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

George Parr

Free Account+
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


1 Follower

About George Parr

  • Rank
    Box Office Gold

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No, they aren't supposed to get it that way. Nor is it pointless to vaccinate them. If it were, we wouldn't vaccinate children against all sort of stuff. Many illnesses were only dealt with by making sure that children were already protected against them, instead of letting them experience it first hand. It also makes little sense to act as if every Corona-virus was identical. Belonging to one family of viruses doesn't somehow mean that you should treat all of them exactly the same way. Nor does getting one sort of infection from a Corona-virus somehow protect you against the others. They cover a very broad range. It's like saying that a very average case of Influenza is identical to the strain that caused the Spanish Flu. You don't want to keep children away from coming into contact with every virus there is, but that doesn't mean that you just let them get all of them "naturally".
  2. Ford was just fine when Indy 4 came out. And whether he is too old now depends entirely on what happens in the movie. It makes no sense to judge a role when you don't know what the role contains in this particular instance. Playing the same character doesn't somehow require doing the exact same things you did when you were younger.
  3. I don't see how one appearance at an award show - something Harrison Ford never was that fond of - somehow is supposed to tell us anything about how he would look in a movie. I once saw Billy Dee Williams, that was back in 2004 or so. He looked completely out of it, tired and barely remembering things. 15 years later he was still alive and kicking, and very much capable of acting in tv-shows and movies. One apperance doesn't mean anything.
  4. Really? I would have said the exact opposite. He kind of lost a bit of interest in Han Solo, though he was just fine getting back into that role later on. He wouldn't have been involved in two new movies if he hadn't been interested in it. When it comes to Indiana Jones though, he was always very passionate about that role. He was the one who constantly tried to get Spielberg and Lucas to get the 4th one going. If anything I'd say it has always been his favourite role.
  5. To be fair, other nations didn't just get a 2nd wave when they relaxed things either. Much of Europe had a quite summer last year, and warnings to prepare for the winter were mostly ignored or accused of being scare-mongering. The 2nd wave then hit once winter arrived, and things turned much worse than before. Who could have known that experts had some idea of what they were talking about, or that spending time to prepare for the next wave would have been a good idea
  6. I don't think that comparison really works. Star Wars returned to its old hero characters, while Indy 4 never left the hero behind in the first place. I don't think the interest will come remotely close to that of Indy 4. I'd also say that some past movies get a bit of an reputation that they didn't have back in the days. ESB and ROTJ didn't have particularly good reviews when they came out, that only changed later on. Same with Temple of Doom, which had a very mixed reaction when it came out. Now it generally sits below the 1st and 3rd one, but is still considered a classic, while the 4th one gets torn down even though its immediate reaction wasn't all that different from the one ToD got. In some cases movies get lumped together even though they didn't necessarily get a similar reaction. Temple of Doom kind of gets a boost from the love for the original three movies, even though it is quite a bit behind the other two when you look at most means of measuring popularity. On the other hand, Revenge of the Sith often gets lumped in with the other two prequels by those who don't like those movies, even though it is vastly more popular than the other two and never was even remotely close to having a mixed reaction. Who exactly are the people who expect that, and why would you somehow blame Solo - which isn't bad at all - on someone who only played a side-character in it? Solo had a bad box office run, but it never was unpopular among those who actually watched it. Mostly because it is actually a pretty entertaining movie.
  7. What a completely nonsensical comparison... a) decisions aren't made "without scientific backing" b) in fact, the original decision not to use AZ for anyone above a certain age was specifically made due to a lack of scientific data for that age bracket, and absolutely no one said that it wouldn't work, just that they didn't know yet c) it weren't those people who turned anyone away from the vaccine, it were reports out of science or from the media. Maybe politicians didn't choose the best possible path, but then again, pretending that everything is going just fine when there are clear cases that show it isn't, isn't going to instill any confidence in the vaccine either. It would have caused the exact same reaction. It's not like there was one reaction by all those people to immediately throw the vaccine under the bus. Nothing like that happened at all. d) at least from some of the people you mentioned, there were specific guidliness given to continue with the vaccination-effort, because the situation wasn't quite clear yet, and because the deaths possibly caused by the vaccine were deemed to be lower than the death that would be caused by the side-effects. Pretending that this didn't happen doesn't make any sense at all. e) you are dealing with a public here whose first instinct upon hearing of a possible pandemic was to buy up all the toilet paper. Hardly an audience that you can rely on to weight the pros and cons of a specific vaccine. f) who the hell is Von? And most importantly, there is a gargantuan difference between someone who actively tries to downplay a pandemic in public and who proposes a method that definately won't help you but has a very good chance of killing you instead, and leaders being vary about newly arriving issues with a vaccine. Blaming that on someone like Merkel, who has basically no say on that matter, as that is the duty of the states not the federal government, just shows that you weren't interested in giving an informed opinion, but instead went straight for bashing people for the sake of it. Simply put, there is a difference between trying and failing, because things are not quite clear in a volatile situation, and doing your best not to help anyone but yourself. The main failures that were made, were not being strict enough over the last few months, and not preparing properly for when the vaccines would arrive. And those things are most definately something the people you mentioned got plenty of criticism for. Something you would know if you bothered to check whether they get criticised or not. The fact is, AZ is working decently well for a vaccine in general. At least against the regular form of the virus. It has proven to be largely ineffective against a whole variety of newer forms, and now side-effects have popped up that have killed a number of people, people of an age at which dying of the virus was a relatively low risk. In comparison to that, you have other vaccines that are a whole lot more effective, work against other forms of the virus, and haven't shown any noteworthy side-effects. It's hardly surprising that people don't want to get the former when the latter is better in every way. This isn't just something you can force onto your people. The more you push, the harder they will resist. That's not something that politicians can control. Thats the problem when the deaths don't pile up in extreme fashion. Lots of people will rather take the risk of catching the virus while waiting for a better vaccine, than to risk dying of side-effects. Thats just how news work in this day and age. People hear about something, and they start to doubt things. No on bothers to check how many cases of deaths from side-effects happen in comparison to the number of vaccines given, just like no one bothers to check those numbers and compare them to the likelyhood of dying from the virus. It's a perfectly normal mindset, "things worked out for me so far, I'll just continue with that". That looks significantly different when people die like flies everywhere around you. As for why this issue didn't pop up earlier in Britain; it's pretty simple: AZ was mostly used for older people (80+), while people 65 or younger mostly got the Biontech-vaccine. Since it is something that doesn't affect older people, and the Biontech-vaccine isn't causing something like this, you would obviously see no larger amount of cases. In Europe however, AZ was mostly used on younger people due to the lack of data on its effectiveness for older people early on. Thus you would see this come up in Europe first, and now that younger people in Britain are getting AZ in lalrger numbers as well, the numbers start to rise there.
  8. That sort of thing has happened in many countries, an not just with Facebook. E.g. there was a longstanding issue between Google and the media in the EU. Google made use of any sort of media for their Google news area, without paying any money for it. Various entitities weren't too pleased with Google benefitting from something they didn't have any rights to, while not giving anything to those who actually worked for it. Both sides do have a point in such a discussion. On the one hand, it is rather unfair that a company like Google can just use the work of other people to earn money, without giving any of it to those who actually write the news. But at the same time, the press does benefit from the exposure they gain at such an important hub as Google, so it's not like they don't get anything out of it. Hence the desire to get compensation and keep Google linking to those stories. That being said, Google can kind of control who gets this exposure, which allows them to influence who gets the most exposure ouf of it. After quite a few years, they've finally settled the issue, I think.
  9. That makes little sense. The reason why they won't use this specific vaccine on people age 65+, is that the there wasnt sufficient data from testing to prove that it would work for that age range. It's not that they don't want to use the vaccine, they will in fact use it, they just don't want to use it on people for which there is no proper data available. That is perfectly logical. It's how vaccines and medicines tend to be used. There are vaccines for the 65+ olds already out there, and people of all age-ranges have to be vaccined anyway, so I don't know where you problem comes from.
  10. How exactly would delivering the first Indiana Jones game in over a decade constitute "oversaturating" the franchise? This is something that should have happened a very long time ago. It was negligent on their side not to deliver any Indiana Jones games, and that was true even before Lucas sold his companies to Disney.
  11. Um, no, that isn't what he was advocating at all. Nor did he in any way, shape or form imply that "western democracy and freedom do not work". That's just a strawman on your side. And juni78ukr is also fully right in that asking people to do stuff instead of giving clear orders has never been as effective. It's one thing to give people the choice on what they like to drink or do for a living, it is something entirely different to let people decide on how to behave on a matter that impacts society as a whole. There is a reason why we have laws, it's because otherwise some morons would simply do whatever they want. We do not let people decide on whether they want to drive 30, 100 or 250 kph in a rural neighbourhood, because that is just asking for trouble. We do not grant people the right to kill whoever they want either. Instead we give explicit orders on how that works, and punish those who threaten others with their behaviour (in this case speeding). Without clear cut rules, you end up with a apathetic and anti-social mob, who runs on "Why should I adhere to that? I can handle myself" or "who cares about those people, I want to do what I want to do". What this was all about, and it's actually very clear from that post, is that two concepts aren't equally valid just because they get said. Be it climate change, medical issues or the world being round and not flat, there are things on which you cannot just randomly claim that you disagree with the facts and that your opinion is at least as valid as the facts are. Trump's regency should have shown what that kind of behaviour leads to. There comes a point where you need to tell the people that they are free to think whatever they want to, but that there is this set of laws and everyone has to abide by them, or you run into all sorts of cults who think you can cure cancer if you just give enough money to a "pastor" so he can buy himself a new jet. All those wannabe "freedom"-lovers with their pathetic disregard for everyone who isn't them is exactly the problem in this world, and a large threat to freedom as a whole, because they put their own freedom above the fate of everyone else. "Who cares what happens to others as long as I get to do what I want to do" has never ever been a good approach, nor is it in any way connected to freedom. It's nothing but a self-centered view that has enabled the most vile crimes committed by humanity. A person's right to "freedom" ends where he impacts another person's rights to the same. Somehow people tend to forget that "civil liberties" don't just apply to them but everyone else as well, and that they have no right to negatively impact others just because they have decided that they want to act like a moron.
  12. Does it though? These things aren't necessarily linked. There's also stuff that spreads fast and is extremely deadly, though in most cases they tend to be too deadly even for their high speed of spreading. Mutations that make a virus spread more easily don't need to have an impact on how dangerous it is.
  13. Sounds like theaters are allowed to show some hit movies from the past to get them going again. E.g. Disney allows them to show Empire strikes Back (in English), as well as TFA, TLJ and Rogue One. I've also seen the third Hobbit and fourth Harry Potter scheduled at Cinemaxx.
  14. Your comment would make sense if there were any people who state that the WHO has been perfect and that any criticism of it is not warranted, but that isn't the case at all. Why do you ask "why does everything have to be so binary?" when the position you speak of isn't held by anyone? That's simply entering strawman territory. Absolutely no one has given the WHO a pass. There have been those who ignore the good stuff the WHO has done and blow the bad stuff way out of proportion, and there are those who say "they have made mistakes, but they have also done plenty of good stuff, and many criticisms don't fit to what they actually have done". There are none who hold the opposing view to those who bash the WHO to the extreme.
  • 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.