[...] The miners' strike headline is simply setting the time context by using what was probably the most memorable event of 1984 - the year tha Virgin Atlantic started flying. It makes no comment about the strike or those involved, so I cannot understand why anyone would be offended by it. Or are people not allowed to mention the strike any more unless it's in earnest, serious debate?
My opinions carry no authority here, so it's not a question of "not allowed", but rather what I found annoying. Unfortunately (for me at least), Virgin's voice through their advert is much, much louder than mine, so their particular view is going to be the one that dominates.
I'm not convinced that the ad makes no comment about the strike. Clearly the advert is very carefully constructed and much effort is invested in the meanings and context of the symbols used. Yes, mentioning the strike is shorthand for 1984, but it is mixed with dozens of other images reinforcing the same time, almost all of which are style and fashion orientated (haircuts, music, colour etc. and even other ads of the time). By cramming them all together, the comment it makes about the strike is that its weight and significance was as about as transient as shopping in Our Price with a permed mullet. I'm guessing that if instead, they'd opened the ad with another shorthand for 1984 - Michael Burke staring down at a starving five-year old Ethopian - they would have received a few more criticisms of trivialising and tastelessness.
As for the harem being a pastiche of Catch Me If You Can/Robert Palmer/Fly Me ads - yes of course it is. But it's not subverting those images, it using them (and women's bodies), ultimately without irony, to sell flights. It's pretending to be knowing, but only in the most superficial style-focussed way.
Fly JWO airlines, no onboard entertainment guaranteed.