Jump to content


Free Account
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About Sanderson

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

125 profile views
  1. Okay, it appears that I was indeed understanding your argument clearly. Your argument amounts to cherry picking evidence to suit your argument that masks don't matter all that much. Not buying it. The article you cite does indeed say that masks are a useful tool in preventing spread beyond just "popping into a shop". Nobody is arguing that ventilation and limiting contact are key measures. Once again, I don't see how you can square your argument with that article which clearly states that masks alone would reduce infections in a classroom by over half after two hours. Obviously a combination of masks, ventilation, and reducing time spent in an enclosed public space is best. No matter how you cut it, that article doesn't downplay the importance of masks in this equation. You seem to be doing just that. It has been over half a year now, and I'm done allowing this kind of bad-faith argument to slide.
  2. In the very article you cite, it says that the number of infections in a classroom would be more than cut in half if ONLY masks are used. The first example of a family gathering is suggesting that transmission would be reduced by 20% if ONLY masks were used, and that is by far the least favorable scenario regarding masks. I really don't see how that article supports the notion that, "The masks do little on their own." Furthermore, nobody is suggesting that we should ONLY use masks. The article you mention recommends using them, along with other measures. That is what pretty much every public health agency has been saying for months now. This article certainly doesn't say that masks are not an important protective measure. Maybe I am missing the point you are trying to make?
  3. A couple of pages ago you say that Sweden has achieved herd immunity. No source. Now you say that 1 billion people are "probably" infected. No source. This would be a 100 fold increase in reported cases worldwide. Am I missing something? I thought misinformation was discouraged here. Edit: That should be about 50 times more. 2 orders of magnitude compared to currently reported cases.
  4. Sometimes actors just find themselves in a failed movie. Doesn't mean they're doomed. There was a guy who went on to win an Oscar and be Batman after starring in Gigli. If someone can recover from that, then I think Elgort may still have a pulse.
  5. Quite the achievement. It is also an interesting discussion point regarding legs. This movie made more money after opening weekend than all but 3 films, yet it is criticized for having mediocre legs because legs are typically judged by the multiplier of the opening weekend. I'm not saying that this measure is bad, but it doesn't tell the whole story. In cases where there is a huge must see factor or spoiler concern, maybe it is good to look at the post opening weekend gross just as much as the multiplier. If we were to take this to an absurd conclusion, a movie that grossed 500 million in its first weekend and then 950 million afterwards (more than any movie ever) would be considered to have poor legs despite making more money than any movie ever after opening weekend.
  6. Agreed. To add to that list, RotK, which was the second movie to ever cross the billion dollar mark was an 3 hours and 20 minutes long. People will sit still and pay attention for three hours or more if you give them a good reason to do so.
  7. Other than box office, I follow a lot of hockey blogs that focus on the burgeoning statistical analysis side of the game (if you're looking for a good fanwar, look for people who disagree on that stuff). Your post here gave me a thought. Would it be possible to come up with some sort of formula with variables that can be adjusted for country, year released, number of theatres built in the country etc. that could give a rough approximation of what a given movie would gross today. This wouldn't be perfect obviously, but it could be interesting to see calculations like this. Moreover, it would be interesting to see the conversations about how different factors should be included and how much they should be weighted. I mean, it would also involve everyone agreeing to not get defensive about certain films... so this is a terrible idea, nevermind.
  8. With so many duds in this franchise post T2, I'd kind of given up on this franchise ever being really good again. It would be great if this one actually hit it out of the park. Hell, I'd take getting on base so they could build off of this movie. Every movie since T2 has been a failed reboot attempt. Maybe this is the one to do it!
  9. Maybe we should start talking about anime and manga in here. It ended up chilling out the fanwars thread pretty well...
  10. Despite my best efforts, I never could really get into anime or manga. I barely know what half of the last two pages are talking about, yet I've loved these last two pages. This has been pleasant! @WhiteWings: I thought the Berserk anime was pretty fun... until about 2/3 of the way through part 3... not what I signed up for man.
  11. Yeah, this. The foundation of the Terminator series is a woman who goes from being a terrible waitress to great cyborg killer. Funny, neither myself nor any of the men I know had a problem with that back in the day. My guess is, if the movie is done well none of us will have a problem with this either. Maybe I'm wrong though and this movie will be doomed like Captain Marvel was...
  12. Nearly choked on my drink. I must say @Pure Spirit that you are hitting the cover off the ball lately. Also, I don't understand why Groundhog Day didn't hit the 3 billion mark.
  13. Gotta love this thread. No other place on the internet has had me so enthralled with the numbers 2.49, 2.54, 2.55, 2.8, 2.78, 2.74, 2.78, 2.8, 2.88 and now 2.84. At least the number 3 was eliminated fairly early on. Hate that number.
  14. If it is possible to put all of the fandom stuff aside, this would really be interesting information. The two biggest movies dollarwise of all-time compared in terms of admissions. Also broken down regionally. One of the big reasons I have lurked here for years is I see box office numbers as a window (albeit a small one) into what people find compelling on a national and global scale. Seeing how two massive event films compare in both dollars and admissions is really interesting. If you're worried about bias, make a point of fact checking and offering alternative hypotheses. I doubt anyone is going to be able to pull a fast one over this whole community and slant the numbers. Maybe I am beyond naive here, but... Why can't this be fun?
  • 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.