Saw that trailer a few days ago. Not many trailers make you tear up.

It's mind-blowing that he was only 53 when he died, just two years older than me now.

I always heard that because of his religion, he refused to get treatment but after looking around, it appears that was not the case and he just delayed getting checked out because he thought it was just a sore throat. His wife said that even though he no longer practiced that religionat the time, she believed it still influenced his general thinking which could have caused a delay in getting checked out.

I was reading about his death the other day and the doctors said if he had just came in a few hours earlier they could have probably saved him.

Another price increase: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/06/disn...ng-prices.html

Also includets Hulu and ESPN+

The streaming services want to stop month to month churners. Thats why they are pushing bundles hard.

The "without ads" bundle for Disney Plus and Hulu (which is only available via Disney Plus) won't go up, though... I guess they feel like 19.99 is a breaking point for people if it increases.

But now looking at the chart, adding Disney Plus (no ads) is just 1 dollar more if you already have Hulu (no ads)... but of course you can't sign up for that via Hulu.

I still have that deal where D+ is a $2.99 add-on with my annual Hulu w/ ads plan.

How much is your Hulu w/ ads plan?

The new base price seems to be: 9.99
Disney and Hulu (both with ads) is: 10.99

though if you got a killer annual Hulu with ads plan for like a few bucks you're definitely ahead.

$79.99/year for Hulu + $2.99/mo for Disney+ (no ads). I do recall they said they could change that Disney+ rate at their discretion.

Unless you're somehow grandfathered in that 79.99 hulu plan becomes 99.99 I think (if you renew)

I have Hulu and Disney + as a bundle for $19,99, so I'm not affected.

I think we are dangerously close for the whole streaming/pricing system to collapse at the rate it's going.

yet, you're not affected yet.

Thanks. I didn't see anything in that article about annual plans. Still not too bad unless they get rid of the $2.99 price.

To me if you want to stop month to month churners, make it a deal to subscribe for a year. Do bundles really prevent people from stopping service? I guess there is more content they'd miss out on but the draw for the bundle will always be the savings, same for the annual plans.

Except for Netflix, don't the rest already do that? Or do you mean even more of a deal than they already give you?

Correct. It's either a bundle deal or a 1-year paid up front deal.

Yeah, now that they're all trickling out content, people are noticing that it's a waste of money to keep year-round subscriptions to them. Folks could maybe justify it when Disney+ had a new episode of a Marvel or Star Wars series on each week, but they've pulled both of them back a lot and for most people it's a waste to keep them around. Same with Paramount+, at one point they had new Star Trek material basically weekly.

D+ subscribers, you might want to be careful what you eat the next time you visit the park.

X - Formerly Twitter

Do NOT get the cuttlefish and asparagus. Stick with the vanilla paste...

I can't imagine that Disney's assertion will hold water in that case. Disney is a huge corporation with so many different services and contexts. If a court finds that agreeing to the terms of service for their streaming service places legally binding requirements on someone for everything else under the very broad corporate umbrella, then our court system is irreparably broken.

My non-lawyer educated guess would say: if the Terms of Service are EXACTLY the same between Disney+ and Disney amusement parks, then Disney may have a tiny chance at a dismissal.

More likely, the Terms of Service agreements are vastly different between a streaming service and an amusement park ticket, so dismissal denied.

All the judge has to do is ask why the ToS agreements aren’t 100% the same. And of course the Disney lawyer will say because one is a streaming service and the other is an amusement park ticket. Thus invalidating their own dismissal argument.


But I’m not a lawyer or judge, so….

This article has a few legal opinions commenting on that:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go

TLDR version is that the TOS for the ticket purchase represents a stronger case, but still may not be enough given the life and death circumstances.

Reading the AP article, it sounds like the menu said it may contain allergens, but the family claims that the waiter said it should be okay, and they took the waiter's statement over what was printed on the menu, so definitely some bad judgement on the family's part. My older daughter had a severe peanut allergy, and thankfully my wife was much more protective than I was regarding what was printed on the menu or how sure the wait staff were about the ingredients. I wouldn't even think to ask, and invariably things were fried in peanut oil, or had it in the dressings, or food was prepared on the same table as the peanut variety (think Coldstone Creamery).

I think Disney is being pretty shitty given the situation, but at the same time if I had been that person and had a food allergy and I didn’t know for sure I probably would have avoided whatever it was she had. Either way though Disney should just pay out. The guy isn’t asking for a huge amount.

Yeah bullisht. Lawyer Ball Shit like that is why people HATE Corporations and... all due to any here...Lawyers.