to come out of this situation.

[Dacey]

No. No good will come of this.

[ShyViolet]

I agree. If the studios fell off of actually having good stories and directors around pre-Covid 2010 or so (with exceptions) when they were likely to gain WAY more box office bucks than they are now, there’s no reason for them to suddenly change their tune. Taking risks and being more artistic is the last possible thing that struggling -to -survive-Hollywood is thinking of right now. ( I wish they were too... )

There are definitely some great original movies/series on streaming media, but most of those are independently produced with major studio backing. But studios don’t RELY on them. They basically utilize these smaller films in order to add prestige, which works out well during Oscar time. (And brings in new audiences.)

[Ben]

It’s official:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... operations

45,000 people out of work. Threat of a lack of cinemas for when the studios are ready to start releasing films again — leading to lesser box-office returns anyway — and certainly fewer big screens in future, resulting in less audience choice for locations and, ultimately, the films themselves.

But...it harms no one. Right?

[ShyViolet]

From the HR:

We are especially grateful for and proud of the hard work our employees put in to adapt our theatres to the new protocols and cannot underscore enough how difficult this decision was,

There’s actually a Regal in my area. I don’t think it ever did re-open since the start of Covid. (Plus we’re under a seven-day-quarantine lockdown because cases have just risen sharply. So no one’s here’s going anywhere, let alone the movies. )

[Ben]

Been meaning to add some comments on this...

In short: Mulan is just about worth a watch...for the scenery. But it’s as lacklustre as had been described, and absolutely no fun, with the few instances of "humor" feeling forced in. What was all that about with the spider under the bowl? Totally lifeless "comedy". And the use of two of the animated film's songs (Honor To Us All, Reflection) really doesn’t make sense, since they’re not otherwise part of the score, so they just seem like nods that don’t mean anything. Fine, if they come back to Reflection as Mulan's motif throughout, but it’s touched on only two or three times and so feels hollow. Should have just jettisoned the songs completely and done their own thing, though even the score Is hardly on the level of the great Jerry Goldsmith. And the new story elements with the new, ineffectual baddies, and that Witch, or whoever she is, are simple, cookie-cutter, and slightly batsh*t crazy!

I found parts of it tedious, stretching the animated film's tight structure to two hours (montages are good, long training camp sequences, bad!), but adding nothing (and actually taking away emotion and joy). The ending seemed to come out of nowhere, and then finished just as quick. I did like the nod to Ming Na, but how sledgehammering was that!? Could she have made a wink any more obviously? My wife liked it enough, but then she didn’t remember the original as much as I do and was probably watching from a different angle. But even discarding the animated film, this doesn’t really stand up next to Flying Daggers or Crouching Tiger or the like, since it’s too lightweight for needing to appeal to families. Certainly not worth the added cost, but the colour and design are certainly eye-popping, though it’s a disappointment overall, again not really being enough if it’s own thing to warrant existing.

[Daniel]

Couldn't wait, huh?