Whether you’re disappointed or excited that Mulan is coming to Disney, that’s why it’s the right verification situation for the release of a mega-budget on PVOD.
If the movie captures, say, five million subscribers and therefore $150 million in “every penny goes to Disney” earnings, it’s a hit. That would be the equivalent of $300 million in theatrical gains, roughly equivalent (no inflation) to Mulan’s original 1998 global crude. Add that to everything it brings in China and around the world in a traditional work, and I’d say it was a success. But if no one wastes, well, it doesn’t replace the game.
yes, it sucks that a $200 million action epic starring Chinese heroes and villains, with a (white) director, jumps into national cinemas. However, due to its unique nature and size/scale, it is an ideal laboratory rat for this type of experiment. If Disney had sought to publish a level A theatrical performance as a PVOD title, it would have been a level A function, which (in the absence of a pandemic) would probably have been a huge success in the global box. Office.
The only Ivan or Artemis Fowl that doesn’t pass to cut it, and Black Widow is probably a great theatrical fortune and can create an expectation that long-term MCU films would move to PVOD. That’s why, even if it works, I’d expect Pixar’s Soul to avoid theaters rather than the MCU prequel directed through Scarlett Johansson. Yes, it would be damaging if Pixar’s first feature film starring a prominent black man (Jamie Foxx) hit theaters, yet it’s one of the ruthless realities of a pandemic that closes Hollywood this year for each and every year.
Yes, we have noticed a number of films directed by women, minorities and/or female minorities that were intended for theater and ended up on PVOD or on a streaming platform. This is partly because there were some high-level titles for theaters this year that have been directed or directed through “not a white man.” Of course, even in a pre-coronavirus theatrical landscape, films such as The High Note, Antebellum, Run and The Lovebirds would have been (at best) attractive advertising. With streaming and VOD now as a number one display source for other people who went to videos just to watch a movie, non-event videos have had problems for five years.
Even Universal’s The King of Staten Island (available for electronic sale today) would have been much less likely to explode than the bean Apatow character comedies of the past, not to mention the most likely bombs like Warner Bros. ‘Scoob!, Disney’s Artemis Fowl and the irresistible comedy politics directed through Jon Stewart. Even Trolls: World Tour was a draw, especially after The Secret Life of Pets 2, The LEGO Movie 2 and The Angry Birds Movie 2 fell well below their respective predecessors last year. One of the most likely results of the pandemic is that audiences place more emphasis on casual films.
When national cinemas reopen, Hollywood has plenty to worry about whether someone will show up to what would otherwise have been foolproof hits like Tenet, Wonder Woman 1984, Black Widow and No Time to Die. Far below those tentacles in terms of priority would be the deluge of studio programmers of yesteryear and genre films that everyone likes to pretend Hollywood never does, basically because they are intentionally oblivious to their respective existence. While it can be argued that viewers can threaten their lives to see Tenet or Black Widow in movie theaters, they probably wouldn’t do it for Run or Antebellum.
The irony of all this, at least for the time being, is that many of the most prominent broadcast and PVOD titles stand out exactly because they were destined for movie theaters. It would be Scoob! run as well as the newest of more than 35 Direct-to-DVD functions from Scooby-Doo? If Mulan of Niki Caro had not been a $200 million action exhibition intended for cinemas, would the anticipation be much greater than that of Lady and the Tramp? That’s the conundrum, and why it had to be as big a movie as Mulan. Even if those movies “designed for cinemas” are well-painted at home, it’s still partly because they were destined for theaters.
The end of the game for theaters was to be a stage in which only the largest and most IMAX-compatible films would be played in a giant theatrical premiere, the rest would go to streaming or VOD (more or less a limited theatrical premiere on a giant scale as a glorified ad for the house’s premiere). This has been the long-term bleak for some time, and the global closure of cinemas has only accelerated the process. The question is whether the audience will also be excited, and also willing to disburse additional money, for “cinematic quality” features that were finished for transmission or VOD from the beginning.
I studied the film industry, both academically and informally, and with an analysis in the workplace, for almost 30 years. I’ve written a lot about everything
I studied the film industry, both academically and informally, and with an analysis in the workplace, for almost 30 years. I have written extensively on all these topics over the more than 11 years. My media reviews of films, workplace reviews and film prejudice scholarships have included the Huffington Post, the Hall and the Threat of Cinema. Follow me on @ScottMendelson and like The Ticket Booth on Facebook.