Disney+'s - WandaVision (Season 1)

[kemcha]

Originally Posted by kevin87

Honestly, I think it's easier for people to 'steal' streaming shows than stuff from disc. Not to mention all the account sharing. I honestly never thought Disney would be dumb enough to completely cut out a revenue stream, no matter how small it may have become... but seems to be the case.

It's actually not about that. Notwithstanding the recent Mandalorian drama lately, I simply don't care for streaming or buying digital content. While there are a lot of people who would rather just buy digital content, I actually prefer the physical copy of a movie or TV series.

The reasons for that are a bit simpler. Streaming services not only require servers but that they aren't forever. Additionally, you may 'buy" or "rent" a movie or TV episodes or whatever it is you want to watch. The fact is, you don't own what you purchase. You're only paying for a limited license to watch what you have in your library. Disney also has the notorious habit of "retiring" movies and TV episodes from time to time, making that content unavailable. This is something that Disney has been doing with Disney+ ever since it launched. If I have the physical copy of a movie or TV series I have purchased, I don't have to worry about the internet connection, the quality of the streaming service or access to it. I just place the disk in my 4K player and I can watch it whenever I wish to. I think a lot of people might agree with my thoughts on that matter.

Originally Posted by JayTL

It seems like most consumers want the convenience of streaming. Also it sounds like you've only seen the first couple episodes, or don't really understand the series. If it's not for you, it's not for you.

Also, since you're pirating, and don't care for the series, why even feel the need to give Disney more money (which would be what, like $15) to own the series on Blu-Ray?

Uh, what? Did you catch wind of a survey of actual retail consumers? The only part of that statement that I would agree with is maybe "some internet consumers". I wouldn't be so bold as to say "most consumers" because that's over generalizing. I would hazard a guess to say that "most internet consumers" will pay to maybe rent the movie for their kids or family but when it comes to actually wanting to own it, they're more likely to want to purchase the physical disk for $15 rather than paying for the digital streaming copy for $15. Like I said above, you're not actually paying to own the digital copy, it's just a license.

I remember videogame developers that wanted new laws passed that would have required used game retailers like Gamestop to pay then a royalty every time they sold a used game. It failed spectacularly because they were aiming too high. Microsoft has been trying to force its gamers into the Xbox Gamepass with its cloud gaming but that too backfired. Simply because most consumers won't to own a physical copy of what they buy.

The entertainment industry has been wanting to use a licensing system where movies, music, software and television shows would replace the ownership of the physical copy.

I'm not an expert on this but I have read up on the many articles that have been written on Techdirt and Arstechnica about these attempts. I thought it was over-reaching by the industry when these reports started crawling out of the woodwork.

The absence of streaming shows on home video is why consumers are looking for alternate means. I don't support it but I do realize that there is strong demand for this content that consumers want to purchase and own.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Wait a minute... Is Chthon actually the big bad?!

Blade crossover!

[HillSprinter]

Originally Posted by slumcat

I think the DVDs were an unfortunate goof. Why didn't they show VHS tapes instead of DVDs?

I will admit the DVD set took me out. I immediately starting thinking, wait a minute.

The DVD’s were bootlegs of the VHS tapes!

[JayTL]

Originally Posted by kemcha

It's actually not about that. Notwithstanding the recent Mandalorian drama lately, I simply don't care for streaming or buying digital content. While there are a lot of people who would rather just buy digital content, I actually prefer the physical copy of a movie or TV series.

The reasons for that are a bit simpler. Streaming services not only require servers but that they aren't forever. Additionally, you may 'buy" or "rent" a movie or TV episodes or whatever it is you want to watch. The fact is, you don't own what you purchase. You're only paying for a limited license to watch what you have in your library. Disney also has the notorious habit of "retiring" movies and TV episodes from time to time, making that content unavailable. This is something that Disney has been doing with Disney+ ever since it launched. If I have the physical copy of a movie or TV series I have purchased, I don't have to worry about the internet connection, the quality of the streaming service or access to it. I just place the disk in my 4K player and I can watch it whenever I wish to. I think a lot of people might agree with my thoughts on that matter.



Uh, what? Did you catch wind of a survey of actual retail consumers? The only part of that statement that I would agree with is maybe "some internet consumers". I wouldn't be so bold as to say "most consumers" because that's over generalizing. I would hazard a guess to say that "most internet consumers" will pay to maybe rent the movie for their kids or family but when it comes to actually wanting to own it, they're more likely to want to purchase the physical disk for $15 rather than paying for the digital streaming copy for $15. Like I said above, you're not actually paying to own the digital copy, it's just a license.

I remember videogame developers that wanted new laws passed that would have required used game retailers like Gamestop to pay then a royalty every time they sold a used game. It failed spectacularly because they were aiming too high. Microsoft has been trying to force its gamers into the Xbox Gamepass with its cloud gaming but that too backfired. Simply because most consumers won't to own a physical copy of what they buy.

The entertainment industry has been wanting to use a licensing system where movies, music, software and television shows would replace the ownership of the physical copy.

I'm not an expert on this but I have read up on the many articles that have been written on Techdirt and Arstechnica about these attempts. I thought it was over-reaching by the industry when these reports started crawling out of the woodwork.

The absence of streaming shows on home video is why consumers are looking for alternate means. I don't support it but I do realize that there is strong demand for this content that consumers want to purchase and own.

The amount of people who have Disney Plus, and the amount of people who have game pass, etc already debunk your post. Physical media is dying. Not as fast as movie theaters, but sales are down. Compare that to streaming numbers...sounds like your just letting your bias effect your argument.

Also, if you buy a disk, aren't you just buying a license to watch it as well? The sooner people actually know their ownership rights to all this media, the easier everything will be.

There's many threads that go into it, so why don't you go to one of those, and let the people who watch the show actually talk about it?

[willbfree]

Although the memories were nice to see, the Christmas Carol way they were brought forth felt really ham-handed compared to how much more elegantly, or at least more subtly, the previous episodes had delivered information.

Similarly, the big “You’re a wizard, Harry!” reveal must have meant something to comic book readers but was meaningless here.

A minor nit is that no one ever had any trouble going in through the wall before, so why was there difficulty this time? I get that the challenge was not to be converted into a “character” while doing so, but, that should not have meant that a truck would have any difficulty driving in. (Maybe there was a line of exposition thrown in about how the wall isn’t sucking in everyone who touches it like it was before, and I missed it?)

[willbfree]

Originally Posted by jayman3

Yes. It was all a charade to make Wanda believe. Is it really hard? Illusions all along. Agatha was in control of this fake Pietro the entire time.

Why do you think he was so questioning of Wanda and how she created the hex. It was Agatha in disguise of Pietro.

Not that difficult to understand but if y’all wanna think him to be the actual real Quicksilver from another universe, then so be it.

A simple line of dialogue saying she “accidentally grabbed his appearance from a neighboring reality, oops,” would have been nice. Something like she hadn’t been much of a fan, hadn’t seen him on tv, didn’t realize her mistake until Wanda acted weird when she answered the door and didn’t recognize him.

[Joey9775]

Originally Posted by willbfree

A simple line of dialogue saying she “accidentally grabbed his appearance from a neighboring reality, oops,” would have been nice. Something like she hadn’t been much of a fan, hadn’t seen him on tv, didn’t realize her mistake until Wanda acted weird when she answered the door and didn’t recognize him.

There's still another episode. But Agatha said it was a "possession" spell so Fake Pietro could say whatever she wanted him to say. So you have two possibilities, he's from the multiverse or its a random guy that looks like Evan Peters that Agatha has been possessing to act like Pietro. The second choice is way too meta for Kevin Feige and would piss off a lot of people. But I guess we'll see Thursday.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by willbfree

A simple line of dialogue saying she “accidentally grabbed his appearance from a neighboring reality, oops,” would have been nice. Something like she hadn’t been much of a fan, hadn’t seen him on tv, didn’t realize her mistake until Wanda acted weird when she answered the door and didn’t recognize him.

It would have been fun if Agatha had said, "Oh him ... I grabbed him from another universe."

Sometimes, on-the-nose works.

[Indiana Jones]

Originally Posted by willbfree

Although the memories were nice to see, the Christmas Carol way they were brought forth felt really ham-handed compared to how much more elegantly, or at least more subtly, the previous episodes had delivered information.

Similarly, the big “You’re a wizard, Harry!” reveal must have meant something to comic book readers but was meaningless here.

A minor nit is that no one ever had any trouble going in through the wall before, so why was there difficulty this time? I get that the challenge was not to be converted into a “character” while doing so, but, that should not have meant that a truck would have any difficulty driving in. (Maybe there was a line of exposition thrown in about how the wall isn’t sucking in everyone who touches it like it was before, and I missed it?)

She dialled up the barrier to stop just anything entering/leaving after the drone got through in episode 5, until that point the hex had been translucent with just the TV static crackle up close but after the threat of the drone she altered it and from that point it was glowing red, the next time we saw anyone try to enter/leave was Vision and he had a tough time getting through just as Monica did in episode 7.

[jayman3]

Originally Posted by Joey9775

There's still another episode. But Agatha said it was a "possession" spell so Fake Pietro could say whatever she wanted him to say. So you have two possibilities, he's from the multiverse or its a random guy that looks like Evan Peters that Agatha has been possessing to act like Pietro. The second choice is way too meta for Kevin Feige and would piss off a lot of people. But I guess we'll see Thursday.

She doesn't explicitly state if he's actually a citizen of Westview that she's co-opted (like what Wanda's done,) or a manifestation, but she does seem to allude that he's served as her "eyes and ears" in situations that she wasn't able to get access to Wanda for whatever reason.

This does seem to suggest that Peters isn't really playing Peter Maximoff from 20th Century's X-Men franchise, a popular theory amongst those who've seen the show.

Again, Feige said, "That's one of the fun things about developing these things or blue-skying it in the rooms. My favourite part of the process is always the very, very beginning when we're figuring out what something could be and at the very, very end when we're refining it and putting it out into the world. So there were all sorts of discussions, but I believe we ended up going with what you saw relatively early on in the development process. It's just another way that certain people were messing around with Wanda."

[JeffTheMovieGuy]

Every character that seems to mention Wanda's accent coming and going I wonder if they are implying that it only comes on when she uses her powers heavily as if that is the actual Scarlet Witch coming over her.

[pabloccb]

It's weird so many people enjoyed this episode so much. Don't get me wrong, it was good. But it was a good 4th episode not good before the final. There is only ONE epislde left and we still have 100000 questions and so far only few answers.

And we already know everything from those flashback or at least we could guess.

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by pabloccb

It's weird so many people enjoyed this episode so much. Don't get me wrong, it was good. But it was a good 4th episode not good before the final. There is only ONE epislde left and we still have 100000 questions and so far only few answers.

And we already know everything from those flashback or at least we could guess.

The flashback was a bit of a let down since we all knew she created the TV show to revive Vision.. so we haven't learned anything new.

I think they won't answer everything in next episode, there'll be a cliffhanger for Season 2

[ItsMeBilly]

Originally Posted by jayman3

Yes. It was all a charade to make Wanda believe. Is it really hard? Illusions all along. Agatha was in control of this fake Pietro the entire time.

Why do you think he was so questioning of Wanda and how she created the hex. It was Agatha in disguise of Pietro.

Not that difficult to understand but if y’all wanna think him to be the actual real Quicksilver from another universe, then so be it.

Exactly! The ONLY reason its Evan Peters is to make a joke about recasting classic sitcom characters. It has ZERO to do with FOX X MEN multiverse rubbish.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by blakninja

The flashback was a bit of a let down since we all knew she created the TV show to revive Vision.. so we haven't learned anything new.

I think they won't answer everything in next episode, there'll be a cliffhanger for Season 2

We learned that she hexed the bomb, we learned that the sitcoms are her happy place, we learned she did not steal Visions body, we learned why she picked West View, we learned that the stone choose her, and there was a time skip on the recording.

[JayTL]

Originally Posted by ItsMeBilly

Exactly! The ONLY reason its Evan Peters is to make a joke about recasting classic sitcom characters. It has ZERO to do with FOX X MEN multiverse rubbish.

So besides the fact that there are at least 2 movies and 1 series dealing with alternate universes/multiverse, the only reason they would introduce it now is for a joke?

I'd say it's a better chance they're laying the groundwork for the next few titles, rather than "ZERO to do with multiverse rubbish"

[JeffTheMovieGuy]

I don't think they would just have Evan Peters just come into the MCU as a just a joke.

[slumcat]

But there’s no other explanation yet. The multiverse isn’t open yet, people can’t yet travel between universes in MCU. So how did Fox Pietro come into this universe?

I think Fietro might still be an ordinary Westview citizen.

[openviews]

Speaking about spoilers I recommended the show to someone and the first thing they'll see on the Disney+ main page is Agatha and Wanda from the beginning of episode eight and the preview image for episode four is Geraldine back in the real world.

Is it really so hard to keep major plot points away from people just tuning in for the first time?

[StreamNotEvil]

Originally Posted by kemcha

It's actually not about that. Notwithstanding the recent Mandalorian drama lately, I simply don't care for streaming or buying digital content. While there are a lot of people who would rather just buy digital content, I actually prefer the physical copy of a movie or TV series.

The reasons for that are a bit simpler. Streaming services not only require servers but that they aren't forever. Additionally, you may 'buy" or "rent" a movie or TV episodes or whatever it is you want to watch. The fact is, you don't own what you purchase. You're only paying for a limited license to watch what you have in your library. Disney also has the notorious habit of "retiring" movies and TV episodes from time to time, making that content unavailable. This is something that Disney has been doing with Disney+ ever since it launched. If I have the physical copy of a movie or TV series I have purchased, I don't have to worry about the internet connection, the quality of the streaming service or access to it. I just place the disk in my 4K player and I can watch it whenever I wish to. I think a lot of people might agree with my thoughts on that matter.



Uh, what? Did you catch wind of a survey of actual retail consumers? The only part of that statement that I would agree with is maybe "some internet consumers". I wouldn't be so bold as to say "most consumers" because that's over generalizing. I would hazard a guess to say that "most internet consumers" will pay to maybe rent the movie for their kids or family but when it comes to actually wanting to own it, they're more likely to want to purchase the physical disk for $15 rather than paying for the digital streaming copy for $15. Like I said above, you're not actually paying to own the digital copy, it's just a license.

I remember videogame developers that wanted new laws passed that would have required used game retailers like Gamestop to pay then a royalty every time they sold a used game. It failed spectacularly because they were aiming too high. Microsoft has been trying to force its gamers into the Xbox Gamepass with its cloud gaming but that too backfired. Simply because most consumers won't to own a physical copy of what they buy.

The entertainment industry has been wanting to use a licensing system where movies, music, software and television shows would replace the ownership of the physical copy.

I'm not an expert on this but I have read up on the many articles that have been written on Techdirt and Arstechnica about these attempts. I thought it was over-reaching by the industry when these reports started crawling out of the woodwork.

The absence of streaming shows on home video is why consumers are looking for alternate means. I don't support it but I do realize that there is strong demand for this content that consumers want to purchase and own.

Okay, enough of spreading these unfounded fears. Streaming may not be perfect...yet, yet being the key word. It’s not normally as uncompressed as the average disc (which is also technically compressed) but unless we go back to the stone ages anytime soon, it will only get better. Also, people act like studios will struggle to keep their libraries up to date. Ridiculous. Even if someone watches the most obscure thing imaginable (which should not be compared to mainstream popular movies, btw!) and it only gets watched one time, it’s no skin off Disney’s nose to keep it on their service. Many quake in fear over not owning the physical copy of something, but we’ve been doing this with music files for decades at this point and haven’t been losing songs en masse, if at all. And to top it off there are many many options when it comes to streaming movies/television (and they all almost always share their libraries with each other, if you take 5 seconds out of your day to connect them) whereas there are technically really only two major music streaming services IMO (who don’t run around and delete your privately uploaded libraries btw). Streaming connectivity and studios streaming platforms are only become more diverse, not less! Also, people bemoan licensing agreements but I don’t see that being a major issue in the long run. Look at the drama over Disney losing Home Alone last year as an example. It’s already back on D+. Licensing issues are a fact of life but they are also temporary. Unless Disney starts entering into temporary licensing agreements with studios/movies they will never own, these issues will no longer be issues in a few contract cycles. And even if you stream the most obscure thing imaginable like some random BBC show that lasted 2.5 episodes in 1973, it should be no skin off the original content owners nose to keep it on their streaming service, streaming services do not have the limits shelf space does; it should not matter how obscure/popular it is, and it would be a mistake to compare the most obscure content to the most popular content anyway. Infinity War is not ever going to be at risk, for example. With all of that said, sure I guess you are never going to have a physical copy of the movie on your shelf and you might never be able to stream Song of the South, but as I said before, the obscure should not be compared to the mainstream, and we don’t technically know that Disney won’t ever change their minds. But that’s the only real difference I’m seeing between the two in the long run. Again baring the scenario where we all end sending mankind back to the stone age, things will only get better.