Second Worst Casting Ever
The miscasting of the beautiful Jones as Ruth Bader Ginsberg was only exceeded by Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher.
shareThe miscasting of the beautiful Jones as Ruth Bader Ginsberg was only exceeded by Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher.
shareYou are going to lead a loing, depressing and pathetic life if you continue to view it through your dick. And just to enlighten you I spelled long deliberately wrong.
shareI thought so, too at first, until I saw these pictures
https://images.app.goo.gl/L6NHEYVEo2VhNjuW6
https://images.app.goo.gl/VQYeZU3f4bRAUoAh8
I clicked on the link and she was indeed a very good looking woman in her younger years. But a pretty face doesn't hide a cruel heart. She was in favor of partial birth abortions.
May Justice Ginsberg rest in peace. But I'm glad she is somewhere else where she can't vote to do any more damage to the unborn.
She ruled in favor of pregnant women to choose a medical procedure in order to save her life. You, apparently, are in favor of letting women die, potentially leaving their other children motherless. How do you sleep at night?
shareUsually on my left side.
I've heard the tired argument over and over that late term abortions, done when a baby can survive outside the womb, must be done to ensure a woman's survival. What a crock.
Pregnant women can have a medical intervention like an emergency Caesarean. They are done all the time to protect BOTH the woman and baby.
It is not medically necessary to kill the fetus to save the woman. Medical science is able to save babies very early, 30 weeks gestation or less. It's not advisable but it is done.
There's no need to rip a viable fetus apart and remove it. How do YOU sleep at night?
Sounds like you are sleeping on your radical right side.
All that was asked for was an exception for when it was necessary to protect the life if the woman. If that is an extremely rare situation as you say, then why not allow the exception? By not allowing it you are endangering the pregnant woman's life, by defining.
I first must ask what is "the pure if the woman"? Do you mean the life of the woman?
I apologize if I came across as unduly harsh. It's a serious subject and one filled with emotion and tension on both sides.
I'd never want someone denied a medical procedure to save her life.
But putting aside my personal and religious views, I am coming at this from a purely medical, scientific standpoint. Late term abortions, that's when a fetus is perfectly viable and able to survive outside the womb, are simply not medically necessary.
You may recall that JFK's son, little Patrick, was born by emergency Caesarean about a month prematurely. Today with advances in neonatology, he would have survived.
Babies at thirty weeks gestation and younger do survive and thrive. If an emergency medical procedure must be performed, ripping apart a viable infant does nothing to ensure the life of the woman.
You'll notice that I keep saying woman and not "mother". No woman deserves the title of "mother" if she insists on having her child torn out of her body in pieces.
My own mother had problems and very high blood pressure with her last pregnancy. My baby sister was also in some distress. They were going to induce mom's labor. But the situation scared her so much that she went into labor herself.
I certainly would have grieved if they had sacrificed my mom's life to save the baby. But even back then, in the sixties, medical science could save both.
There's no medical reason to kill a late term baby to save a woman's life. That's all I'm saying.
Rich people will be able to get safe abortions, poor people won't. It's that simple.
shareI was thinking the same thing but she was okay looking when she was young, she didn't age that well that's all. Happens to some people... and since Meryl Streep is too old for the role. She would have nailed this role.
Casting a cute little girl to play her daughter was a little off base too. Here's a picture of Jane today. wow... just... wow...
https://res-3.cloudinary.com/the-university-of-melbourne/image/upload/s--hYX6tadO--/f_auto/v1504145766/events-uploads/presenter/photo/6889/opaukroxuv2kzewkhyo1.jpg
Good movie though. I liked it...
well, as lovely as Felicity Jones is now, we have no idea what she will look like when she is in her 80s. And it's certainly not the first time and won't be the last, that a biopic cast an actor that was better looking than their real- life counterpart.
Hell, they had to go so the way to Peter O'Toole to get an actor more beautiful than TE Lawrence!
They cast a young lady to play their 15 year old daughter. No reason for you to post a photo of the elderly Jane to compare.
Use this one instead. https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.bip_maZSovcI_XVWNXT_mgHaIE%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=a23019ccf1dd7562ad2ffd5d90996ee8720b4b50a5d1511d56bde928a2610580&ipo=images
I thought Felicity Jones was very good and so was the film. But I have to admit as a Brit I was only vaguely aware of RBG and had no idea what she looked like.
shareThe miscasting was down to the fact they cast a gentile English woman, with a distinctive overbite, as RBG, when Natalie Portman, you know, exists... 🤦♂️🙄
Instead, they stupidly cast Portman as the WASPy Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy (🤦♂️🙄), although to be fair to her, she gave a brilliant performance in the role. However, she'd have arguably been EVEN BETTER in a role that was tailor-made for her (i.e. a Jewish intellectual).
Damn Hollywood. Casting directors should be forced to come together and divvy out the RIGHT roles for the RIGHT people. This piecemeal, anything-goes, approach is highly unsatisfactory. 😠