First episode of the new Muppet show is pretty great if you like that sort of thing. Gentle mockery of internet trends and Dad jokes.
Disney+ sub has been going strong for us from the get go. Too much quality stuff for my kids. The youngest is enjoying, well, the entire catalog of stuff he's never seen and my oldest is enjoying all the old cartoons from my childhood!
There are many things I would like to watch, like Rebels and Clone Wars plus several movies, just to give you a few examples, but being subscribed to Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime, I just knew I didn't have the time to watch them. And since I have no children and my wife was not interested in anything they had, I just canceled the service. Maybe I'll subscribe again when the next season of The Mandalorian or WandaVision are available, try to watch everything, and cancel again. Sounds exhausting, though!
I’ll probably pull the trigger for Mulan, if only to support the business model. The price is a little high, but I’ll invite some family over and pay way less than six movie tix.
$30.00 is a hard pass from me unless I own the movie and can watch it even if I cancel disneyplus.
Guess I will have to watch Mulan: Rise of a Warrior instead. Glad I bought that bluray.
Mulan looks really good, but I doubt I’ll pay the premium to watch two months early (personal estimate) unless my wife really wants to. The only one right now I’m considering paying to see when it drops is the new Bill and Ted (but it doesn’t belong in this thread).
I started the 90s X-Men cartoon today on lunch break. Although I guess I do need to watch that final Clone Wars season too.
I was never planning to watch Mulan after the pro-police brutality fascist bullshit that came out, and I am definitely not paying extra to do it.
I was never planning to watch Mulan after the pro-police brutality fascist bullshit that came out, and I am definitely not paying extra to do it.
Ewwww. What was that? Not interested in any of the recent and future live-action remakes.
Apparently...
So it is a fancy rental. At that price why not wait for the blu ray?
After several delays, the live-action version of Mulan will premiere on Disney Plus on September 4... but not as part of the subscription. If you want to watch it, you will have to pay $29.99. Will you?
I'll just pirate it like everyone else. Just kidding that would be wrong. Actually disney will probably be on all the pirate sites sending threats to the owners so it wont be as easy to get for a awhile at least. Not that I would know how easy it is pirate anything. I never even downloaded porn. And I definitely never downloaded a 200 gb set of roms that contain every nintendo, sega, and arcade game ever created. Then loaded it to modded PSP designed to play emulators of all games and movies in any format instead of sony's dead mini disk format. No way I could do that without getting a device to convert standard SD card to be used on a PSP. So there zero chance of me pirating this movie. I wouldn't know where to begin. LOL, no seriously I'll will buy the movie even though the price is terrible.
“ Your owner as long as you are Disney+ subscriber” strikes me as a bit of misdirection. Every other Disney live action remake will eventually be on Disney+ and will be for as long as that service exists. So from 2021 to 2037, or whatever, every Disney+ subscriber will have access to Mulan regardless of whether they bought it in 2020 or not.
It's like PS+ free games, except charging $30 extra...
So it is a fancy rental. At that price why not wait for the blu ray?
This just Disney's version of the Troll World Tour movie release. It almost made $100 million. Eventually that will show up streaming too.
They're trying to recoup some of the cost of making the movie. Everybody knows it eventually will be on Disney+ as part of the regular subscription, but you're paying to be part of that initial buzz and hype. Or if you have kids and are trying to have an event at home with them when you can't take them out anywhere.
I personally want some of these types of releases direct to home to succeed. The recent deal with Universal and AMC where new release movies can be streamed at home 17 days after release seems to indicate this expensive early rental is a permanent new way to see movies.
Does that mean Spiderman will in in it, but only in the version for Disney+ subscribers?
I personally want some of these types of releases direct to home to succeed. The recent deal with Universal and AMC where new release movies can be streamed at home 17 days after release seems to indicate this expensive early rental is a permanent new way to see movies.
I am definitely in favor of simultaneous theater/home releases, or in the case of the link above, two to three weeks later, and I also want to see the model succeed. For my personal budget and situation, the $20 Amazon has been charging for rentals such as The Invisible Man is worth it, even though I understand it is not for everyone, just like paying more than that ($30 for Mulan) is not for me. And yes, it is only a rental, but to me it is the same as going to see a movie in the theater (not that that's an option now) --you pay for seeing it as soon as it is available without having to wait for the home release. You see the movie, but you don't own it. Plus, the way I see it (again, my opinion based on my preferences), there are many advantages to watching them at home, such as not having to deal with people (huuuuuge pro), not having to drive to the theater, not being subject to specific showtimes, not having to be stepping on sticky floors (or worse), or being able to pause the movie or rewind it (huuuuuuge pro). Sure, you can do this as well when the movie is available to rent for cheap a few months later, but that's the thing: I don't go to the movies to see everything --only the movies I'm truly excited about. Everything else can wait and be rented for cheap or watched as part of a subscription service I already pay for. It's the same with this model: I can pay $20 for Indy V, but I can wait until the new Dune is cheap. As always, it's a matter of preference and your situation, but I do like having the option, and I hope it is something that continues to exist.
Sorry if I went off a tangent there, but I think it is somewhat related! 
All joking aside, if they did this with Tenet (not likely) I would pay up, For the 4 of us a cinema trip doesn't give me change from 50 quid for the cinema tickets, and if we eat out that would be another 50, so I guess it makes sense, and I can always elect not to get the films I don't care about.
MannishBoy wrote:I personally want some of these types of releases direct to home to succeed. The recent deal with Universal and AMC where new release movies can be streamed at home 17 days after release seems to indicate this expensive early rental is a permanent new way to see movies.
I am definitely in favor of simultaneous theater/home releases, or in the case of the link above, two to three weeks later, and I also want to see the model succeed. For my personal budget and situation, the $20 Amazon has been charging for rentals such as The Invisible Man is worth it, even though I understand it is not for everyone, just like paying more than that ($30 for Mulan) is not for me. And yes, it is only a rental, but to me it is the same as going to see a movie in the theater (not that that's an option now) --you pay for seeing it as soon as it is available without having to wait for the home release. You see the movie, but you don't own it. Plus, the way I see it (again, my opinion based on my preferences), there are many advantages to watching them at home, such as not having to deal with people (huuuuuge pro), not having to drive to the theater, not being subject to specific showtimes, not having to be stepping on sticky floors (or worse), or being able to pause the movie or rewind it (huuuuuuge pro). Sure, you can do this as well when the movie is available to rent for cheap a few months later, but that's the thing: I don't go to the movies to see everything --only the movies I'm truly excited about. Everything else can wait and be rented for cheap or watched as part of a subscription service I already pay for. It's the same with this model: I can pay $20 for Indy V, but I can wait until the new Dune is cheap. As always, it's a matter of preference and your situation, but I do like having the option, and I hope it is something that continues to exist.
Sorry if I went off a tangent there, but I think it is somewhat related!
I pretty much agree. It's all what's important to YOU. Right now this is a model that's nearly been forced on the studios to recoup at least some money out of their expensive movie productions. But hopefully the price point will settle in at something reasonable.
There are a lot of movies I'd rather see at home instead of needing the full big screen. For instance, a movie like Knives Out doesn't really need the visual and audio punch something like Endgame does for me, so I'd pay for my family to watch it at home. But I'd still see Endgame in the IMAX theater because it's that type of event.
Will I rent Mulan for $30? Meh. Maybe? Not for me, but some of our family might share the rental for the kids.
Stealthpizza wrote:So it is a fancy rental. At that price why not wait for the blu ray?
This just Disney's version of the Troll World Tour movie release. It almost made $100 million. Eventually that will show up streaming too.
Except to 'buy' that movie it was only $20, not $30, and you could also 'rent' it for like $5-6. And it was not rated PG-13, and it came at the beginning when everyone was locked down at home.
Disney is just experimenting to see how much they can get people to pay. I hope it fails as I do not want the market to move to $30 minimums to see movies.
I don't understand how it is a good value for me to pay that. When it is released on DVD it will be $15 on the first week sales, and hell in a year it will be in the $5 huge bin at Walmart.
They need to give me something more if they want me to spend that much.
Fear of missing out.
I don't understand how it is a good value for me to pay that. When it is released on DVD it will be $15 on the first week sales, and hell in a year it will be in the $5 huge bin at Walmart.
They need to give me something more if they want me to spend that much.
That's for you. Doesn't sound like a good deal since when you see it seems to not matter to you. It's a good deal for the people that decide to pay it because they want it now. That's how the markets work. See also video game pricing.
Maybe nobody will pay it and you won't see the $30 price again for something like this. If lots of people pay this, this might be the new model for Disney for the next year and we'll get Black Widow this way.
And I'd pay that for Black Widow for my family if theaters are still closed, so that tells me this price works for me if the content is right assuming current limitations.
Part of it for me and Marvel or Star Wars stuff is it lets me be part of the conversation with all the discussions here, on podcasts, and on YouTube that I regularly consume. I don't have that level of involvement with Mulan, so for me, it's a pass unless somebody else in the household feels we need to do it. But if I had kids here and I'd seen Frozen 2 100 times and didn't want to see it again, I'd be tempted.
Mario_Alba wrote:MannishBoy wrote:I personally want some of these types of releases direct to home to succeed. The recent deal with Universal and AMC where new release movies can be streamed at home 17 days after release seems to indicate this expensive early rental is a permanent new way to see movies.
I am definitely in favor of simultaneous theater/home releases, or in the case of the link above, two to three weeks later, and I also want to see the model succeed. For my personal budget and situation, the $20 Amazon has been charging for rentals such as The Invisible Man is worth it, even though I understand it is not for everyone, just like paying more than that ($30 for Mulan) is not for me. And yes, it is only a rental, but to me it is the same as going to see a movie in the theater (not that that's an option now) --you pay for seeing it as soon as it is available without having to wait for the home release. You see the movie, but you don't own it. Plus, the way I see it (again, my opinion based on my preferences), there are many advantages to watching them at home, such as not having to deal with people (huuuuuge pro), not having to drive to the theater, not being subject to specific showtimes, not having to be stepping on sticky floors (or worse), or being able to pause the movie or rewind it (huuuuuuge pro). Sure, you can do this as well when the movie is available to rent for cheap a few months later, but that's the thing: I don't go to the movies to see everything --only the movies I'm truly excited about. Everything else can wait and be rented for cheap or watched as part of a subscription service I already pay for. It's the same with this model: I can pay $20 for Indy V, but I can wait until the new Dune is cheap. As always, it's a matter of preference and your situation, but I do like having the option, and I hope it is something that continues to exist.
Sorry if I went off a tangent there, but I think it is somewhat related!
I pretty much agree. It's all what's important to YOU. Right now this is a model that's nearly been forced on the studios to recoup at least some money out of their expensive movie productions. But hopefully the price point will settle in at something reasonable.
There are a lot of movies I'd rather see at home instead of needing the full big screen. For instance, a movie like Knives Out doesn't really need the visual and audio punch something like Endgame does for me, so I'd pay for my family to watch it at home. But I'd still see Endgame in the IMAX theater because it's that type of event.
Will I rent Mulan for $30? Meh. Maybe? Not for me, but some of our family might share the rental for the kids.
I completely agree.
I completely agree.
farley3k wrote:I don't understand how it is a good value for me to pay that. When it is released on DVD it will be $15 on the first week sales, and hell in a year it will be in the $5 huge bin at Walmart.
They need to give me something more if they want me to spend that much.
That's for you. Doesn't sound like a good deal since when you see it seems to not matter to you. It's a good deal for the people that decide to pay it because they want it now. That's how the markets work. See also video game pricing.
Maybe nobody will pay it and you won't see the $30 price again for something like this. If lots of people pay this, this might be the new model for Disney for the next year and we'll get Black Widow this way.
And I'd pay that for Black Widow for my family if theaters are still closed, so that tells me this price works for me if the content is right assuming current limitations.
Part of it for me and Marvel or Star Wars stuff is it lets me be part of the conversation with all the discussions here, on podcasts, and on YouTube that I regularly consume. I don't have that level of involvement with Mulan, so for me, it's a pass unless somebody else in the household feels we need to do it. But if I had kids here and I'd seen Frozen 2 100 times and didn't want to see it again, I'd be tempted.
Same. I won't pay for Mulan (but my wife and kids might) but I will definitely pay for something like Black Widow. Life means the likelihood of me being able to make it to a theatre is effectively 0, but I am willing to pay a bit extra to get it by Disney +.
I like Disney +, and have no problems paying more for something special on it.
These might not be hidden gems but the Pixar shorts have been great. We can use them as small rewards for our toddler without having to make it a full movie night.
We especially like Bao.
We watched most of Mulan yesterday until the power went out close to the end. My review is...it's okay. Enjoyable but not really memorable, and not a great watch for a little kid due to the focus on action/battles and away from animated musical comedy.
The rest of my review is mostly critical but I didn't dislike watching it. My expectations and hype were not very high going in. I knew my wife and mother in law wanted to see it and I was curious.
It's visually striking and if you're interested in a Chinese war epic with flying sorcerors, wall running and acrobatic combat you're in luck. It probably would have been a better spectacle in a theater, for what it's worth.
However for me it's missing the charm of the original. It doesn't really have any comedy and it misses the musical numbers. I know it's billed as being more grown up, but it could have used more moments of levity. There's also basically no character development or any subtext whatsoever. Everything is on the surface. Most of the characters don't get to do or say much. And for a movie with basically no subtext or innuendo it takes itself a bit too seriously.
I didn't really enjoy Mulan's transformation into a superhero either. In the animated film she was a normal person who did extraordinary things. In the live action version she is a straight up superhero, and it undermined her accomplishments.
Finally, the big emotional moments fell flat for me. The response of her comrades when she reveals she's a woman to her commanding officer felt completely unearned and hollow as she had basically no relationships with any of them leading up to that point.
Hopefully that helps someone out there. Keep your expectations tempered. You're watching an action flick. It's not the heros fault the script doesn't really have her interact with the other characters much.
It was a fine way to spend the evening and the $30 price point didn't bother me as we had 4 people watching. If you're simply curious you could wait until it hits Disney Plus without any extra cost. I read that will be December, so only 3+ months. If you were on pins and needles with anticipation you probably already watched it over the weekend.
On the flipside of that, I enjoyed Mulan quite a bit more than I had anticipated. So far, all the Disney live action remakes have felt unnecessary at best and actively worse than their animated counterparts at worst. Mulan was the first of the remakes that I've preferred to the animated original, but a lot of that might have to do with the fact that it's covering the same source material but isn't really much of a remake. There are some musical references to the animated film, and the plot is similar in broad strokes, but it's hardly the shot-for-shot remake that The Lion King was or even the "bad versions of songs you love" remakes of Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin.
Mulan is more of an action movie with a bigger emphasis on martial arts and less of an emphasis on adhering to the Disney formula. It's also considerably more respectful of the culture it depicts, and it nicely sidesteps the frequent, offensive transphobia of the animated film (or the Black actor as jive-talking sidekick thing, which hasn't aged well). It was also nice to have a movie where the heroine was just... better than everyone. Not smarter or more determined or anything. Just a better fighter. I liked it.
A lot of my friends are unwilling to watch the live action Mulan purely because it doesn't have Mushu. And that feels very shallow as a critique given this movie would feel too campy/cheesy with Mushu and the music. And with that I imagine the inclusion of many of the aspects from the animated film would have verged on culturally insensitive now.
I definitely agree the script could have been way better, and I found the easter eggs from the animated film were fun to look for. But I see this and all the live actions as the cash grab they are. The adaptations of the story from animated to live action don't give me any feeling of nostalgia. They make me sad that we're even getting these in the first place. I'm glad we didn't pay for it (we used my SIL's account instead of ours).
I haven't watched any of the other live-action remakes, so I have no frame of reference for them. But I've gathered they are mostly not well received.
Of all the differences the plot changes in Mulan really did not bother me much at all. I think it would have invited a lot more criticism if it had tried to be a more "faithful" adaptation of the animated version.
I think my main gripe is with tone. It's probably unfair for me to talk about a lack of character devopment in an action movie when I don't expect it e.g. in John Wick or The Fifth Element. I prefer action movies that don't take themselves entirely seriously and can wink at the audience or laugh at themselves, and Mulan is not in that vein.
Pages