Here's the thing. We don't know how long it might take for the box office to return to the same numbers from last year, so Disney, trying to recoup some money by bringing people to the Disney+ platform, might bring more movies to it.

However, Marvel movies might be the only exception, as of yet, Pixar and Live-Action movies have been the only ones to be released in Disney+. Mostly, Disney+ seems to send the movies that people aren't that interested on seeing (Artemis Fowl) or that aren't a sure-fire box office draw (Soul).

The only franchise currently doing that is the MCU. Plus, Marvel already has the shows, so they could justify this lack of movie content with another thing that is equivalent.

Most certainly, they might not want to repeat the Mulan incident from weeks ago, as movie piracy reduced the income from the movie (among other things), and sending it to free with subscription is a bigger loss for them. If you ask me, the best solution is to charge a fee for Premium movies, but one that's less than $30, so they can at least get something.

Yeah, but the movie that started live-streaming releases, Trolls: World Tour, made a ton of movie. Mulan flopped because it was bad and because of controversies involving the lead actress and creative process behind the movie.

A Marvel film would do much better, given that World Tour was not in demand by anybody.

Yeah, I'm aware of what happened with Trolls, as well as the Scooby Doo movie. The thing about those is that those are "kids movies", and thus parents are more lenient on paying for it, because it helps distract kids.

Mulan, besides being a bad remake, had all that baggage, plus the pricing. It was a Maelstrom of problems.

Black Widow, and other Marvel movies, are valuable, because they are released in theaters, and there you buy the popcorn bucket, the tickets, and you mostly don't use the cellphone to film. The minute they touch Disney+ before being released in theaters, they lose that grandure and box-office gains. And if they were to release them alla Black Widow on Disney+ or VOD, we'd see very few people actually pay for it, as again, piracy exists.

Marvel movies are valuable (speaking purely economically speaking) because people would watch them. If Disney followed the Trolls and Scoob pattern of just releasing normally and they get money from people watching it (like every other streaming service does), then they'd have the same success.

People pirated Mulan because $30 on top of subscription is ridiculous and more expensive than a movie ticket. But if it was like other streaming services where the movie was included in the subscription, it would have made more.

Yeah, no, the 30 dollars price tag was absolutely nuts, that we can 100% agree on.

While what we're saying is not based on statistics, as the only precedents are Mulan, Trolls 2 and Scoob, we cannot say completely whether it would be a success, according their own (Disney's) criteria.

Don't get me wrong, I really, really would like to see the Black Widow movie on Disney+, but they are still comparing the amount of money they've invested on the project vs. the gains they could get,to then see if they're willing to take that risk. The benefit of Trolls and Scoob, if I remember correctly, is that animation (as long as it isn't as detail heavy, like Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs or Trolls) is relatively cheaper compared to a SFX and CGI heavy movies like the Marvel movies.

Remember that execs might use the same logic I was explaining before (as I'm playing Devil's Advocate in this), because that's what they know, or think they do.

Trolls 2 wasn't supposed to make any money, though, and look what happened. Black Widow is expected to make money, and if theaters aren't opening anytime soon (knock on wood), then it's a suitable substitute. The $30 and the controversy were the real killers of Mulan, not being released on D+. If Trolls 2, a movie that nobody wanted, can do, an MCU film definitely can.

Yeah, I'm not sure if I'd pay 30 bucks to watch it at home. That's twice as much as a movie ticket where I live

Paying $30 for a movie to watch at home is only good when it’s for the whole family, that would have paid for 4+ tickets at the theater. Paying for just yourself or even another person, seems way overpriced. So the movie better be good to make it work. Once word gets around that it is bad, people will wait.

Looks like I won’t be able to watch WW in theaters, as CA is getting a curfew now, with the numbers increasing more and more. I still prefer all of these blockbusters to be released later.

Why pay for something when you have already paid a subscription. No wonder Mulan didn’t do well.

@Brett3801 There's still very few movies released only in VOD to say whether or not they should release more. Right now it's close to like 50/50

@MarvelSharky The benefit for releasing them right now is that they might be the talk of the month, and thus gain more publicity, and thus increase the chance of selling merch, which is honestly where the important money is made. There's a reason why both theme parks and merch have been the primary focus of Disney for a while.

Again, both are "executive/marketing" talking points that I've heard from channels like ScreenJunkies

@TheFrostyWolf That's why thet should charge the 30 dollars for non-subscribers, and a reduced fee for subscribers. That way you incentivise subscriptions.