Latest News

Disney+ is Raising Subscription Rates in Canada This February

Disney+ is Raising Subscription Rates in Canada This February

By Simon Hung

It'll be more expensive to stream your favourite Disney shows next year, as Disney+ will be raising subscription rates in Canada this February.

Starting February 23, 2021, monthly plans will cost $11.99 per month (currently $8.99), while annual plans will cost $119.99 per year (currently $89.99) – an increase of $3.00 and $30.00, respectively. This marks the first time Disney+ has raised their prices in Canada, although the service did eliminate free trials earlier this year.

2021 aims to be a landmark year for Disney+, as the new prices coincide with the launch of Star, a new Disney+ channel that will add thousands of new titles from Disney-owned studios like ABC Signature, 20th Century Studios, 20th Television, FX, Freeform, Searchlight and more. Star content will be included with all Disney+ subscriptions and feature several notable shows like 24, Bob's Burgers, Family Guy, Grey's Anatomy and more.

The new rates will not be charged to those with an active subscription, which means the best way to avoid the price hike would be to subscribe to an annual plan before February 23, 2021 at the current rate of $89.99. In this case, you'll get access to the entire Disney+ streaming library and the upcoming Star catalogue for approximately $7.49 per month over 12 months – click here to sign up for Disney+ before the price hike goes into effect.

Originally launched in November 2019, Disney+ is a video streaming service with over 86.8 million subscribers worldwide and the home of several popular entertainment franchises including Marvel, National Geographic, Pixar, Star Wars and more.

____________________

Source: Disney

39 Comments

    • It was inevitable.... Based on all the trailers and poster art for upcoming shows/projects dropped yesterday, I guess a subscription price increase is acceptable. Only as long as they can keep pumping out more content of high quality.
    • Report Post
    • Pictures Palpatine, sitting at the head of the table of Disney executives, and saying:
      "Everything That Has Transpired Has Done So According To My Design."
      "Power! Unlimited Power!"
    • Report Post
    • I'm lazy, what's the other D+ thread?
    • Report Post
    • You've got to be kidding me. So we basically paid for a year of The Mandalorian and some other random shows and movies we hardly watched, and now that they have actual content they raise the price. Early adopters always get burned...
    • Report Post
    • karlb wrote: edit: this is also mentioned in the main D+ thread here and here.
      b0ne wrote: I'm lazy, what's the other D+ thread?
      guess you're too lazy to click the links I provided. I'd come over and click them for you, but with covid and all...
      😂
    • Report Post
    • I'm already on the yearly subscription and The Mandalorian alone has been worth it. Plus with all the Pixar, Marvel, and Star Wars content (especially The Clone Wars), I'm pretty satisfied. Now with the upcoming slate, even the price increase won't deter me from renewing when the time comes. It's still cheaper than Netflix and definitely HBO MAX.
    • Report Post
    • Also due to the pandemic, we got a few straight to steaming movies.
      Pixar's Onward.
      Pixar's Soul (Dec 25th).

      Also got Hamilton, that was good.
    • Report Post
    • chimaican wrote: It was inevitable.... Based on all the trailers and poster art for upcoming shows/projects dropped yesterday, I guess a subscription price increase is acceptable. Only as long as they can keep pumping out more content of high quality.
      The problem here is they only announced future shows, it's not like they dropped new original content. Virtually all the shows announced when D+ launched last year were put on the back burner because of COVID and other reasons. Who's to say it's not gonna happen again?
    • Report Post
    • theXshape wrote: The problem here is they only announced future shows, it's not like they dropped new original content. Virtually all the shows announced when D+ launched last year were put on the back burner because of COVID and other reasons. Who's to say it's not gonna happen again?
      Everything shut down in early 2020 because of scarcity of protocols and safety gear/equipment.
      This is no longer the case. It makes perfect sense that Disney would now be heavily hedging their bets on Disney+ content instead of films - the traditional money making model for films in movie theatres is gone, and it near certainly will take some time before that model returns, if at all. It is entirely possible that the shift from movie to series might be permanent, especially if it is more profitable.
    • Report Post
    • shikotee wrote: Everything shut down in early 2020 because of scarcity of protocols and safety gear/equipment.
      This is no longer the case. It makes perfect sense that Disney would now be heavily hedging their bets on Disney+ content instead of films - the traditional money making model for films in movie theatres is gone, and it near certainly will take some time before that model returns, if at all. It is entirely possible that the shift from movie to series might be permanent, especially if it is more profitable.
      You may be right. There may be more (potential) money this way and greater control, but at some point people are going to rebel against spending for multiple streaming platforms as each studio wants their own exclusive one. We are not all going to spend $10-20 per platform times 5-10 platforms.

      And there is still something really engaging about the BIG screen, the one measured in feet, not inches. Yeah, home TV is convenient, but it doesn’t equal the big screen immersive experience when you really want to be drawn into a flick. I am glossing over a lot of negatives here about theaters.
      I’m not sure theaters are dead. We heard this before (VCRs). Times are different today, but we all (ok, almost all) want to go out. A movie in a theater is a great out.
    • Report Post
    • karlb wrote: You may be right. There may be more (potential) money this way and greater control, but at some point people are going to rebel against spending for multiple streaming platforms as each studio wants their own exclusive one. We are not all going to spend $10-20 per platform times 5-10 platforms.

      And there is still something really engaging about the BIG screen, the one measured in feet, not inches. Yeah, home TV is convenient, but it doesn’t equal the big screen immersive experience when you really want to be drawn into a flick. I am glossing over a lot of negatives here about theaters.
      I’m not sure theaters are dead. We heard this before (VCRs). Times are different today, but we all (ok, almost all) want to go out. A movie in a theater is a great out.
      VCR phobia is 40 years old. The home viewing options of modern times are incomparable.

      Let us not forget that there once was a time where taking the family out to a Leafs game (a very great out back then, as they were winning cups) was very much proportionally affordable. This has no longer been the case for decades. Sure - some financially secure families still pull it off, but it is fairly well understood that working class people are no longer the staple within the arena.

      Streaming platforms are getting more exclusive, and more expensive. The fact of the matter is - people will be forced to make choices. Going back to sports (which is not only expensive for live experiences, but also through multimedia), there is an entire generation that has accessed these games exclusively through free streams. For many, this isn't by choice, but out of necessity.

      Looking forward - I think the big thing that will need to be reconsidered is how we handle massive vertically integrated corporate entities, especially with regards to taxation, which was never designed for such massive scale. We've long been aware that Hollywood math accounting is ridiculously skewed, but tolerated it because we wanted the entertainment industry to both thrive and grow. Companies like Disney and Amazon have basically gamed the system, using their entertainment expendatures/credits to offset payment of taxes within other divisions.

      Obviously, it is difficult to prophesy the future, but I think there is a myriad of factors converging that are working against the traditional cinema screen business model. Perhaps they will recover and adapt, but I personally doubt it will ever be the same post Covid.
    • Report Post
    • The way media is distributed is changing all the time. No one wants to pay more for their streaming platform, just like nobody wants to pay more for their network television or cable channels through their television/cable subscription. Does anyone think I really want to give Rogers more money? I should just use a OTA antenna. At least with cable & network stations, they make up some of their revenue via commercial and product placements. Streaming stations like Netflix and D+ that create original content gets their profit mainly from subscriptions. So, one needs to factor that in when they're talking about fee increases.
    • Report Post
    • 2021 Will Launch the Platinum Age of Piracy
      And Disney, with its rich in-person experience offerings, is poised to be the biggest winner of all.


      I'd recommended the full read, but here are some snippets:
      Media piracy has seen several golden ages before, including Napster’s heyday (1999-2002) and The Pirate Bay’s peak years (2003-2008), but Warner and Disney’s new strategies all but assure 2021 will be the dawning of a platinum age. What we’re about to see will go down in pirate lore forever.
      This piracy boon will be good for media companies and content creators as well, even if they lose out on some ticket revenue and subscription dollars. In 2021, more people will watch films on their release date than ever before, because the Warner films will travel into homes through HBO Max and through the pirate network. Many pirates are also good fans, and they will heavily promote the Warner films they like on social media, which will drive up HBO Max subscriptions and increase the cultural value of whichever of the offerings they like best. Pirates could make some of the Warner 2021 films legends, by acting quickly to cement their reputations among movie lovers.
      2021 will be a piracy bonanza, but there’s no reason to think it will be a one-time jubilee. Rather, it will mark the start of a new era for media corporations.
      One company will be much better positioned than others to profit from these major changes to the media landscape: Disney. Disney is poised to use its Disney+ hits to boost not only streaming subscriptions, but ticket sales for its parks, cruises, concerts, and other live events, whenever those become safe again.

      In the post-Covid media economy, nearly all content could essentially serve as marketing campaigns for physical, in-person offerings. With so much recorded audiovisual entertainment becoming available relatively cheaply via streaming services or for free, via pirate networks, the one media-related category that seems likely to attract high consumer spending will be physical experiences. People will want to go to places—and do and see and smell and taste and touch things—after a prolonged period of restricted movement and limited socializing. People will also seek to populate their social media feeds with photos and videos of themselves in unique and exciting environments. Disney parks’ attendance was always going to go gangbusters after the pandemic, but with Disney feeding fresh media content to hundreds of millions of households during the pandemic—both via Disney+ and via pirate networks—the Mouse is nurturing a powerful collective longing to enter into Disney-themed spaces as soon as health protocols allow.
      A wide range of media-themed experiences are similarly likely to gain traction, including meet-and-greets, live performances, panel discussions (such as PaleyFest’s), and conventions (like Comic-Cons), where fans can pay for the privilege of seeing and even meeting creatives and cast members, play with official props, visit set replicas, and otherwise have embodied, theatrical encounters with their favorite actors, directors, characters, and settings—which they can then transform into social media posts in which they, the fans, are the stars. Fan events always served to promote TV series and movies, but in a post-Covid climate, this operation may work in reverse, too: shows and films could be promotions for exciting in-person activations.
      Disney has long used media productions as inspirations, occasions, and advertisements for pricey live entertainment, and it is going even more strongly in that direction by dropping new titles online mid-pandemic. Other major media companies should follow suit if they can. 2021, pirates’ best year ever, may starve Hollywood’s old revenue models, but it may also nourish and nurture the future experience economy.
    • Report Post
    • shikotee wrote:
      Streaming platforms are getting more exclusive, and more expensive. The fact of the matter is - people will be forced to make choices. Going back to sports (which is not only expensive for live experiences, but also through multimedia), there is an entire generation that has accessed these games exclusively through free streams. For many, this isn't by choice, but out of necessity.
      Sorry but watching sports is not a necessity, food and shelter is a necessity.
    • Report Post
    • NTWKid wrote: Sorry but watching sports is not a necessity, food and shelter is a necessity.
      The "entire generation" reference went over your head.
      If you are a teenager who is growing up in family that can't or won't afford sports, what options are there?
      The point being - they are not self sufficient bread earners with purchasing power to make decisions (beyond nagging).
      I personally believe that all children/youth should have access to watching sports, and that it should not be a privilege bestowed upon the middle/upper class.

      I guess your stance is - tough luck for being born poor. Walk it off?
    • Report Post
    • shikotee wrote: The "entire generation" reference went over your head.
      If you are a teenager who is growing up in family that can't or won't afford sports, what options are there?
      The point being - they are not self sufficient bread earners with purchasing power to make decisions (beyond nagging).
      I personally believe that all children/youth should have access to watching sports, and that it should not be a privilege bestowed upon the middle/upper class.

      I guess your stance is - tough luck for being born poor. Walk it off?
      Sorry but you still don't understand what the meaning of necessity is.
    • Report Post
    • NTWKid wrote: Sorry but you still don't understand what the meaning of necessity is.
      Not at all. You are clinging to a narrow "survivalist" definition of the term, while my take is more nuanced and entrenched in psychology.
      Both playing and watching sports offers a wide range of developmental educational experiences/lessons for youth.
      In short - I consider access to sports as a significant developmental necessity for youth growing up in Canada.
      Perhaps you believe the belt is the only thing required?

      https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/vie ... s-fans-too
      Sports can be a great way to teach your little ones about resilience, and research suggests there can be other emotional and mental benefits. Being part of a fandom means joining a community of others who like the same thing, which can be really important for people (young or old) who are shy. If your daughter really likes the Flames and meets another kid who’s into hockey, this provides common ground and an ice-breaker — an experience and interest they already share.
      Other studies have suggested watching sports may even help improve language skills. Sian Beilock, a professor at the University of Chicago, suggests parts of the brain linked with planning and controlling actions get activated when fans just listen to conversations about their sport. This could mean when your hard-core Federer fan watches a tennis match, her brain is almost keeping up with the action by playing along.
    • Report Post
    • shikotee wrote: Not at all. You are clinging to a narrow "survivalist" definition of the term, while my take is more nuanced and entrenched in psychology.
      Both playing and watching sports offers a wide range of developmental educational experiences/lessons for youth.
      In short - I consider access to sports as a significant developmental necessity for youth growing up in Canada.
      Perhaps you believe the belt is the only thing required?

      https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/vie ... s-fans-too
      Nice try...you went from saying watching professional sports is a necessity to now this. This is the text book example of goal post shifting
    • Report Post
    • NTWKid wrote: Nice try...you went from saying watching professional sports is a necessity to now this. This is the text book example of goal post shifting
      It really isn't complicated. Most youth are not financially independent from their parents.
      If their parents cannot or will not provide access, they are very much willing to circumvent copyright (to access free streams).
      I think I've been fairly consistent with my overall point here.
    • Report Post
    • loopygum wrote: Nah. People keep parroting this line of argument during covid due to tunnel vision and being stuck at home coping with streaming services only.

      No doubt theater revenues will take a hit for a while, even after the pandemic is over. But it will probably be temporary.

      The theater experience is still unique. You're seeing a movie on a bigger screen that completely envelopes your entire field of vision. The sound quality is also superior. How many people actually have home theater setups that can rival theater experience? Very few.

      The ambiance of a theater is very much different to most home setups. Going to the theater is also a 'social' event - i.e. hang out with friends, dates etc. That can hardly be replaced by watching a movie at home.

      It is because very few people have home theaters that can rival the theater experience that there will always be a market for theaters for at least the forseeable future. With one caveat of course. Coming out of covid, if cinemas hike up their prices to makeup lost revenue, then they can certainly price themselves out too.

      What might rival the movie experience in the long run though is VR. But VR is not quite there yet. I have watched films using Bigscreen on Oculus and it's honestly pretty good and sorta mimics that theater like experience with full field of view envelope of a big screen. But it still doesn't change the fact I'm wearing some annoying heavy thing on my face and the video quality is also slightly pixelated. It's also not a social event. But technology will get better with time so that's probably the one to watch.
      Habits easily change with the advent of the right, and more convenient, technology. For example, the way we partake in music today. In the heyday of Napster, people were willing to get music free, at a much lower sound quality, to stream on dinky-sounding MP3 players rather than pay record companies the privilege to buy whole albums for one good song. Record companies didn't see it coming, and today CD's are practically extinct. Consider where that takes us today, MP3's have been surpassed by paid streaming services that you can partake anywhere, and not necessarily using the greatest audio quality.
      With this whole HBO Max deal for WB movies, clearly movie studios are at least preparing for the possibility of what he is arguing, because they don't want to be left flat-footed if theaters don't bring crowds back. It is something to consider.
    • Report Post
    • loopygum wrote: Things change. Right now though, it's hard to replace the theater experience. Movie streaming is not a paradigm shift here.

      Watching a movie on the big screen where the imagery is so large that it completely fills your entire field of view is a great experience. I don't have a home theater setup that can replicate this. That is unless I scoot all the way up to the TV/monitor. Otherwise, where I sit to watch a home movie, a lot of my peripheral vision is my room environment and not the movie screen. It's just not as good. It's easier to get distracted and it's less immersive. Now, I can use VR and it's really not bad compared to the theater as I've mentioned. But VR isn't quite ready yet.

      Profits talk. Traditionally, a lot of money is made by studios during initial theater release where everyone buys overpriced tickets. The cinemas make most of their money as a distributor by selling concession items. Having blockbuster movies go straight to streaming where customers pay a one time fee for unlimited viewing of multiple movies will destroy the studio's profits. Especially when multiple parties can watch it together for the same fee. Streaming is an end-stage pricing strategy in their scalping pricing model. Even if studios go the rental model instead where you pay a premium price for each rental, which is what they tried with some movies early on in 2020, it's gotta be priced correctly because nobody wants to pay the same premium for a lesser home experience. Many of the studios are opting to push release dates back until after covid instead.

      To truly make cinemas obsolete, they need to be able to compete with it's experience. That is, big screen and superior sound quality. There's the social aspects they can never quite replicate though for home consumption. But you can definitely achieve the technical aspects of a theater experience with VR. I don't mind paying say 80% of a normal theater movie ticket price for a rental of a blockbuster movie that I will watch at home in a VR environment that mimics a movie theater. Short of VR, I don't know that you can truly replace theaters simply because not everyone has a good home theater setup. A lot of people still watch movies on small computer monitors or on a tablet screen!
      I think the tech is already here, and the die has been cast by studios themselves years ago.
      Larger TV's are more affordable, and technology keeps pushing visual and audio fidelity. A good home experience is not that difficult. It won't replace a theater so far as viewing experience, but remember, convenience is something the public has been getting used to since the days of the VCR. I can't pause the theater when I have to go pee, can't take the phone away from the moron checking his messages on a bright phone screen 5 rows ahead of me, can't legally take my pants off if it's too hot. So it doesn't look or sound as good to some, but we're a society used to convenience and choice. Movie theaters are very inconvenient.

      Profits won't drop for studios. They are more and more profitable every year, and their current losses are a covid blip because they couldn't pivot from theater closings. Within two years they'll be ahead of track in profitability As for the theater, it is a middle man in the current scenario. Studios would cast them aside in a second if it meant convenience for the viewing public and more profit for them. Direct to Home has been around for a while, studios make more money, with less effort, and more quickly, than from a theater chain. As for pricing, I have no doubt they'll figure it out very quickly.

      One last thing to remember is that theater obsolescence has been happening for a while now. When I was growing up the theater was an experience that consisted of comfort, a single screen experience, and fun. When big chains started to buy everyone out and turn everything into a multiplex, it watered down the "experience" part of theater. Theater was a boutique store experience, but today it is shopping at Walmart, very impersonal and meant for The Masses. But Walmart is also convenient. Once an Amazon comes along and offered even better convenience, we see what happens. Amazon hasn't taken over, but it sure has cut into their profits. Maybe if theaters become more niche, they'll stay relevant?

      In the end, I hate the price increase but I was politely informed that we're keeping Disney+ in any case. We just got rid of Rogers cable, so some of those savings are going to The House of Mouse.
    • Report Post
    • BernardRyder wrote: I think the tech is already here, and the die has been cast by studios themselves years ago.
      Larger TV's are more affordable, and technology keeps pushing visual and audio fidelity. A good home experience is not that difficult. It won't replace a theater so far as viewing experience, but remember, convenience is something the public has been getting used to since the days of the VCR. I can't pause the theater when I have to go pee, can't take the phone away from the moron checking his messages on a bright phone screen 5 rows ahead of me, can't legally take my pants off if it's too hot. So it doesn't look or sound as good to some, but we're a society used to convenience and choice. Movie theaters are very inconvenient.
      With this logic any event outside the house should be going out of business.

      Why go to a live music concert, packed into a small space with a bunch of sweaty people screaming and yelling, listening to a subpar version of the recorded music, when you can listen to a high quality version in the comfort of your home, at you're own volume level.

      Why go to a Raptors game and pay a fortune for an awkward view, people standing and cheering blocking your view, cramped in small seat, paying $15 for a beer, have to lineup to go pee, when you can sit in the comfort of your home with the camera showing you all the best angles and close ups, can pause and rewind if needed
    • Report Post
    • NTWKid wrote: With this logic any event outside the house should be going out of business.

      Why go to a live music concert, packed into a small space with a bunch of sweaty people screaming and yelling, listening to a subpar version of the recorded music, when you can listen to a high quality version in the comfort of your home, at you're own volume level.

      Why go to a Raptors game and pay a fortune for an awkward view, people standing and cheering blocking your view, cramped in small seat, paying $15 for a beer, have to lineup to go pee, when you can sit in the comfort of your home with the camera showing you all the best angles and close ups, can pause and rewind if needed
      There's no logic in creating strawmen arguments, as you have here.
      Comparing live sports attendance with movie screening is ridiculous.

      It pretty much goes without saying that all forms of entertainment that involve mass assembly are going to face challenges.
      No doubt - some of the challenges will be similar/identical, but there will also be a myriad of unique factors that are situational dependent.

      Going back to Sports and Movies - the big difference is that the outcome of a sporting match is not predetermined (or so, we fans hope).
      When you go to that game, you expect that anything can happen, and you likely hope that the team you favour will come out on top.
      It goes without saying that fandom involves boatloads of superstitious belief.
      Watching a movie can offer a unique experience (moving seats, mist sprayed in your face, etc), but at the end of the day, the movie itself does not change.
      You can yell and you can cheer and you can throw things, but I guarantee the movie will end the same as it does in other theatres, or in your home.

      With this all said - it will be very interesting to see how things play out when live events return.
      For popular sport teams and musicians who regularly sell out, it might not make much of a difference.
      For those that don't, it is very probable that they will face struggles.

      Rounding things off - remember that a large chunk of the populace have lost their jobs during Covid, and as such, their spending power will also be vastly diminished.
    • Report Post
  • zod
    • I personally feel the theatre experience can't be replicated at home. My audio system is pretty amazing, but it's hard to fit a TV much bigger than 60" in the living room (maybe I could increase it to 65 or 70" whenever I make the leap to 4k). It's still pretty small compared to going to see it on the fake imax screen at the theatre. I get engrossed in a theatrical move in a way I don't at home.

      On a personal level I plan to resume my movie watching habits when covid19 ends.
    • Report Post
    • Question for anyone who is subscribed with a few family members/friends: Do they still have a very strict device limit per account? My friend has Disney+ with like 3 users in his household, debating just joining his subscription and splitting the cost.
    • Report Post
  • zod
    • Said212 wrote: Question for anyone who is subscribed with a few family members/friends: Do they still have a very strict device limit per account? My friend has Disney+ with like 3 users in his household, debating just joining his subscription and splitting the cost.
      I don't think so. I've probably registered it on 4 or 5 of my own devices, and we share it with family/friends who seem to have installed it on their tv, and a couple of pads.

      Generally related comment back to the thread. I do feel 11.99 is expensive for what Disney is offering. I feel like Netflix was further a long with making their own content when they got to that level. It seems like sharing services with friends is the way to go right now.
    • Report Post
    • zod wrote: I don't think so. I've probably registered it on 4 or 5 of my own devices, and we share it with family/friends who seem to have installed it on their tv, and a couple of pads.

      Generally related comment back to the thread. I do feel 11.99 is expensive for what Disney is offering. I feel like Netflix was further a long with making their own content when they got to that level. It seems like sharing services with friends is the way to go right now.
      Good to know thanks. Seems like the way to go for now.
    • Report Post
    • zod wrote: I don't think so. I've probably registered it on 4 or 5 of my own devices, and we share it with family/friends who seem to have installed it on their tv, and a couple of pads.

      Generally related comment back to the thread. I do feel 11.99 is expensive for what Disney is offering. I feel like Netflix was further a long with making their own content when they got to that level. It seems like sharing services with friends is the way to go right now.
      I think that Disney basically knows they can get away with it. Their product (Star Wars and MCU) is hands down the highest in demand. When the Star Wars sequels first hit the screens, the mouse leveraged this dominance by forcing movie theatres to comply with all of their terms, and increased payment percentage. Also, Disney has been making their own content since 1937. Don't forget - Disney still has a pretty big focus on content for kids. It is possible they are providing new content that doesn't appeal to you as an adult.
    • Report Post
    • NTWKid wrote: With this logic any event outside the house should be going out of business.

      Why go to a live music concert, packed into a small space with a bunch of sweaty people screaming and yelling, listening to a subpar version of the recorded music, when you can listen to a high quality version in the comfort of your home, at you're own volume level.

      Why go to a Raptors game and pay a fortune for an awkward view, people standing and cheering blocking your view, cramped in small seat, paying $15 for a beer, have to lineup to go pee, when you can sit in the comfort of your home with the camera showing you all the best angles and close ups, can pause and rewind if needed
      When movies switch to becoming events comparable to live sports or concerts, then it is a good comparison.
      For example, the actual actors act out the scenes in front of a live audience every few nights, and you might be able to get Robert Downey Jr's autograph as he walks to his coach to go to the next city, then it will be more comparable. Or when movie theater seats are hard to get, most being presold to large corporate groups, then it will be comparable. Concerts and sporting events are vastly different experiences where you aren't offered visual or audio fidelity, but a once in a lifetime opportunity to be a part of something unique as shikotee mentioned. But movies are intended to reach larger groups easily, and are not as special an event as they once were, partially because theaters made them less about experience and more about profit. At the same time the advent of the VCR made movies both accessible and convenient to the masses. Concerts, sporting events, live theater, operas etc. aren't comparable, there is a magic in attendance that movies just don't offer anymore.

      Anyway this thread is getting derailed so that's all I intend to say about movie theaters.
    • Report Post
    • BernardRyder wrote: When movies switch to becoming events comparable to live sports or concerts, then it is a good comparison.
      For example, the actual actors act out the scenes in front of a live audience every few nights, and you might be able to get Robert Downey Jr's autograph as he walks to his coach to go to the next city, then it will be more comparable. Or when movie theater seats are hard to get, most being presold to large corporate groups, then it will be comparable. Concerts and sporting events are vastly different experiences where you aren't offered visual or audio fidelity, but a once in a lifetime opportunity to be a part of something unique as shikotee mentioned. But movies are intended to reach larger groups easily, and are not as special an event as they once were, partially because theaters made them less about experience and more about profit. At the same time the advent of the VCR made movies both accessible and convenient to the masses. Concerts, sporting events, live theater, operas etc. aren't comparable, there is a magic in attendance that movies just don't offer anymore.

      Anyway this thread is getting derailed so that's all I intend to say about movie theaters.
      Just a closing point - I think live theatre (include classical concerts/operas) is going to have the most painful recovery.
      Remember - very few productions have the draw power similar to Hamilton.
      By far, their bread and butter demographic for season tickets is an older retired demographic with money and time to spend.
      For them, so much more will be contingent on how things play out with the vaccine.
      Also - Historically, arts subsidies/funding plummets during tougher economic times.

      With movie theatres - I have no doubt that there will be many who will go back to theatres to watch movies.
      What is less than certain is if this crowd will be sufficient to sustain a viable business model in both short/long run.
      So much will also be dependent on how things play out with the vaccine and how it rolls out.
      If a kids family trek to the movies was a tradition, keep in mind that kids are very low on the priority list for the vaccine.

      Myself - I've been using a 1080p projector and 100' screen with a 5.1 sound system for the last few years.
      Watching Hamilton with this was a real treat.
      When the price for 4K projectors eventually drops (knock on wood), I will purchase.
      When the BF $3500 massage chair that I purchased is delivered and installed (in the same room), I'll even have less reason to want to go to a theatre.
      Should the industry make the switch and release movies for home and theatre viewing at the same time, the odds of me and my family going to a theatre will further diminish.
      I recognize that not everyone will be like me - but I do expect there will be plenty who are.
    • Report Post
    • With all the Marvel stuff being released this year, Disney+ went from it doesnt matter to, yes I want to see all that. Seeing the rate increase coming Feb, I wont be signing up for another month until WandaVision comes out.

      Are there any deals on Disney+, besides paying for a full year?
    • Report Post
    • shikotee wrote: The "entire generation" reference went over your head.
      If you are a teenager who is growing up in family that can't or won't afford sports, what options are there?
      The point being - they are not self sufficient bread earners with purchasing power to make decisions (beyond nagging).
      I personally believe that all children/youth should have access to watching sports, and that it should not be a privilege bestowed upon the middle/upper class.

      I guess your stance is - tough luck for being born poor. Walk it off?
      Theres also the point of some people jsut dont care about sports in general. I know its hard to imagine, but there are some that dont care at all. My kids when they were younger, we tried them in a few sports, soccer and little league. It just wasnt their thing. They didnt care, and still dont as adults. It seems to be crammed down our throats that you need to watch sports to be, I guess, a man?

      So are you saying that children that dont care about or watch sports, arent being allowed their full potential? Like the same as everybodys kid from age 5 is raised to think they will be the next NHL allstar
    • Report Post
    • zod wrote: I don't think so. I've probably registered it on 4 or 5 of my own devices, and we share it with family/friends who seem to have installed it on their tv, and a couple of pads.

      Generally related comment back to the thread. I do feel 11.99 is expensive for what Disney is offering. I feel like Netflix was further a long with making their own content when they got to that level. It seems like sharing services with friends is the way to go right now.
      Bolded. That's it right there.

      The moment streaming services puts a stop to sharing, then that's when you'll see profits and subscriptions dry up. Yes, we know it's against the T&C, but everyone is sharing their services. I'm sharing D+ with two others, so $30/yr, or $40/yr next year. Sharing Netflix with 3 others. If you asked me to pay full price on my own ($120/yr for D+ or $18.99/mth for Netflix), I likely say; "nope"
    • Report Post
    • chimaican wrote: Bolded. That's it right there.

      The moment streaming services puts a stop to sharing, then that's when you'll see profits and subscriptions dry up. Yes, we know it's against the T&C, but everyone is sharing their services. I'm sharing D+ with two others, so $30/yr, or $40/yr next year. Sharing Netflix with 3 others. If you asked me to pay full price on my own ($120/yr for D+ or $18.99/mth for Netflix), I likely say; "nope"
      There seems to a big chunk of people who believe that this sort of "sharing" is morally OK, but don't feel the same about those who partake in "sharing" via torrenting/free-streaming. Under law, both violate T&C. It is actually arguable that sharing a service for payment is the worse offense under law (the same would go with paying for an illegal streaming service).

      If desired, I could have access (through friends and family) to all services without spending a penny, but I much prefer obtaining my content through torrenting, and viewing through my Plex server. I pride myself with having Prime for years, yet never using their streaming service.

      It will be interesting to see how things play out with account sharing throughout the next decade.
      Things have been easy going over the last decade because the focus has been to get people to make the switch from cable. If I had to guess, my expectation is that all streaming services will work together and stop this at the same time.
    • Report Post
    • chimaican wrote: Bolded. That's it right there.

      The moment streaming services puts a stop to sharing, then that's when you'll see profits and subscriptions dry up. Yes, we know it's against the T&C, but everyone is sharing their services. I'm sharing D+ with two others, so $30/yr, or $40/yr next year. Sharing Netflix with 3 others. If you asked me to pay full price on my own ($120/yr for D+ or $18.99/mth for Netflix), I likely say; "nope"
      If I pay for the service, I should be able to do with it what I want. I pay for Netflix for 4 seperate views at once. My son in school has access to the account so he can use it away from home. Is that wrong? If so, so what. IM paying for the service of 4 different streams at once, he is one of them, living 3 hours away. Im getting my moneys worth, why would he need to pay for the same thing. We dont use 4 streams here at once anyway
    • Report Post
    • Shouldnt be too hard to restrict the concurrent logins to the same IP. Are the streaming services so scared of using customers to their competitors that they wont even do this? Netflix was king for years but refused to do this.
    • Report Post
    • evilYoda wrote: Shouldnt be too hard to restrict the concurrent logins to the same IP. Are the streaming services so scared of using customers to their competitors that they wont even do this? Netflix was king for years but refused to do this.
      How is that fair, so I travel, use my phone to watch Netflix, and cant because a hotels wifi or a friends wifi doesnt match
    • Report Post
    • evilYoda wrote: Shouldnt be too hard to restrict the concurrent logins to the same IP. Are the streaming services so scared of using customers to their competitors that they wont even do this? Netflix was king for years but refused to do this.
      Because it would be very stupid to try and do this - the losses would outweigh the gains.
      Streaming services are still relatively volatile, and very much engaged in fierce competition with TV services (as well as competing streaming services).
      With each passing year, more and more are switching over, but only a fool would slam their fist down hard right now.
      More importantly - you are completely ignoring that they make tons of money in a wide range of ways outside of monthly subscription fees.
      In short - it is very profitable to have as many people as possible using the service, even if each user is not paying to access this service.

      Memories of how cable TV carriers (back when signals were analog) previously had the bright idea that customers should have to pay per each TV using their service in their house, when all that was needed to circumvent was a $5 splitter.
    • Report Post