Paul MacLean wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:34 am

mkaroly wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:34 am I too think the Coronavirus stuff is out of hand. I work in healthcare, and while I am fine with reasonable precautions and erring on the side of caution, it amazes me how big of an overreaction there tends to be when something like this hits. The media needs its story and they are largely responsible for the panic that has come on the heels of this. I am also sick of the political mess surrounding the virus.

I work peripherally in health care -- right now I drive a daily 275-mile route delivering meds to nursing homes. The homes have taken enormous precautions in regard to the flu, but none of them have even mentioned Coronavirus.

No question there is a political agenda driving this fear mongering -- not just with Coronavirus, but also "Climate Change" (or as it used to be called, before the recent spate of cold winters, "Global Warming").

I work in a hospital, though not on patient floors, so I am rarely up on a floor around patients (I work in Central Pharmacy). Nevertheless patients and family members are everywhere, and I work in a smaller community hospital that caters to everyone but probably more to the indigent. We certainly have a lot of drug abuse within the community the hospital serves, so a lot of immunocompromised patients and family members come through here. Our hospital has responded to the Coronavirus in various ways, is taking precautions, and have had task forces and stuff of that nature...which I am totally fine with. Hospitals should have an answer for how they are going to deal with the virus based on any number of factors. I don't like associating the term 'threat' with the virus as that word carries a lot of baggage in our modern day context. It is a virus and we need to figure things out in a reasoned, calm manner.

I watched various Sunday political news shows this past weekend, and it irritated me how leading the questions were...to translate, "Please tell us how badly the Trump Administration has screwed all this up." (The follow-up in the wake of 2 deaths related to it will probably result in these shows asking more leading questions...to translate, "Please tell us this is Trump's fault.") I am not a fan of Trump but as far as I know the Coronavirus is not the plague...and I know this week he was meeting with the Pharmaceutical Industry to talk about medication/vaccine options. Okay...but are we going to be SO over-reactionary that we demand that the industry put out vaccines without going through the proper testing protocols and such only to find out later that things were too rushed and now we have a bigger problem on our hand (medication side effects, adverse reactions, etc.)? I really point the finger at the media here more than anyone else...calm the 'BLEEP' down and quit reporting in ways that endorse political "fear mongering" that is clearly an agenda that is not doing anyone any good. Rant over...lol...

I can wait until November to see NTTD...wish it was being released in April, but what can ya do? As Andy said, I can't blame them for being cautious.

Quarantine Of Solace.

You could say that the media is acting as though the SKY is FALLing, scaring THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS our of people with the SPECTRE of death.

jkholm wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:18 pm You could say that the media is acting as though the SKY is FALLing, scaring THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS our of people with the SPECTRE of death.

Hope we don't all end up with a raging case of PinkEye.

Hollywood Reporter wrote that the Bond film would've likely lost somewhere around $300 million in global gross if theaters are affected by the virus.

With the movie moved to November, they stand to lose $50 million or thereabouts in having to delay the release date (and needing to expend more in the marketing, etc.), but that's an acceptable figure compared to how much they would lose if coronavirus is an issue in April in terms of curtailing audience numbers -- especially overseas where it's still more widespread.

Fan-made poster, but far better than any "real" 007 poster made in the last...um, thirty years...?

It's a cool poster, but it also speaks to a tone that this movie almost certainly won't have.

GQ interview with Craig...

https://www.gq.com/story/daniel-craig-j ... cover-2020

I must say, he comes across as intense, edgy...and kind of a grouch.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:14 pm It's a cool poster, but it also speaks to a tone that this movie almost certainly won't have.

Undoubtedly. I hope that the next Bond after Craig will lighten up the relentlessly dour tone of his tenure.

Craig seems to be a genuinely "difficult" person in general. Probably why his performances are so dour -- so is he!

I mean, money (and unheard of creative control for this series) seems to be the only reason he made this film, based on all the comments he made previously about how miserable he is making the Bond pictures. Apparently not miserable enough to turn down $25 mil or whatever the number is.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:18 am I mean, money (and unheard of creative control for this series) seems to be the only reason he made this film, based on all the comments he made previously about how miserable he is making the Bond pictures.

I remember how dissatisfied Pierce Brosnan was with the increasing absurdity and F/X overkill of his later 007 movies, and he suggested a "reboot" of sorts that would bring the series back to a modicum of realism (like For Your Eyes Only following Moonraker), and how Quentin Tarantino was interested in directing a 60's period adaptation of Casino Royale w/Brosnan, but EON gave him the boot shortly thereafter...and, four years later, made Casino Royale with a new actor. And yet now they're just throwing as much money and creative control at Daniel Craig as possible to keep him yoked to the franchise. Even though they kept Roger Moore in the role far past his expiration date when they couldn't find anyone to replace him by the early 80's (as he wryly put it in a DVD interview decades later, "I was getting rawther long in the tooth, even then..."), at least Moore kept out of the creative side of the productions, cashed the checks, and did what was required of him, instead of lording it over the producers and forcing them to alter the character to suit his whims. The closest he came to that was being unhappy with the more casually cruel aspects of the character (like smacking around women) in his first two films, as requesting that he tailor the role to his more "lite" charisma starting with The Spy Who Loved Me. Even Timothy Dalton didn't alter the overall formula of the pictures as much as his detractors claimed he did at the tail end of the 80's. Yes, his 007 was less promiscuous and more ruthless, but his two films still had all of the classic elements of the series.

Agreed, it's surprising. Note Craig's Co-Producer credit is the first one to appear on the poster after the actors! That also must have been part of the deal.

Even Timothy Dalton didn't alter the overall formula of the pictures as much as his detractors claimed he did at the tail end of the 80's. Yes, his 007 was less promiscuous and more ruthless, but his two films still had all of the classic elements of the series.

For all the criticism he took at the time, Dalton is a veritable TEDDY BEAR compared to Craig!

Brosnan's Bond started off strong with Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies (probably my favorite of the films he made as Bond); TWINE could have been better if Elektra was the sole villain. DAD has its moments but it is too gadget heavy for my tastes (I like Arnold's score for it). I think he found a nice middle ground between the smarminess of Moore and the "edge" that Dalton tried to achieve in his portrayal of Bond.