Tom Hanks disappointed with Apple TV+ 'Greyhound' release

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 80
    chasmchasm Posts: 2,404member
    Our state has averaged 1 community infection a day for the last week or two.
    I don't have a good reference for averages, but looking at yesterday (July 5) on worldometers.info I see no US state that had less than new cases that day. So unless you're in Vermont, methinks you might be fudging that claim a little.

    If you are in Vermont, count your blessings to live in such a great place, but be aware that Vermont's story is not reflective of major swaths of the US.

    This is a (thankfully rare) instance of a bad headline for the otherwise balanced article. "Tom Hanks sorry 'Greyhound' won't play in cinemas" would have been a more accurate headline IMO. That said, someone might want to remind Mr. Hanks that studios had the chance for at least a full year (nearly two)  to release Greyhound into movie theatres, and chose not to for undisclosed reasons.

    It's also quite likely that Apple paid the studio very likely as much or more than a war movie might have made in the cinema anyway, so there's that. The wonderful 1917, which may well turn out to be a better movie, didn't do that well in the US at all -- despite winning three (IIRC) Oscars. 
  • Reply 62 of 80
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,252member
    He's already COVID-immune, so he can afford to be flippant.
    Beats
  • Reply 63 of 80
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,498member
    tmay said:
    Our state has averaged 1 community infection a day for the last week or two. The movie cinemas are open (with distancing) ... it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have some new release movies on offer instead of classics and repeats from Feb/March. 
    I'm curious as to which state you live in. 
    Sorry, NSW in Australia.  Population 7.5million with 1 community infection a day. The rest of our states are doing better (except Victoria).
    (The problems with international websites and unspecified countries!)

    Victoria (6 million) is going into a steep second wave but still only getting just over 100 new infections a day. They've been coming to NSW these school holidays so we may get a new start to infection here. 

    In any case, the cinemas automatically block out seats 1 around your group in every direction when you book. I have been considering seeing a movie since I have vouchers that will expire, but it's all repeats.
    tmay said:
    Our state has averaged 1 community infection a day for the last week or two. The movie cinemas are open (with distancing) ... it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have some new release movies on offer instead of classics and repeats from Feb/March. 
    I'm curious as to which state you live in. 
    Sorry, NSW in Australia.  Population 7.5million with 1 community infection a day. The rest of our states are doing better (except Victoria).
    (The problems with international websites and unspecified countries!)

    Victoria (6 million) is going into a steep second wave but still only getting just over 100 new infections a day. They've been coming to NSW these school holidays so we may get a new start to infection here. 

    In any case, the cinemas automatically block out seats 1 around your group in every direction when you book. I have been considering seeing a movie since I have vouchers that will expire, but it's all repeats.
    Thanks for your response. 

    I totally forgot that other countries have states, so assumed you were from the U.S., but couldn't believe that any state had such low community transmission.

    My bad!

    Australia has done a pretty good job once they reduced air traffic into the country. I'm under the impression that New Zealand and Australia plus S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and some island nations will form a "bubble' that will allow travel without the quarantines that are necessary today.
  • Reply 64 of 80
    uraharaurahara Posts: 590member
    mtriviso said:
    Sigh. Just open the movie theaters. There's nothing like watching a movie in a massive IMAX 3D theater. If people are frightened they might get the rona, then just stay at home. Please, just let the rest of us who are unafraid enjoy what our acting troupes have to offer in the milieu to which we have become accustomed. 
    “Who are unafraid “ = who are inexperienced or misinformed (or just irresponsible)

    No worries. You are not alone. 


    GeorgeBMacronnStrangeDaysAppleSince1976SpamSandwich
  • Reply 65 of 80
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,713member
    badmonk said:
    This is the reason, AppleTV has to stay away from mega-stars like Oprah, Hanks, Spielberg et. al. and to more hungry younger artists who are more dynamic and have vision like Boots Riley.  It’s this generation where more compelling art happens anyway.
    Boots Riley? He’s an avowed Marxist. If he walks the walk and talks the talk he should move to Cuba... you know, just one of the many countries where Marxism destroyed everything. Screw him and his collectivist propaganda.

    LOL....  The marxists say the same about crazy, stupid capitalists.....
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 66 of 80
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,713member
    joogabah said:
    Xed said:
    larryjw said:
    mtriviso said:
    Sigh. Just open the movie theaters. There's nothing like watching a movie in a massive IMAX 3D theater. If people are frightened they might get the rona, then just stay at home. Please, just let the rest of us who are unafraid enjoy what our acting troupes have to offer in the milieu to which we have become accustomed. 
    Frightened? Maybe informed. My grandparents and parents were WWI and WWII generations. And I'm a boomer pre-vaccine and pre-antibiotics. We know disease and pandemics first hand. 

    In reviewing census data for genealogy I would run across families asked how many children did you have? 14. How many still living? 4. My grandparents lost young siblings  and cousins to disease. STDs were a big problem among girls and guys in uniform stateside during WWII -- my mother's job was to help treat them. So was TB -- sanitariums built across the nation to confine them. Nobody thought it was bravery to not care if you came down with these diseases. Certainly, there was sympathy sometimes, but getting sick and not pulling your weight was morally reprehensible. 

    Being brave by ignoring a disease. My father's WWII diary mentions some other GI's getting sick -- great way to stay behind for some R&R while others did the fighting for you. Malingering was a problem and pissed off others pulling their weight. 

    And I had the pleasure of contracting polio during the 50's epidemic. It was no fun. 

    So, coming down with Covid-19 when you are fortunate enough to be able to take precautions is really morally reprehensible -- not willing to pull your weight. 
    We’ve done such a great job of removing those health care issues that too many people (even many that lived through it) don’t believe they are real issues.

    This video explains very well how antivaxers think, which also covers a lot of the poor judgment with this pandemic.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzxr9FeZf1g
    I used to think like that.  Then one day I actually took the time to watch Vaxxed.  None of those people are "anti-vaxxers".  They're all parents of vaccine injured children, or in the case of Vaxxed II, people injured themselves.  The issue is vaccine safety, not the viability or usefulness of vaccines.  Look up Pluserix or Trivirex if you want to know what I mean.  So many people dog pile onto "anti-vaxxers" without watching or reading a single thing vaccine safety advocates say.  At present, pharmaceutical companies have no liability for vaccine injury, which is problematic.  The federal government pays all claims for legitimate injuries.  This is why a massive propaganda campaign was launched against anyone who tries to point out egregious harm - because Uncle Sam is on the hook for liability.  Even the CDC admits prior episodes of contamination where vaccines actually gave people the disease they were trying to prevent (in this case Polio):  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html

    The safety threshold for vaccines is no where near as high as for other pharmaceuticals.  And they don't do double blind studies on effectiveness or safety with a control group that isn't vaccinated.  The political expediency of herd immunity means people have decided to sacrifice some minority for the whole, but that doesn't sit well when you or your kid is the one who is damaged permanently.  Let these people speak without ridiculing them blindly.

    Yes, that is true.   It is equally true that NO medicine is 100% safe.  Even Aspirin can be deadly.
    The balance lies in the area where it does more good than harm.   To only look at one of those two sides is foolish (but that's where western medicine wants us looking!)

    The trouble is:   vaccines are now being blamed by anti-vaxxers for things for which they are not responsible (autism is a prime example of that).   And, the anti-vaxxers are generally just conducting a general smear campaign -- much like an dishonest politician would try to smear his opponent:  "That Mr. X is just no good.  He is evil...."
    ronn
  • Reply 67 of 80
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 11,764member
    He's already COVID-immune, so he can afford to be flippant.
    This has not yet been determined. And if past infection does provide anti-body immunity, it is also not known for how long. 
    GeorgeBMacronn
  • Reply 68 of 80
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,119member
    crowley said:
    DAalseth said:
    Well, let’s be honest, he likes movies in theatres. He made it with a theatre in mind. Now it’s a direct to TV, a big step down.
    Suppose you wrote a book and discovered that it would only come out on Kindle.
    Suppose you baked a wedding cake, and discovered that the wedding was cancelled.
    Suppose you wrote a beautiful song, and discovered that your patron kept it for only themselves to listen to.
    Suppose you painted a beautiful picture and discovered that the person who bought it only wanted it for an investment so it would stay in a vault until it came time to sell.

    Hanks made this with the idea that crowds of people would be in a theatre enjoying it. Now yes lots of people will see it, but not the way he had in mind. I’d be disappointed too. 
    While that is true, life is full of disappointments. The reason this happened was due to the impact of COVID-19.

    And it is there that his frustration should be directed. 

    Instead, he fires shots at the saviors of his movie and even calls them names - like a child would do. 

    Everyone understands the pain of an artist creating a masterpiece only for it end up in the local museum rather than a major gallery.

    But it is what it is. Hanks is an old man. Old enough to know better. than to whine over something that he couldn't control - and certainly old enough to know better than to attack those who have rescued his sinking ship (pardon the pun).

    Be happy you made some coin, got to practice your craft, and though it wasn't presented the way you want, it's better than tanking entirely. 

    If ever there was a moment for the man to point out a life lesson in the current times, he not only missed it, but he let the opportunity turn into a childish rant that paints him as less of an industry icon than he is. 

    set your frustrations at the uncontrollable things in life - like COVID - or the fact that we had to be locked down as a result. But to fire shots at those who ensured your movie made money? Wow.

    time to grow up, Mr. Hanks. 
    Read the interview.  You've whined here about Hanks way more than Hanks talked about Apple.  It was a couple of sentences in a 30 paragraph interview that was explicitly to do with the purpose of him being interviewed - the film, and how it's being delivered. 

    Not a "rant", not an "attack" or a "shot", just a sadness about something that was close to his heart.  There's no need to be a prick about that.
    Dude. 

    Go back and read. 
    Dude doesn’t just air an overall frustration. He fires shots. 

    He calls them names. Like a child would do. 

    And he is doing it to people who HELPED to save his movie. If it wasn’t Apple, perhaps it would be Amazon, Netflix, etc. 

    sure, it’s a bummer for him. But his frustrations are misdirected. 

    Not really that difficult to understand. 

    Have a great day. 
    As I said, he barely mentions them at all.  And if Apple really did mandate a neutral white backdrop for an interview then I think it's fair for Hanks to rib them as control freak overlords.  That's not childish, it's good humour.  You're being oversensitive.
    edited July 2020 bbhGeorgeBMacronn
  • Reply 69 of 80
    bbhbbh Posts: 122member
    slurpy said:
    What the fuck did Apple do to him? Why is he so vitriolic against them? ATV+ has shown itself to have better image quality/sound than pretty much every other streaming service out there, so that's the context he should be considering. Attacking it by comparing it so theatres is just absurd. What's the point of that comparison, and why attack Apple for it? Not Apple's fault that theatres were shut down. What a weird and misguided attack target. Also, he got paid millions for his role, so he should STFU already and take solace in that. 

    MY GOODNESS ! Did you even read the article beyond the "click bait" title that obviously caught you ? He is reasonably disappointed that after working on a project for 10 plus years, events are precluding a "Theater" release. An honest, reasonable reaction. No "vitriol" evident anywhere.
    SpamSandwichGeorgeBMacronn
  • Reply 70 of 80
    bbhbbh Posts: 122member
    wizard69 said:
    I'd be disappointed too.    The little screen simply isn't a replacement for the big screen.   Beyond that having your work sold off to Apple must suck.
    Why would selling your work to Apple suck more than selling it anywhere else? You realize that he signed off on the deal, don't you?
  • Reply 71 of 80
    bbhbbh Posts: 122member



    DAalseth said:
    Well, let’s be honest, he likes movies in theatres. He made it with a theatre in mind. Now it’s a direct to TV, a big step down.
    Suppose you wrote a book and discovered that it would only come out on Kindle.
    Suppose you baked a wedding cake, and discovered that the wedding was cancelled.
    Suppose you wrote a beautiful song, and discovered that your patron kept it for only themselves to listen to.
    Suppose you painted a beautiful picture and discovered that the person who bought it only wanted it for an investment so it would stay in a vault until it came time to sell.

    Hanks made this with the idea that crowds of people would be in a theatre enjoying it. Now yes lots of people will see it, but not the way he had in mind. I’d be disappointed too. 
    While that is true, life is full of disappointments. The reason this happened was due to the impact of COVID-19.

    And it is there that his frustration should be directed. 

    Instead, he fires shots at the saviors of his movie and even calls them names - like a child would do. 

    Everyone understands the pain of an artist creating a masterpiece only for it end up in the local museum rather than a major gallery.

    But it is what it is. Hanks is an old man. Old enough to know better. than to whine over something that he couldn't control - and certainly old enough to know better than to attack those who have rescued his sinking ship (pardon the pun).

    Be happy you made some coin, got to practice your craft, and though it wasn't presented the way you want, it's better than tanking entirely. 

    If ever there was a moment for the man to point out a life lesson in the current times, he not only missed it, but he let the opportunity turn into a childish rant that paints him as less of an industry icon than he is. 

    set your frustrations at the uncontrollable things in life - like COVID - or the fact that we had to be locked down as a result. But to fire shots at those who ensured your movie made money? Wow.

    time to grow up, Mr. Hanks. 
    I am really starting to think there was more than one interview. I read none of the bitterness and vitriol that is being attributed to Mr. Hanks. A couple of observations in passing. Nothing more. Whining ? Ranting ? Did not see that at all. You celebrity and Apple haters are the ones that need to grow up.
    ronn
  • Reply 72 of 80
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    bbh said:



    DAalseth said:
    Well, let’s be honest, he likes movies in theatres. He made it with a theatre in mind. Now it’s a direct to TV, a big step down.
    Suppose you wrote a book and discovered that it would only come out on Kindle.
    Suppose you baked a wedding cake, and discovered that the wedding was cancelled.
    Suppose you wrote a beautiful song, and discovered that your patron kept it for only themselves to listen to.
    Suppose you painted a beautiful picture and discovered that the person who bought it only wanted it for an investment so it would stay in a vault until it came time to sell.

    Hanks made this with the idea that crowds of people would be in a theatre enjoying it. Now yes lots of people will see it, but not the way he had in mind. I’d be disappointed too. 
    While that is true, life is full of disappointments. The reason this happened was due to the impact of COVID-19.

    And it is there that his frustration should be directed. 

    Instead, he fires shots at the saviors of his movie and even calls them names - like a child would do. 

    Everyone understands the pain of an artist creating a masterpiece only for it end up in the local museum rather than a major gallery.

    But it is what it is. Hanks is an old man. Old enough to know better. than to whine over something that he couldn't control - and certainly old enough to know better than to attack those who have rescued his sinking ship (pardon the pun).

    Be happy you made some coin, got to practice your craft, and though it wasn't presented the way you want, it's better than tanking entirely. 

    If ever there was a moment for the man to point out a life lesson in the current times, he not only missed it, but he let the opportunity turn into a childish rant that paints him as less of an industry icon than he is. 

    set your frustrations at the uncontrollable things in life - like COVID - or the fact that we had to be locked down as a result. But to fire shots at those who ensured your movie made money? Wow.

    time to grow up, Mr. Hanks. 
    I am really starting to think there was more than one interview. I read none of the bitterness and vitriol that is being attributed to Mr. Hanks. A couple of observations in passing. Nothing more. Whining ? Ranting ? Did not see that at all. You celebrity and Apple haters are the ones that need to grow up.
    Same observation. I read it and there was no bitterness or attacking Apple. Hanks was just being his usual self in every interview.
  • Reply 73 of 80
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,445member
    A bunch of knicker are about to get in a twist. I know you all have a free sub to Apple TV, be happy you get to save $20 on the ticket, make and eat your own snacks and can tell anyone talking during the dramatic scenes to "shut up". I believe in science which is why I have no intention on going to a movie theater for the next year. I believe in science that is why I check out nerd blogs like this one and know that computers are not magic but to some they are religion. 
    ronnGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 74 of 80
    mtriviso said:
    Sigh. Just open the movie theaters. There's nothing like watching a movie in a massive IMAX 3D theater. If people are frightened they might get the rona, then just stay at home. Please, just let the rest of us who are unafraid enjoy what our acting troupes have to offer in the milieu to which we have become accustomed. 
    “The rest of who are afraid to go a few weeks without visiting a movie theater or a hair salon and don’t care how many Americans die from the virus we spread.”

    There, I fixed it for you. 

    GeorgeBMacronn
  • Reply 75 of 80
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 862member
    liney said:
    larryjw said:
    mtriviso said:
    Sigh. Just open the movie theaters. There's nothing like watching a movie in a massive IMAX 3D theater. If people are frightened they might get the rona, then just stay at home. Please, just let the rest of us who are unafraid enjoy what our acting troupes have to offer in the milieu to which we have become accustomed. 
    Frightened? Maybe informed. My grandparents and parents were WWI and WWII generations. And I'm a boomer pre-vaccine and pre-antibiotics. We know disease and pandemics first hand. 

    In reviewing census data for genealogy I would run across families asked how many children did you have? 14. How many still living? 4. My grandparents lost young siblings  and cousins to disease. STDs were a big problem among girls and guys in uniform stateside during WWII -- my mother's job was to help treat them. So was TB -- sanitariums built across the nation to confine them. Nobody thought it was bravery to not care if you came down with these diseases. Certainly, there was sympathy sometimes, but getting sick and not pulling your weight was morally reprehensible. 

    Being brave by ignoring a disease. My father's WWII diary mentions some other GI's getting sick -- great way to stay behind for some R&R while others did the fighting for you. Malingering was a problem and pissed off others pulling their weight. 

    And I had the pleasure of contracting polio during the 50's epidemic. It was no fun. 

    So, coming down with Covid-19 when you are fortunate enough to be able to take precautions is really morally reprehensible -- not willing to pull your weight. 
    I too am a pre-vaccine and pre-antibiotics boomer. Our only option was to get immune - by getting measles, mumps, and chickenpox. The killer is that damn chickenpox! It just sat there all those years until I got old, then afflicted me with shingles. A girl in the house across the street where I grew up got polio - my sympathies to you. I'm in Silicon Valley, born & bred, and we're staying on lock-down in our household.
    Yep I got Chickenpox too. Not shingles though. When I was fifty, got Ramsey-Hunt. It's shingles of the brain; it affects the 7th and 8th cranial nerves. The result was partial but temporary (in my case) facial paralysis, hearing loss, etc. 

    I've done a bit of traveling in countries for which disease is common. People in the US simply live in a world of delusion; not all US people. Those of us fortunate enough to have enough live in a cocoon pretty much not impacted by the real world. We're a very small minority who don't realize how much we owe to being born into luck. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 76 of 80
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    larryjw said:
    liney said:
    larryjw said:
    mtriviso said:
    Sigh. Just open the movie theaters. There's nothing like watching a movie in a massive IMAX 3D theater. If people are frightened they might get the rona, then just stay at home. Please, just let the rest of us who are unafraid enjoy what our acting troupes have to offer in the milieu to which we have become accustomed. 
    Frightened? Maybe informed. My grandparents and parents were WWI and WWII generations. And I'm a boomer pre-vaccine and pre-antibiotics. We know disease and pandemics first hand. 

    In reviewing census data for genealogy I would run across families asked how many children did you have? 14. How many still living? 4. My grandparents lost young siblings  and cousins to disease. STDs were a big problem among girls and guys in uniform stateside during WWII -- my mother's job was to help treat them. So was TB -- sanitariums built across the nation to confine them. Nobody thought it was bravery to not care if you came down with these diseases. Certainly, there was sympathy sometimes, but getting sick and not pulling your weight was morally reprehensible. 

    Being brave by ignoring a disease. My father's WWII diary mentions some other GI's getting sick -- great way to stay behind for some R&R while others did the fighting for you. Malingering was a problem and pissed off others pulling their weight. 

    And I had the pleasure of contracting polio during the 50's epidemic. It was no fun. 

    So, coming down with Covid-19 when you are fortunate enough to be able to take precautions is really morally reprehensible -- not willing to pull your weight. 
    I too am a pre-vaccine and pre-antibiotics boomer. Our only option was to get immune - by getting measles, mumps, and chickenpox. The killer is that damn chickenpox! It just sat there all those years until I got old, then afflicted me with shingles. A girl in the house across the street where I grew up got polio - my sympathies to you. I'm in Silicon Valley, born & bred, and we're staying on lock-down in our household.
    Yep I got Chickenpox too. Not shingles though. When I was fifty, got Ramsey-Hunt. It's shingles of the brain; it affects the 7th and 8th cranial nerves. The result was partial but temporary (in my case) facial paralysis, hearing loss, etc. 

    I've done a bit of traveling in countries for which disease is common. People in the US simply live in a world of delusion; not all US people. Those of us fortunate enough to have enough live in a cocoon pretty much not impacted by the real world. We're a very small minority who don't realize how much we owe to being born into luck. 
    The luxuries which exist in the US today are thanks to private property rights and capitalism. “Luck” had nothing to do with it.
  • Reply 77 of 80
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,713member
    larryjw said:
    liney said:
    larryjw said:
    mtriviso said:
    Sigh. Just open the movie theaters. There's nothing like watching a movie in a massive IMAX 3D theater. If people are frightened they might get the rona, then just stay at home. Please, just let the rest of us who are unafraid enjoy what our acting troupes have to offer in the milieu to which we have become accustomed. 
    Frightened? Maybe informed. My grandparents and parents were WWI and WWII generations. And I'm a boomer pre-vaccine and pre-antibiotics. We know disease and pandemics first hand. 

    In reviewing census data for genealogy I would run across families asked how many children did you have? 14. How many still living? 4. My grandparents lost young siblings  and cousins to disease. STDs were a big problem among girls and guys in uniform stateside during WWII -- my mother's job was to help treat them. So was TB -- sanitariums built across the nation to confine them. Nobody thought it was bravery to not care if you came down with these diseases. Certainly, there was sympathy sometimes, but getting sick and not pulling your weight was morally reprehensible. 

    Being brave by ignoring a disease. My father's WWII diary mentions some other GI's getting sick -- great way to stay behind for some R&R while others did the fighting for you. Malingering was a problem and pissed off others pulling their weight. 

    And I had the pleasure of contracting polio during the 50's epidemic. It was no fun. 

    So, coming down with Covid-19 when you are fortunate enough to be able to take precautions is really morally reprehensible -- not willing to pull your weight. 
    I too am a pre-vaccine and pre-antibiotics boomer. Our only option was to get immune - by getting measles, mumps, and chickenpox. The killer is that damn chickenpox! It just sat there all those years until I got old, then afflicted me with shingles. A girl in the house across the street where I grew up got polio - my sympathies to you. I'm in Silicon Valley, born & bred, and we're staying on lock-down in our household.
    Yep I got Chickenpox too. Not shingles though. When I was fifty, got Ramsey-Hunt. It's shingles of the brain; it affects the 7th and 8th cranial nerves. The result was partial but temporary (in my case) facial paralysis, hearing loss, etc. 

    I've done a bit of traveling in countries for which disease is common. People in the US simply live in a world of delusion; not all US people. Those of us fortunate enough to have enough live in a cocoon pretty much not impacted by the real world. We're a very small minority who don't realize how much we owe to being born into luck. 
    The luxuries which exist in the US today are thanks to private property rights and capitalism. “Luck” had nothing to do with it.

    Funny, there are bunches of other countries with private property right and capitalism who have not done nearly as well.    Perhaps it was luck.
    Or, perhaps it was due to virtually unlimited natural resources, a tendency towards genocide, enormous pools of low cost imported labor (both slave and voluntary) and two oceans separating us from those fighting over land.
    ronnXed
  • Reply 78 of 80
    tobiantobian Posts: 117member
    joogabah said:

    I used to think like that.  Then one day I actually took the time to watch Vaxxed.  None of those people are "anti-vaxxers".  They're all parents of vaccine injured children, or in the case of Vaxxed II, people injured themselves.  The issue is vaccine safety, not the viability or usefulness of vaccines.  Look up Pluserix or Trivirex if you want to know what I mean.  So many people dog pile onto "anti-vaxxers" without watching or reading a single thing vaccine safety advocates say.  At present, pharmaceutical companies have no liability for vaccine injury, which is problematic.  The federal government pays all claims for legitimate injuries.  This is why a massive propaganda campaign was launched against anyone who tries to point out egregious harm - because Uncle Sam is on the hook for liability.  Even the CDC admits prior episodes of contamination where vaccines actually gave people the disease they were trying to prevent (in this case Polio):  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html

    The safety threshold for vaccines is no where near as high as for other pharmaceuticals.  And they don't do double blind studies on effectiveness or safety with a control group that isn't vaccinated.  The political expediency of herd immunity means people have decided to sacrifice some minority for the whole, but that doesn't sit well when you or your kid is the one who is damaged permanently.  Let these people speak without ridiculing them blindly.
    It seems to me like it's the matter of luck when jabbing.. like when tip of the needle ends up in the vein, pumping most of the vaccine straight into the bloodstream instead of muscle. It's russian roulette.
  • Reply 79 of 80
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,713member
    tobian said:
    joogabah said:

    I used to think like that.  Then one day I actually took the time to watch Vaxxed.  None of those people are "anti-vaxxers".  They're all parents of vaccine injured children, or in the case of Vaxxed II, people injured themselves.  The issue is vaccine safety, not the viability or usefulness of vaccines.  Look up Pluserix or Trivirex if you want to know what I mean.  So many people dog pile onto "anti-vaxxers" without watching or reading a single thing vaccine safety advocates say.  At present, pharmaceutical companies have no liability for vaccine injury, which is problematic.  The federal government pays all claims for legitimate injuries.  This is why a massive propaganda campaign was launched against anyone who tries to point out egregious harm - because Uncle Sam is on the hook for liability.  Even the CDC admits prior episodes of contamination where vaccines actually gave people the disease they were trying to prevent (in this case Polio):  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html

    The safety threshold for vaccines is no where near as high as for other pharmaceuticals.  And they don't do double blind studies on effectiveness or safety with a control group that isn't vaccinated.  The political expediency of herd immunity means people have decided to sacrifice some minority for the whole, but that doesn't sit well when you or your kid is the one who is damaged permanently.  Let these people speak without ridiculing them blindly.
    It seems to me like it's the matter of luck when jabbing.. like when tip of the needle ends up in the vein, pumping most of the vaccine straight into the bloodstream instead of muscle. It's russian roulette.

    Healthcare professionals "jab' where there are no significant veins, nerves or muscles.   It isn't luck.   It's training.
  • Reply 80 of 80
    bbbobbbbbbobbb Posts: 6member

    I read the original Guardian interview and I watched the feature on a 4K OLED TV with a pretty nice sound system last night (5.1 system).

    I interpret the disappointment from Mr.  Hanks as that it is on a  1) small screen /sound AND the 2) picture quality would not be as good as a theater.

    1) Small screen, well yeah, there is no way this type of movie isn't more enjoyable on a BIG theater screen. My take on the movie is 45 minutes of Tom giving orders and being the captain at the helm and outside with binoculars, 45 minutes of boats and submarines shooting and cruising in the Atlantic, 1 minute with Elisabeth Shue saying ahhh, no wait till you come back to marry me.

    The 45 minutes of Tom at the helm, I don't think would have been better in a theater. The 45 minutes of boats and submarines fighting and cruising would have been more enjoyable on a giant theater screen. The sound possibilities also would be more enjoyable with a zillion speakers all over a movie theater.

    2) Nope, 4K streaming is pretty damned good these days. I have the capability to watch 4K Blu-Rays but I learned after buying a hundred or so that the convenience and quality of streaming (Netflix, Amazon Prime, Apple TV+,  a few others) that I can barely notice the difference. Is the bandwidth greater on a 4K blu-ray? of course. Does it matter most of the time, nope, not with a good setup and care paid to the streaming offering.

    Overall it looked pretty darned good on my Apple TV 4K, and the price was right. :-)

    Tom has nothing to complain about, he took the $~70 million covering nicely with profit the $50 million budget. I wish I could invest with that type of return...




    ronn
Sign In or Register to comment.