Great, now factor in the cost of the babysitter on that Tuesday, and the cost of coming back to see it with the kids on the next Tuesday. The suggestion of $10 was for the parents to go see the movie to preview it before taking the kids to see it. With the $30 in-home price, the kids and the additional viewing are included, and you don’t need a babysitter.
Not really much different than paying to go to a movie and then 6 months later getting the movie on Disney+, plus kids can watch it indefinitely vs only within the 48hour window, like with Trolls.So let me get this straight, you ALREADY have to be a paying Disney+ subscriber, and ON TOP OF THAT, you have to pay $30 to watch the movie?
You can't just pay $30 to watch it by itself like people did with the Trolls movie a while back?
What a blatant and ridiculous cash grab. Sadly I think many people will fall for it and Disney will make a fortune, because people are so starved for new content during this pandemic and those who are still gainfully employed likely have a lot of extra cash from not being able to.. well, do anything.
Except that this bills you as though you're a family of 4 even if you're not. And yeah, you get to watch it again so long as you also keep up your subscription to Disney+.
I was talking about actual wealth redistribution like Stalinist Ukraine when successful farmers had their wealth stolen from them and redistributed to state-run farms. The not-so-successful people were more than happy to get a piece of this new job opportunity, even though it cost them their neighbors lives.
What alternative would you propose though? Some sort of way of certifying under oath that there’s only one person living in your household? Do we then need some sort of mandatory inspection system since huge numbers of families would say they’re only one person to get the “discount”?
Just include it in Disney+? People are already paying for the service, this is double-dipping.
Done and done.
I'm not "morally outraged", just not impressed.
I think you've gone off on a bit of a wild tangent here. I never encouraged stealing anything, I just think it's an unreasonable price to charge when you're already paying for the streaming service and you aren't getting the theatre experience. Honestly, I'm not really interested in any of Disney's live-action remakes so I probably wasn't going to watch it anyway, but if this is the route they're going to take in the future it might affect me further down the line if/when they bring out something good.
In those terms, I agree. What happened in Russia under Stalin was deplorable. As @2010mini points out, though, that term, “wealth redistribution”, has been co-opted to mean “anything that threatens to change the tax system and other laws that mostly rich people have lobbied to put in place that overwhelmingly benefit the rich while penalizing everyone else.” Brought to you by the same people who co-opted the term “fake news”, which originally meant actual falsified “news” coming primarily out of the former Soviet Union, intended to influence and destabilize western politics - this is actual psychological warfare stuff - and the phrase has now been changed to mean “likely genuine news that paints me and my party in a bad light”. Now it gets used as the rallying cry against actual verifiable facts.
No, it’s not double dipping. They never offered, “and you get free access to all of our new movies as soon as they’re released to theaters” (if they did, show me where it says that in their marketing material) and they never offered to send free movie tickets for new releases to subscribers so they could see the movie in theaters for free. They also won’t let you into Disneyland for free just because you’re a D+ subscriber. And you can’t get Disney toys for free in stores. There were and are clear limits to what your D+ subscription gets you. If you thought you were buying immediate access to everything Disney ever has done or will do, for $7 a month, you’ve been wildly misinformed.
Perhaps you missed the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted that said, “And I’m a bit astonished at the handful here that have indicated that the fact that they feel morally outraged gives them the right to steal a copy of the movie.” Do you see the words “you” or “boss.king” anywhere in that sentence? I was remarking on the general tone in the thread.
Do you not see how expecting to be able to stream video content on a video streaming service is different to expecting free merch and tickets?
Since it was included in your reply to me and followed with plenty of "you"s, I think it was fair to assume you were talking to me. Maybe try to be more clear next time you switch who you're talking to.
It will be included with Dosney+ at some point down the line when it's no longer a new "theatrical" release. It's no more double-dipping than having a movie out in theaters and having people pay for a ticket to see it (and only once for that ticket), and then those people needing to pay more to see it again, either by buying more tickets, or waiting until the movie is out for rent or purchase, or available on some steaming service that they are paying for.
If I lose access to a digital copy and want to rewatch, I can go buy a physical copy, but that's never even happened. Not worth setting up a backup system or losing sleep over.
So you really expect that they’re going to give every new movie as they‘re released, to people who are paying $7/mo? The only reason this would be streamable any time in the next 6 months, is the pandemic. Otherwise it’d be in theaters, requiring the purchase of theater tickets to see it.
A lot of places have tickets that are more in the $15 range, but even if averaging it out gets it to about $10, averaging out how many people will watch the movie and how many times they will do it -- since with this payment people can watch the movie multiple times, unlike a movie theater where they would have to buy a new ticket each time -- probably gets it to around $30.
You are right. I am still behind on movies and TVs for decades. By the time I get to it, it will probably be in the public domain.
