Auto-renews at then-current monthly retail price (currently $13.99/mo). New and eligible returning subscribers only.
3 Months of Disney+ for $13.99 (New and Eligible Returning Subscribers, Ongoing $13.99 Per Month)@ Disney Plus
1821
456 on 12/09/2024 - 17:24 disneyplus.com (5833 clicks)
Last edited 12/09/2024 - 18:23 by 1 other user
Last edited 12/09/2024 - 18:23 by 1 other user
Related Stores
closed Comments
- 1
- 2
@tonka: I don't know where you eat tonka but since when is dining out a high risk activity? Ever flown in an aeroplane, or driven a car? Taken a simple medicine? Your logic suggests that if you're killed or injured while engaged in any mundane activity then you're partly responsible.
Based on what is in the public domain your victim blaming is outrageous. We won't know the full details until the case is prosecuted but prima facie she could have done no more.
Both Disney and the restaraunt are mentioned in the suit, Disney probably because the restaurant is advertised on their map as allergy friendly.
@Igaf: I don't get why you think that for this person dining out was a mundane activity. As I said sux to be disabled, but you seem to be saying the person is entitled to ignore that disability and not consider the risks that come with it. And really if you think they're entitled to ignore their problem amd behave normal well isn't the server also entitled to just behave normal too.
@tonka: Up front, let's get something clear. The woman wasn't "disabled", she had an allergy she was successfully managing, like millions of "imperfect" people around the world. She was a smart, aware human being - a doctor in fact, obviously far smarter than many commenters here.
As you should know, she went out of her way to ensure her safety, as she likely had done numerous times in her life. She wasn't being irresponsible, she sought out a special restaurant and made mutltiple enquiries to ensure her dietary requests had been met. She was assured that they had. She carried and used her epi pen.
but you seem to be saying the person is entitled to ignore that disability and not consider the risks that come with it. And really if you think they're entitled to ignore their problem amd behave normal well isn't the server also entitled to just behave normal too.
That's dangerous and completely irresponsible tosh, get a grip. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I've already reiterated publicly available information - information you should have read before commenting - which suggests she not only didn't ignore her allergy but went out of her way to ensure the chef and waiters understood.
@Igaf: Forget it mate. Sorry I tried to converse. Obviously you know all and I have no right any opinion. But like Beach Bum, if I had a disability in the form of a severe allergy, I certainly wouldn't place my life in the hands of a hospitality worker. And that is all that is being said here, regardless of your strawman bs. And 'obviously far smarter than many commenters here' wtf,yourself included then? So hypocrisy to be posting your own opinion I guess.
@tonka: Yes she is (sadly, was) smarter than me.
There's no excuse for waving your blame finger at a dead woman when the public factsto date clearly suggest she did everything possible to ensure her safety - just as she obviously has done previously without incident many times - as I've already said.
I certainly wouldn't place my life in the hands of a hospitality worker.
And yet you almost certainly have on numerous occasions, completely oblivious to the risks even for "perfectly healthy" people. Just as you do any time you get in a car or plane, walk adjacent to a road, ride a bike, consume a product or medication assuming it's both safe and suitable. Everything we do requires trust that others are relatively competent and not culpably negligent or dismissive of basic risks of our actions to others. The notion that you or I would be partly responsible for being killed by a negligent motorist while walking along a footpath in a busy city (or sitting in an outdoor section of a pub), is puerile.
@Igaf: Yeah, looks like some people see no problem with victim blaming. Because "that woman died but she deserved it because of her own stupidity" is totally a normal thing to think /s.
@Igaf: OK, I guess you need to try and quote me out of context now to try and make your point. As I said it sux to have a disability. No I am not blaming her, I think she can take ownership and risks however she chooses. Of course she didn't do everything possible to ensure her safety and that is her choice, not blaming , just her choice. And really unless you studied her every move your just making that bit up anyway. And we are free to speculate on the choices we would have Made for ourselves. You calling that judgement is strawman stuff.
@tonka: I didn't quote you out of context at all, I simply pointed out that you've been lucky with your choices, unlike the victim here, and plenty of others who quite reasonably thought they'd taken adequate precautions against being put in a life threatening situation. Victim blaming can't be waved away with euphemistic excuses like "[I'm] speculating on choices".
Since you obvioulsy can't assimilate the many comparable situations of everday life I've previously mentioned - where completely blameless people's lives have been taken by accident and/or irresponsibility, I suggest you google restaurant deaths(directly relevant to this sitruation). By your "logic" the unfortunates who have been victims of irresponsibility and paid the ultimate price should have "taken ownership" of their decision to dine out. Puerile and irrational tosh. You've been victim blaming from the start, the latest comment above being just another example.
have you ever used a Disney plus trial or visited any of their theme parks in the past? If yes then I have some bad news for you.
But will they use this fine print to deny me taking them to court for a wrongful death at their park?
They've caved. I read a (USA) legal opinion a couple of weeks ago which reckoned they're on extremely thin ice with that argument anyway. You never know with American justice but hopefully the court(s) will kick their objections out of the solar system and set a solid legal precedent for all similar cases.
After the news broke, I got literal 10s of emails from all the different services like Microsoft, Google, etc. All of them added the clause in. Soon enough, it will be a normal clause and can't be thrown out in court.
yeah and like anyone would read the new T&C's, it'll be just delete after seeing that email then if you get into trouble they will say 'yeah but we sent you the new T&C's which you agreed but continuing with the service so you can't sue us'
@bigbadboogieman Got a copy of the new Ms or Google terms so the rest of us can judgem its relevance?
Just because a company or individual puts something you agree to in a "contract" doesn't mean it can'e be thrown out of court. Don't know how the particular jurisdiction in the USA works but in this country in general you can't make people sign away their rights under existing laws. I'm not a leagle eagle but I'd imagine lawyers prosecuting the case would argue that the fine print clause was untenably wide in its scope, and contravened basic consumer rights, including the right of people to sue under a range of laws pertaining to public health, the responsibility of businesses to provide safe products etc. The key thing will be whether the court rules on the ludicrously wide and loose terms Disney has tried to impose in its fine print, rather than ruling on the basis of the facts of this case alone.
@Igaf: But that is exactly what Strata companies did as also talked about in the Four corners report. Mandatory private arbitration clauses, gag orders, personal liability for being on a management committee. Similar report a few weeks ago into 7 news where ex-employees were not able to talk about things. Similar report a few months ago into the building industry in NSW where new builds are sinking and the builders managed to enforce gag orders on customers to keep them from going public forcing them into private arbitration instead of courts.
You will be surprised how effective and enforceable are these clauses even in Australia. You're making assumptions that you can't substantiate whereas I am saying the mere existence of these clauses mean when shit hits the fan, you, me and the avg bloke will have to jump through hundred of hoops just to get these thrown out and then too there is no guarantee.
@bigbadboogieman: Not even vaguely similar. Australian courts have made numerous rulings on the (in)validity of waivers where negligence is involved. A deeply buried clause in a subscription service unrelated to the situation which caused/contributed to the woman's death would be long odds of succeeding here.
@Igaf: Your comment just tells me you didn't read the last part of my comment.. these companies despite of knowing that the clauses may be thrown out, still put it in there for a reason.
@bigbadboogieman: Seems sound practice to me because they know they'd be "laughed out of court" if they failed to tell clients their terms and conditions up front. But, as you appear to be suggesting, they also hope that people won't call the bluff/get legal advice - not unlike some retailers who ignore ACL wrt warranties and costs of return,probably due to ignorance of the laws.
Here's just one article about "fine print"/waivers in Australia. Worth reading and I think you'll like it: https://www.lawyersalliance.com.au/opinion/are-waivers-enfor… His point about being consistent with state and federal laws is one key to any fine print.
Precisely why they can go get effed. The very fact they would even consider this (they backtracked) shows what a POS company they are.
Streaming emerged 10 years ago as the antidote for pirating, for its convenience, value, and freedom from ads.
10 years later, it feels like we’ve gone back to square one, with the ever-shrinking libraries, thin spread of shows across a dozen or so platforms, and emerging prevalence of ads.
It’s just easier to sail the high seas with Plex steering the ship.
Streaming still has value it's still convenient and you dont get ads with high tiers. $20-25 per month isnt really a lot of money and you DONT have to have all services at once, you can alternate between them.
But honestly, you and i both know that if you're a little bit tech savvy and know your way around you'll never stop pirating. Free is always better isn't it?I think you missed this part -
"thin spread of shows across a dozen or so platforms"
Your $20-25 per month is going to get you scraps.
Long live the Jolly Roger!
How can I miss this part when I already replied to it? O_o
I sail the high seas too ( from day 1) but please spare me the excuses. Nothing beats free and it never will.
@nikoris: I haven’t done it for music or games for a very long time because those industries figured out how to provide enough value for consumers to not have to bother with alternatives.
Media content, it seems, is just full of greedy corporate heavyweights trying to milk every cent out of all stakeholders, which I suspect is why we are where we are.
I think you missed the part where he says you DON'T have to subscribe to the dozen or so platforms at the same time..
A benefit of Disney+ is IMAX shots, but I wonder if it’s included anyway in some Blu-Ray versions.
Otherwise it’s pointless.
I was holding off activating the 6 months free offer through CBA Yello, it still had over a month to run then they decided to pull the offer early. SMH
Just checked my Commbank and the offer is gone for me too.
yeah i know i was going to apply for it on the last day and they pulled it off !
sly and wtf
Once my sub runs out in Feb I don't think I'll sign up again. There's not much on there.
So it says $13.99/month for three months on the app, which isn’t the same as $13.99 for three months. Is it a typo on their part?
If you go directly thru the app the offer does not work. You need to click on the link and go through your browser, at least that is what I could see as I was an ex member.
Is it possible to upgrade to 4k after you get this deal?
Only to have nothing worth to watch and the new releases have gone woke.
I've cancelled it, downgraded Netflix to the one with ads so I don't watch but can still see what is being displayed.Amazon Prime is the only one worth having, you save a lot from Amazon store and can watch movie being displayed at the cinema but cheaper.
Starting 4k UHD bluray collection has been the best thing.
Cheers OP!
Are there ads? Also what is 1080p quality like?
Regarding ads, from the webpage: "Ad-free streaming" with the footnote "All plans may include trailers, promotional content, sponsorship and alike."
For people interested in 4k, once you sign up you can upgrade to premium plan by paying a pro rata amount, which will be $4, so you pay $17.99 for 3 months premium plan
Yes can confirm this works.
Is that an extra $4 for the three months? Or $4 each month for the 3 months ($12)?
EDIT: I just went on chat and they said there is no way to upgrade this offer to 4K Premium. It looks like if you change to the 4K plan, you're just switching from this promotion to a 4K Premium plan that charges $17.99 per month.
That is incorrect. It is a total of $17.99 for 3 months
Confirmed again with live chat and they say the promo is only for standard. If you pay the $4, all it does is move you off the the 3 month promo to a monthly premium 4K plan.
It also says this just before you click accept to change to the Premium plan.
Total due today: $4.00
You will be charged a pro rata amount for the remainder of your billing cycle. You will be charged the full monthly subscription fee on your next billing date on 24/12/2024. By changing your subscription, you will give up any free trial, promotion, price hold and/or discount on subscriptions that are invoiced by Disney.@Sambuca: I just signed up a few minutes ago and upgraded to the 4K Premium plan for the extra $4 :)
"Upcoming Charge: 27 December 2024 $17.99"
This is why I would not sign up with Disney.
https://hls.harvard.edu/today/does-signing-up-for-disney-mea…It’s not because that I don’t enjoy most of their content, it’s their mindset to come up with this type of this;
have you ever used a Disney plus trial or visited any of their theme parks in the past? If yes then I have some bad news for you.
whats the bad news?
If someone dies or gets hurt - or you need compensation for anything at all. Their lawyers say you cant sue them due to accepting the terms of their streaming service agreement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikA9KkiTH-c
@He-Mania: i'm just on a shared account for disney plus but if visiting their theme parks in the past means i can't sue them if someone dies or gets hurt that sucks
hope usa courts change this
In response to the “go woke go broke” comments in this post, Disney was never trying to do something good for society, they were either ticking off a list reluctantly, or shoving it right in front of our faces in hopes of getting another customer from a minority.
What we need is new stories that organically incorporate marginalised groups into the world (look at EEAAO for reference), rather than the current practice of just dumping them on an existing story that was never meant to incorporate those characters in the first place, just to tick off some meaningless boxes that Disney doesn’t even believe in.What we need is to ignore people who jump online to deliver their verdict whenever a person from a minority group appears in media.
I agree, some people are just racists and supremacists no matter what, but most actually feel that including minorities diminishes the piece of media they consume, when actually not much media has included minorities in a way that makes sense both in-universe and outside of the universe.
The problem is the content though, most of this DEI centric stuff is just not entertaining, and the streaming / box office numbers tell the story.
People don't like it, not when it's obvious that DEI is the focus. Most just want to sit down and be entertained, not preached to indirectly. We have to hear these people infer that 'if you don't like this content you must be racist' or the like, as you've suggested. It's garbage. There's been decades of successful minority driven content, the idea that everything must be even or equitable is ruining the standard of it. Proof is in the pudding whether you agree or not.
EEAAO is the sound you make when you step on a nail .
Hmmm let's have a look at some of the library:
Acolyte
Boba Fett
Kenobi
Loki
Wandavision
Falcon
Multiverse if madnessYikes, hard pass.
$13.99 quite cheap for your rights
$14.99 for Only Murders in the Building S4, the Bear (again), Agatha, DP&W (should be out just before this deal expires) is quite good value for half the price of a movie ticket.
Had mine lapsed for almost a year and only sign up when there are new stuff on there to watch.
Yeah -woke and corporate-ism aside, doesn't really matter when you have already signed up before on the free or cheap deals. A deal is a deal.
$14.99 vs RD+Streamio+Chromecast/Fire vs. Plex+high seas.
Horses for courses really.I wish they would remove all the older patriarchal content, I'm triggered every time I see it appear as I'm searching for the moral DEI content.
^ Sarcasm Detected ^
^^ Massive overreaction and lack of balance detected ^^
Boo hoo , someone doesn’t agree with everything I say,
I’m gonna stamp my feet and stick out my bottom lip .Or write a kiddie response.
@beach bum: Your sarcasm detector is functional enough, but your tea leaf reading needs quite a bit of work
Would rather keep my ability to sue Disney than sign up for their brain rot. Never know when I might need to 😅
Sign up with fake name?
Is xmen 97 on Disney?
Also on the bay.
Is it possible to stop the plan after signing up so it doesn't charge you after three months
You can cancel at any time.
This offer doesn’t seem available any more. Cheapest offer is now $13.99/month.
- 1
- 2
@Igaf: Question though, is anyone here questioning that the restaurant bears some guilt. My interpretatation is only that the victim shares some personal responsibility for engaging in a risky activity. Perhaps akin to a normal person skydiving and getting killed where an instructor made the mistake, someone else is technically to blame but you did jump out of a plane.