Film Contagion

[ForEverAfter]

I choose barehands. Been taking boxing lessons to supplement my Sanda training. Should be fun.

I've been gradually developing a tolerance to being punched in the face, over the past decade or so, by running headfirst into a brick wall once a week.

Bring it on.

 

[freddy47]

Didn't say you did, Jimmy. Didn't say you did. You were speaking for them, that's all. Stating their collective opinion. "The film industry likes this film" you said. Film-makers like it. So, I assumed you must know some film-makers. The pieces are all there, waiting to be assembled. I'm not sure of the source of the confusion; perhaps an Asian guy somewhere didn't wash his hands. The interview that I predicted you can't find and (lo, and behold) you can't find doesn't exist. For this reason: When film-makers or actors are interviewed, they are interviewed about their work. They are plugging the shit they are trying to sell. Why would, for example, Spike Jonze be interviewed about Avatar so soon after it's release? And if he was, anything negative he might say would be removed from the article. Therefore it couldn't be taken as an indication of quality anyway. There is no possible way to gauge what the majority of film-makers think unless you know a lot of film-makers. Get me?

Yeah I get you. I still remember reading the article but whatever. You claimed to know insiders who disliked the film and yet refused to back it up so as far as I'm concerned we are both full of shit and that is fine with me.

No, they aren't.

Yes they are. At least that is the consensus of the scientific community. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/apr/14/research.science2 and for good discussion between scientists http://brooke-evans.com/?p=61.

No, it's just gained other meanings. It still has the original one.

Yeah what I mean is those gained other meanings are harmful. For example the word Theory is used differently between biologists and creationists. It really only has one meaning but due to common usage it also has a less precise meaning. Creationist use that to distort issues claiming that oh Evolution is just a theory therefore lessens the impact of the word theory. Same goes for fascists. Sure it has different meanings. But those other meanings have made the word less meaningful.

I agree. The media spreading fear and exageratting the potential dangers of contagions is more of a concern than the actual threat. In fact, I couldn't agree more. (Although, if I believed that 500+ million could die, as you do, then I probably would consider the threat greater than the hype. But hey, that's just me I guess.) Contagion is part of the media. Despite being fictional it is essentially serving the same purpose, and is part of, the hype surrounding SARS - which you by your own admission disapprove of. Quite the conundrum.

There is a difference between how the news depicts a potential threat and how a movie (meant for entertainment) treats a subject involving a potential threat.

It seems to me that Uwe Boll noticed an easy way to make money. His films profit; all of them, I believe. There is a lot of mindless crap that (particularly) US audiences seem to lap up. So he makes those films. But he also has a bit of fun with them. I think, from what I've observed of him, he knows the films he makes are largely shit. Your friend (and indirectly you) support him by watching them. These films that you know will be bad. You watch them and then you call the guy responsible shit. Because, why, it's good to feel better than someone? Meanwhile, he is rolling around in pussy and cocaine.

Also, I've got to say that beating the shit out of your critics in the boxing ring is pretty awesome...

Have you read any of the interviews of him? He thinks rather highly of himself and demands respect from the film making community even though he deserves none. And yes I guess my friend does support him. But again you are the one saying to give the guy a chance. I did. Wasn't worth it.

I do hope to face him the boxing ring one day. If only to cause him permanent brain damage so he can't make any more films.

Deny it all you want, Jimmy. Your comments were borderline racist.

It appears some people cannot take a joke. Unless you were referencing our discussion. In that case well played sir well played

 

[freddy47]

I've been gradually developing a tolerance to being punched in the face, over the past decade or so, by running headfirst into a brick wall once a week.

Bring it on.

Ahh so you suffer from insanity. Figures

 

[freddy47]

Fuck it dude this discussion is getting out of hand lol

I'm cool with shaking hands and just agreeing to disagree if you're down. Otherwise this is just gonna go on ad infinitum.

 

[ForEverAfter]

You claimed to know insiders who disliked the film and yet refused to back it up so as far as I'm concerned we are both full of shit and that is fine with me.

If it is inconceivable to you that someone other than yourself might have connections in a particular industry, as I said, that's up to you.

I still remember reading the article but whatever.

Okay. Who was being interviewed? Surely you can remember that much. You remember reading the interview, which was in a magazine, so just punch the name of who was being interviewed into google and the title of the film and presto: you can provide a link. I know you're not going to do this. Because you've forgotten who was being interviewed, right? (I'm psychic.)

At least that is the consensus of the scientific community.

Clearly you didn't read those links. The second article you posted was written by a graduating student. The first one (really shabby journalism, by the way) rated the risk of a viral pandemic a 3/10. There was two paragraphs in the entire article pertaining to the subject at hand, and nothing whatsoever to "conditions in which a virus might thrive".

Two internet articles cannot reflect "the consensus of the scientific community." It's easy to find articles to support whatever you want on the internet. I can google you up fifty articles supporting racism or genital torture, if you like. Doesn't really seem like you made much effort. If you want to provide a credible source of information, why not cite an article that actually makes a comparison between the potential for pandemics across a period of time, because that is what we are discussing.

For example the word Theory is used differently between biologists and creationists. It really only has one meaning but due to common usage it also has a less precise meaning. Creationist use that to distort issues claiming that oh Evolution is just a theory therefore lessens the impact of the word theory.

That is the most ridiculous thing you've said so far. Your example doesn't have two contexts. They are both using the term in the same context and both using it correctly. The meaning is no less precise. The word is abstract. It cannot be changed, except in your mind if you allow it to be. Creationists are idiots. Don't let them alter your vocabulary. They are arguing a technicality. Really everything is theoretical. Given a sufficient amount of evidence, we conclude that the theory is most likely correct. But we never really know anything for sure. It's corny, but if you don't know you're dreaming, then you don't know if you're not. Some people require more evidence than others. For example despite how obviously bad Contagion is, you believe that it is an accomplished piece of film-making.

There is a difference between how the news depicts a potential threat and how a movie (meant for entertainment) treats a subject involving a potential threat.

What is the difference? Clearly there's (at the very least) some overlap. How do you separate the two?

you are the one saying to give the guy a chance. I did. Wasn't worth it.

You chose to watch a bad film for the purposes of mocking it. I'm not judging you, I've done that (mocked bad films) many a time. But let's not bullshit each other. You weren't giving him a chance. You wanted to make fun of a shitty film.

I do hope to face him the boxing ring one day. If only to cause him permanent brain damage so he can't make any more films.

Why don't you just not watch them?

That's what I don't get about the enormous hatred aimed towards this guy. I've only got Rampage to go on, but it really wasn't that bad. The reason I mentioned Green Lantern was because it was far worse than Rampage. Yet nobody wants to hurt the director. There isn't this weird cloud of hate floating around his celebrity. What about the guy who writes The Bold & the Beautiful or Justin Beaber? Do you want to kill them to? Because they're worse. There's hundreds of thousands of worse people, or equally bad people, in the film and television industry. Do you want to kill them all?

It seems to me that Uwe Boll is just the popular skapegoat. I have seen at least thirty films this year worse than Rampage. Most television shows are worse. And, you enjoyed his films didn't you? It sounded like it. You got pissed and had a laugh. Chill.

It appears some people cannot take a joke. Unless you were referencing our discussion. In that case well played sir well played

I most certainly was not referencing our discussion. I am four thirty-fourths Japanese and proud of it. I don't appreciate racists comments about sushi, sashimi, OR origami. If you're prejudiced against albinos on the other hand (or midgets) that's cool. Those pale little mother fuckers creep me out.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Fuck it dude this discussion is getting out of hand lol

I'm cool with shaking hands and just agreeing to disagree if you're down. Otherwise this is just gonna go on ad infinitum.

Sorry didn't see this before replying in length. Please feel free to opt out at any time. That thread you're holding is about to break. Just do me one favor before you go. Admit that the interview was a lie. You'll feel better.

 

[batmanplaybaseball]

"four thirty-fourths Japanese"

so about 2/17ths? Kind of an obscure number. Anyways, I hope you two keep going. This thread taught me who Uwe Boll is, for better or worse.

 

[ForEverAfter]

so about 2/17ths? Kind of an obscure number.

My grandmother only had one arm.

 

[freddy47]

^It wasn't a lie. Perhaps I was mistaken but it wasn't a deliberate lie. But as I remember it was Benicio Del Toro being interviewed talking about his work with Soderbergh. I just can't place which magazine. But so be it if you want to consider this a lie. I am admitting that I am most likely mistaken. But if you insist on breaking my balls here goes.

Clearly you didn't read those links. The second article you posted was written by a graduating student. The first one (really shabby journalism, by the way) rated the risk of a viral pandemic a 3/10. There was two paragraphs in the entire article pertaining to the subject at hand, and nothing whatsoever to "conditions in which a virus might thrive".

Two internet articles cannot reflect "the consensus of the scientific community." It's easy to find articles to support whatever you want on the internet. I can google you up fifty articles supporting racism or genital torture, if you like. Doesn't really seem like you made much effort. If you want to provide a credible source of information, why not cite an article that actually makes a comparison between the potential for pandemics across a period of time, because that is what we are discussing.

I did actually and yeah the first one was a bad example. The second one was a student discussing the opinions of two professors he was studying under. That doesn't invalidate his opinion and he cites those two professors and their opinions as well as some of their results. As far as only having two articles. What am I suppose to post every link available that supports my opinion? You supported your opinion that Contagion is a bad film by citing at the most two reviews. Seems hypocritical to me.

That is the most ridiculous thing you've said so far. Your example doesn't have two contexts. They are both using the term in the same context and both using it correctly. The meaning is no less precise. The word is abstract. It cannot be changed, except in your mind if you allow it to be. Creationists are idiots. Don't let them alter your vocabulary. They are arguing a technicality. Really everything is theoretical. Given a sufficient amount of evidence, we conclude that the theory is most likely correct. But we never really know anything for sure. It's corny, but if you don't know you're dreaming, then you don't know if you're not. Some people require more evidence than others. For example despite how obviously bad Contagion is, you believe that it is an accomplished piece of film-making.

So we have different views about film and the nature of language. Very fucking well I stand by my statement however. Words lose their original meaning and those words become less meaningful. The word heretic in ages past would condemn a man to the stake. You call someone a heretic today and people shrug and continue on their way. Why because the word has lost its original meaning and has gained others. There is political heresy and religious heresy nowadays. Word have so much power beyond just description. They have the ability to distort or condemn. The word fascist should be reserved to condemn actual fascists. Not someone who simply disagrees with your particular opinion.

What is the difference? Clearly there's (at the very least) some overlap. How do you separate the two?

Film is a medium for entertainment. The news is a medium for the spreading of information. Yes of course they overlap. But I doubt people are going to the film Contagion to learn about virology. Granted this film was made ultra-realistic. But still it is a film. Like Orson Welles and War of The worlds if you portray fiction as news people will freak the fuck out. But you portray real subject matter in the medium of film people don't panic they realize they are watching a movie. Suspension of disbelief only goes that far.

You chose to watch a bad film for the purposes of mocking it. I'm not judging you, I've done that (mocked bad films) many a time. But let's not bullshit each other. You weren't giving him a chance. You wanted to make fun of a shitty film.

The first movie I watched of his was Alone in the Dark and I had no idea who he was at the time because I wasn't into film at the time. So yeah I gave him a chance the first time I watched it. Second and third times admittedly I watched to mock as you put it.

Why don't you just not watch them?

That's what I don't get about the enormous hatred aimed towards this guy. I've only got Rampage to go on, but it really wasn't that bad. The reason I mentioned Green Lantern was because it was far worse than Rampage. Yet nobody wants to hurt the director. There isn't this weird cloud of hate floating around his celebrity. What about the guy who writes The Bold & the Beautiful or Justin Beaber? Do you want to kill them to? Because they're worse. There's hundreds of thousands of worse people, or equally bad people, in the film and television industry. Do you want to kill them all?

It seems to me that Uwe Boll is just the popular skapegoat. I have seen at least thirty films this year worse than Rampage. Most television shows are worse. And, you enjoyed his films didn't you? It sounded like it. You got pissed and had a laugh. Chill.

That bit about the boxing was a joke not so obviously. I wouldn't want to hurt the dude cause yes he did provide me and my friend with a small amount of entertainment.

I most certainly was not referencing our discussion. I am four thirty-fourths Japanese and proud of it. I don't appreciate racists comments about sushi, sashimi, OR origami. If you're prejudiced against albinos on the other hand (or midgets) that's cool. Those pale little mother fuckers creep me out.

You are way over sensitive IMO if you are serious about me being racist. Just saying. I already said I love sushi. Just that they use too much cucumber and therefore don't have any more cucumbers for a cucumber sandwich. Which is a joke. But I doubt you get it. We went from being somewhat civil to you accusing me of being borderline racist. So by that logic if someone says they hate Kimchi are they being borderline racist against Koreans?

 

[freddy47]

so about 2/17ths? Kind of an obscure number. Anyways, I hope you two keep going. This thread taught me who Uwe Boll is, for better or worse.

glad someone is entertained by this discussion. To me its just getting incredibly tedious.

 

[batmanplaybaseball]

I think it was tedious, but now its becoming epic. I see no end in sight until both of you have responded to each other so much that, like playing a game of 'telephone', you will no longer be able to remember what you originally wanted to prove. In other words, the conversation has overthrown the topic and now the conversation has begun to eat itself, an ouroboros.

 

[freddy47]

^Lol yeah I think you're right. For the record I tried to end the discussion amiably. He insisted on continuing. I never back down from a challenge to fight. Never have never will

 

[ForEverAfter]

The second one was a student discussing the opinions of two professors he was studying under. That doesn't invalidate his opinion and he cites those two professors and their opinions as well as some of their results. As far as only having two articles. What am I suppose to post every link available that supports my opinion? You supported your opinion that Contagion is a bad film by citing at the most two reviews. Seems hypocritical to me.

As I said neither of your links were relevant or credible. I didn't ask you to post any links. That was your decision. You are not "supposed" to do anthing, just like you are not obliged to continue this discussion. What I said was IF you want to post a link to prove a point, post a decent link. Otherwise, don't post one at all. Doesn't help your argument. That's all I'm saying.

Words lose their original meaning and those words become less meaningful.

Words are abstract. While some words change meanings and other adopt meanings in different contexts, nobody can actually change or weaken words as you've suggested the creationists are doing. They might change your perception of the word, but they do not change mine.

The word fascist should be reserved to condemn actual fascists.

I don't think words should be reserved for any purpose. I'm not going to tell you what words are okay to use in what context. I'm not going to say the word word should be reserved to describe linguistic formations. You can use it, or fascist, or whatever arrangement of letters you like - however you like.

Film is a medium for entertainment. The news is a medium for the spreading of information. Yes of course they overlap. But I doubt people are going to the film Contagion to learn about virology. Granted this film was made ultra-realistic. But still it is a film.

No people don't go to see Contagion to learn about virology. Like you said it was about panic. You also said that the news media spreads panic and that you believe that 500+ million people could die, like in the movie. That guy in the movie, Jude Law's character, Alan something, he profited off the fictional virus. In the real world, the fear mongering media profited off SARS, including Soderbergh. You can't really dispute that he made money; or that the film was meant to be scary; or that you yourself are convinced the threat depicted in the film is likely to occur. Given all that, how can it not be fear mongering just like the rest of the media? What makes him different? The fact that it is "a film" doesn't mean shit. Film is a medium.

you portray real subject matter in the medium of film people don't panic they realize they are watching a movie. Suspension of disbelief only goes that far

But it doesn't only go that far. You believe the numbers in the film - 500 million, plus - so it must've contributed to your fear of an impending viral apocalypse. Even if it didn't, many other people will freak out. People are easily persuaded, whether it be by films or news headlines. You can shape them, re-arrange their brains like putty, and make a tidy profit while you're at it.

You are way over sensitive IMO if you are serious about me being racist. Just saying. I already said I love sushi. Just that they use too much cucumber and therefore don't have any more cucumbers for a cucumber sandwich. Which is a joke. But I doubt you get it. We went from being somewhat civil to you accusing me of being borderline racist. So by that logic if someone says they hate Kimchi are they being borderline racist against Koreans?

Was Dr. King just being sensitive? No. He had a dream that one day we'd live in a world in which sushi can exist without fear of being slandered and spat upon. You see I am not only part Japanese, I am also part sushi.

 

[freddy47]

As I said neither of your links were relevant or credible. I didn't ask you to post any links. That was your decision. You are not "supposed" to do anthing, just like you are not obliged to continue this discussion. What I said was IF you want to post a link to prove a point, post a decent link. Otherwise, don't post one at all. Doesn't help your argument. That's all I'm saying.

You're just being ridiculous at this point. The discussion went there therefore I went there. So far the only thing you have provided contrary to the belief that a global pandemic is possible is that medical science has improved since the last deadly pandemic. Which isn't much of an argument at all really. There was a time when doctors said "its time to close the book on infectious diseases" because of the discovery of antibiotics. And yet now we have antibiotic resistant strains of TB and god knows what else.

Also if a naturally occurring fatal pandemic cannot happen as you seem to think. There is always the possibility of a man made one.

Words are abstract. While some words change meanings and other adopt meanings in different contexts, nobody can actually change or weaken words as you've suggested the creationists are doing. They might change your perception of the word, but they do not change mine.

Of course they are abstract I never said otherwise. I simply said that words have power beyond description because what they describe can be viewed differently at different times. Abstract ideas can have a profound impact on everyday life. The idea of National Socialism is abstract. And yet that idea helped destroy 6 million jews. And of course that is exactly what the creationists are doing. Why else are there schools forcing the teaching of creationism and the theory of evolution in the same classroom. Because its just a theory to them. They have lessened the impact of the word to the point where the scientific process is no longer respected!

I don't think words should be reserved for any purpose. I'm not going to tell you what words are okay to use in what context. I'm not going to say the word word should be reserved to describe linguistic formations. You can use it, or fascist, or whatever arrangement of letters you like - however you like.

Of course you don't because you use words inappropriately and frequently use hyperbole to support your nonsense. Thats cool its just hard to take what you say seriously in that context.

No people don't go to see Contagion to learn about virology. Like you said it was about panic. You also said that the news media spreads panic and that you believe that 500+ million people could die, like in the movie. That guy in the movie, Jude Law's character, Alan something, he profited off the fictional virus. In the real world, the fear mongering media profited off SARS, including Soderbergh. You can't really dispute that he made money; or that the film was meant to be scary; or that you yourself are convinced the threat depicted in the film is likely to occur. Given all that, how can it not be fear mongering just like the rest of the media? What makes him different? The fact that it is "a film" doesn't mean shit. Film is a medium.

Of course its meant to be scary and of course he made money. But its the context that makes the difference. He made a film to entertain people. Its ultimate purpose is not to scare people up into giving up their cash for some wonder cure or truth. Its entertainment. Its not a documentary. There isn't that element of if you don't pay money for this you will die. Its simply "here is a movie I think you might enjoy take it or leave it." Would you say that Michael Bays film Armageddon is fear mongering simply because it displayed a very real possibility of an asteroid hitting earth in an (arguably) entertaining way? I wouldn't.

But it doesn't only go that far. You believe the numbers in the film - 500 million, plus - so it must've contributed to your fear of an impending viral apocalypse. Even if it didn't, many other people will freak out. People are easily persuaded, whether it be by films or news headlines. You can shape them, re-arrange their brains like putty, and make a tidy profit while you're at it.

There is a difference between believing something and thinking that it is plausible. I think that number is plausible given the context of our species natural history. Humanity has had terrible diseases destroy large numbers of our population. And I've always thought that this could happen again way before this movie was even in production or was on anybodies minds as a possible movie concept.

Was Dr. King just being sensitive? No. He had a dream that one day we'd live in a world in which sushi can exist without fear of being slandered and spat upon. You see I am not only part Japanese, I am also part sushi.

LMFAO!!! In all seriousness. I LOLed when I read this. Funny stuff. This discussion has gone from mildly annoying to tedious to incredibly entertaining. At this point this thread has become more entertaining than the movie IMO

 

[suburu]

I wouldnt recommend this movie to anyone but because of the good cast involved a lot of people will have the misfortune of seeing it. What was supposed to be a frightening, gripping thriller was incredibly slow, bland and boring, and takes forever to go nowhere. I was kind of hoping i would pick up a quick strain of the disease in the cinema so i wouldnt have to sit through it all.

I gave it one star just for the cast and for the amount of montages in it that made me think of Team America. "Even Rocky had a montaaaaaage"

 

[freddy47]

^montage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ForEverAfter]

So far the only thing you have provided contrary to the belief that a global pandemic is possible is that medical science has improved since the last deadly pandemic.

I never said a global pandemic was impossible. That's not what we were discussing. You've lost track of the conversation. You posted those links to prove to me that a virus is more likely to thrive today than during the time of the Spanish Flu/ black plague.

Of course you don't because you use words inappropriately and frequently use hyperbole to support your nonsense. Thats cool its just hard to take what you say seriously in that context.

I don't use hyperbole any more often than you do, nor do I use words inappropriately. It is not for you to say how words may be used. There is no inappropriate use of words. Stop being a fascist.

Of course its meant to be scary and of course he made money. But its the context that makes the difference. He made a film to entertain people. Its ultimate purpose is not to scare people up into giving up their cash for some wonder cure or truth. Its entertainment. Its not a documentary. There isn't that element of if you don't pay money for this you will die. Its simply "here is a movie I think you might enjoy take it or leave it." Would you say that Michael Bays film Armageddon is fear mongering simply because it displayed a very real possibility of an asteroid hitting earth in an (arguably) entertaining way? I wouldn't.

The release of Armageddon did not co-incide with a real world event. Contagion was an inevitable movie. When something happens that sends enough ripples through the news pond to have economical potential, Hollywood turns it into a film. If it wasn't Soderbergh it would have been somebody else. The fear was already there. He cashed in on it. Whether or not the purpose of the film is to entertain is beside the point. It can be both. As for the wonder cure, you're confusing Jude Law's character with the actual real world media/ the hype surrounding SARS/H1N1 or maybe just you're conveniently lumping them together. The news networks that profited from SARS didn't have a cure, they were doing the exact same thing as Soderbergh - seeing an opportunity and profitting from it with little regard for their contributions to the collective paranoia.

I think that number is plausible given the context of our species natural history. Humanity has had terrible diseases destroy large numbers of our population.

During times of extremely poor hygiene and limited medical resources, yes. There are places in the world it might still hit hard. But the US ain't one of them. The film suggests that the entire population of the world is under threat in terms of a widespread viral infection. The only way for this to work, within North America, is if the virus is ABSURDLY contagious and RIDICULOUSLY quick acting. Far more contagious and quick acting than anything we've ever seen. They say this more or less in the film. It is a super virus unlike anything the human race has ever faced. Obviously it is in another ballpark to H1N1 and SARS. It is FAR FAR more advanced than the plague. Why do we have any reason to believe that a highly contagious super virus like that would just pop up out of nowhere?

And I've always thought that this could happen again way before this movie was even in production or was on anybodies minds as a possible movie concept.

Don't you think that thought (and the belief that an asteroid impact is a very real possibility) is at least partially attributable to mass media?

The larger, outer, planets of the solar system absorb the vast majority of debris that enters due to their enormous gravitional pulls. Everything that hits us has to pass through this magnetic gauntlet. Then it has to penetrate the atmosphere. On top of that, the human race is monitoring deep space. They are a couple of asteroids that are potentially on a collision course with our planet. The likeliness of them following that course is extremely low. Then there's the gauntlet. The estimated time of impact on these asteroids ranges from decades (for minor asteroids) to a couple of centuries for the big one. In other words, I'm not particularly concerned - despite Michael Bay and his entertaining translation of what you consider to be a very real possibility. Why is it very real?

 

[freddy47]

I never said a global pandemic was impossible. That's not what we were discussing. You've lost track of the conversation. You posted those links to prove to me that a virus is more likely to thrive today than during the time of the Spanish Flu/ black plague.

In my humble opinion I think with the global transportation network in place at the moment the ability for a virus to thrive in this environment is really high. Remember HIV was spread (in part) so widely because the index patient was a flight attendant who fucked every willing partner he could wherever he landed even after he found out that he had HIV. Albeit the knowledge of the virus wasn't that well know at the time still. There are people like that in the world. Typhoid Mary type people who refuse to acknowledge that they are sick and go on infecting others.

I don't use hyperbole any more often than you do, nor do I use words inappropriately. It is not for you to say how words may be used. There is no inappropriate use of words. Stop being a fascist.

Agree to disagree you part sushi mongrel

The release of Armageddon did not co-incide with a real world event. Contagion was an inevitable movie. When something happens that sends enough ripples through the news pond to have economical potential, Hollywood turns it into a film. If it wasn't Soderbergh it would have been somebody else. The fear was already there. He cashed in on it. Whether or not the purpose of the film is to entertain is beside the point. It can be both. As for the wonder cure, you're confusing Jude Law's character with the actual real world media/ the hype surrounding SARS/H1N1 or maybe just you're conveniently lumping them together. The news networks that profited from SARS didn't have a cure, they were doing the exact same thing as Soderbergh - seeing an opportunity and profitting from it with little regard for their contributions to the collective paranoia.

I'm lumping those things together because that is essentially what you're doing. News and film are not the same thing nor are they perceived to be the same medium. Therefore people draw different things from them. Reefer Madness is a great example of fear mongering, it is propaganda and its a film that greatly exaggerates the supposed negative effects of marijuana to help achieve political objectives. Contagion? Not so much. It approaches the subject matter plausibly and IMO responsibly. I didn't see anybody leaving the theater refusing to shake hands with people or give someone a hug. If it is such a effective fear mongering film then I would assume that people would have been more scared.

During times of extremely poor hygiene and limited medical resources, yes. There are places in the world it might still hit hard. But the US ain't one of them. The film suggests that the entire population of the world is under threat in terms of a widespread viral infection. The only way for this to work, within North America, is if the virus is ABSURDLY contagious and RIDICULOUSLY quick acting. Far more contagious and quick acting than anything we've ever seen. They say this more or less in the film. It is a super virus unlike anything the human race has ever faced. Obviously it is in another ballpark to H1N1 and SARS. It is FAR FAR more advanced than the plague. Why do we have any reason to believe that a highly contagious super virus like that would just pop up out of nowhere?

I posted this link in the previous post. Perhaps you ignored it? http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/20/u-s-urges-science-journals-not-to-publish-details-of-man-made-pandemic-level-bird-flu-virus/ In this day and age of genetic engineering is it really that much of a stretch of the imagination that a super virus could appear out of nowhere? I think not.

Don't you think that thought (and the belief that an asteroid impact is a very real possibility) is at least partially attributable to mass media?

The larger, outer, planets of the solar system absorb the vast majority of debris that enters due to their enormous gravitional pulls. Everything that hits us has to pass through this magnetic gauntlet. Then it has to penetrate the atmosphere. On top of that, the human race is monitoring deep space. They are a couple of asteroids that are potentially on a collision course with our planet. The likeliness of them following that course is extremely low. Then there's the gauntlet. The estimated time of impact on these asteroids ranges from decades (for minor asteroids) to a couple of centuries for the big one. In other words, I'm not particularly concerned - despite Michael Bay and his entertaining translation of what you consider to be a very real possibility. Why is it very real?

Of course its attributable to the mass media. As much as it is attributable to the study of the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. Although you could argue that the mass media has a bigger reach than the field of palaeontology. But that was how I initially got introduced to the idea.

Of course the chances of a asteroid hitting earth are slim. But its just as real as any other threat to human existence. More so than most of the crackpot ideas out there being that since the earth has been hit in the past and it is entirely within the realm of possibility that it will get hit again.

Its more real than say the possibility that a black hole will form at the large hadron collider or a gamma ray burst from a near by star.

 

[ForEverAfter]

The link you posted is tabloid shit and is contributing to the fear mongering. It is combining the bird flue with terrorism. I ignored it because it is both bad journalism and sensationlist nonsense.

The virus in question is an H5N1 avian influenza strain that was genetically altered in a Dutch lab so it can pass easily between ferrets.

(Related - Orgasm flu may be caused by semen allergy, Dutch scientists say.)

That means it is likely contagious among humans for the first time, and could trigger a lethal pandemic if it emerged in nature or were set loose by terrorists, experts have said.

The H5N1 strain of bird flu is fatal in 60 percent of human cases but only 350 people have so far died from the disease largely because it cannot, yet, be transmitted between humans.

Let's just ignore the "orgasm flu" newsflash that appears in the middle of the article. It is "likely" contagious between humans because it is contagious between ferets? Seems like a leap to me. Ther article is talking about a virus that might be contagious, not a virus that is super super contagious. Also most of the scientists quote believe the information should be released and no terrorists has ever used a highly contagious virus as a weapon.

Remember HIV was spread (in part) so widely because the index patient was a flight attendant who fucked every willing partner he could wherever he landed even after he found out that he had HIV. Albeit the knowledge of the virus wasn't that well know at the time still. There are people like that in the world. Typhoid Mary type people who refuse to acknowledge that they are sick and go on infecting others.

I don't think this is fair. She is not responsible. HIV takes 3-6 months to produce detectable antibodies and sometimes up to 2 years before any symptoms arise. There was no refusal of acknowledgement.

I'm lumping those things together because that is essentially what you're doing. News and film are not the same thing nor are they perceived to be the same medium. Therefore people draw different things from them. Reefer Madness is a great example of fear mongering, it is propaganda and its a film that greatly exaggerates the supposed negative effects of marijuana to help achieve political objectives. Contagion? Not so much. It approaches the subject matter plausibly and IMO responsibly. I didn't see anybody leaving the theater refusing to shake hands with people or give someone a hug.

I agree. It is not propaganda. It is a subtler (and slighter) form of fear mongering. Your words, "Not so much," are correct. You didn't say "Not at all." Just because people didn't leave the cinema seperately doesn't mean the film hasn't contributed to the collective paranoia. It's pretty obvious, given sensationalist reactions from people in the past, that it will - to SOME degree.

If it is such a effective fear mongering film then I would assume that people would have been more scared.

I didn't describe it as highly effective fear mongering. You're twisting things around again.

Of course its attributable to the mass media. As much as it is attributable to the study of the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. Although you could argue that the mass media has a bigger reach than the field of palaeontology. But that was how I initially got introduced to the idea.

Of course the chances of a asteroid hitting earth are slim. But its just as real as any other threat to human existence. More so than most of the crackpot ideas out there being that since the earth has been hit in the past and it is entirely within the realm of possibility that it will get hit again.

Okay, first I don't need to argue that mass media has a bigger reach. That is a fact. Secondly, the event you're referring to happened millions of years ago. Ignoring all other factors, and just taking into account basic probability, it is UNLIKELY that this will occur in the near future. The human race has existed for a brief time on this planet in comparison to dinosaurs. We are a mere blip on the radar. The fact that something happened hundreds of millions of years ago does not convince me that it is likely to occur within the next hundred or ten thousand and you have presented no evidence to convince me otherwise. Please do, though.

Its more real than say the possibility that a black hole will form at the large hadron collider or a gamma ray burst from a near by star.

No it's not more real than the possibility of a black hole forming at the large hadron collider. That is what they are attempting to do, form mini black holes. I think what you mean is: it is more of a threat than the black holes that will form in the large hadron collider, assuming all goes to plan.

You're quoting from an article that you already admitted was shit. Here's another quote from it, regarding the "very real" possibility of a super intelligent robot uprising.

7: Robots taking over

Hans Moravec is a research professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Robotics Institute in Pittsburgh:

"Robot controllers double in complexity (processing power) every year or two. They are now barely at the lower range of vertebrate complexity, but should catch up with us within a half-century. By 2050 I predict that there will be robots with humanlike mental power, with the ability to abstract and generalise.

"These intelligent machines will grow from us, learn our skills, share our goals and values, and can be viewed as children of our minds. Not only will these robots look after us in the home, but they will also carry out complex tasks that currently require human input, such as diagnosing illness and recommending a therapy or cure. They will be our heirs and will offer us the best chance we'll ever get for immortality by uploading ourselves into advanced robots."

Chance of super-intelligent robots in the next 70 years: High

Danger score: 8

Scary stuff, Jimmy. Scary stuff. I have to admit, I peed a little in my pants when I read it.

 

[rocknroll702]

this is the last movie i "saw" in theater it was this or bucky larson and i still regret watching this - i tried to fall asleep in the movie and my girl almost kicke dmy ass movie was SOOOOOOOOO boring HANDS DOWN DOWN DOWN