Jump to content

George Parr

Free Account+
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by George Parr

  1. No, you think they wanted to do that, that is all. There is zero proof that they had any interest in that. Shia was chosen because a) he was a upcoming young star at that point and b) because it was Spielberg who "found" him. In no way does that mean that they ever had any plans to continue with him. This wasn't the Disney era, they didn't do movie after movie because just they could.
  2. I don't think the movie was meant as passing the torch at all. If anything, they made it abundantly clear that they wouldn't do that by having Indy snatch his hat out of Mutt's hands at the wedding.
  3. That's just a theoretical exercise though. They went through multiple writers with multiple stories already. There isn't really any reason to assume that they are hellbend on one specific story, to the point that they would tell Mangold that he would need to focus on it. Who exactly would tell them to focus on a story anyway? Lucas? He isn't involved with the movie. Spielberg? He may still be involved in some capacity, but he was hardly interested in the space stuff the last time around, so why would he force the issue now? That leaves Harrison Ford, and he wasn't really into
  4. That's a really odd way to judge things... James Mangold is both writer and director of this movie. If the story would include elements that you don't like, why on earth would you blame that on Disney or Lucasfilm and not the person who is actually creating the story? Does anyone really believe that Mangold would write and direct a story that isn't to his liking? Sounds rather like selective picking to me, e.g. "I like a director, he did something I didn't like, therefore someone else must have been the problem". That's little different from the nonsense about Kenn
  5. 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 other
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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 th
  12. 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
  13. 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 f
  14. 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.
  15. 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 wou
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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,
  19. What is supposed to be so terrible about it? The whole idea was to make sure the healthcare-system isn't falling apart due to overload. This was never meant as the solution to the virus, more as a means to keep things from spiralling out of control. Because when that happens, you are screwed, and the dead lie around in droves, as could be seen in Italy. To act as if the whole strategy consisted of "flattening the curve" and then be done with it is just weird. Such a claim makes no sense at all, because it has never been the entire strategy.
  20. From experience here (granted, Germany is not a good example because the internet is often third world level here) remote locations do not necessarily suffer from a bad connection. In quite a few cases, people and lcoal councils got too tired of waiting until those in charge bothered to do something and put down the money to lay state-of-the-art cables themselves. The colleagues in my office live in some tiny villages but have an amazing internet-connection, much better than at work, which happens to be in one of the largest cities in the country. That's what happens when all polit
  21. They didn't really give wrong advice in any way. Instead it's yet again another case of people leaping onto one line of a whole text, taking it completely out of context, and then proceeding to spread it everywhere, claiming that "the WHO said X" when they did no such thing. This is the text they released: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19 It makes it abundantly clear that this is a comment about the current state of affairs, not a final verdict. In fact, there is this line which specifically explains wh
  22. What would that have to do with immunity? If such a thing were required to defeat an illness, then there would never be any need to get more than one vaccination for a specific illness, yet there are quite a few out there that require more than one shot. Not every illness requires antibodies to that specific illness either. The immune-system doesn't rely on just one method to combat illnesses, it would be rather lacklustre if it did. Not to mention that you can be exposed to a virus to a different degree, Some might get a full load and end up with a higher risk of a sev
  23. No, it wasn't. There were statements from experts from various nations about how you would ultimately end up with some sort of herd immunity in the longrun, because that's where you almost automatically end up at unless a virus is so deadly that it can't really spread all that far, or if there is no immunity at all. That doesn't somehow make it the actual strategy of all the nations in question. Those two things were simply not connected with each other. The majority of the nations did not follow what now gets referred to as "herd immunity strategy", because that was all about simp
  • 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.