Im a fan, disney+ is $6.99 a month... or $70 for the year ($5.83 a month). I already have disney+ anyway. For a family of 5. a trip to the movies would cost way more than $30. i hope they start doing this with all movies.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'Mulan' to Be Available as $30 In-App Purchase in Disney+ App on Apple Platforms
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Its not that I am getting old, I can say the script the actors say in some scenes. I just am still entertained even on the 5th viewing.
I do the same thing. It's nice to browse through it years later and find forgotten stuff. It won't expire either, unlike Nextflix.
I have a friend who bought a brand new jeep but passed on the power windows, stereo, and AC to save a few bucks. Still a great vehicle for off-roading but a nightmare for commuting and errands. He won't remember the money he saved but he will be reminded every day of the bad decision he made.Problem is I bought the Standard Def version when the HD one was available and regret that decision.
Yep, get your outrage worked up to rationalize the digital equivalent of shoplifting you’ve already said you’re planning. Then you won’t feel like the criminal you are.
Why keep using euphemisms? Why not just come out and say that you’re planning to steal a copy? Rationalizing may make you feel better, but it’s still theft.
Last edited:
Uh, keep telling yourself that. Perhaps you need glasses. I went from a 720p TV to 4K, and the difference is astounding. And DVDs are 480p, even below 720p.
No, see, LaserDisc is the one where you need a phonograph needle to read it. It was replaced by the Digital Paper Tape format for videos, which come on the convenient 9-foot reel for home viewing.unsure, it seem like that but seem smaller radius.
I really don’t understand the fuss over the price???
If this was in theatres, we would have to wait until it is available for streaming.
The fee they are charging is about the average cost for a family going to a theatre. This after all is a family film, no?
So spending $30+ to see it one time in a theatre is somehow better than paying $30 to see it at home multiple times at home??? Confused on that logic.
If this was in theatres, we would have to wait until it is available for streaming.
The fee they are charging is about the average cost for a family going to a theatre. This after all is a family film, no?
So spending $30+ to see it one time in a theatre is somehow better than paying $30 to see it at home multiple times at home??? Confused on that logic.
I've lately come to realize it's not stealing, it's counterfeiting. It's not taking existing money from them but denying them future money. Like currency counterfeiting, it reduces the value of existing copies (total revenue per viewer) and requires a lower output in the future to match expected returns (reducing project costs to make up for lost sales).
However, both are dick moves and both carry criminal charges.
I don't think movie snacks are typically consumed for their nutritional requirements. People often get them because
1. They want to support theaters that rely on concessions for revenue.
2. They are treating themselves.
3. It is convenient.
4. They think stealing is wrong.
I hope the pin code is optional. Disney + is already having trouble supporting basic features like Up Next and I can't imagine what a secret catalog would do.
Agree with your comment, but point of interest, this is a PG-13 movie, unlike their previous remakes, and there are suggestions that it’s rather more intense/violent than your typical Disney fare, in which case your 5yo who likes the animated version may be a bit traumatized.
There isn't anything wrong with that logic. My question is, if I am paying for a limited time early access than I would like to know what that time period is. Someone is going to prepurchase the movie for an event (birthday, graduation, surgery recovery, etc.) only to discover the movie switched from early access to free for everyone before they watched it.
I have nothing against charging everyone $30 for early access as that rewards people for paying sooner. If I don't know how long the early access lasts than I become less and less willing to pay it as the weeks go by.
Maybe its just the way Hollywood makes this prepackaged all alike trailers but this movie looks like absolute crap...
Also - some parents go to a movie first to see if it's suitable for their kid. That costs $10 or so and if they approve then they take their kids. There doesn't appear to be a way with Mulan to preview the movie before you pay for everyone to see it.
Interesting take. I remember watching the rise of Napster (while working on a university campus, adjacent to the group that was responsible for processing court orders for the identities of people using specific IP addresses at specific times, and then subsequently for delivering cease&desist orders from record labels, and later, movie studios, to students who were running stolen-music-sharing servers, and later, stolen-movie-sharing-servers, out of their dorm rooms), and coming to the conclusion that it pretty well resembled looting: “Fight the man! We’re being oppressed! ...and I want this microwave” had become “Fight the man! Music prices are too high! ...and I want these Britney Spears MP3s!”. Except, you know, their motivating cause was nowhere near as noble, and they could do it all from their dorm room, rather than being out in the real world risking ending up in handcuffs in the back of a police car.
And, yeah, every single one of them had this smug self serving logic that, since they weren’t removing the original item from the maker’s possession, that somehow nothing was lost, there was no victim, and their actions were perfectly reasonable and above reproach. They liked quoting, “information wants to be free”.
(They also like to say, “but the studio makes billions from movies, which is somehow unfair, so I’m completely justified in taking this” - well, in a different former life, I wrote payroll and accounting software for the film and TV industry, so I’ve seen what it actually takes, from a money standpoint, to make a major motion picture. Yes, they make a lot of money on movies that do well, but they’re also spending an incredible amount of money to do it. And while some movies make substantial profits, others lose money - the studio has to average it out between them. If they didn’t, they’d go bankrupt, and then we wouldn’t have blockbuster movies any more.)
But what the students would never admit was that, if they hadn’t been able to make copies, then out of every 100 that justified it with, “well, but I’d never pay for this”... likely 10-15 actually would have paid. So, statistically, there were a whole bunch of actual lost sales, even if they personally might not have bought that particular Britney Spears CD (and, of course, they’d insist all day long that they would not have bought it if a free copy wasn’t available to them, but, yeah, there’s a 10-15% chance they actually would have - but that’s easy for them to rationalize away).
Whichever. It’s an oversimplification, but I see theft as a reasonable term for what they’re doing. It may not be walking off with a physical item, but they end up with an item what was for sale, without paying, and the seller didn’t get any money from the transaction (despite having spent considerably money making the item), when there’s at least a statistical chance that they would have made money otherwise.
People still think piracy is some sort of protest that they can feel good about. If they really wanted to protest they simply wouldn’t buy OR listen to the CD, and wouldn’t buy OR watch the movie. If your justification is that you wouldn’t have paid to watch it, then put your money where your mouth is, and actually don’t watch it.
Unless you have 13 and younger children, I don't understand, which I do not believe is the majority. not to mention all movies-even non-children- are priced similarly and much more I think VHS use to hit $60 in 1980s dollars. I rather pay $3 to watch it once.
I think they’re necessarily making it up as they go along. This is uncharted territory in uncertain times.
You do realize that a “pay once watch every movie” system that included all current movies would likely have a subscription price of at least several hundred dollars a month, right?
Last edited:
What are your thoughts on these 'lack of rights' arguments I have seen people making?
1. The value of any music used for advertising purposes plummets to near zero. So if Britney is using her music to sell Pepsi than Napster isn't distributing her music it is distributing adverts. We pay for adverts by giving them our attention.
2. Any music played on the radio is an advert and again, falls under the distribution of advertising. Individuals running servers should be paid for each download by the brands which licences those songs.
3. Napster is a form of grassroots civil disobedience protesting the abuse of copy write law which has extended ownership far beyond a reasonable period of 10 to 15 years. Or more simply, 'I don't recognize their ownership.'
4. Studios hold a monopoly such that as consumption of content increases prices increase when they should be decreasing.
5. If a YouTube video contains any part of a song the whole videos revenue goes to the studio. Therefore any song that uses cords or lyrics in whole or in part which have reached the public domain should make the entire album free for others to use.
6. I paid for the soundtrack when I purchased the movie. I am using a product modified for my own personal use.
7. I expect people who download the song are doing so only for music they have a legal right to access.
8. I can't be held liable for content that is distributed to me without a copywrite notice.
9. I didn't play it. If someone leaves their CD at my house that doesn't mean I stole it.
10. The song was played but someone who paid for it in a public forum where I have the right to record. There is no difference between a parking lot and Napster.
Last edited:
Not a chance it will be 6 months. Out by Christmas. Just watch.
You do know that this was originally supposed to be out in theatres in March, with DVD/Blu-Ray scheduled for June, right? That’s a 3 month showing in theatres.
Last edited:
Cool. I currently work in tv production and we spend an ungodly amount of money but the studio doesn't care because they still expect to make a profit (doesn't always happen though).
I think this is the same thing as justifying wealth redistribution and that somehow the rich didn't earn it. As someone who has lived on both sides of the tracks, I know rich does not equal wrong unless it was literally criminal. If someone earned $10 million, they have a right to leverage it to make even more.