Entertainment

The cost of the post-pandemic movie

Why you should care about Mulan’s terrible premiere

Published

on

The fate of the Hollywood blockbuster rests on a fingertip. A formerly grandiose affair with celebrities dressing up to the nines, the red-carpet premiere is now an impossibility thanks to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. On the other side, streaming services blossomed with new titles and exclusives. It was (and is) a great era for the home theater. But the home theater will not last forever. Hollywood is now facing a crisis for the future of the premiere.

If the past year is any indication, Hollywood will, of course, not go down without a fight. Large networks and production houses have released their own streaming platforms to monopolize their content, putting additional weight on a consumer’s budget. Take Disney’s Disney+ or NBC’s Peacock, for instance. Now, a few of these (like Disney and Netflix) make their own blockbuster content as well. We’ve seen Netflix’s streaming-only premieres already. How about Disney’s (or anyone else’s) Hollywood premieres, which often rely on astounding box office numbers?

This week, we got a taste of such a strange premiere scheme. In an earnings call, Disney CEO Bob Chapek detailed the future of a delayed movie, Mulan. Initially premiering in theaters back in March, Mulan was repeatedly delayed because of the continued shutdown of movie theaters. Now, as the company is itching to finally launch it, Chapek announced a hybrid release for the film. Partly premiering in theater in safe countries, the film will also launch simultaneously on Disney+ for unsafe markets.

Now, here’s the catch: the film will cost US$ 29.99 for Disney+ users. Even if you have a subscription already, you have to fork over approximately PhP 1,474 to watch the new film. Of course, the hair trigger response is, “c’mon, Disney; stop haggling money from your customers.” And the response is right. However, there is so much more to this. Mulan can set the stage for an unprecedented era for Hollywood premieres.

Let’s get down to business

In New York, an average movie ticket costs around US$ 15 (approximately PhP 736). Mulan’s price tag is twice as much as a theater ticket. It’s even weightier in cheaper states and, most especially, in the Philippines (where movie tickets are only around US$ 5). Further, you’ll still need an active Disney+ account to access the film, costing an additional US$ 6.99.

(Naturally, it’s impossible to accurately translate the prices to an Asian market since Disney+ has not launched in all of Southeast Asia yet. We can only assume that Mulan’s streaming price is 200 percent of normal ticket prices, whatever it might be.)

Objectively, Mulan’s price is worse than a regular movie ticket. It’s easy to conclude the argument with this statement and head home. However, there is a way to justify the price.

The whole family plus your cow

Now, a single movie ticket typically admits one person. Buying Mulan pays for the streaming privilege which can typically include an entire family. With a 15-dollar average, two people watching the same Mulan purchase is already a break-even point. In the same vein, a family of four obtains double the value of the 30-dollar film price. Even better, a family can watch the film over and over again. And, as any parent who has a Frozen-loving child can tell you, unlimited playbacks is a blessing for your wallet (albeit a curse on your sanity).

Unfortunately, despite the mathematical mind-bending, Mulan’s price is still far from ideal. The movie-going experience is not the same on a streaming platform as in a cinema.

An assumption of equality

A cinema ticket is price of equality. Besides a few slight differences, everyone is paying for the same product. All other things considered equal, a 20-year old college student is paying and enjoying the same experience as a 50-year old CEO. Same film, same seat cushions, same facilities, same projector.

On the other hand, a streaming subscription cannot assume the same thing. A platform cannot control where and with what device a user will watch the movie from. A 20-year old college student watching the film on a laptop screen in a poorly lit dorm room is not enjoying the same experience as a 50-year old CEO watching the same thing in their high-end home theater with Dolby Atmos.

Likewise, the platform cannot assume how many people will watch the film in one purchase. Now, Mulan is a family film. Disney can easily assume that multi-person families will buy and watch the film. However, how will the audiences take the same price tag for a more polarized movie like Christopher Nolan’s Tenet or the next James Bond film?

All of Hollywood knows you’re here

In the same announcement, Chapek hints that Mulan’s price is just a “one-off.” Basically, other films might not follow the same pricing scheme. In a way, it makes sense. Mulan was made with a pre-coronavirus budget. It was expected to make millions from box office tickets. This might be the only way for Mulan to recoup its many losses. In the future, Disney might make films with lesser budgets and lesser expectations.

However, make no mistake; other filmmakers are intently watching Mulan’s performance on streaming. If Mulan succeeds, they can likely charge the same amount without incurring a lot of losses. That said, streaming premiere prices will likely vary from film to film. Even then, this isn’t the last discussion on the future of the film industry.

If the industry hopes to adapt to the new normal, it needs to rethink its strategy even further. Disney is offering only one solution for the problem of streaming. Unfortunately, the brand’s solution leverages a family-oriented release, one that might not appeal to the average moviegoer today.

A price worth fighting for

My suggestion: Implement a tiered premiere price. Not everyone will want to pay the full 30 dollars for a film they’re not wholly interested in. Most will watch it once and forget about it. Some won’t even care about watching it in HD.

Why not implement a pricing scheme based on those different preferences? For example, charge US$ 5 for a standard-definition, one-time playback premiere; US$ 10 for an HD, one-time playback premiere; US$ 20 for a standard-definition, unlimited playback premiere; and US$ 30 for an HD, unlimited playback premiere. In one swoop, a film can appeal to all streaming markets and needs.

Entertainment

SEGA, Netflix announce Crazy Taxi film adaptation

1st in planned slate of film adaptations, including Sonic and STRANGER THAN HEAVEN

Published

on

SEGA and Netflix have announced a new Crazy Taxi film adaptation. This will usher in a new collaboration era with the parties also developing adaptations for Sonic and STRANGER THAN HEAVEN.

Such a slate of future adaptations reflects the range of SEGA’s library as it draws on Netflix’s experience bringing beloved game worlds to new audiences.

The first project features Crazy Taxi, which will be written by Dan Gregor and Doug Mand. The beloved writing duo was behind the 2025 reboot of The Naked Gun.

Also on board to help helm the production are the same visionaries behind the Sonic franchise: Neal H. Moritz, Toby Ascher, and Toru Nakahara.

Crazy Taxi has been an arcade hit since 1999, putting players behind the wheel of a fearless cabbie racing the clock through chaotic city streets.

There’s flying off ramps, dodging traffic, and chasing tips with punk-rock energy that has become the series’ signature.

The latest title in the franchise, Crazy Taxi: World Tour, is set for a 2027 release. You can watch its trailer below:

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Now Playing: Resident Evil

Horror and comedy join forces in Zach Cregger’s latest masterpiece.

Published

on

The intersection between horror and comedy is separated by a thin wall of air. In modern times, we’ve seen comedy legends, such as Jordan Peele and John Krasinski, make the successful jump into horror. Some have theorized that laughter is a pain response, which links it to the adrenaline-filled thrill of experiencing horror. Personally, I believe that mastering comedic timing also complements the timing of scary moments in horror. Comedy-trained directors just get it. That’s why the melding of the two genres is always something to look for, and that’s why Zach Cregger’s Resident Evil is a must watch.

Coming from last year’s Weapons, Cregger established himself in the annals of horror history, despite learning the art of filmmaking from cult comedy classics like Miss March and The Whitest Kids U’Know. Weapons (and Barbarian before it) expertly balances the essentials of horror with dark comedy. If you’ve seen either of these movies, then you know what you’re in for with Resident Evil.

Based on the games or the past movies?

Resident Evil is tagged as second reboot of the movie franchise after 2021’s disastrous attempt, starring Kaya Scodelario, which barely registered a hiccup in the oeuvre of Resident Evil films. However, like 2021’s failure, Cregger’s take bases itself primarily on the events of the games, specifically around the plot of Resident Evil 2.

Bryan, a medical courier played by Austin Abrams, is tasked with delivering a top-priority package to Raccoon City. Unbeknownst to him, the way leading into Raccoon City (and the fabled city itself) is already overrun with mutated monstrosities.

And so, Bryan, a courier inexperienced with combat (much less surviving against zombies), must fight his way into the city to deliver his charge.

A worthy protagonist

Over the years, the franchise has seesawed between capable action heroes, like Leon Kennedy, and those who can barely survive, like Biohazard‘s Ethan Winters. On that scale, Bryan falls deeply into Winters’s side of the spectrum. He’s ill-equipped to survive a zombie apocalypse. He even admits that his barebones knowledge of guns comes from videogames. He attempts to shoot locks, thinking they’d work as they do in games. He is not a character you’d want to follow if you’re looking for a gruff man gunning down hordes of zombies with a machine gun.

But that’s exactly what makes this horror film worth watching. Bryan is us. Though there were times I was screaming at the screen because he wouldn’t do the obviously logical thing of running away from blatant traps, our fragile protagonist mimics how we would all react in a horrific situation: a deer in the headlights stuck staring.

Every situation feels more frightful. You don’t know how you’d react. He doesn’t know how he’d react. We’re just stuck trailing along for his ride. If he lingers too long looking at a zombie about to bite him, you have no choice but to look along with him. As a horror protagonist, he’s perfect.

When a camera does the work

Of course, inept protagonists aren’t new to horror. Practically all good horror films will feature a helpless hero standing up to the monster. See: the “final girl” era of horror.

Resident Evil elevates this trope by allowing the camera to do the heavy lifting. The film’s expert transitions into first-person perspectives and over-the-shoulder ones amp up the frights. When Bryan sweeps a room with a gun, the camera takes you down to the muzzle. You become the one sweeping along with him. You see the darkness as he does. The style creates an impressive layer of immersion that brings you into his trauma. Plus, if we’re going with comparisons, the transitions feel like a game taking you from a cutscene back into control of your character.

And it’s not just the perspectives, too. The film mimics several tense moments oft found in horror games, like gingerly creeping through a thin ledge when one false move can mean plummeting to your death. Resident Evil also has scenes in a dark tunnel, the sewers, and an overrun hospital. It’s a veritable who’s who of horror settings. But they all just work. It’s like you’re in a Resident Evil game.

When goofy becomes scary

But that’s enough of how the movie was made. How scary is it?

Taking them from their respective contexts, each monster is goofy. There’s an infirm zombie spewing acid bile that Bryan just bullies around. There’s a seemingly innocent young girl with a tentacle foot. There’s a zombie katamari.

And if that’s not enough, the casting is filled with masters of comedic timing like Paul Walter Hauser, Zach Cherry, and Austin Abrams himself. The first two play bumbling representatives of Umbrella Corporation, people who are too incompetent to do their job. Abrams is the bumbling everyman who can’t make heads or tails of what’s happening. Comedy is a living, breathing presence in this film.

But that’s not to say that this is a comedy film. The horror is still top notch. Cregger just knows how to time everything right.

Unlike modern films today, like in The Conjuring universe, Resident Evil is not a scare-a-minute film. It will not bombard you with jumpscares.

Now, to be fair, there are a fair bit including fakeouts. In fact, under normal circumstances, I’d dislike how many there are. But here, each jumpscare comes with a lengthy period to catch your breath. The film gives you time to relax, to laugh, and, eventually, lower your guard for the next scare. It’s a balanced pace that’s kept up throughout the entire film.

This is exactly how you should pace a horror movie.

Should you watch Resident Evil?

Even with its uniquely comedic style, Resident Evil is one of the most faithful adaptations of a video game I’ve ever seen. Like a game, Cregger’s pacing knows when to let you, the viewer, breathe and when to thrust you back into its monstrosities.

Humor will always go hand in hand with horror. Though the responses to these two categories are technically different, they’re both genres about facing the unexpected. On the box, Resident Evil says that it’s a horror film, but it’s so much more. If you want to laugh, cry, and cower in fear all in the same movie, this is the movie to watch.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Max vs 100 will feature Max Verstappen race against 100 go-karters

The live event will stream at midnight on September 17.

Published

on

As a child, one of my favorite thought experiments is to imagine who would win in a fight between my favorite characters at the time and a number of other random beings. For example, will Superman prevail against 100 Magnetos? Those are the ways I kept my young mind occupied. Now, as a former child, I still do the same thing but with more realistic people, like imagining if Steph Curry can win against 100 high schoolers. This week, ESPN and Disney+ are making one of those imaginary fights real: Formula 1 legend Max Verstappen versus 100 go-karters.

In an upcoming live event streaming exclusively on Disney+, Max vs 100 will pit the four-time world champion against 100 go-karters from everywhere in pop culture. This gaggle of 100 will include popular content creators such as Twitch streamer ExtraEmily, car photographer Larry Chen, and NBA shooting coach Chris Matthews.

All 101 drivers will race around one of the most iconic tracks in Formula 1 history, Silverstone in England. The track will be reconfigured to match the special race.

Of course, this is more than just a parade of go-karts. Max Verstappen will start at the back of the grid, meaning he has to overtake all 100 racers to win. Now, the Dutch driver is no stranger to winning from the back. In 2024, he won the Sao Paulo Grand Prix despite starting from P17 (out of 20 racers). Max vs 100, though familiar for the driver, presents a different challenge. Can he overtake 100 times to win the race?

Max vs 100 will stream live through Disney+ on September 17, 12:00am PHT.

SEE ALSO: Disney+ is moving to a global app experience

Continue Reading

Trending