Support NeoGAF

[bengraven]

I haven't watched the movie yet but that Cracked article is really weird and the criticism oddly specific (this movie sucks because it's not like my fanfiction). And why is that death scene supposed to be misogynistic? She "didn't deserve it" because she's not evil? Are you kidding me - there's no reason why a good character shouldn't get a brutal death scene, and the gender of the character certainly doesn't matter either

It's people grasping to put their own issues on to things.

Like I said earlier, we had decades where women both "innocent", "sinful", and "evil" were slowly tortured, then ripped apart by six foot plus madmen and no one said a fucking peep.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

That part about Zara is so true; it was extremely jarring seeing how she is literally tortured for two minutes while the actual villains get off with a quick gunshot. It was just very sadistic and mean-spirited; what massive sin did she commit to deserve that? Give birth to the dinosaurs or something?

And I mean, the film just isn't that good on the whole; it's basically a Chris Pratt ego-boost marketing vehicle machine and the dinos kind of take a back seat. Quite different than the feeling I got watching the original JW.

It's people grasping to put their own issues on to things.

Like I said earlier, we had decades where women both "innocent", "sinful", and "evil" were slowly tortured, then ripped apart by six foot plus madmen and no one said a fucking peep.

The difference being this is 2015, not 1915, and it was horribly out-of-place in a film aimed at a global audience of families and where that kind of theme just didn't fit into the rest of the narrative.

Like, at all.

The complaints are legit there, and you don't even have to be a feminist (I'm not) to criticize it.

 

[BennyBlanco]

this movie left so little impression on me that i don't even remember the scene they're talking about

 

[Solo]

This is one of those movies where I cannot understand how it became such a hit.

JP already had 2 sequels, neither of which set the world or box office on fire. It's not like the film was loaded with mega stars. There wasn't any kind of groundbreaking technology on display. It didn't seem to be marketed any more prominently than any other summer blockbuster. And the actual movie itself was your baseline serviceable forgettable (I saw it in theatres and I have no clue who this Zara is that people are discussing) popcorn movie.

So.....what (aside from the overseas box office explosion of the past 5 or so years) led JW to becoming the third highest grossing movie of all-time?

 

[Ralemont]

It's people grasping to put their own issues on to things.

Like I said earlier, we had decades where women both "innocent", "sinful", and "evil" were slowly tortured, then ripped apart by six foot plus madmen and no one said a fucking peep.

although i agree with you that JW largely doesn't have problems with sexism, it's a fallacy to suggest that because we were fine with something before it's wrong to not be fine with it now.

 

[Dragon]

I cant believe they didn't get any cameos from the original. They could have done the X-Men first class wolverine scene with malcolm

They did get cameos from the original. The T-Rex in the movie is the original one from Jurassic Park!

This is one of those movies where I cannot understand how it became such a hit.

JP already had 2 sequels, neither of which set the world or box office on fire. It's not like the film was loaded with mega stars. There wasn't any kind of groundbreaking technology on display. It didn't seem to be marketed any more prominently than any other summer blockbuster. And the actual movie itself was your baseline serviceable forgettable (I saw it in theatres and I have no clue who this Zara is that people are discussing) popcorn movie.

So.....what (aside from the overseas box office explosion of the past 5 or so years) led JW to becoming the third highest grossing movie of all-time?

It's pretty puzzling. Unless I guess you consider the gap between the last movie and this one, and the fact that people like dinosaurs. Only things I can think of really.

 

[Fancy Clown]

And if you seriously think the crew were making a metaphor that women need to stay at home and take care of children, then something's not right.

This isn't me bringing in "personal issues", that's really pretty blatantly what a large chunk of this movie is about. It's about protecting the traditional family values (ie outdated) in the rapidly advancing 21st century. Where the opposite of being a loving part of the core nuclear family is apparently being cold and self obsessed.

 

[And_Gignac]

Nerd males getting defensive about the obvious bias against women in their beloved cultural references is my favorite drug. I just love witnessing thier worldview being challenged.

 

[Kathian]

You mean the character who lost the kids because she was talking to her BFF about her fiance's bachelor party on the phone?

Crucify her!
Crucify her!

Look - the kids ran away. I think the death scene was the Aunts but the film was changed and she became the main love interest moving away from her PA. She and the PA swapped characters hence the death scene that would usually be kept for the corporate greedy character whose fault much of this mess was.

 

[Raiden]

Blame Bryce Dallas Howard for that. It was her idea.

What gif is this? Some micro organism?

 

[AuthenticM]

Movies are a multi million dollar investments

Every little thing in them is chosen, debated, designed, scrapped, redesigned, shot, edited a thousand different times.

The assistant's character wasn't organic, she was written that way, the director then decided to take that amount of time to kill her. For the most part its not that she died that is the problem. She is a bit character in a monster movie. She's not a star character and she isn't a kid, so the audience is aware that she is probably dead the first time we see her.

What people are uncomfortable with is the brutality of her death and what this brutality represents. She didn't just die, she was tortured for a good few shots before being killed. These shots cost millions of dollars. They deserve to be analysed and dissected and their context to the rest of the movie and to the society of the time.

We see that she is pre-occupied with work or whatever it was, we see that her pre-occupation means she loses the children, we see that she isn't really that bothered by this aside from what it means about her job, we see her get brutally killed.

The people responding that MEN DIE TOO are missing the point wilfully or not. Most of the guys who die in the movies either die heroically or are villains or are not even characters in the first place. For instance let us consider the death of the assistant compared with the death of Eddie in Lost World. Eddie dies heroically, he sacrifices his life to save the main characters. What message does that send? Now what message does it send to kill someone for the crime of looking at her phone?

TLDR: The people coming in to the thread defending this movie, or really any movie by saying it is just a dumb popcorn movie and we should all lighten up are not actually doing the movie a service at all. Movies deserve to be looked at with a critical eye. Whether they are successful or not too much time and effort went into them to be dismissed as dumb popcorn.

Exactly.

 

[Fancy Clown]

You mean the evil scientist, or at least the dude with no sympathy whatsoever for people's lives who only cares about the science? Or another character? Because if we're going the "implication" route I don't see why we don't bring up the male mad scientist trope as something of a negative portrayal for men

Is that really the point you want to go with?

 

[Jobbs]

The movie confused me. I didn't understand why my dinosaur movie was trying to convince me that women spending too much time on their careers instead of having children was horrible and our main character sees the light by the end because a boring guy with biceps winked at her or whatever.

I'm not sure the "career instead of family = bad" subtext was even subtext. I think it was just text.

 

[Ralemont]

Is that really the point you want to go with?

I'm responding to a point you yourself brought up. Do you want to assert that Henry Wu is presented as a positive example of a man caring only about his career? If not, why did you ask?

Again if you meant a different scientist then sorry for the misunderstanding. He's the only one I remember from this movie I've only seen once, lol.

 

[Corronchilejano]

I'm responding to a point you yourself brought up. Do you want to assert that Henry Wu is presented as a positive example of a man caring only about his career? If not, why did you ask?

Does anyone ever speak to him about his views on family? I honestly don't remember.

 

[Fancy Clown]

I'm responding to a point you yourself brought up. Do you want to assert that Henry Wu is presented as a positive example of a man caring only about his career? If not, why did you ask?

No, I'm saying that only female characters are derided for putting their careers before children, or not wanting children. Wu is obsessed with his job and evil but at least the other characters have the decency to not constantly berate him for not giving a shit about children.

 

[bengraven]

This isn't me bringing in "personal issues", that's really pretty blatantly what a large chunk of this movie is about. It's about protecting the traditional family values (ie outdated) in the rapidly advancing 21st century. Where the opposite of being a loving part of the core nuclear family is apparently being cold and self obsessed.

I can see that and won't deny that's part of it. I just don't think that had any decision consciously on the parts of the filmmakers in Zara's death. I understand people thought she was denying family over work and that they thought she was being "punished" - the pieces are definitely there. But maybe it was because her character had zero development and maybe two or three lines that the metaphor just wasn't strong, if there at all.

For all we know she could have been on the phone with her husband who was home with her two kids and she just wished she was at home, not taking care of someone else's kid. I know I'm stretching, but I think the "metaphor" concept is stretching as well.

Again, I think it's an over-reaction and I've seen worse that no one blinked at.

As for the guy above with the "it's not 1915", the examples I was using were from as recently as whenever the last fucking Scream movie came out. Or hell, American Horror Story?

 

[SolidusDave]

What gif is this? Some micro organism?

Slowed-down animation (pretty accurate from what we know) of a motor-protein transporting a vesicle (?) by literally walking over the cytoskelton inside of a cell.

 

[CadetMahoney]

This is one of those movies where I cannot understand how it became such a hit.

JP already had 2 sequels, neither of which set the world or box office on fire. It's not like the film was loaded with mega stars. There wasn't any kind of groundbreaking technology on display. It didn't seem to be marketed any more prominently than any other summer blockbuster. And the actual movie itself was your baseline serviceable forgettable (I saw it in theatres and I have no clue who this Zara is that people are discussing) popcorn movie.

So.....what (aside from the overseas box office explosion of the past 5 or so years) led JW to becoming the third highest grossing movie of all-time?

1 parents nostalgia taking their family = much more sales

2 same old date film - couples courting

3 idiot teens jumping on a bandwagon, going because their friends are going and its summer

^ all above with an over-arching fog about how part 1 was good so they'll make it just as good this time, promise.

Proof in the pudding watch the budget for the sequel be not much bigger, even smaller, cos they know ppl will have a bad taste in their mouths now and they got away with murder.

 

[Kelthink]

I haven't watched the movie yet but that Cracked article is really weird and the criticism oddly specific (this movie sucks because it's not like my fanfiction). And why is that death scene supposed to be misogynistic? She "didn't deserve it" because she's not evil? Are you kidding me - there's no reason why a good character shouldn't get a brutal death scene, and the gender of the character certainly doesn't matter either

It's a trope, but usually the brutality of a death for a character in films is usually in line with some sort of karma - especially Hollywood flicks where everything goes the hero's or heroes' way(s). The worse a character is or perceived to be, the worse the death. This death is completely at odds with whatever we've known about the character - her main sin seemed to be that she was 'slightly arsey'. It doesn't gel, much like the rest of the film.

 

[aeolist]

honestly the most offensive part of the movie to me was how blatantly PG-13 it was

chris pratt isn't even having a beer when he works on his bike, he looks like a fucking mormon

 

[Fancy Clown]

I can see that and won't deny that's part of it. I just don't think that had any decision consciously on the parts of the filmmakers in Zara's death. I understand people thought she was denying family over work and that they thought she was being "punished" - the pieces are definitely there. But maybe it was because her character had zero development and maybe two or three lines that the metaphor just wasn't strong, if there at all.

For all we know she could have been on the phone with her husband who was home with her two kids and she just wished she was at home, not taking care of someone else's kid. I know I'm stretching, but I think the "metaphor" concept is stretching as well.

Again, I think it's an over-reaction and I've seen worse that no one blinked at.

Again, the writer's intent really has nothing to do with it, and why I'm saying the film is sexist and not the writers. It's all about how the work stands on its own. It's not a metaphor either, it's an ideological stance that is either deliberately, subconsciously, or accidentally placed in the film through themes, narrative, and character development and every movie has an ideology becuase every film is about something beyond just the plot.

And even if you don't read the film this way, you can't deny that there are a lot of people who do. And considering this is one of the most popular pg-13 movies ever, how many young girls and women are going to see this movie and come away with another mainstream reinforcement that their place in society is more important in a family than in their workplace? That's a problem.

 

[hohoXD123]

it's messier than that because claire is basically the only notable female character in the movie, and the issues raised are common negative stereotypes of businesswomen. even disregarding the sexism complaint it's cliched and boring.

imagine if they only had one black person in the movie and the only notable things about him were his laziness and his love for fried chicken. you could say that he's just one character and it's not about all black people, but that's still clearly racist.

To me it seems more like negative stereotypes of businesspeople in general, both male and female. Portraying a stereotype of a profession seems hardly comparable to a racist portrayal in that respect. I mean sure you can say it's cliched and boring, but I really don't see it as a gender issue.

 

[riotous]

I've seen complaints about the divorce being allegedly meaningless in the film before; it makes me wonder what film the complainers watched.

Literally the entire film is about staying together; the divorce sets that underlying plot up. Every major character has at least one scene where they remark that they should stick together.. And the film ends with the protagonist saying it literally... "What happens now?" "We stay together."

I think overall the movies portrayal of women isn't great but don't think that has anything to do with the assistant being a female; we don't know much of anything about her. Her boss is the workaholic likely distracting her via her cell phone even, so really the kids running off so easily can be blamed on Howard's character not the assistant.

Her death wasnt even really about her; it was about showing off the dino. Just like the fat bumbling security guard stereotype guy exploded like a balloon to show off the power of the hybrid dino earlier in the film.

Likely the reason it was the most elaborate death in the film is that it had no blood; any scene involving someone being torn apart is incredibly quick and mostly off camera to get a PG-13 rating. Whereas when you have a massive whale like Dino the could have a long drawn out scene pass the ratings board because it wasn't gory.

 

[torre_avenue]

That scene was really uncomfortable to watch, mainly because of all the reasons talked about. Zara, as a character, was rather thinly defined as an independent woman who was career focused, and seeing her get a death befitting an 80s movie villain is shocking and really damn unnecessary. I don't think this is an example of the film being misogynist but it's really just another reason why the movie is so damn mediocre.

The kids in this movie are dumb as hell, the park owner is dumb as hell, Chris Pratt loses all of the charisma he had in GoTG and gets replaced by an action figure spewing dumb lines, Bryce Dallas Howard has already been crucified by the media, the parents could be replaced by goats and nothing would change about the film, the climax is really fucking underwhelming, D'Onofrio's character was not so much villainous as he was cartoony, and the product placement was so damn over the top.

Yes, it's a dumb action movie, but that's no reason to ignore the movie's problems. Zara's death was extremely unjust and, even as a shock move, it's still more unpalatable than surprising. It's less "OH SHIT ANYONE CAN DIE" and more "That's borderline torture porn."

 

[machemachete]

People die for plenty of ridiculous reasons who doesn't care if they were good or bad human beings.(its actually pretty sad)

Maybe they wanted to give this message on the film: Dinosaurs can kill people and they don't care.

 

[neogaffer1]

Cracked goes for the low-hanging fruit? What a fucking surprise.

There are problems with Jurassic World and it really isn't that good of a movie, but based on what people are taking umbrage with in this thread (assisstant's death, sexism) Cracked went at the movie all wrong.

 

[Ralemont]

No, I'm saying that only female characters are derided for putting their careers before children, or not wanting children. Wu is obsessed with his job and evil but at least the other characters have the decency to not constantly berate him for not giving a shit about children.

Henry Wu doesn't give a shit about anyone, including children. You're right that another character doesn't specifically bring up children, but being that he's a minor supporting character I could see why it wouldn't come up.

The family was shitty towards Claire for not being with the kids, though. That part I do agree with.

 

[Kelthink]

Maybe they wanted to give this message on the film: Dinosaurs can kill people and they don't care.

Yeah, they fucked up that one too.

 

[Parallax]

People die for plenty of ridicolous reasons who doesn't care if they were good or bad human beings.(its actually pretty sad)

Maybe they wanted to give this message on the film: Dinosaurs can kill people and they don't care.

The message should be stop trying to make a dinosaur amusment park

 

[Ralemont]

It's a trope, but usually the brutality of a death for a character in films is usually in line with some sort of karma

I'd actually be interested to see some research done on that, what with having rewatched Scream last week and remembering Drew Barrymore's death. Scream is fairly genre-aware, though.

 

[PerezDeCorcho]

Movies are a multi million dollar investments

Every little thing in them is chosen, debated, designed, scrapped, redesigned, shot, edited a thousand different times.

The assistant's character wasn't organic, she was written that way, the director then decided to take that amount of time to kill her. For the most part its not that she died that is the problem. She is a bit character in a monster movie. She's not a star character and she isn't a kid, so the audience is aware that she is probably dead the first time we see her.

What people are uncomfortable with is the brutality of her death and what this brutality represents. She didn't just die, she was tortured for a good few shots before being killed. These shots cost millions of dollars. They deserve to be analysed and dissected and their context to the rest of the movie and to the society of the time.

We see that she is pre-occupied with work or whatever it was, we see that her pre-occupation means she loses the children, we see that she isn't really that bothered by this aside from what it means about her job, we see her get brutally killed.

The people responding that MEN DIE TOO are missing the point wilfully or not. Most of the guys who die in the movies either die heroically or are villains or are not even characters in the first place. For instance let us consider the death of the assistant compared with the death of Eddie in Lost World. Eddie dies heroically, he sacrifices his life to save the main characters. What message does that send? Now what message does it send to kill someone for the crime of looking at her phone?

TLDR: The people coming in to the thread defending this movie, or really any movie by saying it is just a dumb popcorn movie and we should all lighten up are not actually doing the movie a service at all. Movies deserve to be looked at with a critical eye. Whether they are successful or not too much time and effort went into them to be dismissed as dumb popcorn.

Thank you for this.

I'm fucking sick of this tired-ass excuse that people LOVE to whip out. Movies should be much more than this. Story is a powerful tool. We watch movies to see aspects of our own humanity successfully translated on the screen, and this film fails to achieve that.

 

[TheSeks]

Blame Bryce Dallas Howard for that. It was her idea.

And she retracted on it for the sequel because even she realized after a bit it was fucking stupid. Good on her.

@OP: Is Cracked going to go "in" on Jurassic Park and killing a character off while he's on the shitter? No? Okay, then the assistants death (while comical and totally misguided) is fine.

 

[Oemenia]

This sounds like a Tumblr rant.

 

[Fancy Clown]

Henry Wu doesn't give a shit about anyone, including children. You're right that another character doesn't specifically bring up children, but being that he's a minor supporting character I could see why it wouldn't come up.

The family was shitty towards Claire for not being with the kids, though. That part I do agree with.

I can see the writer's rationale for why they wouldn't bring it up, but do you also see how by not doing so and for only slamming the female character for this even though there are lots of other career oriented male characters comes across poorly and sends a certain message?

 

[Parallax]

It's a trope, but usually the brutality of a death for a character in films is usually in line with some sort of karma - especially Hollywood flicks where everything goes the hero's or heroes' way(s).

Horror movies are exempt from this rule, right?

 

[Fancy Clown]

Horror movies are exempt from this rule, right?

Horror movies are actually really interesting in this regard. You would think they're pretty problematic with horny teens dying and and virgins surviving, but the slashers with the 'final girl' structure often have pretty suggestive and progressive themes about how the girls who survive do so not by being virgins, but by taking control of their own sexuality and turning the killer's phallic instruments against him. They use killings as more of a representation of an internal struggle within the protagonist.

 

[Ralemont]

I can see the writer's rationale for why they wouldn't bring it up, but do you also see how by not doing so and for only slamming the female character for this even though there are lots of other career oriented male characters comes across poorly and sends a certain message?

It's a repetition of Sam Neil's character development in the original Jurassic Park. Nobody is denying that Jurassic Park as a series constantly pounds in the "family is super important!" thing, but saying that it's sexist now because the career-oriented main character is a female feels a bit flimsy to me.

Hypothetically speaking, if you switch Sam Neil and Laura Dern's characters in JP1, is that movie now also sexist?

If you switch BDH and Chris Pratt's characters in JW, is that movie sexist because even though BDH is now a career-oriented animal trainer, she has a love story with the powerful male executive? I ask this last question because it honestly feels like the easiest thing in the world to interpret fiction as sexist. I've even heard people say Fury Road is still sexist, and it blows my mind.

 

[sans_pants]

And she retracted on it for the sequel because even she realized after a bit it was fucking stupid. Good on her.

@OP: Is Cracked going to go "in" on Jurassic Park and killing a character off while he's on the shitter? No? Okay, then the assistants death (while comical and totally misguided) is fine.

Are you talking about the slimy lawyer that abandons the children in the face of a trex?

 

[mjc]

Hit LIKE if you're an assistant at Jurassic World who's been eaten by a mosasaurus TRIGGERED

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

Movies are a multi million dollar investments

Every little thing in them is chosen, debated, designed, scrapped, redesigned, shot, edited a thousand different times.

The assistant's character wasn't organic, she was written that way, the director then decided to take that amount of time to kill her. For the most part its not that she died that is the problem. She is a bit character in a monster movie. She's not a star character and she isn't a kid, so the audience is aware that she is probably dead the first time we see her.

What people are uncomfortable with is the brutality of her death and what this brutality represents. She didn't just die, she was tortured for a good few shots before being killed. These shots cost millions of dollars. They deserve to be analysed and dissected and their context to the rest of the movie and to the society of the time.

We see that she is pre-occupied with work or whatever it was, we see that her pre-occupation means she loses the children, we see that she isn't really that bothered by this aside from what it means about her job, we see her get brutally killed.

The people responding that MEN DIE TOO are missing the point wilfully or not. Most of the guys who die in the movies either die heroically or are villains or are not even characters in the first place. For instance let us consider the death of the assistant compared with the death of Eddie in Lost World. Eddie dies heroically, he sacrifices his life to save the main characters. What message does that send? Now what message does it send to kill someone for the crime of looking at her phone?

TLDR: The people coming in to the thread defending this movie, or really any movie by saying it is just a dumb popcorn movie and we should all lighten up are not actually doing the movie a service at all. Movies deserve to be looked at with a critical eye. Whether they are successful or not too much time and effort went into them to be dismissed as dumb popcorn.

Yep. Basically the film's message is independent career-oriented women have no place in society. It's especially jarring seeing this from a Western-made film, seeing that such a section is one of the fastest growing in our society, and usually held as a symbol of women's rights across the world.

But nope; that isn't tolerated in Jurassic World. Strong, independent women don't belong :/

it's messier than that because claire is basically the only notable female character in the movie, and the issues raised are common negative stereotypes of businesswomen. even disregarding the sexism complaint it's cliched and boring.

imagine if they only had one black person in the movie and the only notable things about him were his laziness and his love for fried chicken. you could say that he's just one character and it's not about all black people, but that's still clearly racist.

Well the actual film doesn't do much better than this; the only notable black guy is the African assistant who has some obfuscated undying loyalty to Pratt's character because reasons, is a beta, and has zero character development.

Which is par for the course in a film featuring stereotypes and poorly-developed characters.

 

[pants]

this movie left so little impression on me that i don't even remember the scene they're talking about

ya same, I cant remember this death scene

 

[Fancy Clown]

It's a repetition of Sam Neil's character development in the original Jurassic Park. Nobody is denying that Jurassic Park as a series constantly pounds in the "family is super important!" thing, but saying that it's sexist now because the career-oriented main character is a female feels a bit flimsy to me.

Hypothetically speaking, if you switch Sam Neil and Laura Dern's characters in JP1, is that movie now also sexist?

I'd have to watch JP again, but I don't think so, at least not to the degree JW does. Because I don't recall people always chastising Sam's character for not wanting kids of his own, but it's played off more as jokey like he's a curmudgeon who is just awkward around kids. You'd still have the progression of not liking kids to liking kids, but in a much less in your face mean spirited way. And JW's suggestions about children are more universal (the phone call scene for one, showing that wanting kids is something women should do) whereas Sam's is never more than an individual trait that isn't referenced in societal contexts (unless I'm wrong on that). But it's kind of a moot point regardless, because JP did use Sam for this, and not Laura.

If you switch BDH and Chris Pratt's characters in JW, is that movie sexist because even though BDH is now a career-oriented animal trainer, she has a love story with the powerful male executive? I ask this last question because it honestly feels like the easiest thing in the world to interpret fiction as sexist. I've even heard people say Fury Road is still sexist, and it blows my mind.

If you switched BDH and Pratt the movie would probably actually be progressive as fuck. BDH would be an assertive, charming character who goes after what she wants sexually without any pretense and is seen as hip and cool by kids and exerting an alpha bond over vicious animals while the main male lead is cold, awkward, inward, and sexually repressed. Especially if Pratt were trying to run around in heels.

It's easy to interpret fiction as anything. But there are well reasoned interpretations and clearly BS readings. Mad Max being seen as sexist is an example of the latter.

 

[aeolist]

It's a repetition of Sam Neil's character development in the original Jurassic Park. Nobody is denying that Jurassic Park as a series constantly pounds in the "family is super important!" thing, but saying that it's sexist now because the career-oriented main character is a female feels a bit flimsy to me.

it didn't feel like people were shaming grant about not wanting kids, and his character getting closer to lex and tim felt more natural. in any case, something that's sexist when said to a woman may not be when said to a man because of cultural context and societal expectations/pressure.

Hypothetically speaking, if you switch Sam Neil and Laura Dern's characters in JP1, is that movie now also sexist?

If you switch BDH and Chris Pratt's characters in JW, is that movie sexist because even though BDH is now a career-oriented animal trainer, she has a love story with the powerful male executive?

again, women and men are treated differently in real life, so inverting character relationships doesn't just make sexist things work the other way round. and as i said before, when you only have one female character the scrutiny is more intense because there's no diversity of representation. this wouldn't be as much of a problem if JW had more women in major roles who had different motivations and character traits.

 

[EatinOlives]

I think the moment that pissed me off the most was when the kids wanted Owen to protect them mere seconds after they watched Claire blow a dinosaur away (possibly to save Owen? My memory is fading.)

Yeah I remember that. Obviously meant to be a joke, but still mean spirited and kinda sexist. The joke was basically "WE want Cool Action Hero to save us, not you, MOM!!!"

 

[Parallax]

Horror movies are actually really interesting in this regard. You would think they're pretty problematic with horny teens dying and and virgins surviving, but the slashers with the 'final girl' structure often have pretty suggestive and progressive themes about how the girls who survive do so not by being virgins, but by taking control of their own sexuality and turning the killer's phallic instruments against him. They use killings as more of a representation of an internal struggle within the protagonist.

A lot of innocent people die for the sake of the protagonists struggle.

 

[Fancy Clown]

A lot of innocent people die for the sake of the protagonists struggle.

Representing their fear of their own sexuality, until they take control for themselves and own it. And then no more people die. At least not until the sequel.

 

[Parallax]

Representing their fear of their own sexuality, until they take control for themselves and own it. And then no more people die. At least not until the sequel.

Thats quite the introspective way of expressing kids getting mercilessly slaughtered

 

[Ralemont]

I'd have to watch JP again, but I don't think so, at least not to the degree JW does. Because I don't recall people always chastising Sam's character for not wanting kids of his own, but it's played off more as jokey like he's a curmudgeon who is just awkward around kids. You'd still have the progression of not liking kids to liking kids, but in a much less in your face mean spirited way. And JW's suggestions about children are more universal (the phone call scene for one, showing that wanting kids is something women should do) whereas Sam's is never more than an individual trait that isn't referenced in societal contexts (unless I'm wrong on that). But it's kind of a moot point regardless, because JP did use Sam for this, and not Laura.

I don't specifically remember what was said during the phone call scene in JW and I didn't really like the movie enough to watch it a second time. Does the mom say that since she's a woman Claire should look for a family and abandon her job? If so, yeah that's eye-roll-worthy.

If JP is sexist with the exact same content outside a swapping of the genders, then it's being perceived as sexist for reasons that exist outside of the work itself. But I like your answer because it often highlights a tricky area that can differ depending on the person looking at it: when is something meant to be applied to an individual character, and when is something meant to be a comment that expands beyond the character into a general statement. For you Sam Neil's character arc is meant to be contained specifically to his character whereas BDH stands for all women. I find that interesting in respect to how the public digests fiction.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

I think the moment that pissed me off the most was when the kids wanted Owen to protect them mere seconds after they watched Claire blow a dinosaur away (possibly to save Owen? My memory is fading.)

He's the white, American, heterosexual Christian Alpha male of the movie. Who wouldn't want him to protect them?