google-site-verification=EzRt-ZmNlc4J5RNLXiuJpAEGjNviG678nNB1w49cgZg Jump to content


Free Account+
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About MikeQ

  • Rank
    Box Office Gold

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,662 profile views
  1. Because the movie completely sidelined Andrew Rannells in a role with no character arc whatsoever. Cordon's character actually had substance - I wish Rannells was cast in Cordon's role instead. For me, I think the role would have resonated a whole lot more. (Admittedly, I'm not a big fan of Cordon to begin with.) Peace, Mike
  2. Tina and Amy proving they are still the best Golden Globes hosts ever, even in a pandemic year and on opposite coasts. I was excited for this year's ceremony for them alone. I genuinely wish they would just settle into a permanent Globes residency and host every year. Peace, Mike
  3. It's hard to fault them for this decision. Studios and companies are trying to do what makes sense for them given the world we live in now. Covid has changed how we can and want to live our lives, and in turn the media landscape. My sense is that people are still clinging to the notion that there will be a return to normal in the near future. Wonder Woman will be missing out on its box office potential, certainly, but I don't find it particularly persuasive to be looking at the film in isolation at this point. We're 8 months into this pandemic, and theatrical business is still severely depressed. It will be like this for many months still to come, with the worst of the pandemic still to come, and I expect all of 2021 will be impaired to some extent. It's not great for us cinema lovers and box office nerds, but this unfortunately is the way it is. For the sake of my own health and well-being, I have to acknowledge and adapt to our new reality, and find joy where I can find it. Though it won't be in the way I wanted to watch them, I am glad I have Soul and Wonder Woman to look forward to during the holidays. Peace, Mike
  4. I'll watch almost anything with Lupita Nyong'o and Jessica Chastain. They're the main draw here for me. Peace, Mike
  5. I can relate to this. I haven't read Dune, but I read Lord of the Rings for the first time when I was 12, and a big part of my appreciation for it at the time was that very aspect you identify. As I continue to re-read the book as I get older, I appreciate more about it (and different aspects of it). With the trailer release, I'm now discovering I have a lot of friends who have read Dune and have shared the trailer with enthusiasm. I'm choosing to take this as a good sign. Peace, Mike
  6. I'm pretty excited, but I've been that way for a while, given Villeneuve and the cast. The trailer is good. It isn't mind-blowing or anything, but I'm not at all familiar with the story (I haven't read the book), so I don't know if we ought to expect a trailer like that (if it's more character driven vs action driven, etc). I'm pretty much always going to check out a Villeneuve movie. Peace, Mike
  7. Robert Pattinson as Batman is just doing it for me on all levels. I like the trailer. I think it's overly simplistic to say that this is just another dark batman movie. Burton's take and Nolan's take on Batman were distinct. Likewise, this feels like it has its own style and point of view. Peace, Mike
  8. I'm so ready for this. Everyone looks great, including Kristen Wiig. Peace, Mike
  9. I'm assuming that Canada's box office grosses will still be rolled into the "Domestic" gross, as usual, even though we're being thought of as an international market in this context? I agree that there is a possibility (perhaps likelihood) that Tenet flops - and would have done so domestically even if it had a wide release in the US. We still can't be sure the extent to which people will flock to theatres. We've seen in other capacities that even when restrictions are lifted, it doesn't mean things go back to normal. People still make choices based on what they feel is best for them and their safety. Peace, Mike
  10. Sadly, it is a weak trailer for me. It needed either some beautiful money shots, or some resonant character moments. It didn't deliver on either, and that last bit didn't land. Since the film is being positioned as the return of cinema, I was hoping this trailer would really show us why we ought to be excited for this movie. Peace, Mike
  11. This is interesting, because this goes back to earlier discussion: the apparent fallacy that if we let people go about or return to their normal lives, and not enact strict social distancing policies and other measures, that the economy will go back to normal. On some level, we seem to confuse the economic consequences of our policies with the economic consequences of the virus (and the resulting sickness and death, etc). That previously cited study that suggests earlier and longer social distancing measures both mitigate the spread of disease and reduce the ultimate economic damage in the long run, is particularly interesting in light of the article a2k quoted about Sweden. It will be interesting to see how various countries fare in the long run with this pandemic, and which countries' economies grow faster after the pandemic is over. Peace, Mike
  12. Indeed, population health cannot be reduced only to health care systems, given the numerous social determinants of health. However, there is a problem with using survival rates as a measure of the effectiveness of the US health care system. Survival rates don't necessarily measure when people die, as in the study you cite, and can therefore be misleading. It can indicate early screening, not necessarily better treatment. If you diagnosis more instances of cancer, even those that will never cause symptoms or death, this makes survival rates look better. Aggressive screening for cancers is not always the best choice and sometimes wasteful spending (e.g. annual mammograms for women 40-59), and in some instances can lead to overdiagnosis and dangerous treatments for people when they aren't needed. A better measure is cancer mortality - which of course is not just a function of a countries health care system - but when looking at cancer mortality, the US looks a lot more like other high-income nations and therefore not that great in the context of spending so much more on health care. Essentially, your post reinforces the point of this discussion: that is that paying more for healthcare does not guarantee better health outcomes (for various reasons). For the health measures I cited, the US is the only OECD country for which higher spending is associated with lower life expectancy than the OECD average. Likewise, the US is only only country for which higher spending is associated with higher avoidable mortality than the OECD average. Peace, Mike
  13. Indeed. The US' health expenditure as a percentage of GDP is easily the highest among OECD countries, at 16.9% But despite spending the most, the US fares poorly (below average) compared to other OECD countries on most measures of healthcare accessibility, and below average on life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and avoidable mortality, for example. Research shows that one of top reasons for why US healthcare costs are so high is because of its fragmented system that multiplies administrative costs. The US system therefore also fares poorly on technical efficiency. In sum, the US system is both expensive and inefficient, while falling behind on most health indicators, which is not terribly surprising given the US remains the only high-income country without a universal health care system. Peace, Mike
  14. I am grateful for all of the forum members in this thread who take the time to fact-check and/or are educated in the particular science on which they speak. This really helps to keep unsubstantiated claims at bay, and I'm grateful on a personal level, as I am learning a lot. Peace, Mike
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.