Yes of course age, sex and race includes white, middle class men. Any victimisation of that group is as bad as any other.
Jurassic World had Henry Wu from the first film. Racist!
Jurassic World had Henry Wu from the first film. Racist!
Seriously though, the characters in the Jurassic Park franchise have always been fluid.
Nobody starred in all three of the original trilogy and various characters die, as have some of the actors, unfortunately.
The dinosaurs tie it together, much as a villain from a horror film franchise would.
The consistent character in something like Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th is the antagonist.
Batman's had so many reboots now that everyone expects them and expects change.
Bond himself has changed repeatedly and it's suggested that it's just a codename, so it's hardly a shock to see Q and M change.
That's an easy one to reboot, as only the main character has any consistency and even that's debatable.
Ghostbusters got stick because it felt like an unnecessary reboot, a change in direction and it had a director that made a fuss of it.
The trailers then fed into everyone's worst fears of what it was going to be like.
People enjoyed the old films and didn't really want a crossover with Bridesmaids, basically.
They also had half of the old cast available and used them as cameos, rather than going for a sequel.
), saying their childhood was ruined and sending all manner of abuse to people over it. Ghostbusters was about a group of friends(some nerdier than others) fighting and catching ghosts with cool guns and funny jokes, just the sameway, as you say, Jurassic Park was about a dinosaur park going wrong and a family trying to survive as deadly dinasaurs roam freely. Both were faithful to that, even if I thought Jurassic World was pretty bad and Ghostbusters was just alright. Anyone that genuinly thinks it was similar to Bridesmaids is mad.
People started giving it stick when it was a mere speculation, before it had even been confirmed.So people were simply giving Ghostbusters stick because they didn't like the change of direction? Rubbish, it wasn't even out when people started losing their **** so how could anyone know there was a drastic change? Even before the trailers were out people were calling it feminist propaganda(
The outcome doesn't affect their relative status. He is a senior partner at a solicitors, she is a junior barrister. He has much more ability to affect her career than she has his. In practice nothing seems to have happened to him and she is being vilified all over the place.
Most of the newspaper articles are not sympathetic to her. And almost all the comments posted underneath them are very anti her. The Mail had a front page headline calling her a Feminazi! I'm not sure how extreme you have to be to call it vilification.
By the way, if this discussion was about whether she over-reacted I would not be bothering to post. If it was a one-off thing, she almost certainly did. But Robspur posted it (with a whole lot of inaccurate facts that made her actions look worse than they were) saying "It's plain and simple bullying, and an attempt to make men subservient to women." This was so over the top it needed to be challenged. He has since equated it to terrorism and an attack on society.
Agree with most of that. But not that using the term "entrapment" was understandable. That was 100% fictitious, paranoid and frankly very creepy.
The actual fact of women's identity being literally subsumed by their husband's is not limited to this headline. As I hinted at: it is still a central part of one of society's most important ceremonies and structures.
