Only ones I know of are cashback type of deals -

Rakuten is offering
$12.50 Cash Back on Disney+ Annual Subscription;
$10.00 Cash Back on Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ Bundle Subscription;
$2.50 Cash Back on Disney+ Monthly Subscription and Gift Subscription


TopCashback is offering
Annual Gift Subscription $5
Bundle Subscription (Hulu, ESPN+ and Disney+) $8
Disney+ Monthly Subscription $5
Disney+ Annual Subscription $10

https://deadline.com/2020/04/disney-...ly-1202904097/

Disney + has 50M plus paid subscribers worldwide.

Yeah everyone totally cancelled after The Mandalorian wrapped.

Kids are all home from school, Frozen 2 came early, Onward just came on, I'm sure they're doing pretty well.

Some knuckleheads here claimed it's a service that has only 1 show and stuff that won't come out for years. Completely ignoring that Disney has a massive library. Narrow minded.

I don't remember that. But if you don't have kids and don't love Marvel/Star Wars, or if you only want new product, Disney + may not be the right service for you, and that's fine. I have kids, and they've been on a Phineas and Ferb run because they basically were too young to watch it when it came out, this after they watched most of Gravity Falls without me.

Bottom line there's 50M in the world that find value in it and that's awesome. I'm one of them as you are and I have a 10 year old niece who comes over and she likes hanging around and seeing me play old Mickey Mouse cartoons. And I like seeing a lot of the old things well.

If you don't like animated stuff, Marvel, Star Wars or are some single guy with no kids, then most definitely this is probably not for you.

Doesn’t hurt that 95% of the planet is locked down in their homes, many with families.

Well, a huge chunk of that is the free year everyone's getting via Verizon.

And they just expanded to 9 new countries, including ~8million customers in India, in the last three weeks.
It would be interesting to know, of the 50M:
- how many get it "free" bundled with something else
- how many are committed to 1 year or more via various deals
- how many are subscribers who are in countries that only recently got access to it.

It's still big numbers, gotten quickly, but it'll interesting to see what happens when my first two bullet points are no longer the case.

And full disclosure - I am subbed for 3 years via a deal, and I have mostly watched Noelle (with my wife), The Simpsons, some old shorts, and Lizzie McGuire. So I'm not sure what demographic I am :/

I signed up for a year, to save a few bucks over the regular monthly price.

Yeah, a lot of us signed up for the three-year deal, so we didn’t really have an option to cancel after The Mandalorian. I still like the service, though.

What the hell is digital fur? Is her butt now a Pixar character?

My God that's ridiculous. If a movie isn't appropriate for kids, either don't put it on the service or have a CHOICE between the original and a cleaned-up version, but don't make that the only choice.

For heaven's sake, Splash is PG; it's not even a PG-13.

Was there a PG-13 when Splash came out? In any case it's an 80's PG, the brief nudity in it wouldn't fly as PG today, I don't think.

No PG-13 then. PG back then was harder than a lot of PG-13 fare today.

Yes, yes, yes it was ... if my memory serves correctly.

Anyway, kind of a dumb move, Disney. How about let your viewers decide if they want some Daryl Hannah buttocks?

plus, so many sights have those parental locks. does this? it should and just use it if does...

This is odd...I noticed Splash was on D+ so I started watching this past weekend and the digital fuzz covering her fine rear end is much more noticeable in the clip on this thread than in HD on a 55" 4K TV. Maybe the sharper image in HD makes the digital fuzz less obvious because if it were not for that article which I saw a few days back I would not have realized there was a bit of censoring going on. All I paid attention to is the fact that Daryl Hannah still looked hotter than the surface of the sun in the film.

Unlike Alan, I am not going to get up in arms over this...not the same thing as that company in Utah that straight up removes non-family friendly content from films.

This is more like when FX used to (or maybe they still do) blur a woman's breast if it showed up on screen in one of their shows or films they had the rights to air.

I don't think Disney + has parental locks at all, unless I'm missing something. They have child profiles which automatically filter out shows (like Splash wouldn't be available, neither would the Simpsons or even something like Boy Meets World), but there's nothing preventing the child from switching profiles.

Inhumans99, you must not have watched Splash as a kid and had that scene permanently affixed to your brain (similar to the Olivia Hussey version of Romeo and Juliet, which was before my time but shown in school). I haven't rewatched it but I hear they didn't censor other things.

They also censored some other movies like, oddly, the Goofy Movie, but that may just be the cuts they used. Also in Lilo and Stitch there's a scene where Lilo is hiding in a dryer and they redrew it because of some complaints from (I think) the UK, and that's the version here.

I heard they also took the "fucks" out of Adventures in Babysitting.

I think they just took the TV edit.

Reading this article it may not have been just the scene mentioned here that was censored.

https://www.theverge.com/platform/am...ysical-digital

Oh my god, heaven forbid if kids see a quick, innocent glimpse of a bum in a movie. Puritans.