Because it does have power as a brand still. Tapping into nostalgia is easy money for Hollywood. The new Jurassic Park was crap but was always going to make big money. I don't get the problem with switching the genders. Film makers make fundamental changes to the plot of the source work all the time and genders/race of characters are often switched with little fuss, particularly when the switch goes the other way. What do people see that's so much worse about changing the genders of Ocean's 11 characters for a reboot, compared to changing the Hunger Games woman from latina to white?... or making characters in Game of Thrones older? These decisions are often made for cynical reasons. Jennifer Lawrence was in the Hunger Games because she has pulling power at the box office and when it comes to women there's only a small pool to pick from, especially once you factor in that they have to be young and athletic enough to play the role. Game of Thrones wanted to put more boobs in the show. Rebooting Ghostbusters and Ocean's 11 with women gives a new angle and the chance to appeal more directly to a female audience who might not have been interested otherwise. I just don't get why the latter is so controversial when others are not. It's not even negative press, it's just a bunch of normal people getting all in a huff over nothing.
Reboots always get stick and sequels always come under scrutiny, especially if you make a load of changes. Getting rid of all of the old characters creates controversy. Film and TV fans often aren't that familiar with the source material when it's a book or comic series, so less people care. You're always going to upset somebody, as you're trying to create something to compare to their imagination. It's less of an issue, as most reasonable people don't think that it'll be an exact match.
This is all ludicrous. I followed the LinkedIn case when it first came up and formed most of my view then. The reason that I said I would employ the barrister and not the solicitor is little to do with the argument here but comes from the way the solicitor defended his actions which was patently ridiculous. Whereas the barrister was consistent throughout as a good forensic lawyer should be. I don't think you'll find that I've judged people anywhere in this debate; I've jut commented on people's opinions and tried to point out factual errors. Your claim that the press is somehow biased in favour of feminists is laughable. My comments that you have quoted simply describe the way the world was and why people react to it the way they do. They don't condone victimisation. I'm not saying that I support such things, rather that I understand the reasons why people often over-react to racial and sexual discrimination. I could write for example "US involvement in the Middle East has made it easier for groups like ISIS to flourish." That doesn't imply that I had any issue with the US involvement or I condone any of ISIS's behaviour. I found it hard to see why this stuff makes you so angry, RobSpur.
They're two separate issues. The point I'm making, which some others seem determined to turn into something else, is that you cannot even make a straight statement of fact like that in the current, ridiculously PC, environment. To do so would certainly find you subjected to abuse, threats, and defamation of character. Whilst these people mostly offer no help on the subject themselves, at all, they're all too willing to initiate and sustain a witch hunt against others.
You are misrepresenting again. To clarify, I did not comment on whether the girl was best the judge as to whether she took offence. I commented that the girl's father was a better judge of his daughter than you - as someone who has never met her - is. This was in response to your implocit suggestion that you were a better judge of how the girl (who you have never met) would feel about the comment than the girl's own father, who made the comment. You presented the comment as if it was equivelant to the comment the same man had made to the barrister. Whereas the man's daughter had not deleted or commented negatively upon it (and in fact it looks like she 'liked' it), you saw fit to hold it up as a 'further' example of the man's offensive behaviour. This again show both your bias and your misjudgment. Your reference to extending a courtesy, is just the latest absurdity that can be extracted from your comments and analysis. Let me explain to you what would have happened here in a senesible society, in which people extend courtesies to one another : 1. Woman makes social media connection request. 2. Man accepts request, makes business related comment and makes personal comment. 3. Woman does one of the following : a) is pleased with compliment and returns it, possibly developing a friendly relationship b) accepts the comment as a compliment and doesnt respond c) considers the compliment slightly inappropriate, but just forgets it as one does with the myriad of things we all find slightly unwelcome during the course of a business day d) replies, stating something like, "Dear xxxx, Thank you for accepting my request. I also hope that there are opportunities to work togethor at some point. Whilst writing, I would add that I noticed your comment about my photograph. Whilst I am sure that this was made with good intentions, I personally find such comments unwelcome, and would request that you desist from making further similar comments, which might be open to misinterpretation. I hope that this does not cause offence. Many thanks once again for accepting my connection, and I look forward to the possibility of us doing business togethor at some point. Kind regards, xxx" What does not happen in a reasonable society, in which courtesies are extended, is to do what this woman did. Your support for the woman's actions is indefensible, and your attempts to bracket her togethor wit the man's own daughter are utterly hopeless.
Your exact words were "You are a better judge of how his daughter would feel about this than she is are you ?"
This is so true. The double standards of these people is unbelievable. They purport to defend someone who has or has purported to have suffered a minor slight, and in so doing, deliberately RUIN the other person without a care for their wellbeing. It's absoloutely vile, and it's disgusting that society is so misinformed, that it not only tolerates such behaviour, but supports it.
Where we differ is point 2. It is rarely advisable for a anyone to make comments of a personal nature at a first business meeting or cyber introduction. If the man makes the error of doing it it can set off a chain of events that is then uncontrollable. What I mean about not judging her is that I have no idea what was in her mind when she did it. If it was deliberately vindictive then I would agree with your analysis, but I don't know enough about her to tell. She actually followed something like (d) but didn't get a satisfactory reply.
Well are you ? By continuing to refer to the comment the man made to his daughter, you still seem to be of the view that you are a better judge of how she feels than either her or her father is. On what basis do you maintain such insight ?
I agree with you there. The man did make a misjudgement. The response to it however was out of all proportion. I don't agree with you that her actually initial course of action could be described as "similar" to my 'option d'.
Firstly, the man didn't out and out hit on her. Secondly if she was fed up with all these hitting on her messages, she could have posted something along the lines of why do most men keep hitting on me blah blah blah instead of trying to effectively smear someones name. How does a inbox full of messages of men hitting on her disadvantage her from her male colleagues? Are you suggesting that people were looking to recruit people, found blokes that they would offer a job to and when pretty girls were found would instead of trying to hire them, were hitting on them instead? In the case of this lawyer and the barrister, this was an isolated incident.
I've never claimed to be. I was responding to your post that said " I commented that the girl's father was a better judge of his daughter than you" which was simply untrue. I'm trying really hard to debate this in a civil manner but you keep suggesting that I have views and have made comments that I have not.
Could you clarify why you introduced the father's comment to his daughter into the conversation ? When you did so it appeared that you were attempting to use it as an example of offensive behaviour which justified the barrister's response to him complimenting her photograph by declaring him a sexist bully in the national press. I dom't see how a man saying something nice to his daughter demonstrates that it was appropriate for the nation to be told that he is a sexist bully ? With regards to views that I have implied from your comments, could you clarify and unequivocally confirm, that you condemn any behaviour, views or actions, which victimise or discriminate against males, white males, and/or middle ages white males, or which causes any prejudice or potential prejudice to any individual on the basis that he might be within one of those 'groups' ? This would probably be helpful.
If you look on LinkedIn you will see that many women don't post profile pictures. Talking to my colleagues this is to avoid offensive comments. This makes the site much less user friendly for women. Trying to put myself in the barrister's position, I could put up with that sort of thing from random users but would get really angry if an important senior solicitor did it to me.
Whilst i agree to a certain extent, offence should be taken by the beholder, i'm not sure this should apply all the time and comment sense should apply. At what point should innocuous statements cause offence? "She looks nice today", "the shorter one over there", "your salad looks good", "the scruffy looking kid" etc etc you could probably misconstrue all of these if you really wanted to and feel offence.
Personally speaking, if I had invited a very senior member of a potential supplier/customer on linkedin, and she replied not only accepting my request and talking about doing business, but by making a personal friendly comment, the last thing to enter my mind would be taking offence and 'naming and shaming' the woman to the public press. And I doubt my employer would think too highly of me if that's what I did do.
I put it on because it used the same sort of phraseology that he used to the barrister ("I shouldn't be saying this but here goes anyway....") which says to me that he isn't exercising good self control. In the response to the barrister if he had said simply 'that is a stunning picture' I would have much more sympathy for him, but he pretty much admitted he knew it would cause offence by preceding it with the words 'horrendously politically incorrect". I will go further - I oppose and condemn anything that victimises or discriminates against any group, whether based on sex, age, race, colour ,religion or sexual orientation. I think we agree on that. We are still a way apart on how much it exists and what to do about it though.
They changed all the characters in Jurassic World and no one gave a ****. Heath Ledger looked nothing like the Joker in previous films as well as the comics. The Batmobile was completely different for the reboots. Q and M in the Bond movies, one changed sex and the other is now a lot younger. Why on Earth does anyone give a **** about the sex of the group of friends that are battling ghosts with laser gun thingies? I could understand if they changed the ghosts to zombies, or changed the group of friends to one single Rambo-style ghost hunter but the change really wasn't that crucial. It's not like with bio-pics where resemblance is extremely important, these are updates on well-known frachises, of course there's going to be aesthetic changes and a different style of story-telling. Everyone understands that until women or minorities are brought in to a major role.
That's the point, you have ascertained that what he's done is try to hit on her. You've construed his words as such. He hasn't asked her to dinner, he hasn't said he wants to date her. He's just wrote that she is stunning. He then goes onto say he would be happy doing business with her. They are not colleagues, he hasn't hinted that by sleeping with him she will get business. She's then gone onto the public realm and called this guy a sexist pig and smear his name. How is this the actions of a reasonable person. If she really was not happy with it, she should have spoke to him privately about it, instead its been blown up because its being played out in the public realm.
I didn't ask you to go 'further'. I will ask you again, to clarify as I set out. Such a clarification would cause no difficulty would it ? With regards to the "politically incorrect" reference, I find it hard to believe that you are seriously attempting to cite that as evidence that he deliberately caused offence ? Ffs. You are so partial on this topic it's ridiculous. I can't actually believe that you - clearly an intelligent man - has lowered yourself to such a pathetically hopeless, and clearly totally vacuous, argument.
