Effects of Coronavirus (COVID-19) On Entertainment & Tourism Industry | Page 102 | Inside Universal Forums

Effects of Coronavirus (COVID-19) On Entertainment & Tourism Industry

  • Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe because they just keep getting better? (the opposite of Fast & Furious) Mission Impossible Fallout was an amazing movie.

I suppose, it just seems excessive to keep making movies of a particular franchise. I know it’s a cash cow, but it would be cool to have something new and fresh for a change.
 
I suppose, it just seems excessive to keep making movies of a particular franchise. I know it’s a cash cow, but it would be cool to have something new and fresh for a change.
The first MI film came out in 1996. That means that in a 25 year span, they'll only have released 7 movies. That's not really "milking it" too much imo, especially when the most recent installment was the best so far. For comparison, when No Time To Die comes out this year, it will be the 8th film in the franchise over a 23 year span and the 25th overall.

We could keep going and look at the MCU which started in 2008 and has what, something like 25 films and plenty of TV shows on the way (except the MCU has been good to this point as well). Or you could look at F&F, which didn't have it's first movie until 2001 (a full 5 years after the first Mission: Impossible) and they've already released 8 main F&F movies with a spinoff that came out last year (Hobbs and Shaw got a sequel on the way as well and another spinoff is going forward). Once F9 comes out next year, that will be 10 F&F films in 20 years along with a vast and terrible theme park presence.

This is just Hollywood. Every once and awhile a popular new franchise will sneak through like John Wick, but other than that, the big franchises are mostly same old, same old.
 
Last edited:
The first MI film came out in 1996. That means that in a 25 year span, they'll only have released 8 movies. That's not really "milking it" too much, especially when the most recent installment was the best so far.

If you want to talk about milking a franchise, look at the MCU which started in 2008 and has what, something like 25 films and plenty of TV shows on the way (except the MCU has been good to this point as well). Or you could look at F&F, which didn't have it's first movie until 2001 (a full 5 years after the first Mission: Impossible) and they've already released 8 main F&F movies with a spinoff that came out last year (Hobbs and Shaw got a sequel on the way as well and another spinoff is going forward). Once F9 comes out next year, that will be 10 F&F films in 20 years along with a vast and terrible theme park presence.

The new one will be the 7th and is being filmed back to back with the 8th.

Add Bond, Harry Potter, Star Trek and Star Wars to this list.
 
I don’t see them ever testing guests. Would cost way too much and be far too time consuming on top of having to pay medical professionals to administer.

I agree that it would be costly and time-consuming. UO does have healthcare professionals they could train to administer the test, but the question is, would they have enough staff to cover testing in addition to their normal positions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SeventyOne
Heck, the local govts., States,Feds, and other countries aren't doing such a great job of testing. Expectations are a bit high that believe a theme park would have the ability and means to do this with guests on a mass level. Totally unrealistic.
Well the hope is that eventually testing can be ramped up in production. That was Disney's hope I know if they were going to do any sort of testing. Technically, they're a private company and they could order someone to get a crap ton of tests produced and sent to the resort every few days. But if the government is doing a terrible job at getting testing widely available still, then the corporations look like the bad guy for taking tests from the people who really need them. It's a no win situation when it comes to the tests imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Journey_On
With the WHO today saying that there is no evidence of immunity after recovering from COVID, that ends any realistic talk of herd immunity without a vaccine. Straight up, the parks will be petri dishes when they open without a vaccine.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Lucky Planet
^ CNN phrased it somewhat differently with caveats...

WHO says no evidence antibody tests can determine immunity

The World Health Organization has warned there is no evidence to suggest the presence of antibodies in blood can determine whether someone has immunity to the coronavirus.

Dr. Mike Ryan, the WHO’s executive director for health emergencies, said Friday there was no indication so far that a large proportion of the population had developed immunity.
“There’s been an expectation, maybe, that herd immunity may have been achieved and that the majority of people in society may already have developed antibodies. I think the general evidence is pointing against that... so it may not solve the problem the governments are trying to solve.”
The number of recovered coronavirus patients who have retested positive for the virus has raised concerns about how antibodies work in response to Covid-19.

While scientists say there is no evidence yet that a person who has retested positive can spread the virus further, there haven’t been any conclusive studies to rule that out.

Professor Chris Dye, of the Oxford Martin School at Britain's University of Oxford, said substantial work to develop accurate antibody tests for coronavirus infection was ongoing.

“The WHO are right to highlight that any antibody test, if we get one, won’t be able to definitely say whether someone is immune to the infection, because we just don’t know enough yet about how immunity works with Covid-19," he told the Science Media Centre.

Such tests would need to be sensitive enough to ensure that infections were not missed, and specific enough to be confident that a positive result is correct, he said.

"Before an antibody test can be used to indicate that someone is immune to further infection, the level of protection must be demonstrated in experimental trials," Dye added.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andysol and Mad Dog
With the WHO today saying that there is no evidence of immunity after recovering from COVID, that ends any realistic talk of herd immunity without a vaccine. Straight up, the parks will be petri dishes when they open without a vaccine.

lol A vaccine just is a way of getting the body to produce anti-bodies. If having the actual virus doesn't give them to you, a vaccine wouldn't either. The WHO has the credibility of your local dippin dots guy on this, so anything they say doesn't really end anything.
 
^ CNN phrased it somewhat differently with caveats...

WHO says no evidence antibody tests can determine immunity

The World Health Organization has warned there is no evidence to suggest the presence of antibodies in blood can determine whether someone has immunity to the coronavirus.

Dr. Mike Ryan, the WHO’s executive director for health emergencies, said Friday there was no indication so far that a large proportion of the population had developed immunity.

The number of recovered coronavirus patients who have retested positive for the virus has raised concerns about how antibodies work in response to Covid-19.

While scientists say there is no evidence yet that a person who has retested positive can spread the virus further, there haven’t been any conclusive studies to rule that out.

Professor Chris Dye, of the Oxford Martin School at Britain's University of Oxford, said substantial work to develop accurate antibody tests for coronavirus infection was ongoing.

“The WHO are right to highlight that any antibody test, if we get one, won’t be able to definitely say whether someone is immune to the infection, because we just don’t know enough yet about how immunity works with Covid-19," he told the Science Media Centre.

Such tests would need to be sensitive enough to ensure that infections were not missed, and specific enough to be confident that a positive result is correct, he said.

"Before an antibody test can be used to indicate that someone is immune to further infection, the level of protection must be demonstrated in experimental trials," Dye added.
It's time for voluntary human trials. Let prisoners volunteer.

lol A vaccine just is a way of getting the body to produce anti-bodies. If having the actual virus doesn't give them to you, a vaccine wouldn't either. The WHO has the credibility of your local dippin dots guy on this, so anything they say doesn't really end anything.

That's a bold and frankly silly statement. Which med school did you attend?
 
Absolutely. Our government leaders have no problem volunteering their own cities as test cases. I see no problem with a voluntary program where we take lifers, for example, exposing them to COVID, and those who survive and recover, we expose again. If we're okay with making people guinea pigs against their will, what's wrong with asking people to volunteer and contribute something to humanity's future?

The key word here is VOLUNTEER. We already have at least one case of a doctor testing unproven medicines on the elderly without their consent, and with GOP funding and blessing. Pretty sure what I propose is wayore ethical than that.
 
Absolutely. Our government leaders have no problem volunteering their own cities as test cases. I see no problem with a voluntary program where we take lifers, for example, exposing them to COVID, and those who survive and recover, we expose again. If we're okay with making people guinea pigs against their will, what's wrong with asking people to volunteer and contribute something to humanity's future?

The key word here is VOLUNTEER. We already have at least one case of a doctor testing unproven medicines on the elderly without their consent, and with GOP funding and blessing. Pretty sure what I propose is wayore ethical than that.

What would be their reward?
 
Absolutely. Our government leaders have no problem volunteering their own cities as test cases. I see no problem with a voluntary program where we take lifers, for example, exposing them to COVID, and those who survive and recover, we expose again. If we're okay with making people guinea pigs against their will, what's wrong with asking people to volunteer and contribute something to humanity's future?

The key word here is VOLUNTEER. We already have at least one case of a doctor testing unproven medicines on the elderly without their consent, and with GOP funding and blessing. Pretty sure what I propose is wayore ethical than that.
You have never been inside and don't understand what you are proposing.
I'll leave it at this; there is no "volunteering" in prisons...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andysol and Legacy
Status
Not open for further replies.