Mulan on the Move

Will Disney's decision to make their latest live-action adaptation a day-and-date release be a harbinger of things to come or a potentially disastrous gamble?

The pandemic's effect on the movie industry at large has been stifling, to say the least. When theaters closed to the public, various films slated for this year, including surefire blockbusters like "Black Widow", "F9" ("Fast and Furious 9") and "Wonder Woman 1984", were pushed back or pulled from the schedule entirely. In March, Sony made "Bloodshot" available for VOD and Universal Pictures followed suit with "The Invisible Man" and "The Hunt", just mere weeks after their respective theatrical releases. Universal decided to up the ante and make "Trolls: World Tour" available as a digital rental on the date it was supposed to hit big screens, causing a dust-up with major theater chains. Now, it's been announced "Mulan" will make its debut on Disney+ at a premium fee of $29.99 in countries where the service has launched and theatrically in markets where it hasn't. Those who've eagerly awaited its arrival may see this as an unquestionable win, but may not recognize the rippling effect it could have.

The concept of day-and-date releases isn't new. While the idea has gained increased traction due to the impact of COVID-19, it's a model that's been in existence for years. Ever the innovator, Steven Soderbergh tried it in 2006 with his film "Bubble". After being marred in controversy, "The Interview" had its wide release cancelled by Sony and instead, was digitally released on Christmas Eve in 2014. Netflix has also employed the strategy in the past with films like "Beasts of No Nation". However, what makes "Mulan" different is its incredibly high profile and overall earning potential. With the exception of "Dumbo", every live-action Disney remake since 2016 has grossed at least $1 billion dollars globally or close to it. Factoring in nostalgia along with China's large market share of the worldwide box office, it stands to reason "Mulan" could have done so as well. Not to mention, the film was shaped to more accurately resemble the original Chinese folktale, pushing it closer towards a four-quadrant action epic rather than an adventurous musical.

Before the pandemic, it would have been unthinkable for a studio to forego a traditional theatrical release for a tentpole, as it's still the best way to maximize the return on their investment. However, if there's anything the past few months have taught us, we're in uncharted territory and some of the paradigms within Hollywood are shifting faster than anyone could have imagined. The aforementioned "Trolls: World Tour" fiasco initially led to AMC Theaters announcing they would no longer screen any of Universal's films due to concerns around honoring the distribution window. As one of the last bits of leverage they have, the theatrical window is partially how first-run movie theaters make a profit; collecting more revenue from a film the longer it stays in theaters. This led to a landmark pact between the two, allowing Universal to release films digitally for a fee after being in theaters for just 17 days (it's typically been 70-90 days). If it's successful, other majors like Paramount, Sony and Warner Bros. will inevitably seek similar deals and it's difficult to say where that leaves theater chains, which are already in a precarious predicament.

Now, with Disney betting on itself and moving one of its biggest projects of the year to its streaming service, could we see other studios with premium services buck the system as well? It almost sounds absurd to think the latest "Star Wars" film or a new "Batman" or "Jurassic Park" installment could go straight to streaming, but so did putting a film like "Mulan" on Disney+ until a few months ago. Fans have also been clamoring for "Black Widow" to be released on the platform and if this ends up working, that could be a possibility. Disney is ultimately hoping the parlay can operate two-fold; beta-testing a premium VOD option and driving up service subscriptions in one fell swoop. Oh, and for those annoyed by the extra fee, keep in mind the movie cost $200 million dollars to make (plus whatever they spent in marketing before it was delayed). They have to recoup that somehow. As someone who deeply enjoys the excitement and ambiance of the movie-going experience, news like this is slightly alarming. If, one day, movies are only relegated to streaming platforms, subscription-based services and digital downloads, I'll be heartbroken. However, the pandemic has irrevocably altered our society and it's unrealistic to think filmmaking (which was already facing challenges in the modern age) won't have to adapt as well. Already making history as the most expensive film ever helmed by a female director, it isn't hyperbole to say "Mulan" is perhaps the most important movie of the year. Whether this experiment succeeds or fails, it could dictate the future of film distribution as we know it.