The weekend’s best deals: Disney+ for $2, Anker chargers, and more
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Trying to get the peacock deal but doesn't seem to work. Takes me directly to the app download, but upon creating account, it is $4.99 per month. I mean I want to buy it!
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
"The Orville" is on Disney+ add free.
In May 2022, The Orville executive producer David Goodman told TrekMovie "the show is absolutely not canceled," adding: "If the fans and the audience show up on Hulu, there absolutely can be a season four."
So now if you are a fan, you have another chance to show up at Disney+
In May 2022, The Orville executive producer David Goodman told TrekMovie "the show is absolutely not canceled," adding: "If the fans and the audience show up on Hulu, there absolutely can be a season four."
So now if you are a fan, you have another chance to show up at Disney+
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
AmanoJyaku
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
I'm having trouble, as well. I wonder if it's my combination of NoScript and uBlock? It's asking for a promo code, so it's possible it doesn't work through a direct link. I've had a Peacock account for about a year, but never really used it because the library is small and doesn't interest me. Still, $20 for a year is hard to pass up.
But you may be in luck. The past few days I've logged in to see if there's anything new, and a page would randomly load offering me a promo that I reflexively ignored. I think it was this deal, so you may want to wait. You have until Sept. 30 before the deal expires. I'd rather Ars get some credit, but I doubt they'll get much from $20.
The other reason I'm interested is two supernatural series just caught my attention, Supernatural Academy and Vampire Academy. They're both for young adults, but it's hard to say "no" to vampires.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
AmanoJyaku
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
Side note: I'm surprised Love and Thunder is Ars approved. I finished it last week, and it's the first MCU movie I plan on never watching again. The Disney+ subscription is well worth it. Phase 4 has been a disappointment, and I'd be violently angry if I had spent movie theater money on the films other than Shang-Chi. I saw that in the theater, and loved it, fortunately.
I have yet to see No Way Home.
I have yet to see No Way Home.
Upvote
1
(6
/
-5)
She-Hulk is pretty great though. The cast is great and it gives us more Wongers.
Upvote
8
(12
/
-4)
AmanoJyaku
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
My comment was to promote the value proposition of Disney+ vs movie theaters. This is the first phase where I can't recommend going to the theater unequivocally. I do expect Wakanda Forever will close Phase 4 out with a bang. My feelings about the Phase 4 films have mirrored my feelings about the trailers, and this one has me pumped.
OTOH, you have to have Disney+ to see She-Hulk. So you have no choice there. (I don't pirate anymore.)
Upvote
4
(6
/
-2)
I enjoyed Love & Thunder overall, though all the nonsense blowhard Thor speeches were not my cup of comedy tea. Once as a joke maybe, 5 or 6 of them was way too many for me.
Different people have different senses of humor -- Our Flag Means Death is popular but I couldn't make it through one episode.
I agree about Disney+ being a good value if you like Marvel, Pixar, or Disney. I've watched it more than Netflix lately and it's $9 vs. $18.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Mr.Mumbles
Ars Centurion
Very nice. Thanks for the heads-up. Definitely something up my alley, but I could never bother to sign up with Hulu. Being able to watch all seasons for 2 bucks is a no-brainer and I get to catch up on some other Disney stuff like Obi-Wan, She-Hulk...
And Andor will be releasing soon, too... hmm... I see what you're doing there Disney. Trying to make me sub for another month or two after. *shakes fist weakly*
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
> New users only: Peacock Premium 12-month subscription for $20 ($50) at Peacock
With ads and with no discount on "Premium Plus" for ad-free.
No thanks Peacock. Premium should mean ad-free, I frown upon your Newspeak.
With ads and with no discount on "Premium Plus" for ad-free.
No thanks Peacock. Premium should mean ad-free, I frown upon your Newspeak.
Upvote
29
(29
/
0)
purposelycryptic
Ars Scholae Palatinae
My dad just got suckered into one of these to watch the new Jurassic World, luckily it was only a one month for $1. One he saw the ads, he turned it off immediately. Needless to say, he will not be renewing.
Leave ads to network TV, please.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
Same here about Thor, I was surprised how bad it was and happy I didn’t spend the money to see it in theaters. I had high hopes given how good Ragnarok was, but it’s worse than Eternals IMO.
Upvote
-3
(3
/
-6)
No Way Home is fantastic. I wasn’t as put off as you by Love and Thunder, but I agree it’s the worst of the Thor movies.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
I get the Premium ad (middle) tier as part of Comcast, and I haven’t been too bothered by ads for movies so far - it seems to only show three minutes before the movie starts and none during the movie.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
you more what would be a good deal? a $10 usb c wall wart.. why are $40 chargers a good deal?
Upvote
-4
(1
/
-5)
Provides more electricity and won't burn your house down when $10 model shorts out or overheats due to shotty components.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
AmanoJyaku
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
Yeah, the naming is crappy, but there's a method to the madness:
Peacock - Free, with a limited selection of ad-filled content
Premium - $5/month, with full access to ad-filled content
Premium Plus - $10/month, with full access to ad-free content*
Those complaining about ads are looking for the Premium Plus plan, which is priced similarly to competing services. And even for the ad-filled plans, the ads tend to be clustered in the first hour. For a TV series, ads are typically after the opening credits, before or after the closing credits, and somewhere in the middle. For a movie, ads are after the opening credits, somewhere around the 1-hour mark, and somewhere in between the two. The last hour is ad-free.
And if you don't want ads at all, get the expensive plan.
Personally, I'm fine with the ads. Peacock's pricing makes content available to an audience that couldn't afford it. And the ad breaks are short, at most 1 minute. Peacock's movie selection sucks, anyway, so my money's better spent on another service. The reason to get Peacock is their TV series, which I'm not sure I'd want to pay top-dollar for. Once my year is up I will not be renewing, I'm not that interested in what the service has to offer.
*The ToS point out some films have ads at the very beginning because licensing deals force Peacock to do that. Get rid of the ads, and Peacock loses access to the films.
Upvote
-3
(3
/
-6)
We have the Premium tier as part of our Comcast cable subscription and we only saw ads before Jurassic World: Dominion. There weren't any ads during the movie for us.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Worse than The Dark World?? That's a pretty low bar.
Perosnally, I went in not expecting much and I was happily surprised. Certainly not a movie that i'll want to watch again, but I can see tossing it on in the background.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Not all USB-C chargers are the same. A $10 USB-C charger wont' be able to charge a standard non-gamer laptop like a 65W USB-C Power Delivery charger will. The Anker Nano also supports PPS (Programmable Power Supply) which enables Super Fast Charging on newer Samsung phones like the Galaxy S22 Ultra and Z Flip 4. The Anker Nanos also use GaN tech, which means they are smaller and lighter to carry in your bag than comparable wattage non-GaN chargers (like the big ones that Apple used to pack in with their MacBooks as their standard charger before they went GaN with the new Airs).
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Sorry for unrelated comment, but I have a major request Ars. Please don’t change your website design. I have quit looking at The Verge because of their horrible new site design.
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
I thought they leaned WAY too hard into the cheesy side in the first half of the movie, oftentimes making Thor just come across as annoying. Overall I enjoyed it, but certainly not one of my favorites.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
AmanoJyaku
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
I'm curious to learn what makes so many people here criticize The Dark World. The villain was flat and generic, but so were the villains of Iron-Man 3, Dr. Strange, and Ant-Man. And those movies were well received. Ant-Man I get, it was funny as all hell and generally well-written. And I could make a case for Iron-Man 3 purely because of Ben Kingsley. I can't defend Dr. Strange, it was Iron-Man with magic, poorly written, and Kaecilius was just...
The Dark World had its issues.
First off, Jane should have died immediately when she was possessed by the Aether. I'll pretend Love and Thunder gave us an explanation for that: if you're worthy enough to possess the power of Thor, you can probably handle the Aether. Except, Love and Thunder is based on a comic arc, and I don't think Jane was possessed by the Aether in the comics. But I'll go with this interpretation, because the MCU isn't a direct adaptation.
Malekith needed more development. His motives were surprisingly relatable: the universe the Dark Elves came from was naturally dark, and its current lit form is fatal to them. That's why most of the Dark Elves were fully covered from head to toe, to block out light. The only Dark Elves who weren't fully covered were Malekith and Algrim/Kurse, which served to prove how powerful they were. Malekith further demonstrates his power by being able to wield the Aether. I think of him as a misguided, xenophobic conservationist attempting to restore the universe he knew.
Yet, he's clearly still a villain given the number of times he sacrificed his own people without hesitation. Which brings me to the next issue... The Dark Elves needed development. There's no reason given for why they're so loyal. I've never been a fan of cannon-fodder, everyone operates out of self-interest. What did the Dark Elves get out of this, other than a Dark Universe? There weren't that many of them, couldn't they be satisfied with a... Dark World?
Malekith needed more development. His motives were surprisingly relatable: the universe the Dark Elves came from was naturally dark, and its current lit form is fatal to them. That's why most of the Dark Elves were fully covered from head to toe, to block out light. The only Dark Elves who weren't fully covered were Malekith and Algrim/Kurse, which served to prove how powerful they were. Malekith further demonstrates his power by being able to wield the Aether. I think of him as a misguided, xenophobic conservationist attempting to restore the universe he knew.
Yet, he's clearly still a villain given the number of times he sacrificed his own people without hesitation. Which brings me to the next issue... The Dark Elves needed development. There's no reason given for why they're so loyal. I've never been a fan of cannon-fodder, everyone operates out of self-interest. What did the Dark Elves get out of this, other than a Dark Universe? There weren't that many of them, couldn't they be satisfied with a... Dark World?
The best explanation I've seen for the criticism of The Dark World came from a movie critic who felt comic book films should be light and funny, not dark and brooding. I've read thousands of comics, they run the gamut of genres. Yet, this criticism seems to be shared specifically by movie viewers. Films like Watchmen, The Dark World, and the admittedly terrible DCEU are constantly attacked for being serious. But there are exceptions, like the Christopher Nolan Batman series. Execution is key, but lots of fans want funny. Which would explain DC's shift for Shazam! and the upcoming Black Adam.
All that said, there was one thing I liked about Love and Thunder: Christian Bale's Gorr was relatable, and well-acted.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
100% same. I can't tell what's a new article, what was posted a few days ago, and what is just someone's Twitter feed.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
I'm curious to learn what makes so many people here criticize The Dark World. The villain was flat and generic, but so were the villains of Iron-Man 3, Dr. Strange, and Ant-Man. And those movies were well received. Ant-Man I get, it was funny as all hell and generally well-written. And I could make a case for Iron-Man 3 purely because of Ben Kingsley. I can't defend Dr. Strange, it was Iron-Man with magic, poorly written, and Kaecilius was just...
The Dark World had its issues.
First off, Jane should have died immediately when she was possessed by the Aether. I'll pretend Love and Thunder gave us an explanation for that: if you're worthy enough to possess the power of Thor, you can probably handle the Aether. Except, Love and Thunder is based on a comic arc, and I don't think Jane was possessed by the Aether in the comics. But I'll go with this interpretation, because the MCU isn't a direct adaptation.
Malekith needed more development. His motives were surprisingly relatable: the universe the Dark Elves came from was naturally dark, and its current lit form is fatal to them. That's why most of the Dark Elves were fully covered from head to toe, to block out light. The only Dark Elves who weren't fully covered were Malekith and Algrim/Kurse, which served to prove how powerful they were. Malekith further demonstrates his power by being able to wield the Aether. I think of him as a misguided, xenophobic conservationist attempting to restore the universe he knew.
Yet, he's clearly still a villain given the number of times he sacrificed his own people without hesitation. Which brings me to the next issue... The Dark Elves needed development. There's no reason given for why they're so loyal. I've never been a fan of cannon-fodder, everyone operates out of self-interest. What did the Dark Elves get out of this, other than a Dark Universe? There weren't that many of them, couldn't they be satisfied with a... Dark World?
The best explanation I've seen for the criticism of The Dark World came from a movie critic who felt comic book films should be light and funny, not dark and brooding. I've read thousands of comics, they run the gamut of genres. Yet, this criticism seems to be shared specifically by movie viewers. Films like Watchmen, The Dark World, and the admittedly terrible DCEU are constantly attacked for being serious. But there are exceptions, like the Christopher Nolan Batman series. Execution is key, but lots of fans want funny. Which would explain DC's shift for Shazam! and the upcoming Black Adam.
All that said, there was one thing I liked about Love and Thunder: Christian Bale's Gorr was relatable, and well-acted.
For me, there is absolutely nothing memorable in Dark World. It just didnt have much comic relief going for it outside of Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). And thats what makes a strong MCU movie. Solid plot, action and comedy mixure. I feel like Dark World missed on 2/3 of those
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
AmanoJyaku
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
Does this mean you didn't like The Winter Solider and Civil War? Those were largely devoid of comedy, but I'd say they're among my top 5 MCU films.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I'm curious to learn what makes so many people here criticize The Dark World. The villain was flat and generic, but so were the villains of Iron-Man 3, Dr. Strange, and Ant-Man. And those movies were well received. Ant-Man I get, it was funny as all hell and generally well-written. And I could make a case for Iron-Man 3 purely because of Ben Kingsley. I can't defend Dr. Strange, it was Iron-Man with magic, poorly written, and Kaecilius was just...
The Dark World had its issues.
First off, Jane should have died immediately when she was possessed by the Aether. I'll pretend Love and Thunder gave us an explanation for that: if you're worthy enough to possess the power of Thor, you can probably handle the Aether. Except, Love and Thunder is based on a comic arc, and I don't think Jane was possessed by the Aether in the comics. But I'll go with this interpretation, because the MCU isn't a direct adaptation.
Malekith needed more development. His motives were surprisingly relatable: the universe the Dark Elves came from was naturally dark, and its current lit form is fatal to them. That's why most of the Dark Elves were fully covered from head to toe, to block out light. The only Dark Elves who weren't fully covered were Malekith and Algrim/Kurse, which served to prove how powerful they were. Malekith further demonstrates his power by being able to wield the Aether. I think of him as a misguided, xenophobic conservationist attempting to restore the universe he knew.
Yet, he's clearly still a villain given the number of times he sacrificed his own people without hesitation. Which brings me to the next issue... The Dark Elves needed development. There's no reason given for why they're so loyal. I've never been a fan of cannon-fodder, everyone operates out of self-interest. What did the Dark Elves get out of this, other than a Dark Universe? There weren't that many of them, couldn't they be satisfied with a... Dark World?
The best explanation I've seen for the criticism of The Dark World came from a movie critic who felt comic book films should be light and funny, not dark and brooding. I've read thousands of comics, they run the gamut of genres. Yet, this criticism seems to be shared specifically by movie viewers. Films like Watchmen, The Dark World, and the admittedly terrible DCEU are constantly attacked for being serious. But there are exceptions, like the Christopher Nolan Batman series. Execution is key, but lots of fans want funny. Which would explain DC's shift for Shazam! and the upcoming Black Adam.
All that said, there was one thing I liked about Love and Thunder: Christian Bale's Gorr was relatable, and well-acted.
I still feel like the first Thor movie was the worst one. I thought all of Phase I had a dearth of action sequences for superhero movies (which then got made up by the first Avengers movie being largely continuous action, as though they'd literally been saving all their action screentime from the individual movies for Avengers 1), but the action crescendo of the first movie was literally the opening scene against the Ice Giants. I thought Dark World did a better job on the nuts of bolts mechanical parts of making a superhero movie, even if the whole thing was overall rather bland and forgettable.
I thought Love and Thunder was overall enjoyable, but I watched it at home when it came out on Disney+ and I'm happy I didn't go out of my way to see it at a theater.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
For Ars, it's an easy solve - become a subscriber and use the "Classic" layout. I haven't looked at the default layout since Classic became an option.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
//but if you were already thinking of checking out the Ars-approved Thor: Love and Thunder (which landed on the service earlier this month), trying She-Hulk: Attorney at Law//
Both of those films were pathetic drivel, only enjoyed by mindless morons. Unbelievable that you'd tout this schlock as good cinema.
Both of those films were pathetic drivel, only enjoyed by mindless morons. Unbelievable that you'd tout this schlock as good cinema.
Upvote
-18
(2
/
-20)
ApplePaladin
Ars Praefectus
Good time for a reminder to understand the difference between "I don't like this thing" and "this thing is bad and no one should like it." Often the latter is said when only the former is true.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
Upvote
-16
(1
/
-17)
I've loved the series up until the latest episode (the trademark one). Pretty mediocre - bad comedic timing, lingered too long on jokes that didn't hit, I'm not sure what went wrong. It probably needed 3-4 minutes of dead air trimmed from the episode.
Harley Quinn, on the other hand, has been nonstop bangers as I've caught up to season 1+2. Between that and house of the dragon (I promised myself I wouldn't get hurt again, but here I am!) I'm strongly considering the HBO max deal.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
For She-Hulk, I’m just waiting for something to actually happen. The show is feeling more like a sitcom where nothing of substance actually happens or matters.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
To each their own, I'm actually enjoying that. It's a chill slice-of-life show, not something that is going to drastically alter the rest of the universe.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I had Disney and finally canceled. Disney is the absolute worst thing to happen to every single franchise it has touched in the past decade. What they have done to Star Wars alone is almost unforgivable. Even when it is "good" (The Mandalorian), it is mostly bad and extraordinarily lazy writing. Most of it's value is in the excellent visual effects work where the effects people have been putting in overtime, but the scripts are hot flaming garbage. Just as an example; when Boba Fett went back to the Sarlacc pit to find its armor. Apparently the writers forgot that they show Boba Fett climbing out of the put in his armor, not, uh, naked. It's a major plot point, but apparently the writers couldn't arsed with following their own story and remember that Boba Fett doesn't crawl out of the pit naked, but is instead looted by Jawas. It was like 4 episodes ago. They are not even pretending to try.
Marvel is just as bad. They have had some interesting setups, but then the shows promptly implode into horribly written non-sense by the end. I'm looking at you Loki and WandaVision.
And yes, the damage even includes Disney's very own franchises. They are currently in the process of digging up all of their classic cartoons and making uniformly awful live action remakes. It's almost impressive. I didn't think that a corporation could ruin their own successful franchise with such ease, but Disney is on a mission to exhume the corpse EVERYTHING and bring it out for display with bad CGI.
It sucks that the entire entertainment industry has consolidated so badly and left Disney in such a dominate position, sucking all of the creativity and originality out of the air. Disney has turned all of the entertainment they get their hands on into McDonalds; easily reproducible crap that you can mindlessly consume, but that is basically devoid of nutrition value; or artistic value in the case of Disney. It's cool if you like fast food entertainment, but it's deeply not cool that Disney has turned most of the market into that. There is Disney with it's hundred million dollar productions, and then no light is seen until you are at barging budget indie films and TV shows trying to get a little bit of light between the cracks.
Disney is the absolute worst thing to happen to each and every franchise and property it has gotten into that cold, dead mouse's hands.
Marvel is just as bad. They have had some interesting setups, but then the shows promptly implode into horribly written non-sense by the end. I'm looking at you Loki and WandaVision.
And yes, the damage even includes Disney's very own franchises. They are currently in the process of digging up all of their classic cartoons and making uniformly awful live action remakes. It's almost impressive. I didn't think that a corporation could ruin their own successful franchise with such ease, but Disney is on a mission to exhume the corpse EVERYTHING and bring it out for display with bad CGI.
It sucks that the entire entertainment industry has consolidated so badly and left Disney in such a dominate position, sucking all of the creativity and originality out of the air. Disney has turned all of the entertainment they get their hands on into McDonalds; easily reproducible crap that you can mindlessly consume, but that is basically devoid of nutrition value; or artistic value in the case of Disney. It's cool if you like fast food entertainment, but it's deeply not cool that Disney has turned most of the market into that. There is Disney with it's hundred million dollar productions, and then no light is seen until you are at barging budget indie films and TV shows trying to get a little bit of light between the cracks.
Disney is the absolute worst thing to happen to each and every franchise and property it has gotten into that cold, dead mouse's hands.
Upvote
2
(5
/
-3)
AmanoJyaku
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
These are opinions, which I share.
However, voicing them this way makes you sound like a jerk. In my opinion.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
What you said applies, in my opinion, to literally every single movie based on a comic book in all of cinema history, with the possible exception of those made for the Alan Moore originals, V and Watchmen.
The idea of comparing one to another, as though THIS Eggyolk Face movie was literary genius while THAT Eggyolk Face movie was garbage, is just silly to me. I've seen a fair smattering of these movies throughout the past thirty five years and they have categorically been terrible. The acting among everyone except the high paid lead actors is always horrible, and there are always huge story flaws which only survive the audience because most people are too unimaginative to notice.
I am reminded of a particular Stargate Atlantis episode, another absurd show but somehow much more believable than anything in the Marvel universe, called Irresponsible. I believe it is Season 3, you can watch it right now on Pluto for free in the US.
Spoiler alert.
In the episode, Lucius Lavin is a man who has discovered a personal shield device which can not only stop bullets, blades, punches, and other weapons, but also protect him from huge weights being dropped onto his head.
Later in the episode, a skilled military commander happens upon Lucius Lavin and is impressed by the shield when his whole battalion opens fire and fails to harm him at all. The commander has many more men with him, so Lucius is ultimately still at their disposal, being a larger man with no actual ability to fight hand to hand or escape anywhere, and no force to defend him.
They have a conversation where the commander tells Lucius of a scenario he finds fascinating. If he were to put Lavin into a hole and fill the hole with dirt, the shield would protect him from being killed by the weight of the dirt. The action overall would still suffocate and kill him however.
This is the sort of imagination I'm talking about. Essentially every one of the major superheroes has an absurdly easy way to totally negate their powers and eliminate their threat fairy easily but the audience is expected to believe that the military, the intelligence agencies, the rival superheroes, human scholars, and pretty much everyone in the world is just too dumb and uncreative to think of rational solutions, and so the superhero just gets away with 'saving the world.'
Anyway, I get the whole 'hey this is my mindless entertainment and I enjoy it' argument. That's fine. We all have some mindless entertainment but to try to pretend that Jumpy Guy 4 is the best story ever written while Jumpy Guy 7 is unbelievable and uninspired always strikes me as silly. They're ALL drivel. That's the genre.
Upvote
0
(4
/
-4)
Peacock breaks the mold here where "Premium" means something different. In a nutshell, they have 3 tiers... Basic which is free, but with ads and limited selection of content. Premium (this deal) which is w-ads but includes much more content. Plus is no-ads.
Unfortunately, it's uncommon for discounts to be available for ad-free plans (the HBO Max one is certainly a refreshing exception. FWIW, I'm told that the ads aren't as bad here since you don't get them for HBO originals. However, I believe "HBO Max originals" will have ads
![:\](https://cdn.arstechnica.net/civis/data/assets/smilies/slash-1x.png "Slash :\")
). I'm told Hulu w-ads makes far more money, even when it's discounted to $1 or $2 (via the Thanksgiving/Black Friday sale) vs. Hulu ad-free at full price (which is why the sales are always for the w-ads plans).I really like having rapid charge. I've had it on across 3 phones... LG G4, Google Pixel 4A, and the P6. I've been taking metrics with my P6, and I can go from 5% to 16% battery to +60% to +80% in an hour, give or take.
Yes, not having any short outs can't be stressed enough. Also, more pricier cables tend to have better enough build quality so that the USB ends don't become loose to the cables they're attached to, and less chipping and fraying on the cables themselves. Last but not least, while I was OK with getting $5 to $12 cables for my previous phones that cost $100 to $200, I'm not as OK with doing that for $350 to $500 phones.
(I'm just thankful I don't have kids. They really lose and damage power cables and chargers like nobody's business
)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)