Sexism, Racism, Jingoism and Homophobia- That's entertainment!

[Vid Electricz]

I didn't see a topic of this nature on this board, so I thought I'd start one.

I for one am both fascinated and perplexed by the sort of twisted hate and misogyny that these movies perpetuate. I find it hard to believe that people are actually entertained by this sort of stuff. If there's one thing that these movies do represent, it's the unfortunate future of action films (ie. soulless, emotionless husks filled with veiled hatred that exist solely for marketing purposes), because it's been proven that this kid of stuff sells.

Like the juvenile school-yard bully who calls anyone out as a f*ggot or homo for not agreeing or lining up with his narrow world-view of how men, women and minorities should be viewed, These films similarly mock and degrade unapologetically and if you don't like it- well, you're just a PC, liberal cry-baby. Brainwashing of the masses at it's finest.



Let's look at some of the wonderful ideals these movies promote (I know there are a million more examples. If you've got examples, post 'em):

-Sexism: Specifically, the objectification of women- Women are trophies to be won or lost. They must always appear sexy and seductive (for all the adolescent boys and peter-pan syndrome boy-men watching).

-Racism: If you're not white, you exist as a peripheral character. Most likely comic relief or some other stereotype (the stoic black man). In other words, you're disposable and you're a joke (blatantly racist buck toothed robots not withstanding).

-Jingoism: America is the best and the military is #1. English, dude, English.

-Homophobia: "You gonna go cry to your boyfriend? Pussy!" There's plenty more where that came from. Needless to say, these movies are riddled with the kind of sophomoric, juvenile macho-man, tough guy behavior that only the most ignorant among us (and little kids who don't know any better) buy in to.


But it's all so FUNNY! Right? So if you don't like it, you're just too uptight!

*Yawn*




Since these boards seem to be crawling with people who absolutely love these movies, I fully expect the response of:

"Lighten up. Not everything needs to be politically correct and "Disney-fied" Blah, blah blah, pus*syfication of America, blah, blah, blah."

Actually, no. The problem with brainless movies like these is that they endorse and perpetuate negative stereotypes and outright mocking of sexes, races and behaviors that you don't identify with- and of course, the behaviors you are meant to identify with are those of the hero. The promotion of ignorant bliss all disguised as a good fun action romp!)

People should really be insulted by this movie. Well, not by the movie itself, but by the attitudes of the film makers that they can just churn out any tripe and you'll gobble it up greedily.

+10 points for the response:

"Dude, it's just a movie. Chill." or

"It's just an action movie dude, you're supposed to turn off your brain and enjoy it for what it is."

Both awful responses for accepting this hateful garbage as entertainment.

predictable. Anyone got an actual response? I'd love if this could encourage some discussion.

[Tony Stark]

I've pretty much had all those thoughts about this series. Michael Bay is a tool. that's about all I can say about that.

[DoomsdayApex]

If this were my first viewing of a Michael Bay film, I would be just as ecstatic as you are...

At this point, I've just given up on Michael Bay growing up and developing into a well-rounded director. Now I just spend days on organizing my assassination plot. Michael Bay must be stopped before he reaches the TMNT franchise :ninja:

[jonathancrane]

I didn't see a topic of this nature on this board, so I thought I'd start one.

I for one am both fascinated and perplexed by the sort of twisted hate and misogyny that these movies perpetuate. I find it hard to believe that people are actually entertained by this sort of stuff. If there's one thing that these movies do represent, it's the unfortunate future of action films (ie. soulless, emotionless husks filled with veiled hatred that exist solely for marketing purposes), because it's been proven that this kid of stuff sells.

Like the juvenile school-yard bully who calls anyone out as a f*ggot or homo for not agreeing or lining up with his narrow world-view of how men, women and minorities should be viewed, These films similarly mock and degrade unapologetically and if you don't like it- well, you're just a PC, liberal cry-baby. Brainwashing of the masses at it's finest.



Let's look at some of the wonderful ideals these movies promote (I know there are a million more examples. If you've got examples, post 'em):

-Sexism: Specifically, the objectification of women- Women are trophies to be won or lost. They must always appear sexy and seductive (for all the adolescent boys and peter-pan syndrome boy-men watching).

-Racism: If you're not white, you exist as a peripheral character. Most likely comic relief or some other stereotype (the stoic black man). In other words, you're disposable and you're a joke (blatantly racist buck toothed robots not withstanding).

-Jingoism: America is the best and the military is #1. English, dude, English.

-Homophobia: "You gonna go cry to your boyfriend? Pussy!" There's plenty more where that came from. Needless to say, these movies are riddled with the kind of sophomoric, juvenile macho-man, tough guy behavior that only the most ignorant among us (and little kids who don't know any better) buy in to.


But it's all so FUNNY! Right? So if you don't like it, you're just too uptight!

*Yawn*




Since these boards seem to be crawling with people who absolutely love these movies, I fully expect the response of:

"Lighten up. Not everything needs to be politically correct and "Disney-fied" Blah, blah blah, pus*syfication of America, blah, blah, blah."

Actually, no. The problem with brainless movies like these is that they endorse and perpetuate negative stereotypes and outright mocking of sexes, races and behaviors that you don't identify with- and of course, the behaviors you are meant to identify with are those of the hero. The promotion of ignorant bliss all disguised as a good fun action romp!)

People should really be insulted by this movie. Well, not by the movie itself, but by the attitudes of the film makers that they can just churn out any tripe and you'll gobble it up greedily.

+10 points for the response:

"Dude, it's just a movie. Chill." or

"It's just an action movie dude, you're supposed to turn off your brain and enjoy it for what it is."

Both awful responses for accepting this hateful garbage as entertainment.

predictable. Anyone got an actual response? I'd love if this could encourage some discussion.

These problems are not exclusive to Bay, but most of the blockbusters or existing franchises. One on hand, the directors are responsible, but the bulk of the responsibility belongs to the automatons who make these films gross hundreds of millions, or in some cases, billions. Cinema is the mirror by which we judge ourselves. Until mainstream audiences wake up and demand more refined films, this is cinematic fast food is going to be force fed until some change is initiated.

So, these social ills are created by committee: the screenwriters who create the myths and bigotry, the studio executives who greenlight the scripts, the director who arranges them, and the cinematographers who create the closeups of genitals or choreograph the erotic postures over cars.

But, on the other hand, audiences have proven to occasionally embrace an extreme: they embraced AVATAR, a film that is very political, along with every other film blockbuster film by Cameron: portray the service men and women are war criminals who deserve to die.

While all of my criticisms have been leveled against the majority of the blockbusters that promote these destructive social reactions, there are some blockbusters that have challenged the paradigm: any of the Star Trek TNG films have shown a future where equality exists; the ALIEN films; Star Wars films; the Lord of the Rings films; and there are many others.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Dude it's just a movie, chill.

[Episode29]

Dude it's just a movie, chill.

Such a boring attitude.

Someone tries to start a legitimately interesting, timely discussion and this is your response?

Not a big fan of the auteur theory, are you?

[Zombie Jesus]

Dude, it's just a movie. Chill.

Also, it's just an action movie dude, you're supposed to turn off your brain and enjoy it for what it is.

[Timstuff]

Sounds like a jolly fun time. http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/Timstuff_photos/trollface_emoticon.gif

[Spade]

There are pros and cons to what Bay says with this franchise. In some ways, he's perfect for Transformers. His heroic, determined leads and use of Americana go well with a robot civil war that's hard for your average moviegoer to grasp. It helps he's one of the best visual artists in the business. But he also pushes for the worst parts of these films. I'm not comfortable saying "it's just fantasy" when real world racism, misogyny, and homophobia is celebrated in (what's supposed to be) a toy promo for kids. That stops being a valid excuse when the director specifically rewrites the robot dialogue to make it more "urban;" it's intentional, and doesn't need to be added to a story about giant robots from the planet Cybertron.

The short of it: I like some parts of this trilogy. But I get why some people outright dismiss these movies.

[Vid Electricz]

These problems are not exclusive to Bay, but most of the blockbusters or existing franchises. One on hand, the directors are responsible, but the bulk of the responsibility belongs to the automatons who make these films gross hundreds of millions, or in some cases, billions. Cinema is the mirror by which we judge ourselves. Until mainstream audiences wake up and demand more refined films, this is cinematic fast food is going to be force fed until some change is initiated.

So, these social ills are created by committee: the screenwriters who create the myths and bigotry, the studio executives who greenlight the scripts, the director who arranges them, and the cinematographers who create the closeups of genitals or choreograph the erotic postures over cars.

But, on the other hand, audiences have proven to occasionally embrace an extreme: they embraced AVATAR, a film that is very political, along with every other film blockbuster film by Cameron: portray the service men and women are war criminals who deserve to die.

While all of my criticisms have been leveled against the majority of the blockbusters that promote these destructive social reactions, there are some blockbusters that have challenged the paradigm: any of the Star Trek TNG films have shown a future where equality exists; the ALIEN films; Star Wars films; the Lord of the Rings films; and there are many others.


Holy smokes! Smart people DO exist on these boards!

I agree with you, these problems are NOT exclusive to Michael Bay and the Transformers franchise, but it is quite shocking and off-putting to see such complete and utter trash packaged and presented in such an enormous, far-reaching blockbuster that seems to market to all age groups (kids, teens and adults-more so the two former ) and worst of all, universally accepted(!)

People SHOULD realize that they are being insulted and scammed with these trashy films, but it's so much easier to take it sitting down I guess. Those movies where you have to pay attention that make you think are SO boring and don't have as many explosions and you can't text message through the whole thing...so of course, we ARE becoming a nation of automatons. Look at the literacy rate, look at the obesity rate!


The people are watching this stuff will be laughing along mindlessly never once knowing or questioning what they're seeing. They might not know what they're watching, but their brain sure does. This is the subtle way that people are brainwashed so effectively that lets them retain the thought that they are in control of how they think or act/react about the things I've mentioned, when really, after years of brainwashing and desensitization by the media, they don't bother to really question anything. They know what they know and they're proud of that (ie. It's just an action movie where you turn your brain off).
This goes double for the kids who watch this stuff. Kids are like little sponges that absorb stuff even though they don't know it... and little do they or the parents know that seeds for this way of thinking are planted in their heads.


Harmless? Maybe. Breeding a world of monosyllabic dullards who can't tell you who Ralph Waldo Emerson is, but CAN tell you all about Optimus Prime and the Transformers. Sad.

That last part was a little off point...and it's not to say that I don't love sci-fi and fantasy. I quite do, but of the quality and thoughtful variety (The Nolan Batman films, the first two Spider-Man films, Sunshine, Alien, Wall-e, etc...)

[Timstuff]

The shot of Rosie Huntington Whitley's ass was reparation for the shot of John Tuturro's ass in Revenge of the Fallen.

[Hotwire]

I think your reading into things a bit too much. What you imply requires that these things be done with intent and malice. Do you seriously think, Michael Bay and other film makers sit around before making a film and try to come up with ways degrade the people that thy are trying to portray?

I'd like to point out that even James Cameron follows your second rule. Other than Dark Angel, he's never made anything where the lead role was not white. He must be racist.

[Vid Electricz]

I think your reading into things a bit too much. What you imply requires that these things be done with intent and malice. Do you seriously think, Michael Bay and other film makers sit around before making a film and try to come up with ways degrade the people that thy are trying to portray?

I'd like to point out that even James Cameron follows your second rule. Other than Dark Angel, he's never made anything where the lead role was not white. He must be racist.



The problem is that most people don't read into things enough...

...which is the EXACT problem with Michael Bay and co. He doesn't really think about anything before he does it. He does things "because they look cool" or because it's "funny", wherein the belligerently ignorant, juvenile, frat-boy attitude of entitlement prevails. But you're right, there is no fore-thought of malice, just blissful ignorance.

Although I wasn't being literal with the smattering of examples I offered up there, I can see they were interpreted as such. I've got no qualms with James Cameron (I haven't seen Avatar, so I don't know), most hollywood films are white-washed anyway. That's a given. The problem, as I believe I explained, is that the secondary, minority characters in Michael Bay movies (and others, to be sure) are plainly used as jokes and stereotypes. That's the big difference.

[OoAnd1]

I don't understand the point of this thread.

Michael Bay makes movies with stereotypes and many Americans find these movies very entertaining. That's a fact. There's no arguing against this.

So what response are you asking for? You want someone to tell you why you're part of the minority that's different? Or are you just venting because you are?

[def28]

Yeah I dont think Ive ever taken a Bay movie seriously. I know Bay doesnt.

But it's all so FUNNY! Right? So if you don't like it, you're just too uptight!

*Yawn*




Since these boards seem to be crawling with people who absolutely love these movies, I fully expect the response of:

"Lighten up. Not everything needs to be politically correct and "Disney-fied" Blah, blah blah, pus*syfication of America, blah, blah, blah."

Actually, no. The problem with brainless movies like these is that they endorse and perpetuate negative stereotypes and outright mocking of sexes, races and behaviors that you don't identify with- and of course, the behaviors you are meant to identify with are those of the hero. The promotion of ignorant bliss all disguised as a good fun action romp!)

People should really be insulted by this movie. Well, not by the movie itself, but by the attitudes of the film makers that they can just churn out any tripe and you'll gobble it up greedily.

+10 points for the response:

"Dude, it's just a movie. Chill." or

"It's just an action movie dude, you're supposed to turn off your brain and enjoy it for what it is."

Both awful responses for accepting this hateful garbage as entertainment.

predictable. Anyone got an actual response? I'd love if this could encourage some discussion.


So...can someone point me to another giant robot movie with a 250 million budget thats more universally appropriate? Probably not. I saw this movie cause theres giant robots blowing **** up. I cant see that anywhere else. Could care less about everything else attached to this movie.

U can find something offensive in every movie. If you find something offensive and it really does bother you then dont watch it.Yes Its a comedy for the most part so your not supposed to take any of that stuff seriously. Look at how many comedians use sex and racism in their jokes. Seriously I hear way more racist/sexist songs playing on the radio then whats found in this movie. If someone walked out of the flick and became a sexist/racist/homophobe then there are bigger problems going on with that person. Its not a movie thats trying to teach us how to live our lives. The violence in this movie is also pretty harsh and unapologetic, do you have a problem with that as well? Im sure alot of parents do.

[SPider-T0rch]

Is there a point to this thread at all? If anything, it seems to me that it was made to try to justify the dislike of the whole movie. Honestly, I don't care if anyone hated DOTM, whatever their reasons are. However, it's like you're trying to put down people who liked the movie by pulling out the racism, jingoism, sexism, and homophobia cards.

I sincerely doubt that Bay or any director of recent action movies are going out of their way to portray those things on-screen for the audience to mimic. If someone walks out of DOTM and starts to act out the juvenile humor from the movie, then the responsibility is on THAT PERSON, not Bay.

This can be compared to the issue of violent video games. Parents are so busy pointing fingers at the video game developers for creating these games when they and their children are the ones responsible when they act out what the see in a video game. The creators shouldn't be attacked for what they made. Yes, their games may contain very offensive things but it is never their intent to make people go out and shoot each other.

[moviedoors]

What you imply requires that these things be done with intent and malice.

How do you figure? What's going on beneath the surface is going to work its way into any artists work, whether its intentional or not.

[Vid Electricz]

I don't understand the point of this thread.

Michael Bay makes movies with stereotypes and many Americans find these movies very entertaining. That's a fact. There's no arguing against this.

So what response are you asking for? You want someone to tell you why you're part of the minority that's different? Or are you just venting because you are?



Projecting much? I don't need any kind of validation. Nor am I asking for any kind of response in particular. If you read my initial post, you'd see that I would hope this would spark some intelligent discussion. A few people have contributed quite well so far...

I really love your whole, "it is what it is...might as well just bend over and take it." attitude.

What's the point of any thread on these boards? These aren't praise boards. The topics I brought up are just as valid for discussion as "What was Megatron's master plan?", if not more so.

[Vid Electricz]

Is there a point to this thread at all? If anything, it seems to me that it was made to try to justify the dislike of the whole movie. Honestly, I don't care if anyone hated DOTM, whatever their reasons are. However, it's like you're trying to put down people who liked the movie by pulling out the racism, jingoism, sexism, and homophobia cards.

I sincerely doubt that Bay or any director of recent action movies are going out of their way to portray those things on-screen for the audience to mimic. If someone walks out of DOTM and starts to act out the juvenile humor from the movie, then the responsibility is on THAT PERSON, not Bay.

This can be compared to the issue of violent video games. Parents are so busy pointing fingers at the video game developers for creating these games when they and their children are the ones responsible when they act out what the see in a video game. The creators shouldn't be attacked for what they made. Yes, their games may contain very offensive things but it is never their intent to make people go out and shoot each other.


This is barely worth answering to, as it seems you didn't read/grasp the initial post.

Is there a point to any thread at all? As far as I can see, this is the only one looking at the underlying messages in the film. I realize these films have a lot of supporters, but there's no need to be so defensive about it.


Yes, it's true that video games, music and movies have long been the perfect scapegoat for parents and teachers. The fact of the matter is, these violent games, while they might not be exactly hurting anyone per se, they sure aren't helping anyone either. Some people are more violent than others (always have been, always will be), but out society doesn't need the unnecessary encouragement, in my opinion. How many school shooting do you think there were in the 1950's?

[PowersOfMind]

I for one am both fascinated and perplexed by the sort of twisted hate and misogyny that these movies perpetuate. I find it hard to believe that people are actually entertained by this sort of stuff.

I won't deny the truth of this, however you seem to be looking down your nose at people who are entertained by this and other films like it.



-Sexism: Specifically, the objectification of women- Women are trophies to be won or lost. They must always appear sexy and seductive (for all the adolescent boys and peter-pan syndrome boy-men watching).

This I happen to agree with. Bay has this T&A fixation,that's evident in a few of his films, though I think in this one it was a bit more noticable. As a woman, it made me feel slightly uncomfortable, but there were serveral other aspects of the film I enjoyed.

-Racism: If you're not white, you exist as a peripheral character. Most likely comic relief or some other stereotype (the stoic black man). In other words, you're disposable and you're a joke (blatantly racist buck toothed robots not withstanding).

Blatantly racist buck-toothed Robots?

The problem I have with this us such: I think its the person viewing is the one with the problem. As a black.person i

-Jingoism: America is the best and the military is #1. English, dude, English.

-Homophobia: "You gonna go cry to your boyfriend? Pussy!" There's plenty more where that came from. Needless to say, these movies are riddled with the kind of sophomoric, juvenile macho-man, tough guy behavior that only the most ignorant among us (and little kids who don't know any better) buy in to.


But it's all so FUNNY! Right? So if you don't like it, you're just too uptight!

*Yawn*




Since these boards seem to be crawling with people who absolutely love these movies, I fully expect the response of:

"Lighten up. Not everything needs to be politically correct and "Disney-fied" Blah, blah blah, pus*syfication of America, blah, blah, blah."

Actually, no. The problem with brainless movies like these is that they endorse and perpetuate negative stereotypes and outright mocking of sexes, races and behaviors that you don't identify with- and of course, the behaviors you are meant to identify with are those of the hero. The promotion of ignorant bliss all disguised as a good fun action romp!)

People should really be insulted by this movie. Well, not by the movie itself, but by the attitudes of the film makers that they can just churn out any tripe and you'll gobble it up greedily.

+10 points for the response:

"Dude, it's just a movie. Chill." or

"It's just an action movie dude, you're supposed to turn off your brain and enjoy it for what it is."

Both awful responses for accepting this hateful garbage as entertainment.

predictable. Anyone got an actual response? I'd love if this could encourage some discussion.[/QUOTE]

[PowersOfMind]

I for one am both fascinated and perplexed by the sort of twisted hate and misogyny that these movies perpetuate. I find it hard to believe that people are actually entertained by this sort of stuff.

I won't deny the truth of this, however you seem to be looking down your nose at people who are entertained by this and other films like it.

-Sexism: Specifically, the objectification of women- Women are trophies to be won or lost. They must always appear sexy and seductive (for all the adolescent boys and peter-pan syndrome boy-men watching).

This I happen to agree with. Bay has this T&A fixation,that's evident in a few of his films, though I think in this one it was a bit more noticable. As a woman, it made me feel slightly uncomfortable, but there were serveral other aspects of the film I enjoyed. There are plenty of movies that objectify women, yet there are many that don't.

-Racism: If you're not white, you exist as a peripheral character. Most likely comic relief or some other stereotype (the stoic black man). In other words, you're disposable and you're a joke (blatantly racist buck toothed robots not withstanding).

Blatantly racist buck-toothed robots?

The problem I have with this is such: I think the person viewing is the one with the problem. That's not to say that there aren't moments when I sit and think something may skirt or cross the line into racism.

As a African-American I don't get why people automatically fly to the idea that the jive-talking robots are black. I don't know any black people that speak that way. I know there are those that do, but they don't make up the majority. Where does that come from? It's internal I think. Robots aren't defined by race on human terms, so why that specific designation? Unless you already have a pre-coceived notion of how blacks speak, why do you designate the idiot robot as black? To me that speaks to the idea that already ligers in the back of your mind.

As for black men existing as peripheral characters: well in an overstuffed cast like this who isn't a peripheral character.

If we were dealing with a smaller, more concise cast, on a definitivly more consise movie, I could get behind that.

-Jingoism: America is the best and the military is #1. English, dude, English.

Bay loves his country and the military, deal with it. Again I think this is the wrong movie for you to use this argument on. In films where the military is supposed to pull out all the stops to protect itself and the country it hails to, of course they're going to appear more awesome than is necessary.

[Rock Sexton]

The problem is that most people don't read into things enough...

...which is the EXACT problem with Michael Bay and co. He doesn't really think about anything before he does it. He does things "because they look cool" or because it's "funny", wherein the belligerently ignorant, juvenile, frat-boy attitude of entitlement prevails. But you're right, there is no fore-thought of malice, just blissful ignorance.

Although I wasn't being literal with the smattering of examples I offered up there, I can see they were interpreted as such. I've got no qualms with James Cameron (I haven't seen Avatar, so I don't know), most hollywood films are white-washed anyway. That's a given. The problem, as I believe I explained, is that the secondary, minority characters in Michael Bay movies (and others, to be sure) are plainly used as jokes and stereotypes. That's the big difference.

Trust me, Michael Bay is a shallow individual to begin with so his movies are just a reflection of that.

[Rock Sexton]

Projecting much? I don't need any kind of validation. Nor am I asking for any kind of response in particular. If you read my initial post, you'd see that I would hope this would spark some intelligent discussion. A few people have contributed quite well so far...

I really love your whole, "it is what it is...might as well just bend over and take it." attitude.

What's the point of any thread on these boards? These aren't praise boards. The topics I brought up are just as valid for discussion as "What was Megatron's master plan?", if not more so.

I'm not sure you going to get "intelligent" debate from people who liked the movie, considering the subject matter you listed that is littered all over these TF movies.

Remember their whole argument is, "It's a summer blockbuster! Shut off your brain! Laugh!" ...... that essentially is the essence of Michael Bay - mindlessness.

[roach]

While you have brought up some good points i think you are using them to rake coals over Michael Bay. He didnt invent these things and wont be the last to use them.
Name one big budget movie that didnt objectify women in one way or another?
Name one where a minority was the lead?
Name one that didnt feature an masculine, macho-tough guy???

[Snare]

Sounds like the original poster is finding sexism, racism and the other things listed, where they don't exist. If you have enough of an agenda, you'll find them anywhere. Chill out and have fun at the movies, then maybe you won't be so uptight.

[SuperFerret]

If you watch Transformers and come away with the idea that you need to be racist, sexist, and homophobic, then you're an idiot.

I'm also going to say that the only thing in the first post that I find moderately well thought out is the "But it's all so FUNNY! Right? So if you don't like it, you're just too uptight!" Stating the most common and truthful argument against your points within your argument and then denouncing it as belaying actual discussion, while at the same time not addressing it at all, makes it seem unimportant and (most importantly) causes some to subconsciously avoid using it.

As for the thread title, "Sexism, Racism, Jingoism and Homophobia- That's entertainment!" That is incorrect. Those things are not entertainment. However, if you really look, you'll find them just about anywhere.

[chaseter]

So are Tyler Perry movies racist? He also plays a crazy old woman. Is that sexist?

[S.A.A.D.]

If you watch Transformers and come away with the idea that you need to be racist, sexist, and homophobic, then you're an idiot.

I'm also going to say that the only thing in the first post that I find moderately well thought out is the "But it's all so FUNNY! Right? So if you don't like it, you're just too uptight!" Stating the most common and truthful argument against your points within your argument and then denouncing it as belaying actual discussion, while at the same time not addressing it at all, makes it seem unimportant and (most importantly) causes some to subconsciously avoid using it.

As for the thread title, "Sexism, Racism, Jingoism and Homophobia- That's entertainment!" That is incorrect. Those things are not entertainment. However, if you really look, you'll find them just about anywhere.

This. Short and to the point. Sorry OP, but this is your problem. Why? Because you chose to interpret what you interpreted at the expense of the movie. Your generalizing moment left something to be desired. A palatable execution that is.

[SPider-T0rch]

Yes, it's true that video games, music and movies have long been the perfect scapegoat for parents and teachers. The fact of the matter is, these violent games, while they might not be exactly hurting anyone per se, they sure aren't helping anyone either. Some people are more violent than others (always have been, always will be), but out society doesn't need the unnecessary encouragement, in my opinion. How many school shooting do you think there were in the 1950's?

What encouragement? Where in these games and movies does it encourage people to be racist/sexist/violent? I'm sure they all have disclaimers saying that they have no intent to influence the audience's minds. You can say that that's an easy way to brush off the flack the creators get but the creators know well that when people take their fiction too seriously, then they can't be at fault. The creators know that what they create is nothing to be taken seriously but when one person decides to take it too far, the creators get all the blame and none is put on the person that's really responsible.

It isn't the creators' fault that people can't separate reality from fiction.

[OoAnd1]

Projecting much? I don't need any kind of validation. Nor am I asking for any kind of response in particular. If you read my initial post, you'd see that I would hope this would spark some intelligent discussion. A few people have contributed quite well so far...

I really love your whole, "it is what it is...might as well just bend over and take it." attitude.

What's the point of any thread on these boards? These aren't praise boards. The topics I brought up are just as valid for discussion as "What was Megatron's master plan?", if not more so.

I didn't say you needed validation to dislike it. And no one needs validation to like his movies either. And I'm not asking you to "bend over and take" anything. Dislike them. It's okay.

Bay movies have sexism, racism, jingosim and homophobia. Most agree. That is entertainment. Again, most agree. If you want to discuss why the American mass audience enjoys such enjoyment, then that's a more general discussion for somewhere else. Go talk to your friends about it. Or find a forum about Hollywood films in general.

This is a Transformers forum. And the phenomenon you speak of is not unique to the Transformers films. And definitely not representative of the Transformers franchise.

So, no, this discussion is not as relevant as discussions on character objectives throughout the trilogy.

[Mace Dolex]

If these movies are considered demeaning to ethnic stereotypes then why would Anthony Anderson, Tyrese Gibson, Ken Jeong and John Tuturro agree to be in them?

[Vid Electricz]

If these movies are considered demeaning to ethnic stereotypes then why would Anthony Anderson, Tyrese Gibson, Ken Jeong and John Tuturro agree to be in them?


$$$

[Vid Electricz]

I know this is the Transformers board, so I didn't have any great expectations in terms of the responses I'd receive, but I was maybe, kinda hoping for at least a little bit of critical analysis. Jonathan Crane and a few others have made intelligent statements, but the rest of the responses seem to have been made defensively without actually having read and understood the initial post. I knew reading and comprehension was down in this country, but holy smokes.

All the things I listed exist in movies across the board, no doubt about that. My qualm is with the fact that it is so brainlessly and nonchalantly accepted and even praised. It's this mindless zealotry that leads to bigger box office and big box office tells Hollywood that this stuff sells. So what do we get? More tripe like this, more often where racism, sexism, jingoism and homophobia are OK as long as it's "just a brainless action movie". To everyone who's made an excuse defending these films- wake up, get your head out of the sand and demand more of your entertainment. Unless you're fine with complacency. Otherwise, have fun living your life never having had a thought of your own.

This may all come off as very insulting, but it's no more of an insult or a giant middle finger than what Michael Bay/Hollywood is giving to you all when you pay for a ticket to and watch this movie.

If that doesn't make sense to you, it's no use explaining it 'cause you just won't get it.

[OoAnd1]

This may all come off as very insulting, but it's no more of an insult or a giant middle finger than what Michael Bay/Hollywood is giving to you all when you pay for a ticket to and watch this movie.

I'm absolutely positive his middle finger is saved for those movie-goers that dislike his films, yet still spent their time watching TF3.

[bullets]

I'm not sure you going to get "intelligent" debate from people who liked the movie, considering the subject matter you listed that is littered all over these TF movies.

Remember their whole argument is, "It's a summer blockbuster! Shut off your brain! Laugh!" ...... that essentially is the essence of Michael Bay - mindlessness.


"Shut off your brain" might also be used a recommendation to not over think. We're basically making assumptions about Michael Bay that might not be warranted.

[Episode29]

If these movies are considered demeaning to ethnic stereotypes then why would Anthony Anderson, Tyrese Gibson, Ken Jeong and John Tuturro agree to be in them?

Spielberg + Bay + Guaranteed Huge Box Office = Where do I sign?

[Hotwire]

I know this is the Transformers board, so I didn't have any great expectations in terms of the responses I'd receive, but I was maybe, kinda hoping for at least a little bit of critical analysis. Jonathan Crane and a few others have made intelligent statements, but the rest of the responses seem to have been made defensively without actually having read and understood the initial post. I knew reading and comprehension was down in this country, but holy smokes.

All the things I listed exist in movies across the board, no doubt about that. My qualm is with the fact that it is so brainlessly and nonchalantly accepted and even praised. It's this mindless zealotry that leads to bigger box office and big box office tells Hollywood that this stuff sells. So what do we get? More tripe like this, more often where racism, sexism, jingoism and homophobia are OK as long as it's "just a brainless action movie". To everyone who's made an excuse defending these films- wake up, get your head out of the sand and demand more of your entertainment. Unless you're fine with complacency. Otherwise, have fun living your life never having had a thought of your own.

This may all come off as very insulting, but it's no more of an insult or a giant middle finger than what Michael Bay/Hollywood is giving to you all when you pay for a ticket to and watch this movie.

If that doesn't make sense to you, it's no use explaining it 'cause you just won't get it.
First, I wanted to ask how the view was from that high horse you're sitting on?

You really seem to get off on insulting people. You may perceive these things from films, but that does not mean others share your views. And, it most certainly does not make them any less intelligent than you. Nor, does it give you the right to smugly sit their and insult them.

You have a point, that as long as people buy movie tickets, Hollywood will continue to produce what sells. That's simply smart business. Every company with a CEO with half a brain will do the same thing, and they would fail if they didn't.

To address each of your issues...

Sexism. Sorry, pal, but sex sells. If that's a problem for you, you're going to be pissed off for a long time. Hollywood has been casting eye candy since they started, and they will continue to do so until the general public gets it through their skulls that looks aren't everything.


Racism.
Since when is not casting a minority as your lead,made you a racist director? While it is true, that not many minority actors get big rolls, and even fewer get awards, I don't see how this makes the directors racists. Spielberg, for example. This is the guy who essentially shut down Megan Fox's career for making a Hitler remark, yet only one of his films has ever stared a minority in a lead roll. Does this make him a racist? The same can be said for James Cameron.

Jingoism.
Seriously? Bay portrays the American military kicking the crap out of invading alien robots, and this somehow means that he supports aggressive foreign policy and advocates the use of threats and unprovoked force to protect America? That's a bit of a stretch.

Homophobia.
There is a huge difference between belittling someone's manhood, and being homophobic. A homophobe believes that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, somehow effects their way of life. Telling a guy to run home to his boyfriend is not. That comment is designed to insult his masculinity. This is something a lot of guys take seriously. Society has shaped the role of the common man, and we guys tend to try and fit it. Women do similar things, too.

I hope this clears thing up for you, but then again, I'm just a Transformers fan, and you know, you really shouldn't expect much from us.

By the way, I have a new term for you to review. Elitist. I think it may just fit you.

[Episode29]

I know this is the Transformers board, so I didn't have any great expectations in terms of the responses I'd receive, but I was maybe, kinda hoping for at least a little bit of critical analysis. Jonathan Crane and a few others have made intelligent statements, but the rest of the responses seem to have been made defensively without actually having read and understood the initial post. I knew reading and comprehension was down in this country, but holy smokes.

All the things I listed exist in movies across the board, no doubt about that. My qualm is with the fact that it is so brainlessly and nonchalantly accepted and even praised. It's this mindless zealotry that leads to bigger box office and big box office tells Hollywood that this stuff sells. So what do we get? More tripe like this, more often where racism, sexism, jingoism and homophobia are OK as long as it's "just a brainless action movie". To everyone who's made an excuse defending these films- wake up, get your head out of the sand and demand more of your entertainment. Unless you're fine with complacency. Otherwise, have fun living your life never having had a thought of your own.

This may all come off as very insulting, but it's no more of an insult or a giant middle finger than what Michael Bay/Hollywood is giving to you all when you pay for a ticket to and watch this movie.

If that doesn't make sense to you, it's no use explaining it 'cause you just won't get it.

You should really check out the chud.com message boards. They're genuinely interested in actual film criticism and analysis. They'll happily, and insightfully, discuss themes, messages and auteur theory. Unfortunately, as I learned years ago, there's a sad absence of openness to ideas around here. Hence, why I post so irregularly.

[def28]

I know this is the Transformers board, so I didn't have any great expectations in terms of the responses I'd receive, but I was maybe, kinda hoping for at least a little bit of critical analysis. Jonathan Crane and a few others have made intelligent statements, but the rest of the responses seem to have been made defensively without actually having read and understood the initial post. I knew reading and comprehension was down in this country, but holy smokes.

You need to stop insulting the posters on this boards intelligence just cause they are not giving you the response you want to hear. Not everyone will agree with you, and people are allowed to enjoy the film. If the film offended you on a personal level then you should have walked out.

[bullets]

First, I wanted to ask how the view was from that high horse you're sitting on?

You really seem to get off on insulting people. You may perceive these things from films, but that does not mean others share your views. And, it most certainly does not make them any less intelligent than you. Nor, does it give you the right to smugly sit their and insult them.

You have a point, that as long as people buy movie tickets, Hollywood will continue to produce what sells. That's simply smart business. Every company with a CEO with half a brain will do the same thing, and they would fail if they didn't.

To address each of your issues...

Sexism. Sorry, pal, but sex sells. If that's a problem for you, you're going to be pissed off for a long time. Hollywood has been casting eye candy since they started, and they will continue to do so until the general public gets it through their skulls that looks aren't everything.


Racism.
Since when is not casting a minority as your lead,made you a racist director? While it is true, that not many minority actors get big rolls, and even fewer get awards, I don't see how this makes the directors racists. Spielberg, for example. This is the guy who essentially shut down Megan Fox's career for making a Hitler remark, yet only one of his films has ever stared a minority in a lead roll. Does this make him a racist? The same can be said for James Cameron.

Jingoism.
Seriously? Bay portrays the American military kicking the crap out of invading alien robots, and this somehow means that he supports aggressive foreign policy and advocates the use of threats and unprovoked force to protect America? That's a bit of a stretch.

Homophobia.
There is a huge difference between belittling someone's manhood, and being homophobic. A homophobe believes that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, somehow effects their way of life. Telling a guy to run home to his boyfriend is not. That comment is designed to insult his masculinity. This is something a lot of guys take seriously. Society has shaped the role of the common man, and we guys tend to try and fit it. Women do similar things, too.

I hope this clears thing up for you, but then again, I'm just a Transformers fan, and you know, you really shouldn't expect much from us.

By the way, I have a new term for you to review. Elitist. I think it may just fit you.

:woot: :applaud

[Thundercrack85]

Actually (to the original poster), that would be sexist, not homophobic, unless slang has changed.

It's a dumb, crude, loud, poorly-thought out movie with amazing, state-of-the-art special effects. And it's directed by Michael Bay. He's already done two of these movies. One was bad, the other was terrible. What do you expect? Hamlet?

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't expect Hamlet.

Why is the only logical comparison classic literature? Instead of other movie franchises like Star Wars or Indiana Jones?

[MessiahDecoy123]

Who comes into a Transformers movie hoping for sexism, racism, homophobia and jingoism?

No Transformers was never high art but was never those things either.

[Thundercrack85]

I don't expect Hamlet.

Why is the only logical comparison classic literature? Instead of other movie franchises like Star Wars or Indiana Jones?

I don't know if you want to go with those two, given their latest installments.

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't know if you want to go with those two, given their latest installments.
If I could get one or two G1 TF movies as heartfelt and engrossing as the original Star Wars or Indiana Jones movies I'd be happy.

They don't even have to be as highly regarded, just a G1 movie where the conflicts and personalities of the title characters matter and the sci-fi is decent.

[Thundercrack85]

If I could get one or two G1 TF movies as heartfelt and engrossing as the original Star Wars or Indiana Jones movies I'd be happy.

They don't even have to be as highly regarded, just a G1 movie where the conflicts and personalities of the title characters matter and the sci-fi is decent.

Well I don't disagree that a Transformers movie could be good. I just don't see it happening with people like Bay, Orci, and Krutzman at the helm. They've already made two bad films, why would the third be any better?

[Jake Cassidy]

If I could get one or two G1 TF movies as heartfelt and engrossing as the original Star Wars or Indiana Jones movies I'd be happy.

They don't even have to be as highly regarded, just a G1 movie where the conflicts and personalities of the title characters matter and the sci-fi is decent.

I'm pretty sure that's what most of us want.

[OoAnd1]

You should really check out the chud.com message boards. They're genuinely interested in actual film criticism and analysis. They'll happily, and insightfully, discuss themes, messages and auteur theory. Unfortunately, as I learned years ago, there's a sad absence of openness to ideas around here. Hence, why I post so irregularly.

That was funny. :woot:

[Sloth7d]

$$$

Yep. Said to say that with the lesser number of roles open for minorities in Hollywood, beggars can't be choosers.

[Ken-Kaniff]

Dude, it's just a movie. Chill.

Now gimme my damn 10 points!!!

[Rock Sexton]

I hope this clears thing up for you, but then again, I'm just a Transformers fan, and you know, you really shouldn't expect much from us.


I guess not. :awesome:

[SuperFerret]

You should really check out the chud.com message boards. They're genuinely interested in actual film criticism and analysis. They'll happily, and insightfully, discuss themes, messages and auteur theory. Unfortunately, as I learned years ago, there's a sad absence of openness to ideas around here. Hence, why I post so irregularly.

I and many others will also happily discuss the use of storytelling tools in movies, but there's a time and a place (and a topic) for those things.

You want to discuss themes and messages and analyze a film, go ahead, but pick a film that encourages that sort of thing. Transformers isn't and shouldn't be that sort of thing.

Also, keep your film critic elite attitude to yourself pal. Like it or not, people actually do go to movies for the entertainment value, and judging them on that because they don't follow your ideas only casts light on yourself.

[bell110]

I didn't see a topic of this nature on this board, so I thought I'd start one.

I for one am both fascinated and perplexed by the sort of twisted hate and misogyny that these movies perpetuate. I find it hard to believe that people are actually entertained by this sort of stuff. If there's one thing that these movies do represent, it's the unfortunate future of action films (ie. soulless, emotionless husks filled with veiled hatred that exist solely for marketing purposes), because it's been proven that this kid of stuff sells.

Like the juvenile school-yard bully who calls anyone out as a f*ggot or homo for not agreeing or lining up with his narrow world-view of how men, women and minorities should be viewed, These films similarly mock and degrade unapologetically and if you don't like it- well, you're just a PC, liberal cry-baby. Brainwashing of the masses at it's finest.

Let's look at some of the wonderful ideals these movies promote (I know there are a million more examples. If you've got examples, post 'em):

-Sexism: Specifically, the objectification of women- Women are trophies to be won or lost. They must always appear sexy and seductive (for all the adolescent boys and peter-pan syndrome boy-men watching).

There is nothing wrong with having sexy and seductive women in the movies. Was the first scene with Rosie necessary? No. Was it awesome? Absolutely.

-Racism: If you're not white, you exist as a peripheral character. Most likely comic relief or some other stereotype (the stoic black man). In other words, you're disposable and you're a joke (blatantly racist buck toothed robots not withstanding).

No. White people were also treated as a joke. And Epps was treated seriously. This arguement doesn't really hold. Also, if you're offended that black men are treated as comic relief and being stoic, what exactly are you looking for?

-Jingoism: America is the best and the military is #1. English, dude, English.

This movie takes place in America and involves the military. Again, what are you looking for? A scene where American soldiers kill innocent civilians just to balance things out?

-Homophobia: "You gonna go cry to your boyfriend? Pussy!" There's plenty more where that came from. Needless to say, these movies are riddled with the kind of sophomoric, juvenile macho-man, tough guy behavior that only the most ignorant among us (and little kids who don't know any better) buy in to.

I don't remember this line. I don't remember any instance of homophobia in all three films. It's a bit of a stretch to say these films promote homophobia based on that one line.

But it's all so FUNNY! Right? So if you don't like it, you're just too uptight!

*Yawn*

Since these boards seem to be crawling with people who absolutely love these movies, I fully expect the response of:

"Lighten up. Not everything needs to be politically correct and "Disney-fied" Blah, blah blah, pus*syfication of America, blah, blah, blah."

Actually, no. The problem with brainless movies like these is that they endorse and perpetuate negative stereotypes and outright mocking of sexes, races and behaviors that you don't identify with- and of course, the behaviors you are meant to identify with are those of the hero. The promotion of ignorant bliss all disguised as a good fun action romp!)

People should really be insulted by this movie. Well, not by the movie itself, but by the attitudes of the film makers that they can just churn out any tripe and you'll gobble it up greedily.

+10 points for the response:

"Dude, it's just a movie. Chill." or

"It's just an action movie dude, you're supposed to turn off your brain and enjoy it for what it is."

Both awful responses for accepting this hateful garbage as entertainment.

predictable. Anyone got an actual response? I'd love if this could encourage some discussion.

No, people really shouldn't be offended by these movies. Of all the problems with these movies, what you've mentioned are the lest of them.

Holy smokes! Smart people DO exist on these boards!

I agree with you, these problems are NOT exclusive to Michael Bay and the Transformers franchise, but it is quite shocking and off-putting to see such complete and utter trash packaged and presented in such an enormous, far-reaching blockbuster that seems to market to all age groups (kids, teens and adults-more so the two former ) and worst of all, universally accepted(!)

People SHOULD realize that they are being insulted and scammed with these trashy films, but it's so much easier to take it sitting down I guess. Those movies where you have to pay attention that make you think are SO boring and don't have as many explosions and you can't text message through the whole thing...so of course, we ARE becoming a nation of automatons. Look at the literacy rate, look at the obesity rate!

The people are watching this stuff will be laughing along mindlessly never once knowing or questioning what they're seeing. They might not know what they're watching, but their brain sure does. This is the subtle way that people are brainwashed so effectively that lets them retain the thought that they are in control of how they think or act/react about the things I've mentioned, when really, after years of brainwashing and desensitization by the media, they don't bother to really question anything. They know what they know and they're proud of that (ie. It's just an action movie where you turn your brain off).
This goes double for the kids who watch this stuff. Kids are like little sponges that absorb stuff even though they don't know it... and little do they or the parents know that seeds for this way of thinking are planted in their heads.

Harmless? Maybe. Breeding a world of monosyllabic dullards who can't tell you who Ralph Waldo Emerson is, but CAN tell you all about Optimus Prime and the Transformers. Sad.

That last part was a little off point...and it's not to say that I don't love sci-fi and fantasy. I quite do, but of the quality and thoughtful variety (The Nolan Batman films, the first two Spider-Man films, Sunshine, Alien, Wall-e, etc...)

For someone who is complaining about the "hate" this film promotes, you sure are good at dishing out insults. You seem to think everybody should have the same tastes in movies are you do. You seriously underestimate audiences. In fact it's a little insulting that you think movie goers are too stupid to realize what's going on on the screen. This may shock you, but a lot of guys don't get offended by seeing a hot chick in tight pants straddle a motorcycle.

Also, did you pay to see this movie? If so, you really aren't helping your cause by adding to the box office numbers.

The problem is that most people don't read into things enough...

...which is the EXACT problem with Michael Bay and co. He doesn't really think about anything before he does it. He does things "because they look cool" or because it's "funny", wherein the belligerently ignorant, juvenile, frat-boy attitude of entitlement prevails. But you're right, there is no fore-thought of malice, just blissful ignorance.

Although I wasn't being literal with the smattering of examples I offered up there, I can see they were interpreted as such. I've got no qualms with James Cameron (I haven't seen Avatar, so I don't know), most hollywood films are white-washed anyway. That's a given. The problem, as I believe I explained, is that the secondary, minority characters in Michael Bay movies (and others, to be sure) are plainly used as jokes and stereotypes. That's the big difference.

You're right. Next time Bay is making a movie, he should really sit back and think, "Should I put this in the movie, or will it offend Vid Electricz".

Blatantly racist buck-toothed robots?

The problem I have with this is such: I think the person viewing is the one with the problem. That's not to say that there aren't moments when I sit and think something may skirt or cross the line into racism.

As a African-American I don't get why people automatically fly to the idea that the jive-talking robots are black. I don't know any black people that speak that way. I know there are those that do, but they don't make up the majority. Where does that come from? It's internal I think. Robots aren't defined by race on human terms, so why that specific designation? Unless you already have a pre-coceived notion of how blacks speak, why do you designate the idiot robot as black? To me that speaks to the idea that already ligers in the back of your mind.

Exactly. The first time I heard the twins I thought they sounded like back woods rednecks. The same with Jar Jar Binks. I find it funny how people heard these characters and though, "Wait a second. These people sound black." It's almost a subconscious racism projected by the viewer, which they turn around and claim it's racism by the film maker.

[Episode29]

I and many others will also happily discuss the use of storytelling tools in movies, but there's a time and a place (and a topic) for those things.

You want to discuss themes and messages and analyze a film, go ahead, but pick a film that encourages that sort of thing. Transformers isn't and shouldn't be that sort of thing.

Also, keep your film critic elite attitude to yourself pal. Like it or not, people actually do go to movies for the entertainment value, and judging them on that because they don't follow your ideas only casts light on yourself.

There's nothing wrong with going to the movies for "entertainment value." At all. I'm not trying to scorn anyone who does. I should have worded my quoted post more sensitively. It was extremely late, and I guess I was a bit punchy. I apologize to anyone who was offended.

With that said, however, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Vid Electricz wanting to discuss these concepts here. He didn't try to fill Review or Box Office threads with these topics. He created a new thread for those interested in analyzing the films from a sexist/racist, etc. contextual point of view. Why should his thread be bombarded with posts telling him to take his opinions elsewhere. If he wants to intellectualize the Transformers movies, go for it. It might to be fun to see where the discussion leads.

Also, any film is open for analysis. They're the product of an artistic vision - in this case Michael Bay's - and thus are completely open to interpretation. One of the best critical essays of last year was written about Top Gun. You may not like that, but it's true. Dozens of academic articles have been written applying auteur theory to the works of Michael Bay. There are common themes and artistic choices throughout his entire filmography. To dissuade someone else from examining the potential negative impacts of them is just as rude as his inappropriate broad generalizations of fans of the franchise. Both sides need to be more respectful.

Why is there no room for different types of discourse when it comes to Transformers movies?

[Vid Electricz]

First, I wanted to ask how the view was from that high horse you're sitting on?

You really seem to get off on insulting people. You may perceive these things from films, but that does not mean others share your views. And, it most certainly does not make them any less intelligent than you. Nor, does it give you the right to smugly sit their and insult them.

You have a point, that as long as people buy movie tickets, Hollywood will continue to produce what sells. That's simply smart business. Every company with a CEO with half a brain will do the same thing, and they would fail if they didn't.

To address each of your issues...

Sexism. Sorry, pal, but sex sells. If that's a problem for you, you're going to be pissed off for a long time. Hollywood has been casting eye candy since they started, and they will continue to do so until the general public gets it through their skulls that looks aren't everything.


Racism.
Since when is not casting a minority as your lead,made you a racist director? While it is true, that not many minority actors get big rolls, and even fewer get awards, I don't see how this makes the directors racists. Spielberg, for example. This is the guy who essentially shut down Megan Fox's career for making a Hitler remark, yet only one of his films has ever stared a minority in a lead roll. Does this make him a racist? The same can be said for James Cameron.

Jingoism.
Seriously? Bay portrays the American military kicking the crap out of invading alien robots, and this somehow means that he supports aggressive foreign policy and advocates the use of threats and unprovoked force to protect America? That's a bit of a stretch.

Homophobia.
There is a huge difference between belittling someone's manhood, and being homophobic. A homophobe believes that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, somehow effects their way of life. Telling a guy to run home to his boyfriend is not. That comment is designed to insult his masculinity. This is something a lot of guys take seriously. Society has shaped the role of the common man, and we guys tend to try and fit it. Women do similar things, too.

I hope this clears thing up for you, but then again, I'm just a Transformers fan, and you know, you really shouldn't expect much from us.

By the way, I have a new term for you to review. Elitist. I think it may just fit you.


Au contraire, my friend, the only people that are smug around here are the ones that insist you be a brain dead shill and not question anything. Then if you do question it, they insist you go read shakespeare, because clearly those are the only two options. That's smug. Calling people out on their bulls*it, well, it may make you uncomfortable and defensive because it's true, but it's not smug or self-righteous. This is all just a continuation of the trend where it's become "cool" to be ignorant.

Dude, you can call me an elitist or whatever you'd like, but the truth is that I'm a realist. If you love these movies so much that you feel compelled to defend them to death, go for it. If you feel insulted because I've merely called this movie on all it's bull...well, that's because you buy into it.

If you'd prefer to live life wearing rose colored glasses, that's entirely your option.

[Vid Electricz]

There's nothing wrong with going to the movies for "entertainment value." At all. I'm not trying to scorn anyone who does. I should have worded my quoted post more sensitively. It was extremely late, and I guess I was a bit punchy. I apologize to anyone who was offended.

With that said, however, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Vid Electricz wanting to discuss these concepts here. He didn't try to fill Review or Box Office threads with these topics. He created a new thread for those interested in analyzing the films from a sexist/racist, etc. contextual point of view. Why should his thread be bombarded with posts telling him to take his opinions elsewhere. If he wants to intellectualize the Transformers movies, go for it. It might to be fun to see where the discussion leads.

Also, any film is open for analysis. They're the product of an artistic vision - in this case Michael Bay's - and thus are completely open to interpretation. One of the best critical essays of last year was written about Top Gun. You may not like that, but it's true. Dozens of academic articles have been written applying auteur theory to the works of Michael Bay. There are common themes and artistic choices throughout his entire filmography. To dissuade someone else from examining the potential negative impacts of them is just as rude as his inappropriate broad generalizations of fans of the franchise. Both sides need to be more respectful.

Why is there no room for different types of discourse when it comes to Transformers movies?



This is the best post I've ever read. You couldn't be more right if you tried.

[Golgo-13]

I love it how everyone blames Bay for the way the Transformers franchise turned out, when in fact Speilburg is as much to blame as Bay is.

He's the one who twisted Bay's arm into directing this in the first place, after Bay openly admitted he didn't like TF or want to do it. Speilburg, as a well respected director as he is, should have known better...

[Optimus_Prime_]

Such a boring attitude.

Someone tries to start a legitimately interesting, timely discussion and this is your response?

Not a big fan of the auteur theory, are you?
If you're viewing of the movie can be greatly enhanced with weed and alcohol, like summer Blockbusters, you probably shouldn't put this much thought into them.

[Vid Electricz]

If you're viewing of the movie can be greatly enhanced with weed and alcohol, like summer Blockbusters, you probably shouldn't put this much thought into them.


Well, he's right. It is a boring attitude.

I guess The Dark Knight and Inception were summer blockbusters that you weren't supposed to put any thought into either.

There was potential for this to be a great series, but that potential was flushed down the toilet in favor of cheap, mindless thrills and juvenile gags pandering to the lowest common denominator.

"It's Transformers dude. What were you expecting, Shakespeare?"

*sigh*

[Optimus_Prime_]

Well, he's right. It is a boring attitude.

I guess The Dark Knight and Inception were summer blockbusters that you weren't supposed to put any thought into either.

There was potential for this to be a great series, but that potential was flushed down the toilet in favor of cheap, mindless thrills and juvenile gags pandering to the lowest common denominator.

"It's Transformers dude. What were you expecting, Shakespeare?"

*sigh*
Batman may have produced some great(er) works of fiction, but Transformers always has and always will be mindless entertainment. It's a somewhat unique premise that's ultimate plot is very predictable and redundant. Giant robots start war, war continues, Autobots and Decepticons fight for resources, war comes to Earth...lather, rinse, repeat. I know you think because the characters were memorable to you at five it was brilliant, but it wasn't. There wasn't some intricate psychology behind Optimus and Megatron's rivalry. It was simple good versus simple evil. You're making the same mistake so many nerds make: they assume everyone else recognizes their properties brilliance and assumes because they see it, it must be there. It's a little silly. I mean c'mon, Optimus is a caricature of John Wayne. Jazz and Blaster rhyme and jive talk. Bumblebee is a loveable little love bug. Most of this is colorful nonsense. None of this is the breeding ground for great Sci-Fi like Inception.

So no, trying to appreciate something for it is rather than what you think it is is definitely not lazy.

[Hotwire]

Au contraire, my friend, the only people that are smug around here are the ones that insist you be a brain dead shill and not question anything. Then if you do question it, they insist you go read shakespeare, because clearly those are the only two options. That's smug. Calling people out on their bulls*it, well, it may make you uncomfortable and defensive because it's true, but it's not smug or self-righteous. This is all just a continuation of the trend where it's become "cool" to be ignorant.

Dude, you can call me an elitist or whatever you'd like, but the truth is that I'm a realist. If you love these movies so much that you feel compelled to defend them to death, go for it. If you feel insulted because I've merely called this movie on all it's bull...well, that's because you buy into it.

If you'd prefer to live life wearing rose colored glasses, that's entirely your option.
First off, what offended me was your comment on how, since this is the Transformers section, you were not expecting any intelligent replies. Saying that implies that you feel that because we are fans of Transformers, that it somehow impacts our intelligence. It does not, and it is rather arrogant of you to think so.

Second, I never once made any of the comments you suggested to me as being smug, so I'm unsure why you threw that at me. Nor am I, "defending this movie to the death," but rather disagreeing with your accusations.

Third, the reason I called you an elitist, is because you seem to be looking sharply down your nose at anyone who does not share your opinion. The points you make are opinions, not facts. Therefore, treating them as such, is an elitist thing to do.

Lastly, I'm curious why had nothing to say to my counter arguments. I imagine you have a good reason, but dodging them, as it seems you've done, only makes you look like more of a snob.

[Episode29]

Batman may have produced some great(er) works of fiction, but Transformers always has and always will be mindless entertainment. It's a somewhat unique premise that's ultimate plot is very predictable and redundant. Giant robots start war, war continues, Autobots and Decepticons fight for resources, war comes to Earth...lather, rinse, repeat. I know you think because the characters were memorable to you at five it was brilliant, but it wasn't. There wasn't some intricate psychology behind Optimus and Megatron's rivalry. It was simple good versus simple evil. You're making the same mistake so many nerds make: they assume everyone else recognizes their properties brilliance and assumes because they see it, it must be there. It's a little silly. I mean c'mon, Optimus is a caricature of John Wayne. Jazz and Blaster rhyme and jive talk. Bumblebee is a loveable little love bug. Most of this is colorful nonsense. None of this is the breeding ground for great Sci-Fi like Inception.

So no, trying to appreciate something for it is rather than what you think it is is definitely not lazy.

Okay, so if it's all "mindless entertainment" and "colourful nonsense," why do all three films feature either spoken references or full-on visual allusions to 9/11? Why does DotM make a blatant reference to the 1986 Challenger explosion? It is more than possible to make light, silly blockbusters without dragging real world tragedies into the mix.

It's that approach to filmmaking that makes Bay such a fascinating, and problematic, artist.

[Episode29]

I love it how everyone blames Bay for the way the Transformers franchise turned out, when in fact Speilburg is as much to blame as Bay is.

He's the one who twisted Bay's arm into directing this in the first place, after Bay openly admitted he didn't like TF or want to do it. Speilburg, as a well respected director as he is, should have known better...

I agree 100%. Spielberg has bizarrely gotten away scott-free - and with millions of dollars - despite being so closely associated with the series. While the content of the films has been steered predominantly by Bay's sensibilities, it is strange that Spielberg, a sensitive and respectful filmmaker if ever there was one, has been so hands off. Back in the 80s his produced works (Poltergeist, Gremlins, Back to the Future) all shared his humanistic slant. I would love to hear his reasoning behind the content of the Transformers films. Frankly, I'd be amazed if he's actually enjoyed a single one.

[Hotwire]

Okay, so if it's all "mindless entertainment" and "colourful nonsense," why do all three films feature either spoken references or full-on visual allusions to 9/11? Why does DotM make a blatant reference to the 1986 Challenger explosion? It is more than possible to make light, silly blockbusters without dragging real world tragedies into the mix.

It's that approach to filmmaking that makes Bay such a fascinating, and problematic, artist.

I know the part in ROTF where they mention 9/11, but where is the reference in the other two.
Actually, since this is a Transformers movie, wouldn't the destruction of the ship be a reference to the episode of the show where the Autobots are forced to leave Earth and everyone thinks their ship is destroyed?

[MessiahDecoy123]

Batman may have produced some great(er) works of fiction, but Transformers always has and always will be mindless entertainment. It's a somewhat unique premise that's ultimate plot is very predictable and redundant. Giant robots start war, war continues, Autobots and Decepticons fight for resources, war comes to Earth...lather, rinse, repeat. I know you think because the characters were memorable to you at five it was brilliant, but it wasn't. There wasn't some intricate psychology behind Optimus and Megatron's rivalry. It was simple good versus simple evil. You're making the same mistake so many nerds make: they assume everyone else recognizes their properties brilliance and assumes because they see it, it must be there. It's a little silly. I mean c'mon, Optimus is a caricature of John Wayne. Jazz and Blaster rhyme and jive talk. Bumblebee is a loveable little love bug. Most of this is colorful nonsense. None of this is the breeding ground for great Sci-Fi like Inception.

So no, trying to appreciate something for it is rather than what you think it is is definitely not lazy.
Batman was never high art and Inception isn't great sci-fi. There's not much to Batman other than guy dresses up like bat to fight crazy criminals and there's not much to Inception other than a heist film mixed with reality based dreams. Nolan's films seem tend to make people feel smart with very little actual substance.

Why can't you have a movie about robots with souls fighting, a worker class versus a military class? One type of machine fights for tyranny and the other for freedom. Add a little Ghost in the Shell, cyberpunk and space opera and you could have a great sci-fi trilogy. Why does it have to be mindless and stupid like a Schumacher Batman movie?

[Episode29]

I know the part in ROTF where they mention 9/11, but where is the reference in the other two.
Actually, since this is a Transformers movie, wouldn't the destruction of the ship be a reference to the episode of the show where the Autobots are forced to leave Earth and everyone thinks their ship is destroyed?

The other two are visual references. In the first, it's the scene depicting Megatron, in jet form, crashing through a high rise. In DotM it's the crumpling of the Chicago tower.

Now, again, those two instances could obviously be waved off as making a mountain out of a molehill. However, it's the method in which Bay frames his shots and depicts the action that's troubling. Obviously, art is open to interpretation, but - for myself, and several others - these two sequences read like very intentional visual allusions. After all, Bay is attempting to sell disaster movie scenarios, and it's a very easy shorthand technique to contrast on-screen catastrophes with real world ones.

Now, I'm not against directors evoking 9/11 in popcorn fare. Spielberg pulled it off extremely well in War of the Worlds, and Danny Boyle with 28 Days Later. It can be done. But there's a crass sensationalism and lack of humanity to Bay's technique that I find distasteful.

As for the shuttle explosion, it may reference an episode of the show, but it's shot eerily similar to the Challenger explosion. I was honestly a bit taken aback when I saw it. Again, it's Bay's approach I take issue with, not the actual act of showing an exploding shuttle.

[Vid Electricz]

Batman may have produced some great(er) works of fiction, but Transformers always has and always will be mindless entertainment. It's a somewhat unique premise that's ultimate plot is very predictable and redundant. Giant robots start war, war continues, Autobots and Decepticons fight for resources, war comes to Earth...lather, rinse, repeat. I know you think because the characters were memorable to you at five it was brilliant, but it wasn't. There wasn't some intricate psychology behind Optimus and Megatron's rivalry. It was simple good versus simple evil. You're making the same mistake so many nerds make: they assume everyone else recognizes their properties brilliance and assumes because they see it, it must be there. It's a little silly. I mean c'mon, Optimus is a caricature of John Wayne. Jazz and Blaster rhyme and jive talk. Bumblebee is a loveable little love bug. Most of this is colorful nonsense. None of this is the breeding ground for great Sci-Fi like Inception.

So no, trying to appreciate something for it is rather than what you think it is is definitely not lazy.



See, that's such a lazy attitude. I've actually never been a Transformers fan (cartoon or otherwise), but I can see when there is potential in a property to be great, if treated correctly. Heck, most anything has potential, but we still get stuff like "Smurfs". *sigh*

The way you described Transformers: Giant robot ware, rinse, repeat, etc... You could easily say the same thing about Batman: Guy in bat-suit fights colorful bad guys, rinse, repeat. Pretty good excuse for a mindless action flick, right?

Joel Schumacher showed how to do it WRONG. He dumbed it down and made it for the lowest common denominator. Christopher Nolan was creative and innovative and saw the potential in the character to do something great...and he did. All it takes is a little insight and thoughtfulness.


I still offer TDK and Inception as the gold standard for a summer blockbuster thus far (which isn't to say I don't enjoy action movies from time to time, but those were pretty great for what they were).

Take a look at the movie Wall-E. It's about robots, right? The first half of the movie has ZERO dialogue with two robots interacting and it was still interesting. It's called storytelling. Pixar does it well, sub-par film makers (Michael Bay) haven't got a clue. I'm not saying that Transformers should have been like Wall-E, but perhaps Bay should have taken a note from Pixar regarding how to tell a good, insightful story with characters you actually care about.

[Vid Electricz]

Batman was never high art and Inception isn't great sci-fi. There's not much to Batman other than guy dresses up like bat to fight crazy criminals and there's not much to Inception other than a heist film mixed with reality based dreams. Nolan's films seem tend to make people feel smart with very little actual substance.

Why can't you have a movie about robots with souls fighting, a worker class versus a military class? One type of machine fights for tyranny and the other for freedom. Add a little Ghost in the Shell, cyberpunk and space opera and you could have a great sci-fi trilogy. Why does it have to be mindless and stupid like a Schumacher Batman movie?

The other two are visual references. In the first, it's the scene depicting Megatron, in jet form, crashing through a high rise. In DotM it's the crumpling of the Chicago tower.

Now, again, those two instances could obviously be waved off as making a mountain out of a molehill. However, it's the method in which Bay frames his shots and depicts the action that's troubling. Obviously, art is open to interpretation, but - for myself, and several others - these two sequences read like very intentional visual allusions. After all, Bay is attempting to sell disaster movie scenarios, and it's a very easy shorthand technique to contrast on-screen catastrophes with real world ones.

Now, I'm not against directors evoking 9/11 in popcorn fare. Spielberg pulled it off extremely well in War of the Worlds, and Danny Boyle with 28 Days Later. It can be done. But there's a crass sensationalism and lack of humanity to Bay's technique that I find distasteful.

As for the shuttle explosion, it may reference an episode of the show, but it's shot eerily similar to the Challenger explosion. I was honestly a bit taken aback when I saw it. Again, it's Bay's approach I take issue with, not the actual act of showing an exploding shuttle.



BINGO BANGO. You guys are speaking my language.

Where's the creativity and heart in these films?

Answer: There isn't any.

[def28]

First off, what offended me was your comment on how, since this is the Transformers section, you were not expecting any intelligent replies. Saying that implies that you feel that because we are fans of Transformers, that it somehow impacts our intelligence. It does not, and it is rather arrogant of you to think so.

Second, I never once made any of the comments you suggested to me as being smug, so I'm unsure why you threw that at me. Nor am I, "defending this movie to the death," but rather disagreeing with your accusations.

Third, the reason I called you an elitist, is because you seem to be looking sharply down your nose at anyone who does not share your opinion. The points you make are opinions, not facts. Therefore, treating them as such, is an elitist thing to do.


Lastly, I'm curious why had nothing to say to my counter arguments. I imagine you have a good reason, but dodging them, as it seems you've done, only makes you look like more of a snob.

:up:

[Vid Electricz]

First off, what offended me was your comment on how, since this is the Transformers section, you were not expecting any intelligent replies. Saying that implies that you feel that because we are fans of Transformers, that it somehow impacts our intelligence. It does not, and it is rather arrogant of you to think so.

Second, I never once made any of the comments you suggested to me as being smug, so I'm unsure why you threw that at me. Nor am I, "defending this movie to the death," but rather disagreeing with your accusations.

Third, the reason I called you an elitist, is because you seem to be looking sharply down your nose at anyone who does not share your opinion. The points you make are opinions, not facts. Therefore, treating them as such, is an elitist thing to do.

Lastly, I'm curious why had nothing to say to my counter arguments. I imagine you have a good reason, but dodging them, as it seems you've done, only makes you look like more of a snob.

First, I wanted to ask how the view was from that high horse you're sitting on?

You really seem to get off on insulting people. You may perceive these things from films, but that does not mean others share your views. And, it most certainly does not make them any less intelligent than you. Nor, does it give you the right to smugly sit their and insult them.

You have a point, that as long as people buy movie tickets, Hollywood will continue to produce what sells. That's simply smart business. Every company with a CEO with half a brain will do the same thing, and they would fail if they didn't.

To address each of your issues...

Sexism. Sorry, pal, but sex sells. If that's a problem for you, you're going to be pissed off for a long time. Hollywood has been casting eye candy since they started, and they will continue to do so until the general public gets it through their skulls that looks aren't everything.


Racism.
Since when is not casting a minority as your lead,made you a racist director? While it is true, that not many minority actors get big rolls, and even fewer get awards, I don't see how this makes the directors racists. Spielberg, for example. This is the guy who essentially shut down Megan Fox's career for making a Hitler remark, yet only one of his films has ever stared a minority in a lead roll. Does this make him a racist? The same can be said for James Cameron.

Jingoism.
Seriously? Bay portrays the American military kicking the crap out of invading alien robots, and this somehow means that he supports aggressive foreign policy and advocates the use of threats and unprovoked force to protect America? That's a bit of a stretch.

Homophobia.
There is a huge difference between belittling someone's manhood, and being homophobic. A homophobe believes that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, somehow effects their way of life. Telling a guy to run home to his boyfriend is not. That comment is designed to insult his masculinity. This is something a lot of guys take seriously. Society has shaped the role of the common man, and we guys tend to try and fit it. Women do similar things, too.

I hope this clears thing up for you, but then again, I'm just a Transformers fan, and you know, you really shouldn't expect much from us.

By the way, I have a new term for you to review. Elitist. I think it may just fit you.





Yeah, that was rude of me to go for the ad hominem like that, but I really did try to make it explicitly clear in the initial post what I was talking about. Just looking at the responses, it's clear that many posters didn't quite understand that and instead interpreted it as an attack.

I can go through each of your counter arguments if you'd like me too, but to be honest (and I'm not insulting you here), the justifications and reasoning you've listed are only excuses validating the reason for the existence of sexism, racism, etc... for example, you comment about sexism:

Sexism. Sorry, pal, but sex sells. If that's a problem for you, you're going to be pissed off for a long time. Hollywood has been casting eye candy since they started, and they will continue to do so until the general public gets it through their skulls that looks aren't everything.


Yes, sex does sell. Our culture is obsessed with it. No one can deny that. It's not even that looks aren't everything (Most movie stars ARE good looking after all), the problem I have is the blatant objectification of women in these films that, like it or not, reinforces in many a pre-adolescent's (and men in general) minds that women are to be viewed as shiny trophies to be won or lost. I see it all the time, even today, Men who think they're James Bond talking about and treating women like pieces of meat. It would be stupid to say that all men are pigs, but they buy into the kind of mindless group-think that this movie promotes, then they are. It's not to say that movies are to blame, 'cause we all know that's not true, but along with a zillion other things, they are a contributing factor in how our culture operates.


I can tell, how these things make sense in the framework of the world that Michael bay has set up, but I'm trying to look at things from outside the box. Questioning why these things are the way they are and why more people don't care.

So yeah, sorry again for the needless slam.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Batman was never high art and Inception isn't great sci-fi. There's not much to Batman other than guy dresses up like bat to fight crazy criminals and there's not much to Inception other than a heist film mixed with reality based dreams. Nolan's films seem tend to make people feel smart with very little actual substance.

Why can't you have a movie about robots with souls fighting, a worker class versus a military class? One type of machine fights for tyranny and the other for freedom. Add a little Ghost in the Shell, cyberpunk and space opera and you could have a great sci-fi trilogy. Why does it have to be mindless and stupid like a Schumacher Batman movie?
If you like these things I wouldn't reccommend Transformers, it's a pretty shallow work of fiction. If Bay tried to make it intelligent the end result would be so different from Transformers you'd hate it more. Hell the plot to the last film was pretty much identical to two cartoon episodes from the eighties.

[Hotwire]

Yeah, that was rude of me to go for the ad hominem like that, but I really did try to make it explicitly clear in the initial post what I was talking about. Just looking at the responses, it's clear that many posters didn't quite understand that and instead interpreted it as an attack.

I can go through each of your counter arguments if you'd like me too, but to be honest (and I'm not insulting you here), the justifications and reasoning you've listed are only excuses validating the reason for the existence of sexism, racism, etc... for example, you comment about sexism:

Sexism. Sorry, pal, but sex sells. If that's a problem for you, you're going to be pissed off for a long time. Hollywood has been casting eye candy since they started, and they will continue to do so until the general public gets it through their skulls that looks aren't everything.


Yes, sex does sell. Our culture is obsessed with it. No one can deny that. It's not even that looks aren't everything (Most movie stars ARE good looking after all), the problem I have is the blatant objectification of women in these films that, like it or not, reinforces in many a pre-adolescent's (and men in general) minds that women are to be viewed as shiny trophies to be won or lost. I see it all the time, even today, Men who think they're James Bond talking about and treating women like pieces of meat. It would be stupid to say that all men are pigs, but they buy into the kind of mindless group-think that this movie promotes, then they are. It's not to say that movies are to blame, 'cause we all know that's not true, but along with a zillion other things, they are a contributing factor in how our culture operates.


I can tell, how these things make sense in the framework of the world that Michael bay has set up, but I'm trying to look at things from outside the box. Questioning why these things are the way they are and why more people don't care.

So yeah, sorry again for the needless slam.
My wife is my trophy and I am very proud to have her. I won the heart of a woman who loves me, and it would pain me deeply to lose her.

This is what I think they were getting at. The fact that Rosie happens to hot, just like most actresses in Hollywood, is beside the point. Besides, what man would not be proud to have a hot girl on his arm, or girl with a hot guy?

Keep going with my excuses.

[Vid Electricz]

My wife is my trophy and I am very proud to have her. I won the heart of a woman who loves me, and it would pain me deeply to lose her.

This is what I think they were getting at. The fact that Rosie happens to hot, just like most actresses in Hollywood, is beside the point. Besides, what man would not be proud to have a hot girl on his arm, or girl with a hot guy?

Keep going with my excuses.


Didn't you say our society needs to realize that looks aren't everything? I've never thought of my significant other as a trophy that I won and therefore owned before, so we'll just leave that.


I presume your wife is a fully realized person with hopes, plans and dreams and a great personality, right? I'm sure she's got quirks and negative qualities as well. That's the kind of stuff that equals a fully realized character. And I realize that's a lot to ask of a character from a "mindless action flick", but others have done, so that shouldn't be an excuse.

The fact that the actress in this movie is an underwear model says it all. The fact that she's "hot" is not beside the point, it is exactly the point of her existing in this movie. This woman was never meant to have any characteristics other than "be hot, be sexy, be seductive...uh, be hot while running from explosions".

She's obviously and unabashedly there for guys to ogle.

Clarice Starling from Silence of the lambs, off the top of my head, is a well-developed female character, Marion from Raiders of the lost ark (from Spielberg, natch). Not a slinky underwear model who can only pout at the camera and look sexy to fulfill guys male power fantasies.

[OoAnd1]

Why can't you have a movie about robots with souls fighting, a worker class versus a military class? One type of machine fights for tyranny and the other for freedom. Add a little Ghost in the Shell, cyberpunk and space opera and you could have a great sci-fi trilogy. Why does it have to be mindless and stupid like a Schumacher Batman movie?

Because then you'd have another nerdy trilogy like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.

Why can't us mindless d-bags have our own sci-fi trilogy?

[Hotwire]

Didn't you say our society needs to realize that looks aren't everything? I've never thought of my significant other as a trophy that I won and therefore owned before, so we'll just leave that.

I don't own her, but, as I said, I did win her heart. Cherish and treasure her, as she does me. We are very proud to have each other. For the record, she felt my statement was very sweet.

Now, please, move on to my other rebuttals. I'm real curious about the jingoism one.

[Vid Electricz]

I don't own her, but, as I said, I did win her heart. Cherish and treasure her, as she does me. We are very proud to have each other. For the record, she felt my statement was very sweet.

Now, please, move on to my other rebuttals. I'm real curious about the jingoism one.


Why? It it seems my first response went completely unnoticed. There's no actual discussion taking place here.

I know you were upset about the "reading/comprehension" remark I made, so I know you read this part of my response:


I can tell, how these things make sense in the framework of the world that Michael bay has set up, but I'm trying to look at things from outside the box. Questioning why these things are the way they are and why more people don't care.


That's the thing right there. Your responses were on a superficial level, devising reasons why they're there, when they never had to be in the first place.

Sure the military can be shown making an effort, etc... but there's no need for the over the top masturbatory military fetishism showcased in these films. It's so blatant and in-your-face that it's impossible to miss. Yet another case of a hack trying to shove glib political agenda's down our throats in a movie about giant robots from space.

:awesome:

[Hotwire]

Why? It it seems my first response went completely unnoticed. There's no actual discussion taking place here.

I know you were upset about the "reading/comprehension" remark I made, so I know you read this part of my response:


I can tell, how these things make sense in the framework of the world that Michael bay has set up, but I'm trying to look at things from outside the box. Questioning why these things are the way they are and why more people don't care.


That's the thing right there. Your responses were on a superficial level, devising reasons why they're there, when they never had to be in the first place.

Sure the military can be shown making an effort, etc... but there's no need for the over the top masturbatory military fetishism showcased in these films. It's so blatant and in-your-face that it's impossible to miss. Yet another case of a hack trying to shove glib political agenda's down our throats in a movie about giant robots from space.

:awesome:

Wow. You think Michael Bay has some sort of military political agenda? And you get this from him showing the military doing a lot to protect the rear of the world from evil giant robots? Let me ask you this. If the Transformers were real, and they were actually attacking the planet, why the Hell do you think the American military is going to do?

Besides, what you describe is not jingoism. Jingoism is a belief in an overly aggressive foreign policy that uses threats and force to "protect" that countries way of life. It seems to also imply that the level is irrational. For example, invading a country that poses no real threat to you, but that you feel may be a threat.

How does Bay's portrays of the American military fit into that? If Anything, he shows restraint. I remember another movie about invading aliens where the president nuked Houston, TX. That seems more like what our military would actually do.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Wow. You think Michael Bay has some sort of military political agenda? And you get this from him showing the military doing a lot to protect the rear of the world from evil giant robots? Let me ask you this. If the Transformers were real, and they were actually attacking the planet, why the Hell do you think the American military is going to do?

Besides, what you describe is not jingoism. Jingoism is a belief in an overly aggressive foreign policy that uses threats and force to "protect" that countries way of life. It seems to also imply that the level is irrational. For example, invading a country that poses no real threat to you, but that you feel may be a threat.

How does Bay's portrays of the American military fit into that? If Anything, he shows restraint. I remember another movie about invading aliens where the president nuked Houston, TX. That seems more like what our military would actually do.
jin·go·ism

flag waving: an appeal intended to arouse patriotic emotions



That's exactly the way the US military is used in Bayformers.

You don't need the military playing such a prominent role in a Transformers movie. The Decepticons have far superior technology so it would make sense if the military allowed the Autobots to be the first line of defense.

[Grievous]

-Sexism: Specifically, the objectification of women- Women are trophies to be won or lost. They must always appear sexy and seductive (for all the adolescent boys and peter-pan syndrome boy-men watching).

-Racism: If you're not white, you exist as a peripheral character. Most likely comic relief or some other stereotype (the stoic black man). In other words, you're disposable and you're a joke (blatantly racist buck toothed robots not withstanding).

-Jingoism: America is the best and the military is #1. English, dude, English.

-Homophobia: "You gonna go cry to your boyfriend? Pussy!" There's plenty more where that came from. Needless to say, these movies are riddled with the kind of sophomoric, juvenile macho-man, tough guy behavior that only the most ignorant among us (and little kids who don't know any better) buy in to.

My response to each of your complaints.


-Sexism: You sound like a women who is sick of seeing girls wear make-up and working out to keep their bodies in shape. Since when are women always the sex objects. Alot of women I bet wish their boyfriends/husbands had a six pack while alot of men wish their girlfriends/wifes had D size breast. It's in human nature to want a mate that appears to be in top shape. What about 007? Sex sells and there is no going around it.




-Racism: How come no one is saying that Ironhide is the trigger happy jar head white guy? Who thinks your a wus unless you drive a pickup truck. It's a movie about Robots and action. Not a movie that is trying to give people the wrong message about blacks. If the Autobots were all voice by white people and the Decepticons were all voiced by black people than I would make a case on Racism. But thats not the case is it?





-Jingoism: I would rather have a movie were the military is treated like #1 than a movie were they are seen as evil. Our Men and Women in the service should atleast get the respect to not have movies make them out as the bad guys. For real dude you are sounding like a movie is in the wrong if they are not against the military and if so you need your head looked at.


-Homophobia: How you see Transformers as Himophobia is beyond me and I really have nothing to add on this subject.

[MessiahDecoy123]

If you like these things I wouldn't reccommend Transformers, it's a pretty shallow work of fiction. If Bay tried to make it intelligent the end result would be so different from Transformers you'd hate it more. Hell the plot to the last film was pretty much identical to two cartoon episodes from the eighties.
Transformers doesn't have to be shallow or weak fiction.

Transformers are machines that are alive and have souls. The Autobots were originally worker class machines. The decepticons were a military class. A multi-million year civil war between the two robot classes took place as Autobots wanted freedom and the decepticons wanted tyranny. Their war is extended to Earth when they search the galaxy for energy to win a strategic advantage. This can be a great sci-fi story in the right hands.

Compare that to Batman where boy who's rich parents get shot trains and becomes an adult who dresses up like a bat to fight a list of insane super villains. This sounds far dumber than the Transformers premise. But it all comes down to execution. A silly concept can be made into something special in the right hands.

[MessiahDecoy123]

My response to each of your complaints.


-Sexism: You sound like a women who is sick of seeing girls wear make-up and working out to keep their bodies in shape. Since when are women always the sex objects. Alot of women I bet wish their boyfriends/husbands had a six pack while alot of men wish their girlfriends/wifes had D size breast. It's in human nature to want a mate that appears to be in top shape. What about 007? Sex sells and there is no going around it.
The way Bay treats women like empty sex objects is far different from the Bond girls who are often just as cunning as Bond himself.



-Racism: How come no one is saying that Ironhide is the trigger happy jar head white guy? Who thinks your a wus unless you drive a pickup truck. It's a movie about Robots and action. Not a movie that is trying to give people the wrong message about blacks. If the Autobots were all voice by white people and the Decepticons were all voiced by black people than I would make a case on Racism. But thats not the case is it?
But the movie does send the wrong message about blacks. It lampoons black culture making the two urban robots the but of the joke. Black culture is simply being laughed at. It's completely unnecessary.




-Jingoism: I would rather have a movie were the military is treated like #1 than a movie were they are seen as evil. Our Men and Women in the service should atleast get the respect to not have movies make them out as the bad guys. For real dude you are sounding like a movie is in the wrong if they are not against the military and if so you need your head looked at.
.
No one is saying the US military should be the villain. But why should a Transformer movie be used as a blatant army recruitment ad? The movie is called Transformers not GI Joe.

[Hotwire]

jin·go·ism

flag waving: an appeal intended to arouse patriotic emotions



That's exactly the way the US military is used in Bayformers.

You don't need the military playing such a prominent role in a Transformers movie. The Decepticons have far superior technology so it would make sense if the military allowed the Autobots to be the first line of defense.

Um...
http://i.word.com/idictionary/jingoism
Main Entry: jin·go·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈjiŋ-(ˌ)gō-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1878
: extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy

It's a little more than just putting the military out front. Besides, do you honestly think that the American military would just sit back and let the Autobots handle it? No. I think Bay portrayed them just like they would be. How do I know that? Because they would not have given him so much cooperation if he hadn't.

[OoAnd1]

Vid Electricz, where in the UK are you from?

[Episode29]

Speaking to jingoism, there's also the opening sequence featuring Autobots, under American orders, utterly demolishing human "terrorist threats" in other countries. If ever there was a sequence meant to invoke jubilant cries of "U-S-A! U-S-A!" that was it.

[OoAnd1]

Speaking to jingoism, there's also the opening sequence featuring Autobots, under American orders, utterly demolishing human "terrorist threats" in other countries. If ever there was a sequence meant to invoke jubilant cries of "U-S-A! U-S-A!" that was it.

Ah, Canada. Maybe Vid Electricz is from there instead.

[def28]

The way Bay treats women like empty sex objects is far different from the Bond girls who are often just as cunning as Bond himself.

What? How many Bond films have you seen? Some bond dames are pretty one dimensional.Ever seen "You only live Twice". I havnt seen it for awhile but I remember the sexism and racism in that film being way worse then DOTM. A few of the girls in that film are pretty weak minded and just there to sleep with Bond. Chicks are running around in Bikinis on active volcanos. Hahaha Its awesome... and very stupid. Much like DOTM. They try to pass off Bond as an asian. I love that film. There are for sure very strong Bond Girls. But there are also a handful who are there for nothing but to have sex and look hot.

Rosie was cunning enough in the film to get Megatron to take out Sentinel. The movies just written badly. Shes not supposed to be empty.

[def28]

Sure the military can be shown making an effort, etc... but there's no need for the over the top masturbatory military fetishism showcased in these films. It's so blatant and in-your-face that it's impossible to miss. Yet another case of a hack trying to shove glib political agenda's down our throats in a movie about giant robots from space.

:awesome:

Have you ever seen a Michael Bay movie before DOTM? Do you enjoy his other films? Your not a Transformers fan and if you saw ROTF (which was criticized for racism way more) you would know what to expect with all the military screen time. So seriously why come back? Why give Bay your money and support this film?

[bell110]

Vid, why have you not answered my reply?

[Optimus_Prime_]

Transformers doesn't have to be shallow or weak fiction.

Transformers are machines that are alive and have souls. The Autobots were originally worker class machines. The decepticons were a military class. A multi-million year civil war between the two robot classes took place as Autobots wanted freedom and the decepticons wanted tyranny. Their war is extended to Earth when they search the galaxy for energy to win a strategic advantage. This can be a great sci-fi story in the right hands.
If the Alien in Alien suddenly spoke in a John Wayne-esque voice, you'd struggle to take the concept as seriously as Ridley Scott intended it to be taken. Transformers are ENGLISH speaking aliens who interact and have fun adventures with humans. You take that aspect away and you'll have something that only vaguely resembles Transformers. Even the basic premise though is nonsensical crap. No advanced robot gains any strategic advantage from transforming into our cars and trucks.

[MessiahDecoy123]

If the Alien in Alien suddenly spoke in a John Wayne-esque voice, you'd struggle to take the concept as seriously as Ridley Scott intended it to be taken. Transformers are ENGLISH speaking aliens who interact and have fun adventures with humans. You take that aspect away and you'll have something that only vaguely resembles Transformers. Even the basic premise though is nonsensical crap. No advanced robot gains any strategic advantage from transforming into our cars and trucks.
1) Intelligent aliens would adapt to their new environment. They studied the local culture then adapted. For Optimus Prime it was a truck driver.

2) Transformers don't go on "fun" adventures with humans. They typically stop the decepticons from destroying Earth or humanity.

3) You don't take anything away by adding cyberpunk themes and making TF an epic space opera.

5) So your saying if you were stuck on a primitive alien planet it wouldn't help to be able to blend in with the surroundings.

[Optimus_Prime_]

1) Intelligent aliens would adapt to their new environment. They studied the local culture then adapted. For Optimus Prime it was a truck driver.
There is no advantage they gain from communicating with us, period. We're ants to them. Do you try to learn the ant language.
2) Transformers don't go on "fun" adventures with humans. They typically stop the decepticons from destroying Earth or humanity.
What show were you watching? Because it wasn't Transformers. Going off with Spike and then casually coming across those no-goodniks the Decepticons was pretty much every episode for the first two seasons. The third season featured the lion's share of it's episodes with Daniel and Grimlock who would stupidly walk into every trap imaginable. No, Transformers is not, nor ever was a gritty war drama. That's all you.
3) You don't take anything away by adding cyberpunk themes and making TF an epic space opera.
Please keep cyberpunk the f*** away from Transformers.
5) So your saying if you were stuck on a primitive alien planet it wouldn't help to be able to blend in with the surroundings.
Not really. When you're that much more overwhelmingly powerful, no.

[CEREBRAL....]

BINGO BANGO. You guys are speaking my language.

Where's the creativity and heart in these films?

Answer: There isn't any.


I just came into this thread to say welcome, and i think its wrong for a few posters to come in here and jump on you for sharing your views. Thank you and it is insightful reading your first post.

i think the ones who jump on you are offended by you being an individual and your welling to think instead of just posting a bunch of crap.

[Grievous]

The way Bay treats women like empty sex objects is far different from the Bond girls who are often just as cunning as Bond himself.




But the movie does send the wrong message about blacks. It lampoons black culture making the two urban robots the but of the joke. Black culture is simply being laughed at. It's completely unnecessary.





No one is saying the US military should be the villain. But why should a Transformer movie be used as a blatant army recruitment ad? The movie is called Transformers not GI Joe.

I agree with you that the Bond girls can be just as cunning and clever as Bond himself but in TF1 Fox's character helps Bee get on that truck and she drives him around while he shoots at Brawl, and Rosie's character talks Megatron into saving Prime's life. The Girls in Tranformers are not just standing on the sidelines crying for the battle to be over they are trying to do things to help the cause.

Making jokes about Black culture is unneeded in a action movie. But Nobody would of cryed racist if a robot with a bad cowboy voice that acted stupid and almost got himself killed alot.

Tranformers could have been all about robots but people would want to know how come humans are not helping the Autobots? Bay has ever right to fly a flag in his movie as you do in your front yard. I think the reason the army had such a huge role was to make a Decepticon attack seem real. That everybody was involed not just the Autobots.

[Spider-Who?]

Vid, I find your attitude to be quite disappointing. Your views and compassion for higher cinema is commendable, but in your zeal to push your views forward, you are being utterly condescending, immature, and inflammatory; all the while preaching the need for intellectual debate. The juxtaposition is sad, especially when the debate concerns the concept of film degrading people, among other things.

I was originally going to quote many of your posts that supported my opinion above, but A) I realized it would just take too long, and B) I'm sure your comments were fully intentional and therefore I don't need to show them to you.

If you want to have honest and rewarding intelligent discussion, I advise that you act accordingly. Insulting others for their jokes, differing points of view, etc does nothing to help your cause nor your image.

[chamber-music]

Racial stereotypying in a Micheal Bay movie I refuse to believe it
http://i51.tinypic.com/1y8izk.gif



J/K :oldrazz:

[Spider-Who?]

:pal:

[Grievous]

Vid do you mind telling me why you feel the need to attack Michael Bay about Sexism? When there is stuff like 007,playboy,MMA card girls in full force in are world today. Does this also mean when a teenage girl puts make-up on and wears shorts and a thong to the mall to get guys attention that she is being sexist to herself? Women choose to wear less to get more attention.

[Spider-Who?]

I get that he wants the Transformers movies to be taken a little bit more seriously, but in the same vein, you can't get milk from an orange. Its a movie about robots who can transform into cars blowing stuff up. Just the concept alone appeals to male fantasies and interests. In Bay's mind (I assume), the only thing that can top that is including pretty women. But to damn him for that, when ALL of media praises beauty and sex appeal...I kind of feel like Vid is barking up the wrong tree to a certain degree.

[nogster]

I get that he wants the Transformers movies to be taken a little bit more seriously, but in the same vein, you can't get milk from an orange.

Why not?
If we can have movies of substance about people that have evolved to have outlandish superpowers and physical properties, A superman alien that is the last son of his home planet and gets godlike powers from our sun. A teenager gets bitten by a spider and becomes a spiderman. or how about the story of a group of costumed vigilantes along with a man that dies and reconstructs himself to become a naked blue being with godlike powers.
How are these tales, any less outrageous than an alien race of sentient machines that battle over our planets resources and protection?

If the director takes the source material seriously, constructs it with a degree of respect and treats the audience accordingly. then there is no reason why a Transformers film cannot be an epic scifi blockbuster that doesnt insult ones intelligence.

The 1st TF film. despite its flaws and "Bayisms" might not've had much substance. but at least it had some heart and had that sense of awe. The basic premise had been established. then Bay ruins it with juvenile shenanigans, and pisses on the personalities and depth of the title characters and the primary themes of the decades of source material that had transcended its "toyline" origins.

The "ultimate doom" storyline that DOTM took inspiration from couldve been handled so much better. and the title characters. Man did they get bastardized. The film series started off with promise. but now that it is all said and done, its Transformers in name only.
Bayformers really is a fitting title.

[bell110]

Exactly. I think people might not have imagination. They see what was a silly cartoon and think there is no way not to make the movies silly.

[fallenAngel]

Batman was never high art and Inception isn't great sci-fi. There's not much to Batman other than guy dresses up like bat to fight crazy criminals and there's not much to Inception other than a heist film mixed with reality based dreams. Nolan's films seem tend to make people feel smart with very little actual substance.


Because then you'd have another nerdy trilogy like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.

Why can't us mindless d-bags have our own sci-fi trilogy?

My two favorite quotes on this list. Though Star Wars I wouldn't really call that nerdy. The Expanded universe is but the movies themselves are the most accessible and mainstream of any scifi/fantasy works. And Nolan, I won't go there since I know I'm in such an extreme minority. But there are dozens of us, dozens!

As far as this whole thread is concerned I feel like this is trying to analyze commercials. I do this all the time and the response I get from my friends and family were, "huh, there was a commercial." I find engaging advertising to be fun and stimulating and am a little frustrated at times that people don't take the time to analyze all the information that is presented to us every second of everyday. But then, the way people pass it off I also don't think it necessarily harms us that much either.

Whole books can be written on subliminal messaging though so who knows. It is hard to figure it out and at the end of the day movies like Transformers exist because one can drive ones self crazy looking for "meaning in Pauly Shore movies".

I do hate when people try to defend movies like this as being "mindless" on purpose though. Why would anything every want to be mindless on purpose, there is a difference between being accessible and fun entertainment and being offensive because it is so dumb.

I don't think that Michael Bay is in anyway a passive director. His composition is way too thought out for me to by that. He throws a lot on his pallet, but he knows what's there and he knows what he is pushing. Therefore I don't think it is wrong to attack him or what messages you may find in the films he makes. Its just that those said messages may in fact be debatable.

(I will side with those posters who believe that finding black stereotypes in characters like the twins and Jar Jar Binks may in fact be a representation of their own racist feelings though and I am glad I am not the only one who thinks so.)

Oh and I think that these boards actually promote much more intelligent conversation than a lot of other boards. but it is the internet, you can't have too high of standards.

[Vid Electricz]

My two favorite quotes on this list. Though Star Wars I wouldn't really call that nerdy. The Expanded universe is but the movies themselves are the most accessible and mainstream of any scifi/fantasy works. And Nolan, I won't go there since I know I'm in such an extreme minority. But there are dozens of us, dozens!

As far as this whole thread is concerned I feel like this is trying to analyze commercials. I do this all the time and the response I get from my friends and family were, "huh, there was a commercial." I find engaging advertising to be fun and stimulating and am a little frustrated at times that people don't take the time to analyze all the information that is presented to us every second of everyday. But then, the way people pass it off I also don't think it necessarily harms us that much either.

Whole books can be written on subliminal messaging though so who knows. It is hard to figure it out and at the end of the day movies like Transformers exist because one can drive ones self crazy looking for "meaning in Pauly Shore movies".

I do hate when people try to defend movies like this as being "mindless" on purpose though. Why would anything every want to be mindless on purpose, there is a difference between being accessible and fun entertainment and being offensive because it is so dumb.

I don't think that Michael Bay is in anyway a passive director. His composition is way too thought out for me to by that. He throws a lot on his pallet, but he knows what's there and he knows what he is pushing. Therefore I don't think it is wrong to attack him or what messages you may find in the films he makes. Its just that those said messages may in fact be debatable.

(I will side with those posters who believe that finding black stereotypes in characters like the twins and Jar Jar Binks may in fact be a representation of their own racist feelings though and I am glad I am not the only one who thinks so.)

Oh and I think that these boards actually promote much more intelligent conversation than a lot of other boards. but it is the internet, you can't have too high of standards.


Analyzing movies like this, to me, isn't the practice of look at and evaluating the actual content (of which there is little), but rather taking a good hard look at the way the content both reflects and affects larger societal issues in our culture.

[fallenAngel]

Analyzing movies like this, to me, isn't the practice of look at and evaluating the actual content (of which there is little), but rather taking a good hard look at the way the content both reflects and affects larger societal issues in our culture.

"Reflects" is one thing. This is tangible. Though I would argue it takes analyzing what is actually in the movie and avoiding the dangers of projecting what you think you see based of your own opinions about the world and everything in it. (like the south park episode about the poop and the pee). And I'm not saying this is what you are doing, just that is always a danger when critiquing something.

"affects" I would have a hard time studying without the use of grad students, and research both on previous written materials and just interviewing random people who go to these movies.

Debating and raising philosophical questions is one thing, but I'm starting to get the sense you may be looking for actual conclusions to which I would say good luck. Especially with a movie like this which at the end of the day it is so easy to ride off because as you say yourself, there is little actually there.

[Spider-Who?]

Why not?
If we can have movies of substance about people that have evolved to have outlandish superpowers and physical properties, A superman alien that is the last son of his home planet and gets godlike powers from our sun. A teenager gets bitten by a spider and becomes a spiderman. or how about the story of a group of costumed vigilantes along with a man that dies and reconstructs himself to become a naked blue being with godlike powers.
How are these tales, any less outrageous than an alien race of sentient machines that battle over our planets resources and protection?

If the director takes the source material seriously, constructs it with a degree of respect and treats the audience accordingly. then there is no reason why a Transformers film cannot be an epic scifi blockbuster that doesnt insult ones intelligence.

The 1st TF film. despite its flaws and "Bayisms" might not've had much substance. but at least it had some heart and had that sense of awe. The basic premise had been established. then Bay ruins it with juvenile shenanigans, and pisses on the personalities and depth of the title characters and the primary themes of the decades of source material that had transcended its "toyline" origins.

The "ultimate doom" storyline that DOTM took inspiration from couldve been handled so much better. and the title characters. Man did they get bastardized. The film series started off with promise. but now that it is all said and done, its Transformers in name only.
Bayformers really is a fitting title.

Exactly. I think people might not have imagination. They see what was a silly cartoon and think there is no way not to make the movies silly.

I really didn't get a chance to flesh out my thought earlier, so let me do that now, and address your points.

I do not believe that movies - regardless of genre - can lack the potential to be truly moving, societal-changing works of art. Anything and everything has that potential. But having that potential does not mean it will ultimately fit the requirements of "high art" and it certainly doesn't mean that every piece of art, every book and every film should even try. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "low brow" art and entertainment at its core; there is only our reaction to it.

In terms of these movies, we have to look at them for what they are. These are standard summer blockbuster movies that are meant appeal to a wide range of people. These movies are designed to be purely adrenaline pumping action set pieces. That was the film makers' intent. That intent is what we should judge it on. My comment about trying to get milk out of an orange reflects this. It seems like those who are the more vocal in this thread are looking for philosophical inspiration, messiah-like ideals and values out of a movie that was never intended to harbor such things.

Could the movie have handled some things better, while remaining a popcorn flick? Yes. Should directors not cave to the summer blockbuster check lists? Yes. Do I think that Transformers should have been the steeple of the "watch this movie to be enlightened" movie genre? Hell no. I personally don't want to watch a movie like transformers and be hit over the head with morality lessons and philosophical mutterings. There are a plethora of other movies, games, books and sermons for that.

My intent is to not excuse the weakness of these films (lord knows there are many), such as story structure and the unnecessary sexuality of certain characters. My only intent is to offer my opinion that looking for and ultimately complaining about the lack of high art appeal and musings in a decidedly low art film is frivolous. Vid and others are analyzing this film based on what it could have been, while I am looking at how it is.

[Vid Electricz]

Vid, I find your attitude to be quite disappointing. Your views and compassion for higher cinema is commendable, but in your zeal to push your views forward, you are being utterly condescending, immature, and inflammatory; all the while preaching the need for intellectual debate. The juxtaposition is sad, especially when the debate concerns the concept of film degrading people, among other things.

I was originally going to quote many of your posts that supported my opinion above, but A) I realized it would just take too long, and B) I'm sure your comments were fully intentional and therefore I don't need to show them to you.

If you want to have honest and rewarding intelligent discussion, I advise that you act accordingly. Insulting others for their jokes, differing points of view, etc does nothing to help your cause nor your image.




I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I cannot say I have any interest in cultivating an image or reputation, so to speak (and I'm not being self-aggrandizing or flippant).

I realize that some of what I've written could be interpreted as a bit brash or brazenly dismissive, but in all honesty (and if you look back at any of my comments), all I'm expecting is that if one is going to make an argument or attack, then at least be informed and be able to substantiate it.

There have been quite a few wonderfully thoughtful and insightful comments contributed to this conversation among many others that have in no way made any effort to reply to the actual subject matter.

That said, what are your thoughts on the topic?

[PowersOfMind]

Batman was never high art and Inception isn't great sci-fi. There's not much to Batman other than guy dresses up like bat to fight crazy criminals and there's not much to Inception other than a heist film mixed with reality based dreams. Nolan's films seem tend to make people feel smart with very little actual substance.


We must not have been watching the same movies.

[def28]

Theres plenty of psychological development going on with the characters in The Dark Knight and Inception imo. I would say Dark Knight more so, but a majority of the scenes with Cobb in Inception has to do with his wife and sanity. There are other things going on besides the actual heist.

To each their own in the end. We all have our tastes and different way to interrupt movies.

[OoAnd1]

Vid Electricz, where in the UK are you from?

Simple question.

[bell110]

I really didn't get a chance to flesh out my thought earlier, so let me do that now, and address your points.

I do not believe that movies - regardless of genre - can lack the potential to be truly moving, societal-changing works of art. Anything and everything has that potential. But having that potential does not mean it will ultimately fit the requirements of "high art" and it certainly doesn't mean that every piece of art, every book and every film should even try. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "low brow" art and entertainment at its core; there is only our reaction to it.

In terms of these movies, we have to look at them for what they are. These are standard summer blockbuster movies that are meant appeal to a wide range of people. These movies are designed to be purely adrenaline pumping action set pieces. That was the film makers' intent. That intent is what we should judge it on. My comment about trying to get milk out of an orange reflects this. It seems like those who are the more vocal in this thread are looking for philosophical inspiration, messiah-like ideals and values out of a movie that was never intended to harbor such things.

Could the movie have handled some things better, while remaining a popcorn flick? Yes. Should directors not cave to the summer blockbuster check lists? Yes. Do I think that Transformers should have been the steeple of the "watch this movie to be enlightened" movie genre? Hell no. I personally don't want to watch a movie like transformers and be hit over the head with morality lessons and philosophical mutterings. There are a plethora of other movies, games, books and sermons for that.

My intent is to not excuse the weakness of these films (lord knows there are many), such as story structure and the unnecessary sexuality of certain characters. My only intent is to offer my opinion that looking for and ultimately complaining about the lack of high art appeal and musings in a decidedly low art film is frivolous. Vid and others are analyzing this film based on what it could have been, while I am looking at how it is.

That's the thing. Nobody is expecting "high art". People seem to be dealing in extremes when it comes to other people's opinion of the movie. The two arguements people use against other people's negative reactions are "What were you expecting, Citizen Kane?" or "The cartoon was dumb, why shouldn't this be?". How it is is that it's not a very good movie. I'm a Transformers fan and I see how this could have been a good movie. And I'm perplexed at other fans just going "good enough" or "it was dumb just like the cartoon". That's where I find the lack of imagination coming in.

I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I cannot say I have any interest in cultivating an image or reputation, so to speak (and I'm not being self-aggrandizing or flippant).

I realize that some of what I've written could be interpreted as a bit brash or brazenly dismissive, but in all honesty (and if you look back at any of my comments), all I'm expecting is that if one is going to make an argument or attack, then at least be informed and be able to substantiate it.

There have been quite a few wonderfully thoughtful and insightful comments contributed to this conversation among many others that have in no way made any effort to reply to the actual subject matter.

That said, what are your thoughts on the topic?

Maybe you should substantiate your arguments first. You made this topic specifically accusing this film of sexism, racism, jingoism, and homophobia and give weak exaples of why you think this. People have replied and you've either dismissed their arguments and insulted them, or just ignored them. After five pages you've only engaged one person who has disagreed with you on only one point and that ended up turning into a conversation about the guys wife. The rest is just praise for people who agree with you.

[Vid Electricz]

That's the thing. Nobody is expecting "high art". People seem to be dealing in extremes when it comes to other people's opinion of the movie. The two arguements people use against other people's negative reactions are "What were you expecting, Citizen Kane?" or "The cartoon was dumb, why shouldn't this be?". How it is is that it's not a very good movie. I'm a Transformers fan and I see how this could have been a good movie. And I'm perplexed at other fans just going "good enough" or "it was dumb just like the cartoon". That's where I find the lack of imagination coming in.



Maybe you should substantiate your arguments first. You made this topic specifically accusing this film of sexism, racism, jingoism, and homophobia and give weak exaples of why you think this. People have replied and you've either dismissed their arguments and insulted them, or just ignored them. After five pages you've only engaged one person who has disagreed with you on only one point and that ended up turning into a conversation about the guys wife. The rest is just praise for people who agree with you.


It's difficult to engage in a discussion when the other side is only half participating, hearing what they want to and responding to points concerning their interest (in that case, his wife) and ignoring the rest.

What exactly that I've said needs substantiating that I haven't already explained? I've stated all my points and opinions in detail over and over again over the past several pages. If you'd like, feel free to go back and peruse them.

What you're looking for are concrete superficial examples of the things I listed (racism, sexism, etc...), but what you're obviously not understanding (as you've claimed I haven't explained well enough or substantiated my arguments), is that I've laid out my views and ideologies quite clearly in my initial post and in several others following that. Like I said, go back and take a look.

As for your "rebuttals", no I haven't answered to them as I have already addressed arguments of a similar nature (looking for face-value excuses for the reasons sexism, racism, jingoism and homophobia exist in these films). I believe you wrote for sexism, something along the lines of: "No guy is offended by looking at a hot girl." Totally missing the point. Sorry to be blunt, but if that's your rebuttal, you're just not getting it.

Either you see and understand that these things exist in these films, or you just don't. It doesn't get simpler than that. If you don't understand the way these types of things exist in our society and pervade our media and culture by now (I'm presuming you're an adult), it's not possible to teach it through an internet message board. It's something you've either learned or you haven't.

What else needs explaining?

[bell110]

It's difficult to engage in a discussion when the other side is only half participating, hearing what they want to and responding to points concerning their interest (in that case, his wife) and ignoring the rest.

What exactly that I've said needs substantiating that I haven't already explained? I've stated all my points and opinions in detail over and over again over the past several pages. If you'd like, feel free to go back and peruse them.

What you're looking for are concrete superficial examples of the things I listed (racism, sexism, etc...), but what you're obviously not understanding (as you've claimed I haven't explained well enough or substantiated my arguments), is that I've laid out my views and ideologies quite clearly in my initial post and in several others following that. Like I said, go back and take a look.

As for your "rebuttals", no I haven't answered to them as I have already addressed arguments of a similar nature (looking for face-value excuses for the reasons sexism, racism, jingoism and homophobia exist in these films). I believe you wrote for sexism, something along the lines of: "No guy is offended by looking at a hot girl." Totally missing the point. Sorry to be blunt, but if that's your rebuttal, you're just not "getting it".

Either you see and understand that these things exist in these films, or you just don't. It doesn't get simpler than that. If you don't understand the way these types of things exist in our society and pervade our media and culture by now (I'm presuming you're at least and adult), it's not possible to teach it through an internet message board. It's something you've either learned or you haven't.

What else needs explaining?

Your first problem is how you went about trying to get this discussion started. You think people should be offended by these movies, and if they're not, they're just to stupid to realize they are bing offended.

Yes, I get your point. You see sexism, racism, jingoism, and homophobia in society and you think this movie helps perpetuate it and that offends you. I get your ideology. Myself and other do not see those things in these movies. YOUR problem is that you take that as us not being able to recognize what we are watching on screen. What you see as highly offensive on screen, I see as a trivial matter. Yet your opinion is somehow more valid than mine.

You gave superficial examples to illustrate your point, then when somebody deconstructs your examples you claim it's just an excuse and the person just isn't getting it.

Is there sexism, racism, jingoism, and homophobia in society? Yes, there always will be. Do these films reflect or perpetuate them? I say no. And you haven't made a strong case to the contrary either. All you've given us is your perception, opinions, and feelings.

[Hotwire]

Your first problem is how you went about trying to get this discussion started. You think people should be offended by these movies, and if they're not, they're just to stupid to realize they are bing offended.

Yes, I get your point. You see sexism, racism, jingoism, and homophobia in society and you think this movie helps perpetuate it and that offends you. I get your ideology. Myself and other do not see those things in these movies. YOUR problem is that you take that as us not being able to recognize what we are watching on screen. What you see as highly offensive on screen, I see as a trivial matter. Yet your opinion is somehow more valid than mine.

You gave superficial examples to illustrate your point, then when somebody deconstructs your examples you claim it's just an excuse and the person just isn't getting it.

Is there sexism, racism, jingoism, and homophobia in society? Yes, there always will be. Do these films reflect or perpetuate them? I say no. And you haven't made a strong case to the contrary either. All you've given us is your perception, opinions, and feelings.
Thanks. I knew I was being talked about, and was going to say something, but, you did it for me.
Thanks again.

[Vid Electricz]

Your first problem is how you went about trying to get this discussion started. You think people should be offended by these movies, and if they're not, they're just to stupid to realize they are bing offended.

Yes, I get your point. You see sexism, racism, jingoism, and homophobia in society and you think this movie helps perpetuate it and that offends you. I get your ideology. Myself and other do not see those things in these movies. YOUR problem is that you take that as us not being able to recognize what we are watching on screen. What you see as highly offensive on screen, I see as a trivial matter. Yet your opinion is somehow more valid than mine.

You gave superficial examples to illustrate your point, then when somebody deconstructs your examples you claim it's just an excuse and the person just isn't getting it.

Is there sexism, racism, jingoism, and homophobia in society? Yes, there always will be. Do these films reflect or perpetuate them? I say no. And you haven't made a strong case to the contrary either. All you've given us is your perception, opinions, and feelings.



These things exist in this film (whether you realize it or not) and by virtue of the fact that they are not looked down upon, but rather encouraged as harmless, ignorant fun, they are perpetuated and endorsed. It's just that plain and simple. I can only say the same thing in so many different ways (as myself and others have continuously done throughout this thread).

Also, "deconstruction" is the wrong word to use in this case as that implies the systematic breaking down and analysis of my argument...I am sorry my friend, but this has not been done in this thread at all.

What has been done is the simplistic refutation (to paraphrase): "I don't believe these things exist in these films and you're over-thinking it by trying to investigate them".

My post:

Sexism: Specifically, the objectification of women- Women are trophies to be won or lost. They must always appear sexy and seductive (for all the adolescent boys and peter-pan syndrome boy-men watching).


Your reply:

There is nothing wrong with having sexy and seductive women in the movies. Was the first scene with Rosie necessary? No. Was it awesome? Absolutely.


I am saying, women are objectified and treated as objects...which is plain to see in these movies as Michael Bay practically date-rapes the women with his camera, lingering on needless shots of them bending over cars and full-moon shots which exist for no purpose other than titillation. It's degrading, plain and simple. The women in these films have no personality and are shallow, emotionless husks that exist for the adolescent boys in the audience to drool over.

You are saying, that it's perfectly OK to degrade women because it's awesome and because it serves you.

That's not a deconstruction my friend. That is barely a refutation. You're saying you accept the fact that women are objectified and you're OK with it because she's "hot". The same goes for the rest of your rebuttals.

Anything else?

[def28]

I just love how this is the third movie and yet the people who complained about the lame humor and awesome beautiful shots of women in the first two saw this one. Bay gets the last laugh and your money. Thanks for contributing to me and the other Transformer fans getting a sequel. Sorry Vid but if you truly believed in your first post then you shouldnt have seen DOTM. Unless you have never seen a Transformers movie. But Im thinking you have and I dont get that, doesnt seem like the right thing for a person who thinks a franchise is bringing more hate into the world to do. All the things you point out are present in all his movies, they are not in anyway as bad as your making them out to be, but they are present in his films and especially The Transformers movies. Its like someone buying porn then being shocked and disgusted by people having sex in it. I think you just need to stop thinking Michael Bay is a hate endorsing brainwasher in disguise (his movies are not smart enough for that), throw on some Piranah 3D or Machete and enjoy having a good time in the entertainment genre we call exploitation. :awesome:

[Vid Electricz]

Thanks. I knew I was being talked about, and was going to say something, but, you did it for me.
Thanks again.


Did you or did you not bring up your wife in this conversation?

There you go dude, that's the extent of you being "talked about". Oh, and how about that, it wasn't me who brought it up.

If you want to act like I'm the bad guy and you're a victim, go right ahead.

Thanks for the laugh.

[Hotwire]

Did you or did you not bring up your wife in this conversation?

There you go dude, that's the extent of you being "talked about". Oh, and how about that, it wasn't me who brought it up.

If you want to act like I'm the bad guy and you're a victim, go right ahead.

Thanks for the laugh.

There you go again. You read way too much into everything. You and others were discussing my posts. I was going to comment, however, bell110 said just about everything I had in mind. He saved me having to type it.

Yes, I did mention my wife as an example, but I also offered counter arguments to the points you made, and chose to call them excuses and continued have a very condescending tone to your responses. This is something else, bell110 brought up.

I am not playing a victim here at all. I am not the only one here who feels you have a pretty rude tone to the posts you make in response to people who don't agree with you.

Posts like the one above only serve to further this impression.

You said you wanted intelligent debate on this topic, but as others have said, you offered weak examples to begin with, and when others disagreed, you took the stance that they "just can't see it." Not the best reply.

It was also said that your attitude does little to further your image, to which hiya said you're not worried about that. Yet, everything about the posts you've made seems to be an attempt to somehow put yourself above everyone else, because, you "get it."

[bell110]

These things exist in this film (whether you realize it or not) and by virtue of the fact that they are not looked down upon, but rather encouraged as harmless, ignorant fun, they are perpetuated and endorsed. It's just that plain and simple. I can only say the same thing in so many different ways (as myself and others have continuously done throughout this thread).

Also, "deconstruction" is the wrong word to use in this case as that implies the systematic breaking down and analysis of my argument...I am sorry my friend, but this has not been done in this thread at all.

What has been done is the simplistic refutation (to paraphrase): "I don't believe these things exist in these films and you're over-thinking it by trying to investigate them".

My post:

Sexism: Specifically, the objectification of women- Women are trophies to be won or lost. They must always appear sexy and seductive (for all the adolescent boys and peter-pan syndrome boy-men watching).


Your reply:

There is nothing wrong with having sexy and seductive women in the movies. Was the first scene with Rosie necessary? No. Was it awesome? Absolutely.


I am saying, women are objectified and treated as objects...which is plain to see in these movies as Michael Bay practically date-rapes the women with his camera, lingering on needless shots of them bending over cars and full-moon shots which exist for no purpose other than titillation. It's degrading, plain and simple. The women in these films have no personality and are shallow, emotionless husks that exist for the adolescent boys in the audience to drool over.

You are saying, that it's perfectly OK to degrade women because it's awesome and because it serves you.

That's not a deconstruction my friend. That is barely a refutation. You're saying you accept the fact that women are objectified and you're OK with it because she's "hot". The same goes for the rest of your rebuttals.

Anything else?

Again, these are you opinions. It's not "plain and simple". What you see as perpetutating the worst of society, I see a non-issue.

I'll admit, I brushed your sexism complaint aside, but I stand by the other issues. I'll restate these issues.

Sexism - women serve no purpose other than a trophy? No, boy getting the girl is nothing new and doesn't perpetuate sexism. Mikaela served more than just being a prize. She stood up to her jock boyfriend when he called her his bunny. She stood up to a government agent threatening to throw her and her father. She successfully saved Sam from Frenzy. She's knowledgable of cars, definately something that girls are stereotypically ignorant of. Other girls in the franchise: The austrailian chick was a computer expert, the cold shill that was a top ranking government official, even the ****bot's advances were pushed away by Sam. Sure, they looked hot, but there is nothing wrong with that in itself.

Racism - No, almost every character gets treated badly regardless of race. And Epps was one of the few that were treated as a normal human being.

Jingoism - Bay has a military fetish, to be sure, but that does not mean these film are jingoistic. US Government officials served as the biggest ***** in all three movies. Twice, the US wanted to banish the TFs, which turned out to be a stupid move.

Homophobia - There isn't any. The only thing I can think of is that they hinted that Dutch might be gay, but he turned out to be a badass, disarming the Russians and hacking into traffic cameras.

Any issue with characters being one dimensional is a writing issue, not sexism or racism.

You are seeing these thing in these movies and insist that people that don't are just not looking hard enough or are just complacent. That's not the case. It's just that these are you opinions, nothing more. I don't share these opinions because I am not easily offended. I'm a heavy metal fan. People hear my music and only hear screaming and noise. I could say they are just not listening close enough. I, on the other hand, hate country music. All I hear is twang and whining. I don't know your background, but you seem to live in a world were sexism, racism, jingoism, and homophobia are all around you at all times. I don't come from that world.

[Monsieur Xavier]

Sexism ? Bay hired a Victoria Secret model, she choosed to be objectified, it is her job.

[moviedoors]

Sexism ? Bay hired a Victoria Secret model, she choosed to be objectified, it is her job.

So that does by deliberating allowing yourself to sexualized, you remove an accusations of possible sexism? Huh?

[Monsieur Xavier]

So that does by deliberating allowing yourself to sexualized, you remove an accusations of possible sexism? Huh?

In the case of Rosie Huntington it is missplaced, in my opinion.

[Spider-Who?]

I’m going to address these concerns the best I can, using their actual definitions to help clarify exactly what we’re talking about here.

Sexism - Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. Where is this in the movie? The only thing the movie does with the women that can be seen as a negative issue is the music video style shots of the attractive female leads. Are these shots necessary for their characters or story? No, but it is hardly sexist. Where is the stereotyping? As others have pointed out, both female leads broke through the typical damsel in distress cliché, and were actually quite strong and brave characters who fought along side the men in one fashion or another to defeat the bad guys. Yes, Rose’s character was kidnapped, but she certainly held her own in this situation, and even braved meeting Megatron face-to-face. Discrimination? Again, I don’t see it. These women were not made to sit ideally by to let the “strong men” take care of things. They were front and center throughout much of the situations. Never mind the government official calling the shots was a woman. All this taken into consideration, the only negative thing we can say is that the female leads were made to look sexy as well as being strong, aggressive characters. Looking sexy is not sexist. Unnecessary at times, sure, but certainly not sexist. In the theater I saw it at, there were several girls who screamed with young teen lust whenever certain male characters appeared. Their reaction does not make those characters’ portrayals sexist. One’s reaction to what they’re presented does not always equate to the intent of what they’re shown. I agree that the camera’s lingering went too far, but sexist the film is not.

Homophobia - An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people. I don’t recall any homophobia in this movie. As another poster pointed out, there is a gay character (btw, how does including one equate to homophobia?), and this character does not fall for the typical gay cliché; he was actually quite the bad ass and personally, was one of my favorite characters. I don’t see how having an active, smart, physically capable gay character (whose sexuality is never made to be an issue) is evidence of homophobia.

Racism - A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Again, where are the examples that show this? Having the main characters be one race or the other does not equate to racism. Nevermind the fact that Bad Boys 2, arguably Bay's biggest film outside of this franchise, and a nearly completely black cast...why would a racist do that? Do you cry foul when a british movie features british actors in the title roles? There are certainly other races that live in England, but its primarily white british actors you see. Is that racist? Hardly. And to complain about Tyrese Gibson being a “stoic black man” is really grasping for straws, especially considering he was the voice of reason through the initial battle, and his buddies (also black) were integral parts of the winning side. All this taken into account, I really feel like you will look for ANY thing to gripe about, and the only way you’ll see something as racially acceptable is if Optimus spent half the movie proclaiming equality for all.

Jingoism - Extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy. I think you’re confusing patriotism with jingoism. These are not the same thing. If you want to see jingoism in film, go watch Team America. And even when discussing patriotism, there is little in this movie. Having the military be an integral part to a sweeping sci-fi epic about aliens trying to take over the world is not patriotic – its logical. Especially when you’re wanting major action sequences. I see no cause for alarm or any sense of jingoism by incorporating the military into this type of movie. There was no sentiment of America being the greatest nation in all the land. But since this is a movie made in America, by Americans, taking place in America, you feel it is unnecessary to include the US military, or any sense of Americana? I think this boils down to you being from another country and not liking any indication that the movie takes place here. Simple as that.

[Hotwire]

Well said, Spider-Who?.

I kept forgetting to mention Frances McDormand's character. Along with her repeated insistence that she not be called, "mam."

You also made me wonder. Since when has stoic been an exclusively black trait?

You hit the nail on the head with the jingoism part.

You also echoed what I had said about homophobia. My example being, a homophobe has the irrational belief that somehow what two consenting adults do in private, effects their personal life.

Again, well said.

[Spider-Who?]

Thanks. And yeah, his post was the first time I've ever heard stoicism to be a black stereotype.

[Grievous]

So that does by deliberating allowing yourself to sexualized, you remove an accusations of possible sexism? Huh?
As I said on another page in this thread, is a teenage girl being sexist to herself when she goes to the mall with make-up,a low cut shirt,a skirt and a thong to get guy's attention?

[DTH]

I didn't see a topic of this nature on this board, so I thought I'd start one.

I for one am both fascinated and perplexed by the sort of twisted hate and misogyny that these movies perpetuate. I find it hard to believe that people are actually entertained by this sort of stuff. If there's one thing that these movies do represent, it's the unfortunate future of action films (ie. soulless, emotionless husks filled with veiled hatred that exist solely for marketing purposes), because it's been proven that this kid of stuff sells.

Like the juvenile school-yard bully who calls anyone out as a f*ggot or homo for not agreeing or lining up with his narrow world-view of how men, women and minorities should be viewed, These films similarly mock and degrade unapologetically and if you don't like it- well, you're just a PC, liberal cry-baby. Brainwashing of the masses at it's finest.



Let's look at some of the wonderful ideals these movies promote (I know there are a million more examples. If you've got examples, post 'em):

-Sexism: Specifically, the objectification of women- Women are trophies to be won or lost. They must always appear sexy and seductive (for all the adolescent boys and peter-pan syndrome boy-men watching).

-Racism: If you're not white, you exist as a peripheral character. Most likely comic relief or some other stereotype (the stoic black man). In other words, you're disposable and you're a joke (blatantly racist buck toothed robots not withstanding).

-Jingoism: America is the best and the military is #1. English, dude, English.

-Homophobia: "You gonna go cry to your boyfriend? Pussy!" There's plenty more where that came from. Needless to say, these movies are riddled with the kind of sophomoric, juvenile macho-man, tough guy behavior that only the most ignorant among us (and little kids who don't know any better) buy in to.


But it's all so FUNNY! Right? So if you don't like it, you're just too uptight!

*Yawn*




Since these boards seem to be crawling with people who absolutely love these movies, I fully expect the response of:

"Lighten up. Not everything needs to be politically correct and "Disney-fied" Blah, blah blah, pus*syfication of America, blah, blah, blah."

Actually, no. The problem with brainless movies like these is that they endorse and perpetuate negative stereotypes and outright mocking of sexes, races and behaviors that you don't identify with- and of course, the behaviors you are meant to identify with are those of the hero. The promotion of ignorant bliss all disguised as a good fun action romp!)

People should really be insulted by this movie. Well, not by the movie itself, but by the attitudes of the film makers that they can just churn out any tripe and you'll gobble it up greedily.

+10 points for the response:

"Dude, it's just a movie. Chill." or

"It's just an action movie dude, you're supposed to turn off your brain and enjoy it for what it is."

Both awful responses for accepting this hateful garbage as entertainment.

predictable. Anyone got an actual response? I'd love if this could encourage some discussion.


So...What I find primarily interesting about this post is that it is out of the following;

A) Typical
B) Predictable
C) Redundant
D) Total BS

Why? Because I can see you stomping your feet on the ground, MAD because a movie, a sense of entertainment carries...Propaganda. What a shock. Also, maybe you should realize that it's not so much promoting those stereotypes as noticing those types of personalities of people that come from every day life.

Because someone who doesn't speak spanish who has a spanish speaking friend and when in the heat of the situation wants that friend to speak english is racist? Interesting.

Sexism? Don't act like the body isn't attracted to actual physically appealing forms, big breasts, perky breasts, toned stomach, six pack abs, huge biceps etc etc, granted, everyone has their own fetish, but please don't parade around here, trolling like you're the defender of women's best interests.

Homophobia, seriously? Grasping at straws here broseph. I don't know you, but this whole post you've created just screams "I AM THE PURVEYOR OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND JUST IN THE WORLD!"

I don't know what some of you guys want these movies to be? The original G1 animated series? Well, if you want that, go watch those, and on your way to watch those, I don't want to hear "Well at least the cartoon series wasn't a vehicle to sell cars!" You're right. It was to sell toys. Watch a documentary or two.

You may not like the stories contained within these films, and that's okay, but here's the thing. The world - fictional or not, contains personalities from nice, to mean as hell, to bi-polar, to motivated and self loathing. If you write a story people can't relate to with people from every day walks of life, then you have nothing.

Instead of cursing, maybe you'll want characters to say "Fishsticks! Golly goshdarn icecicles!"

[Vid Electricz]

So...What I find primarily interesting about this post is that it is out of the following;

A) Typical
B) Predictable
C) Redundant
D) Total BS

I guess this is meant to be a joke? A stab at irony? Surely you can't be serious...I guess this is what passes for wit these days.

It's funny that you mention how "typical" my arguments are, when every sentiment you've listed has been echoed over and over again in the form of transparent excuses and desperate justification defending these movies...which would make your comments accordingly predictable and redundant as well. Funny how that works.

Why? Because I can see you stomping your feet on the ground, MAD because a movie, a sense of entertainment carries...Propaganda. What a shock. Also, maybe you should realize that it's not so much promoting those stereotypes as noticing those types of personalities of people that come from every day life.


Let's be honest, you wish these movies made me mad. Perhaps your world is so black and white that if someone decides to take a look at and evaluate the nasty, trashy, negative parts of a "brainless" action movie and how they affect and reflect our nasty, trashy culture then that equates to being "Mad".

And then you start about how the "characters" (used very loosely) in this movie somehow reflect people in real life? You must hang out with a bunch of one-dimensional cardboard cut-outs then, 'cause there is no reflection of reality in these films. I hadn't had a good laugh until now. Thanks for that.

Because someone who doesn't speak spanish who has a spanish speaking friend and when in the heat of the situation wants that friend to speak english is racist? Interesting.

I believe the "English dude, english" is from the first movie when an American soldier recites this line to their middle-eastern tour guide. To me, this exemplifies the constant, pervading sense of "we're right, you're wrong" that is all over these movies. A lot of the jingoism in this movie is subtext...subtext that a grade schooler couldn't miss, but subtext nonetheless.

That's the thing about art (if you're generous). It can be interpreted and construed in ways the creator had never originally intended. It certainly doesn't mean one is "grasping at straws" because they see something you might not. But the fact of the matter is that once an artist (again, if you're generous) releases their creation, it can become subject to both scrutiny and praise. If I want to see the Transformers as an allegory for American foreign policy (which is legitimate), then I've got every right and if you want to see it as a "mindless action flick", that's your choice.

Sexism? Don't act like the body isn't attracted to actual physically appealing forms, big breasts, perky breasts, toned stomach, six pack abs, huge biceps etc etc, granted, everyone has their own fetish, but please don't parade around here, trolling like you're the defender of women's best interests.


Yeah, this is true (unless you're asexual, in which case, it isn't true). Tell me something LESS obvious please. My qualm, you would know, as you claim to have read my initial post is with the mindless and brainless objectification of women in these films. What you're saying is: "So what? Humans are sexual creatures" and what I'm saying is, why does that make it right to treat a person as an object, a trophy for your amusement and titillation? It doesn't. I mean, if you want porn, go watch porn. It's free. I never once claimed to be a "defender of women's best interests", but I am smart enough to know when a movie is offensively stupid and insulting to it's audience. This may come as a surprise but many people are sincere in what they say and believe. What would "trolling" about accomplish? I'm not looking to impress anyone. I would suppose you are projecting in this case as I don't say or do things for the sole reason of getting people to think about me a certain way. If that's the way you live your life, more power to you.


Homophobia, seriously? Grasping at straws here broseph. I don't know you, but this whole post you've created just screams "I AM THE PURVEYOR OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND JUST IN THE WORLD!"

"Broseph". lulz. Again, it's subtext. It's the constant "macho, manly, tough guy, brute force solves everything" attitude. Where anyone that acts less than stoic and manly needs to "Go cry to your boyfriend. Pussy!". People who can read between the lines understand this kind of stuff (and many people have).


I don't know what some of you guys want these movies to be? The original G1 animated series? Well, if you want that, go watch those, and on your way to watch those, I don't want to hear "Well at least the cartoon series wasn't a vehicle to sell cars!" You're right. It was to sell toys. Watch a documentary or two.

I've never cared for the GI series, but as many have said, these movies could have been classics. It had much potential, but decided to cater to the lowest common denominator.

You may not like the stories contained within these films, and that's okay, but here's the thing. The world - fictional or not, contains personalities from nice, to mean as hell, to bi-polar, to motivated and self loathing. If you write a story people can't relate to with people from every day walks of life, then you have nothing.


Sorry, but what are you trying to say? That a movie is nothing if the characters don't act like real people?

Essentially, you are telling me that the Transformers movies are "nothing".

As with everything, it's not what you say, it's the way that you say it.

Michael Bay chose to say it in a hateful, shallow, superficial way.

Instead of cursing, maybe you'll want characters to say "Fishsticks! Golly goshdarn icecicles!"

Ha. Such wit, such charm, such verve. Later, "Broseph"


Oh boy, you sure put me in my place! lol.

:o

[moviedoors]

In the case of Rosie Huntington it is missplaced, in my opinion.

Then you should argue your case in manner other than "she's supposed to be sexualized, so that removes any misogynistic accusations from the table."

[Hotwire]

Oh boy, you sure put me in my place! lol.

:o

You really do have an, I'm better than you attitude.

By the way, the "English, dude. English," line is from the first movie when the Hispanic soldier went of on a rant in Spanish. My wife's family is Puerto Rican, and I can attest that this happens. I sometimes have to remind myself mother-in-law that I don't know all that much Spanish. So, that's example is not jingoism, but rather a simple request among buddies.

Why not respond to Spider-Who's post?

[Vid Electricz]

I’m going to address these concerns the best I can, using their actual definitions to help clarify exactly what we’re talking about here.

Sexism - Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. Where is this in the movie? The only thing the movie does with the women that can be seen as a negative issue is the music video style shots of the attractive female leads. Are these shots necessary for their characters or story? No, but it is hardly sexist. Where is the stereotyping? As others have pointed out, both female leads broke through the typical damsel in distress cliché, and were actually quite strong and brave characters who fought along side the men in one fashion or another to defeat the bad guys. Yes, Rose’s character was kidnapped, but she certainly held her own in this situation, and even braved meeting Megatron face-to-face. Discrimination? Again, I don’t see it. These women were not made to sit ideally by to let the “strong men” take care of things. They were front and center throughout much of the situations. Never mind the government official calling the shots was a woman. All this taken into consideration, the only negative thing we can say is that the female leads were made to look sexy as well as being strong, aggressive characters. Looking sexy is not sexist. Unnecessary at times, sure, but certainly not sexist. In the theater I saw it at, there were several girls who screamed with young teen lust whenever certain male characters appeared. Their reaction does not make those characters’ portrayals sexist. One’s reaction to what they’re presented does not always equate to the intent of what they’re shown. I agree that the camera’s lingering went too far, but sexist the film is not.

Homophobia - An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people. I don’t recall any homophobia in this movie. As another poster pointed out, there is a gay character (btw, how does including one equate to homophobia?), and this character does not fall for the typical gay cliché; he was actually quite the bad ass and personally, was one of my favorite characters. I don’t see how having an active, smart, physically capable gay character (whose sexuality is never made to be an issue) is evidence of homophobia.

Racism - A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Again, where are the examples that show this? Having the main characters be one race or the other does not equate to racism. Nevermind the fact that Bad Boys 2, arguably Bay's biggest film outside of this franchise, and a nearly completely black cast...why would a racist do that? Do you cry foul when a british movie features british actors in the title roles? There are certainly other races that live in England, but its primarily white british actors you see. Is that racist? Hardly. And to complain about Tyrese Gibson being a “stoic black man” is really grasping for straws, especially considering he was the voice of reason through the initial battle, and his buddies (also black) were integral parts of the winning side. All this taken into account, I really feel like you will look for ANY thing to gripe about, and the only way you’ll see something as racially acceptable is if Optimus spent half the movie proclaiming equality for all.

Jingoism - Extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy. I think you’re confusing patriotism with jingoism. These are not the same thing. If you want to see jingoism in film, go watch Team America. And even when discussing patriotism, there is little in this movie. Having the military be an integral part to a sweeping sci-fi epic about aliens trying to take over the world is not patriotic – its logical. Especially when you’re wanting major action sequences. I see no cause for alarm or any sense of jingoism by incorporating the military into this type of movie. There was no sentiment of America being the greatest nation in all the land. But since this is a movie made in America, by Americans, taking place in America, you feel it is unnecessary to include the US military, or any sense of Americana? I think this boils down to you being from another country and not liking any indication that the movie takes place here. Simple as that.


My main point, is NOT that Michael Bay is Satan or Hitler (as some have said) creating some veiled manifesto for racism, sexism, jingoism and homophobia (among a million other things one might glean from these movies). I'm not calling for a mob to storm his mansion and lynch him. What I AM saying is that whether he knows it or not, he IS perpetuating negative stereotypes and portrayals of women and minorities. Usually, in movies, I ignore this kind of thing and write it off as an insipid waste of time (and as you know, I do think that), but with a series like this, I was rather fascinated that such a bombastic, mindlessly shallow movie with absolutely nothing going for it other than it's SFX, which was so insanely stupid and that insisted you be stupid too had become so popular. I'm not uptight or a prude by any means, but as I am prone to do, I began looking at what these movies were saying without really saying it. Follow?

Michael Bay knows what he's putting into his films, but he has no idea what he's saying or what messages (unintentional though they may be) he's conveying with the images and story he's choosing to tell.

For example, with the Bond films (not the last two), there was always a little wink to the camera as though to say "don't take this too seriously". The earlier Bond films operated in a different time when women weren't always (ever?) seen as equal to men (and were often expected to be in the kitchen where they belonged) and they most commonly played the "damsel in distress" which the hero needed to save (and then presumably bed). But that was a different time (Which didn't make it right). Since then we've gone through feminism and equal rights, etc... We've evolved a bit, so to speak. The Transformers films (and other films, yes) want to drag us back to the caveman days when men were men and women were arm-candy. Bay holds the women in his films to the same "damsel in distress" roles, but rather than the campy, corny "fun" they were in the past (or seemed to be anyway), Michael Bay, plants his actresses in the same roles, conforming to the archetypes of old without a wink and a nudge or a hint of wit or irony. This is the problem I have with the portrayal of women in these films.

You mention that the women were "strong, aggressive characters". I have to point out that this is fallacy. Take a look at this link as it goes into detail on why the "strong female characters" we see in movies these days are hardly characters at all, but rather a pastiche of traits and behaviors lazily slopped together to form some semblance what people think a " strong female character" should be.

http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/08/18/why-strong-female-characters-are-bad-for-women/


As for the racism, homophobia and jingoism- I don't think that Bay is a member of the KKK out to discredit or smear any particular race or country. but like I said, there is definitely a subtext to these movies (or any movie if you care to look), but the problem is the school-yard bully attitude which comes out loud and clear through the subtext.

In fact, I don't have any problem with America. I don't know why you'd think that I do. is it not possible to be critical of the way America is represented in a robot movie without being labelled anti-American? I didn't have a problem with the numerous American flags throughout the Spider-Man series and certainly not in films where it serves the story (any war films, I guess). I'm sorry to disappoint, but I certainly don't have a problem with patriotism. What I do have a problem with is the over-the-top, in-your-face fetishistic, masturbatory display of military fire-power and intense fascination with the military in a movie where it really isn't necessary- and everyone seems to answer to this, "well, what do you want, the military to do nothing against giant robots?" No, that's not what I said. Have the military there, fine. But it's certainly not necessary for the military to have such a prominent place in the series. in The Dark Knight did the movie focus on the Gotham city police force with only intermediate focus on Batman and the Joker? No, it focused on Batman and the Joker. Did the Hulk focus on the military trying to bring down the Hulk? It focused on the Hulk. Sure, he DID fight the military and they were there for the appropriate amount of time that they were needed to be to tell the story effectively. Just because the movie is written the way it is doesn't mean you can't critique what you feel was done effectively or ineffectively.

Take a look at this link. This guy goes into pretty good depth on the topic. Pretty thoughtful:

http://m0vie.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/for-freedom-the-politics-of-transformers-3/

[spider_rob]

I didn't see a topic of this nature on this board, so I thought I'd start one.

I for one am both fascinated and perplexed by the sort of twisted hate and misogyny that these movies perpetuate. I find it hard to believe that people are actually entertained by this sort of stuff. If there's one thing that these movies do represent, it's the unfortunate future of action films (ie. soulless, emotionless husks filled with veiled hatred that exist solely for marketing purposes), because it's been proven that this kid of stuff sells.

Like the juvenile school-yard bully who calls anyone out as a f*ggot or homo for not agreeing or lining up with his narrow world-view of how men, women and minorities should be viewed, These films similarly mock and degrade unapologetically and if you don't like it- well, you're just a PC, liberal cry-baby. Brainwashing of the masses at it's finest.



Let's look at some of the wonderful ideals these movies promote (I know there are a million more examples. If you've got examples, post 'em):

-Sexism: Specifically, the objectification of women- Women are trophies to be won or lost. They must always appear sexy and seductive (for all the adolescent boys and peter-pan syndrome boy-men watching).

-Racism: If you're not white, you exist as a peripheral character. Most likely comic relief or some other stereotype (the stoic black man). In other words, you're disposable and you're a joke (blatantly racist buck toothed robots not withstanding).

-Jingoism: America is the best and the military is #1. English, dude, English.

-Homophobia: "You gonna go cry to your boyfriend? Pussy!" There's plenty more where that came from. Needless to say, these movies are riddled with the kind of sophomoric, juvenile macho-man, tough guy behavior that only the most ignorant among us (and little kids who don't know any better) buy in to.


But it's all so FUNNY! Right? So if you don't like it, you're just too uptight!

*Yawn*




Since these boards seem to be crawling with people who absolutely love these movies, I fully expect the response of:

"Lighten up. Not everything needs to be politically correct and "Disney-fied" Blah, blah blah, pus*syfication of America, blah, blah, blah."

Actually, no. The problem with brainless movies like these is that they endorse and perpetuate negative stereotypes and outright mocking of sexes, races and behaviors that you don't identify with- and of course, the behaviors you are meant to identify with are those of the hero. The promotion of ignorant bliss all disguised as a good fun action romp!)

People should really be insulted by this movie. Well, not by the movie itself, but by the attitudes of the film makers that they can just churn out any tripe and you'll gobble it up greedily.

+10 points for the response:

"Dude, it's just a movie. Chill." or

"It's just an action movie dude, you're supposed to turn off your brain and enjoy it for what it is."

Both awful responses for accepting this hateful garbage as entertainment.

predictable. Anyone got an actual response? I'd love if this could encourage some discussion.

Great post. I just wanted to see the movie for the action everyone was raving about, but it was totally not worth it. Me and my GF were cringing during most of the movie. Thanks for bringing this up, I hope it opens up a lot of people's eyes who blindly support this filth here.

[Vid Electricz]

Great post. I just wanted to see the movie for the action everyone was raving about, but it was totally not worth it. Me and my GF were cringing during most of the movie. Thanks for bringing this up, I hope it opens up a lot of people's eyes who blindly support this filth here.


Thanks Rob. Take a look at the two articles I linked to in my previous post. I also happen to find "Cringe worthy" to be the perfect term to describe these movies.

[Rock Sexton]

Great post. I just wanted to see the movie for the action everyone was raving about, but it was totally not worth it. Me and my GF were cringing during most of the movie. Thanks for bringing this up, I hope it opens up a lot of people's eyes who blindly support this filth here.

Ya, the cringe factor was extremely high. I almost felt insulted as a human being with a brain that Bay tried to pass this off as a feature length film. Multiple times I threw my hands up and rolled my eyes at the sheer stupidity on display.

[Hotwire]

I could say something, pointing out the flaws is your reply to Spider-Who, but it's late, and I have wasted enough time on fruitless endeavors today.

There is an old saying, "Seek, and and ye shall find." It basically means, if you go looking hard enough for something, you will find it. In some cases, you can even find things that aren't really there, you just imagine them, and the mind makes it seem real. So, enjoy your search.

[Episode29]

My main point, is NOT that Michael Bay is Satan or Hitler (as some have said) creating some veiled manifesto for racism, sexism, jingoism and homophobia (among a million other things one might glean from these movies). I'm not calling for a mob to storm his mansion and lynch him. What I AM saying is that whether he knows it or not, he IS perpetuating negative stereotypes and portrayals of women and minorities. Usually, in movies, I ignore this kind of thing and write it off as an insipid waste of time (and as you know, I do think that), but with a series like this, I was rather fascinated that such a bombastic, mindlessly shallow movie with absolutely nothing going for it other than it's SFX, which was so insanely stupid and that insisted you be stupid too had become so popular. I'm not uptight or a prude by any means, but as I am prone to do, I began looking at what these movies were saying without really saying it. Follow?

Michael Bay knows what he's putting into his films, but he has no idea what he's saying or what messages (unintentional though they may be) he's conveying with the images and story he's choosing to tell.

For example, with the Bond films (not the last two), there was always a little wink to the camera as though to say "don't take this too seriously". The earlier Bond films operated in a different time when women weren't always (ever?) seen as equal to men (and were often expected to be in the kitchen where they belonged) and they most commonly played the "damsel in distress" which the hero needed to save (and then presumably bed). But that was a different time (Which didn't make it right). Since then we've gone through feminism and equal rights, etc... We've evolved a bit, so to speak. The Transformers films (and other films, yes) want to drag us back to the caveman days when men were men and women were arm-candy. Bay holds the women in his films to the same "damsel in distress" roles, but rather than the campy, corny "fun" they were in the past (or seemed to be anyway), Michael Bay, plants his actresses in the same roles, conforming to the archetypes of old without a wink and a nudge or a hint of wit or irony. This is the problem I have with the portrayal of women in these films.

You mention that the women were "strong, aggressive characters". I have to point out that this is fallacy. Take a look at this link as it goes into detail on why the "strong female characters" we see in movies these days are hardly characters at all, but rather a pastiche of traits and behaviors lazily slopped together to form some semblance what people think a " strong female character" should be.

http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/08/18/why-strong-female-characters-are-bad-for-women/


The link you posted is great. It's also notable how badly Transformers 3 fails the Bechdel Test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLF6sAAMb4s

[def28]

Michael Bay knows what he's putting into his films, but he has no idea what he's saying or what messages (unintentional though they may be) he's conveying with the images and story he's choosing to tell. [

He knows exactly what hes saying he just doesnt give a ****. He thinks its cool and funny, and a majority of his audience think so too. Some people arent so sensitive to this stuff, and if you are that doesnt make it wrong but this whole movies a big joke and most people are in on it. Its supposed to make you laugh or go wow huge explosion. Thats it.

For example, with the Bond films (not the last two), there was always a little wink to the camera as though to say "don't take this too seriously". The earlier Bond films operated in a different time when women weren't always (ever?) seen as equal to men (and were often expected to be in the kitchen where they belonged) and they most commonly played the "damsel in distress" which the hero needed to save (and then presumably bed). But that was a different time (Which didn't make it right). Since then we've gone through feminism and equal rights, etc... We've evolved a bit, so to speak.

Dude first of all this movie is one big giant wink saying. THIS IS A ****ING JOKE. Dont take it seriously. Its looney toons goofy. He gave a Decipticon Balls. Bay winks to the audience every 5 sec to let them know, this movie is BS. Bay said some people dont get it, its a silly movie. Hes right.

We are more evolved dealing within the real world with these issues.But were talking about films giving off messages. In film Sex,violence, is way more accepted today then it was back then and it will continue to push further and further. Homophobia and Racism in film has gone through lots of changes so Ill agree there. But its still pushed in crude humor ways and that will also try to out do itself. How Transformers actually effects society because of its horrible humor and hot women shots will not be an issue. People enjoy these movies, most walk out excited and laughing others say it was a horrible piece of **** like ROTF but... They dont become sexist racists.

Sorry Vid I know I sound like a broken record here but I would really like to know why you would continue to support all three of these films with your money and time?

[PowersOfMind]

Sorry Vid I know I sound like a broken record here but I would really like to know why you would continue to support all three of these films with your money and time?

I'm actually curious about that myself, why would you(Vid) or anyone for that matter tear down a movie they themselves paid to go see? You can't really argue that you are shocked by what's in them if you've seen the first two.

If I felt this strongly about the lack of anything in Bay's films I wouldn't sit around going: "I'm going to show Michael Bay just what I think of him by paying money to see his movie and then ripping it to shreds". That'd be me wasting my own time and money.

Sounds like one of those folks who paid to see Charlie Sheen's show then wanted their money back. Too late, he's got your money. And you just gave him some nice positive reinforcement.

[def28]

Yeah ROTF got hit hard with racism comments because of The Twins. People ripped it apart way more then the First one. I have no idea why you would see these films and support them making more if someone felt so strongly against it and more so if it actually offends the person. Get your money back,walk out or switch movies.

[PowersOfMind]

Yeah ROTF got hit hard with racism comments because of The Twins. People ripped it apart way more then the First one. I have no idea why you would see these films and support them making more if someone felt so strongly against it and more so if it actually offends the person. Get your money back,walk out or switch movies.


Exactly. Bay's movies have a specific formula and he's not bound to switch up anytime soon. Of course that doesn't completely discredit what the OP said. I think some of the points (sexism) hit harder than the others (racism) but paying to view something you are hyper-aware you'd hate, on those points alone, makes people give you the side eye. You can't partake in the enjoyment while simultaneously looking down your nose at it.

[Monsieur Xavier]

Then you should argue your case in manner other than "she's supposed to be sexualized, so that removes any misogynistic accusations from the table."

I should have, you're right, sometimes I take for granted the underlying meaning of what I wrote.

[Vid Electricz]

He knows exactly what hes saying he just doesnt give a ****. He thinks its cool and funny, and a majority of his audience think so too. Some people arent so sensitive to this stuff, and if you are that doesnt make it wrong but this whole movies a big joke and most people are in on it. Its supposed to make you laugh or go wow huge explosion. Thats it.



Dude first of all this movie is one big giant wink saying. THIS IS A ****ING JOKE. Dont take it seriously. Its looney toons goofy. He gave a Decipticon Balls. Bay winks to the audience every 5 sec to let them know, this movie is BS. Bay said some people dont get it, its a silly movie. Hes right.

We are more evolved dealing within the real world with these issues.But were talking about films giving off messages. In film Sex,violence, is way more accepted today then it was back then and it will continue to push further and further. Homophobia and Racism in film has gone through lots of changes so Ill agree there. But its still pushed in crude humor ways and that will also try to out do itself. How Transformers actually effects society because of its horrible humor and hot women shots will not be an issue. People enjoy these movies, most walk out excited and laughing others say it was a horrible piece of **** like ROTF but... They dont become sexist racists.

Sorry Vid I know I sound like a broken record here but I would really like to know why you would continue to support all three of these films with your money and time?


I did pay to see the first one in 2007 (which, granted, wasn't as bad as the 2nd and 3rd) and there was no need to pay for the two following as my friend works at a movie theater.

I'm not being literal saying people are going to walk out of these movies and become nazi's and racists or whatever, I just think that something of this scale and this popular needs to be a bit more sensitive than these movies. And I'm not being a cream-puff here as tons of other people share these sentiments as well. Why don't ANY of Steven Spielberg's movies contain the kind of over the top zealotry that Bay's do? Because Spielberg can tell a good story without needing to cater to the lowest common denominator. That's why.

And I know that I saw these movies as jokes, but Bay, other than the extremely obvious slapstick moments takes these movies deadly serious. That's why I didn't feel there was any wink at the camera, so to speak. That kind of thing occurs in a movie when the film maker KNOWS what's happening in the movie is ridiculous and absurd and they acknowledge it in some way. Bay plays the melodrama and romance straight up serious. That's the point I was getting at.

[Vid Electricz]

I could say something, pointing out the flaws is your reply to Spider-Who, but it's late, and I have wasted enough time on fruitless endeavors today.

There is an old saying, "Seek, and and ye shall find." It basically means, if you go looking hard enough for something, you will find it. In some cases, you can even find things that aren't really there, you just imagine them, and the mind makes it seem real. So, enjoy your search.


Go ahead. point out the flaws. I'm sure they're there. I for one am aware that I'm not writing a graduate thesis here.

Again, here we go with the "don't think so much." Did you read in that very post that you note is flawed how I point out that ALL art is open to interpretation. Anything I find to analyze in these movies is just as valid as you wanting to find nothing.

I can counter your "Seek, and and ye shall find" it by saying that exercising critical thought and analysis is NEVER a "fruitless endeavor". I would even go so far as to say that many people these days are content not to question much of anything but rather sit back and enjoy their "mindless entertainment." These things are there, in front of your face, but people have been conditioned not to question or analyze. It takes a little effort on the part of the viewer to see them. Not everything just "is what it is".

[moviedoors]

And I know that I saw these movies as jokes, but Bay, other than the extremely obvious slapstick moments takes these movies deadly serious. That's why I didn't feel there was any wink at the camera, so to speak. That kind of thing occurs in a movie when the film maker KNOWS what's happening in the movie is ridiculous and absurd and they acknowledge it in some way. Bay plays the melodrama and romance straight up serious. That's the point I was getting at.

I certainly felt this way about the first one (the only one I've seen). The robots are treated as big jokes for practically the whole first half of the movie, there's broad, frat-boy level comedy left and right, and then suddenly, when Bubblebee is getting captured by the military the forlorn violins come in and we're supposed to feel for him like he's Kong. Yeah, whatever Michael Bay. You have to earn moments like that. No consistency in tone whatsoever.

[DTH]

So basically, you're better than everyone else because of your opinion. Awesome. I can't help but see the "Problem?" troll face typing behind a computer screen.

[Vid Electricz]

The link you posted is great. It's also notable how badly Transformers 3 fails the Bechdel Test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLF6sAAMb4s


That's great! I hadn't heard of that before. Also, her video on "Sucker Punch" hit the nail on the head. It perfectly articulated my thoughts on it.

[bell110]

God damn, I hate feminists.

And again, Vid, you didn't reply to my post.

[The Lizard]

-Homophobia: "You gonna go cry to your boyfriend? Pussy!"

Oddly enough, this reminded me of the first Spider-Man movie from 2002, where Peter is taunting Bonesaw McGraw in the wresting ring by saying "Nice outfit - did your husband make it for you?" It got some cheap laughs in the theater nine years ago, but is it still really that funny today? I thought it seemed a bit out of character for Peter Parker even back then.

[Vid Electricz]

God damn, I hate feminists.

And again, Vid, you didn't reply to my post.


And they hate you.
:dry:



I'm not "offended" by the subject matter of or any specific instances of racism, sexism, etc...in these films. Like I said, I'm no prude. The truly offensive thing about these films is that they prey on the stupidity of the audience. They insult the audience by feeding them mindless, simplistic, inane stereotypes and and expect them to be happy with it. Get it now? They are so low-brow and so bottom of the barrel that they are basically made for idiots. They are telling you that to enjoy these films, you must be an idiot. They expect nothing of the audience's intelligence and in turn the audience expects nothing but meaningless entertainment. "Just turn off your brain and enjoy" becomes the slogan for every new movie released. If you don't want to face that fact, then fine. Look at the world through rose colored lenses. The cold hard truth hurts.

I could reply to your post comprehensively and systematically, point by point, but honestly, it's not saying anything that hasn't been said. Your replies typically start with "No, it was like this-" and then you list an example while missing out on the big picture of what I'm getting at (which I listed above and several times throughout this thread.You go on about how there were "strong female characters" so it's OK that they were objectified, etc... I've had my say on this if you care to go back and read (also, please refer to the link I posted earlier for more on this).

So yeah, everything you've said has already been covered. It all falls under the same umbrella. You're sure not going to change my mind about this just as I'm sure I won't change yours, the difference though is in the willingness to see beyond the comfort of "your world" as you put it, (again, you don't know my background and I don't know yours). But if you don't see these problems around you all the time either personally or in society at large, then you are living either a very sheltered or a blissfully ignorant life.

I certainly shared a somewhat similar attitude when I was younger. I was CERTAIN that people that analyzed and made statements about media like this were pretentious, smug and self-righteous. I "knew" in my mind that they were just wasting their time over thinking things. As I've come to learn over the years, using your brain for critical analysis, studying the way our society operates and the psychology behind it is NOT a waste of time. I've learned that the simplistic attitude where a "cigar is just a cigar" and "it is what it is" are what was truly pretentious and smug in it's contented ignorance. The insistence and indignant stance that it's meaningless to look deeper into anything, (even something seemingly trivial) is every bit as smug and self-righteous in it's stubborn and unwavering denial to even consider that these things might exist.

[Thundercrack85]

Oddly enough, this reminded me of the first Spider-Man movie from 2002, where Peter is taunting Bonesaw McGraw in the wresting ring by saying "Nice outfit - did your husband make it for you?" It got some cheap laughs in the theater nine years ago, but is it still really that funny today? I thought it seemed a bit out of character for Peter Parker even back then.

I've never known high schoolers to be particularly politically correct.

I'm not defending it, just saying it's not a stretch.

[spider_rob]

Oddly enough, this reminded me of the first Spider-Man movie from 2002, where Peter is taunting Bonesaw McGraw in the wresting ring by saying "Nice outfit - did your husband make it for you?" It got some cheap laughs in the theater nine years ago, but is it still really that funny today? I thought it seemed a bit out of character for Peter Parker even back then.

Yeah, I remember thinking it was a bit out of place even back then.

[spider_rob]

I've never known high schoolers to be particularly politically correct.

I'm not defending it, just saying it's not a stretch.

Well, he's a highschooler who's a superhero whom little kids look up to, that's written by adults.

[Hotwire]

Vid, I enjoyed all three films. I am not an idiot, nor are any of the people I know personally who also enjoyed them. Just because we do not share your opinion does not somehow make us less than you becasue we, "don't see the big picture."

You've stated your opinions, and tried to pass them off as facts. You have dismissed any and all rebutals. And you have continued to look down your nose as anyone who dates enjoy these films.

At this point, I feel that you are simply trolling and trying to get a rise out of people who disagree with you. Perhaps its best you let this go, or take it the general movies section. That way you can discuss other sexist directors like Antione Fuqua, who objectified Eva Mendes in Training Day. Or racists, like Spielberg, who only once cast a black actor in a lead roll. Let's not forget that jingoist, Ronald Emmerich for his portrayal of the American military in Independence Day. And, of course, who could forget the homophobic director Bryan Singer. So homophobic, he forces and gay actor to play a straight man!

[DTH]

Vid, I enjoyed all three films. I am not an idiot, nor are any of the people I know personally who also enjoyed them. Just because we do not share your opinion does not somehow make us less than you becasue we, "don't see the big picture."

You've stated your opinions, and tried to pass them off as facts. You have dismissed any and all rebutals. And you have continued to look down your nose as anyone who dates enjoy these films.

At this point, I feel that you are simply trolling and trying to get a rise out of people who disagree with you. Perhaps its best you let this go, or take it the general movies section. That way you can discuss other sexist directors like Antione Fuqua, who objectified Eva Mendes in Training Day. Or racists, like Spielberg, who only once cast a black actor in a lead roll. Let's not forget that jingoist, Ronald Emmerich for his portrayal of the American military in Independence Day. And, of course, who could forget the homophobic director Bryan Singer. So homophobic, he forces and gay actor to play a straight man!


Oh no, he hasn't dismissed any and all rebuttals, he's agreed with a few points (only those that he himself has stated thus making him only agreeing with himself, essentially)

Also, I watched maybe eight of those videos from that feminist youtube channel, and I have got to say...What the hell?

It's as if the lifetime channel had their own spokesperson and gave her steroids. She's just as damn cliche as this the poster of this thead's stereotypes. I was sitting here waiting for her to just flat out state that "Male characters in movies are bad, just because they have a penis and testicles."

Transformers isn't about women...It's about sentient robot alien lifeforms. Batman isn't about women. It's about Bruce Wayne and his never ending quest for justice. Ghostbusters isn't about women, it's about every day dudes being blue collar hardworking paranormal exterminators...

This is all one big joke. It's a movie. If you let it affect your day to day real life in a manner that it can't be used in any way in a positive light such as standing up for others when they can't, fighting for what's right in the world and doing what you need to and being responsible in a situation LIKE Optimus Prime but instead focus on the frat boy jokes or the sexualism and the immaturity THAT DOES EXIST in the real world then you're trolling yourself.

[Vid Electricz]

Vid, I enjoyed all three films. I am not an idiot, nor are any of the people I know personally who also enjoyed them. Just because we do not share your opinion does not somehow make us less than you becasue we, "don't see the big picture."

You've stated your opinions, and tried to pass them off as facts. You have dismissed any and all rebutals. And you have continued to look down your nose as anyone who dates enjoy these films.

At this point, I feel that you are simply trolling and trying to get a rise out of people who disagree with you. Perhaps its best you let this go, or take it the general movies section. That way you can discuss other sexist directors like Antione Fuqua, who objectified Eva Mendes in Training Day. Or racists, like Spielberg, who only once cast a black actor in a lead roll. Let's not forget that jingoist, Ronald Emmerich for his portrayal of the American military in Independence Day. And, of course, who could forget the homophobic director Bryan Singer. So homophobic, he forces and gay actor to play a straight man!

Oh no, he hasn't dismissed any and all rebuttals, he's agreed with a few points (only those that he himself has stated thus making him only agreeing with himself, essentially)

Also, I watched maybe eight of those videos from that feminist youtube channel, and I have got to say...What the hell?

It's as if the lifetime channel had their own spokesperson and gave her steroids. She's just as damn cliche as this the poster of this thead's stereotypes. I was sitting here waiting for her to just flat out state that "Male characters in movies are bad, just because they have a penis and testicles."

Transformers isn't about women...It's about sentient robot alien lifeforms. Batman isn't about women. It's about Bruce Wayne and his never ending quest for justice. Ghostbusters isn't about women, it's about every day dudes being blue collar hardworking paranormal exterminators...

This is all one big joke. It's a movie. If you let it affect your day to day real life in a manner that it can't be used in any way in a positive light such as standing up for others when they can't, fighting for what's right in the world and doing what you need to and being responsible in a situation LIKE Optimus Prime but instead focus on the frat boy jokes or the sexualism and the immaturity THAT DOES EXIST in the real world then you're trolling yourself.


And what, do you think I mean when I say "the big picture"? (I ask in the vain hope that I get an answer this time actually responding to the content of my post)

This is seriously like talking to a brick wall. I stated in my last post, in the most succinct and straightforward manner possible, what my qualms are with these movies and *whoosh*, right over your heads. Both of you have ignored all of the actual arguments I've made explaining in detail what my issues were and then you turn around and accuse me of ignoring everyone else's (which I haven't. I've responded to almost everyone) AND being a troll- which is a weak, lame, tired insult (which is obviously not true) that you've BOTH trotted out because you haven't got anything else to say except "No, you're wrong".

The links I posted were not, in fact the youtube feminist channel but the articles for "strong women characters" and propaganda and politics in Transformers". Both are very well written, thoughtful pieces that are 100% valid and might expand your narrow world view. But again, if you haven't grasped the content of what myself and a few others have been saying so far, then you probably won't understand the articles either.


And that thing about other directors. That was so absolutely juvenile and obviously trying to bait me... so completely missing the point of what I'm saying that it made my brain hurt (Not to mention I've mentioned Spielberg MANY times as a great director. Have you read anything I've written?). If you'd understood a single thing I've said up to now, then you'd know that I have absolutely nothing against those directors. That you said this indicates that you are seemingly incapable of abstract thought so I'm going to leave that.

Both of you are obviously on the same page, content to live with with the proverbial wool pulled over your eyes. Take care and have fun with your little Transformers movies. May they amuse and entertain you until the end.

[Hotwire]

Allow me to paraphrase a line from the article that Vid linked, one I think can put an end to this.

...how you feel about a film or its characters at the end reflects your own opinions, and it’s possible for some to love them, some to hate them, and for most to hold a more nuanced opinion.

Bottom line, everything in this thread, with the exception of the definitions Spider-Who listed, is opinion. One is no more valid than the other. Simply disagreeing with someone does not mean you are a blind idiot content to live with wool pulled over your eyes.

Sometimes some people see things others dont, it's not necessarily because they are actually there, sometimes they are, but sometimes it's just something that your own views makes you see.

I you feel the need to point them out, fine, but don't be surprised if not everyone agrees. And certainly don't look down on them for it.

That being said, if someone is trying to point out something, you yourself don't see, take a look, offer your view, and then, if you still don't see it, just walk away. As I do with this post.

By the way, I still think you owe an apology to anyone who enjoyed the film for the comment you made.
They are so low-brow and so bottom of the barrel that they are basically made for idiots. They are telling you that to enjoy these films, you must be an idiot.

[spider_rob]

Vid, I enjoyed all three films. I am not an idiot, nor are any of the people I know personally who also enjoyed them. Just because we do not share your opinion does not somehow make us less than you becasue we, "don't see the big picture."

You may not be an idiot, but you have horrible taste. Congratz.

[Hotwire]

You may not be an idiot, but you have horrible taste. Congratz.

Thank you. Also, I am certain your taste in films is no better. I'm sure you enjoy films that I feel are crap, but that would be a whole new debate.

[spider_rob]

Thank you. Also, I am certain your taste in films is no better. I'm sure you enjoy films that I feel are crap, but that would be a whole new debate.

I do enjoy some crappy films, but I acknowledge their crappiness and don't make up stupid excuses to defend them.

[Hotwire]

I do enjoy some crappy films, but I acknowledge their crappiness and don't make up stupid excuses to defend them.

I only tried to show Vid that I disagree with him. I know the films have flaws, I just don't get hung up on them, and enjoy the movie in spite of the flaws. Same as you.

I am curious, though. What are some films you enjoy most?

[Rock Sexton]

I only tried to show Vid that I disagree with him. I know the films have flaws, I just don't get hung up on them, and enjoy the movie in spite of the flaws. Same as you.

I am curious, though. What are some films you enjoy most?

Well then I guess you have quite the tolerance level.

Some of us don't ..........especially when the movie is attempting to bend you over with the amount of absolute nonsense we've seen in both DOTM and ROTF. Honestly, the material in these movies reminds me of the portrayal of people in Mike Judge's "Idiocracy" ..... It really does, just being honest. It's like that's the level of "shutting off your mind" that one has to go to in order to sit thru this film.

[Hotwire]

Well then I guess you have quite the tolerance level.

Some of us don't ..........especially when the movie is attempting to bend you over with the amount of absolute nonsense we've seen in both DOTM and ROTF. Honestly, the material in this movie reminds of the portrayal of people in Mike Judge's "Idiocracy" ..... It really does, just being honest. It's like that's the level of "shutting off your mind" that one has to go to in order to sit thru this film.

Hahahahaha!!!! If my tolerances are high, yours must be fairly low. There is no way I would have compared this to anything Mike Judge has done.

[Jake Cassidy]

edit

[Vid Electricz]

Allow me to paraphrase a line from the article that Vid linked, one I think can put an end to this.

...how you feel about a film or its characters at the end reflects your own opinions, and it’s possible for some to love them, some to hate them, and for most to hold a more nuanced opinion.

Bottom line, everything in this thread, with the exception of the definitions Spider-Who listed, is opinion. One is no more valid than the other. Simply disagreeing with someone does not mean you are a blind idiot content to live with wool pulled over your eyes.

Sometimes some people see things others dont, it's not necessarily because they are actually there, sometimes they are, but sometimes it's just something that your own views makes you see.

I you feel the need to point them out, fine, but don't be surprised if not everyone agrees. And certainly don't look down on them for it.

That being said, if someone is trying to point out something, you yourself don't see, take a look, offer your view, and then, if you still don't see it, just walk away. As I do with this post.

By the way, I still think you owe an apology to anyone who enjoyed the film for the comment you made.


Have you followed your own advice, because you don't seem to have considered a single thing I've said in any way (being that is a deviation of the standard "it is what it is" argument, I have given fair consideration to the point of view you subscribe to).

You're always on about opinions and how everyone has an opinion so everyone is equal, etc... I can't help but point out that this is a fallacy. Sure there are opinions, but there are informed opinions and uninformed opinions.


This sums it up nicely:

Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion):
the arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic. He nevertheless has an opinion, and will be insulted if his opinion is not treated with respect.


I believe you were demanding an apology?

[The Morningstar]

I think your reading into things a bit too much. What you imply requires that these things be done with intent and malice. Do you seriously think, Michael Bay and other film makers sit around before making a film and try to come up with ways degrade the people that thy are trying to portray?

I'd like to point out that even James Cameron follows your second rule. Other than Dark Angel, he's never made anything where the lead role was not white. He must be racist.

You don't need to read into anything to see that these movies are sexist, borderline racist and flat out filled to the brim with jingoism.

It really is like Team America: World Police but played straight. Bay is either really, really, really stupid or is is just trolling everyone.

[Jake Cassidy]

^ Or he just doesn't give a damn.

[Thundercrack85]

More likely he knows what works and sticks to it.

[Rock Sexton]

Hahahahaha!!!! If my tolerances are high, yours must be fairly low. There is no way I would have compared this to anything Mike Judge has done.

I think you missed the comparison. I was referring to the portrayal of the mindlessness of the people in that Mike Judge film ..... not comparing his movies to Michael Bay's.

[Rock Sexton]

You don't need to read into anything to see that these movies are sexist, borderline racist and flat out filled to the brim with jingoism.

It really is like Team America: World Police but played straight. Bay is either really, really, really stupid or is is just trolling everyone.

Seriously your best post ever. :woot:

[Spider-Who?]

My main point, is NOT that Michael Bay is Satan or Hitler (as some have said) creating some veiled manifesto for racism, sexism, jingoism and homophobia (among a million other things one might glean from these movies). I'm not calling for a mob to storm his mansion and lynch him. What I AM saying is that whether he knows it or not, he IS perpetuating negative stereotypes and portrayals of women and minorities. Usually, in movies, I ignore this kind of thing and write it off as an insipid waste of time (and as you know, I do think that), but with a series like this, I was rather fascinated that such a bombastic, mindlessly shallow movie with absolutely nothing going for it other than it's SFX, which was so insanely stupid and that insisted you be stupid too had become so popular. I'm not uptight or a prude by any means, but as I am prone to do, I began looking at what these movies were saying without really saying it. Follow?

Michael Bay knows what he's putting into his films, but he has no idea what he's saying or what messages (unintentional though they may be) he's conveying with the images and story he's choosing to tell.

For example, with the Bond films (not the last two), there was always a little wink to the camera as though to say "don't take this too seriously". The earlier Bond films operated in a different time when women weren't always (ever?) seen as equal to men (and were often expected to be in the kitchen where they belonged) and they most commonly played the "damsel in distress" which the hero needed to save (and then presumably bed). But that was a different time (Which didn't make it right). Since then we've gone through feminism and equal rights, etc... We've evolved a bit, so to speak. The Transformers films (and other films, yes) want to drag us back to the caveman days when men were men and women were arm-candy. Bay holds the women in his films to the same "damsel in distress" roles, but rather than the campy, corny "fun" they were in the past (or seemed to be anyway), Michael Bay, plants his actresses in the same roles, conforming to the archetypes of old without a wink and a nudge or a hint of wit or irony. This is the problem I have with the portrayal of women in these films.

You mention that the women were "strong, aggressive characters". I have to point out that this is fallacy. Take a look at this link as it goes into detail on why the "strong female characters" we see in movies these days are hardly characters at all, but rather a pastiche of traits and behaviors lazily slopped together to form some semblance what people think a " strong female character" should be.

http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/08/18/why-strong-female-characters-are-bad-for-women/


As for the racism, homophobia and jingoism- I don't think that Bay is a member of the KKK out to discredit or smear any particular race or country. but like I said, there is definitely a subtext to these movies (or any movie if you care to look), but the problem is the school-yard bully attitude which comes out loud and clear through the subtext.

In fact, I don't have any problem with America. I don't know why you'd think that I do. is it not possible to be critical of the way America is represented in a robot movie without being labelled anti-American? I didn't have a problem with the numerous American flags throughout the Spider-Man series and certainly not in films where it serves the story (any war films, I guess). I'm sorry to disappoint, but I certainly don't have a problem with patriotism. What I do have a problem with is the over-the-top, in-your-face fetishistic, masturbatory display of military fire-power and intense fascination with the military in a movie where it really isn't necessary- and everyone seems to answer to this, "well, what do you want, the military to do nothing against giant robots?" No, that's not what I said. Have the military there, fine. But it's certainly not necessary for the military to have such a prominent place in the series. in The Dark Knight did the movie focus on the Gotham city police force with only intermediate focus on Batman and the Joker? No, it focused on Batman and the Joker. Did the Hulk focus on the military trying to bring down the Hulk? It focused on the Hulk. Sure, he DID fight the military and they were there for the appropriate amount of time that they were needed to be to tell the story effectively. Just because the movie is written the way it is doesn't mean you can't critique what you feel was done effectively or ineffectively.

Take a look at this link. This guy goes into pretty good depth on the topic. Pretty thoughtful:

http://m0vie.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/for-freedom-the-politics-of-transformers-3/

Thanks for wasting my time. I offered you a clearly defined post, something quite easy to discuss point by point, and you respond with this; where half of your argument isn't even your own, and the other half is just regurgitated dramatic expressions without any credible examples to justify your claims.

Sexism - Now you're saying that the sexism is evidenced by not having a "weak" character? Yes, it is film class 101 to know that your main character having flaws greatly improves the audiences ability to relate. That link you posted is nothing new, and in fact, I would go so far as to say THAT is sexist, since it deals so heavily in the idea that men are pigs who only right the "perfect" women and are mentally incapable of writing a nuanced role. How many male characters suffer the same issue, where they are perfect, physically strong, charming and a "man's" man? Where are the same people from your article crying foul there? If I recall, Megan Fox's character is flawed (as your link requests) - she comes from a bad home, whose father is in and out of jail, and this fact comes back to bite her in the ass. Her character portrayal might not be the best, but she is meant to be anything but a weak character (in the derogatory sense).

Did the Hulk focus on the military? YES, actually, it did. Half of the movie's characters were in the military. Just because Michael Bay utilized a better cinematographer to capture the military's presence means absolutely little for your point. The military was a large part of the Transformers movies because A) it would be logical for the military to get involved; B) the Transformers team up with the military and C) several characters are in the military D) its a movie series where an alien WAR COMES TO EARTH (and I seem to recall you saying that its ok for a war type film to include the military). Even still, just because one movie handles it one way does not mean every other movie should handle it the same. To expect Transformers to treat the military the same way TDK treated cops is asinine.

Again, as for the homophobia, you have yet to offer any credible reasons for making these claims. Where is it? Calling someone a pussy for being scared is not evidence of homophobia; its an attack on the person's courage and strength, and if you feel that a scared and weak person is synonymous with a gay person, that speaks far more about you than anything else. Being called a pussy is a far cry removed from running around mad because a gay person entered the room.

When you can argue for yourself, and actually give credible evidence from the movie to justify your claims, I'll gladly take your thoughts a little more seriously. Remember, I don't really care for these movies all that much myself, but simply using the same argument over and over again (shouting sensationalized things like " there's a bully mentality!" doesn't qualify as credible). And reciting "you're missing the bi picture" is just as lazy as someone saying "its a dumb action film". So stop calling other people lazy when you can't even adequately express your own opinions. Lazy arguments indeed.

[Marvin]

Thanks for wasting my time. I offered you a clearly defined post, something quite easy to discuss point by point, and you respond with this; where half of your argument isn't even your own, and the other half is just regurgitated dramatic expressions without any credible examples to justify your claims.

Sexism - Now you're saying that the sexism is evidenced by not having a "weak" character? Yes, it is film class 101 to know that your main character having flaws greatly improves the audiences ability to relate. That link you posted is nothing new, and in fact, I would go so far as to say THAT is sexist, since it deals so heavily in the idea that men are pigs who only right the "perfect" women and are mentally incapable of writing a nuanced role. How many male characters suffer the same issue, where they are perfect, physically strong, charming and a "man's" man? Where are the same people from your article crying foul there? If I recall, Megan Fox's character is flawed (as your link requests) - she comes from a bad home, whose father is in and out of jail, and this fact comes back to bite her in the ass. Her character portrayal might not be the best, but she is meant to be anything but a weak character.

Did the Hulk focus on the military? YES. Half of the movie's characters were in the military. Just because Michael Bay utilized a better cinematographer to capture the military's presence means absolutely little for your point. The military was a large part of the Transformers movies because A) it would be logical for the military to get involved; B) the Transformers team up with the military and C) several characters are in the military D) its a movie series where an alien WAR COMES TO EARTH. Even still, just because one movie handles it one way does not mean every other movie should handle it the same. To expect Transformers to treat the military the same way TDK treated cops is asinine.

Again, as for the homophobia, you have yet to offer any credible reasons for making these claims. Where is it? Calling someone a pussy for being scared is not evidence of homophobia. Being called a pussy is a far cry removed from running around mad because a gay person entered the room.

When you can argue for yourself, and actually give credible evidence from the movie to justify your claims, I'll gladly take your thoughts a little more seriously. Remember, I don't really care for these movies all that much myself, but simply using the same argument over and over again (shouting sensationalized things like " there's a bully mentality!" doesn't qualify as credible). Lazy arguments indeed.

not bad

[Vid Electricz]

Thanks for wasting my time. I offered you a clearly defined post, something quite easy to discuss point by point, and you respond with this; where half of your argument isn't even your own, and the other half is just regurgitated dramatic expressions without any credible examples to justify your claims.

Sexism - Now you're saying that the sexism is evidenced by not having a "weak" character? Yes, it is film class 101 to know that your main character having flaws greatly improves the audiences ability to relate. That link you posted is nothing new, and in fact, I would go so far as to say THAT is sexist, since it deals so heavily in the idea that men are pigs who only right the "perfect" women and are mentally incapable of writing a nuanced role. How many male characters suffer the same issue, where they are perfect, physically strong, charming and a "man's" man? Where are the same people from your article crying foul there? If I recall, Megan Fox's character is flawed (as your link requests) - she comes from a bad home, whose father is in and out of jail, and this fact comes back to bite her in the ass. Her character portrayal might not be the best, but she is meant to be anything but a weak character.

Did the Hulk focus on the military? YES. Half of the movie's characters were in the military. Just because Michael Bay utilized a better cinematographer to capture the military's presence means absolutely little for your point. The military was a large part of the Transformers movies because A) it would be logical for the military to get involved; B) the Transformers team up with the military and C) several characters are in the military D) its a movie series where an alien WAR COMES TO EARTH. Even still, just because one movie handles it one way does not mean every other movie should handle it the same. To expect Transformers to treat the military the same way TDK treated cops is asinine.

Again, as for the homophobia, you have yet to offer any credible reasons for making these claims. Where is it? Calling someone a pussy for being scared is not evidence of homophobia. Being called a pussy is a far cry removed from running around mad because a gay person entered the room.

When you can argue for yourself, and actually give credible evidence from the movie to justify your claims, I'll gladly take your thoughts a little more seriously. Remember, I don't really care for these movies all that much myself, but simply using the same argument over and over again (shouting sensationalized things like " there's a bully mentality!" doesn't qualify as credible). Lazy arguments indeed.



Man! Talk about a waste of time indeed! Talk about redundant! Do you people just skip over every post that doesn't directly respond to you? I have to assume that is the case given your weak, vague attempts at discrediting my arguments (eg. half of your argument isn't even your own, and the other half is just regurgitated dramatic expressions without any credible examples to justify your claims).

Read on, eager one!

OK, despite the fact that you obviously didn't understand or grasp the "strong female characters" article in any way, shape or form given your literal-minded response. If, in addition, you think that the article is sexist, then you're living on another planet, dude. It's outright sad that I have to explain to you that so many movies and television shows are male dominated that it is what is defined as "the status quo". The fact that you'd even compare a weakly written female character to a weakly written male character speaks volumes about your (lack of) understanding of how sexism plays a part in our society. Strongly written male character, weakly written male character, the emphasis is still on the MALE character. It's called the "Bechdel test", look it up (Oh no! Backing up my arguments with supplementary info is soooo LAZY :whatever: ). Megan Fox's character having daddy issues and being victimized is far from being a LEGITIMATE character flaw. Again, did you read the article? On top of this tacked on and obviously weak shorthand for character development, she is also assigned not only the masculine trait of being able to fix cars...but to look SO hot while doing it. All for the amusement of the horny male audience. Pathetic. You call my arguments weak when yours are barely existent.


This is great!

Michael Bay utilized a better cinematographer to capture the military's presence


(This just made me laugh, to be honest)


A) it would be logical for the military to get involved; B) the Transformers team up with the military and C) several characters are in the military D) its a movie series where an alien WAR COMES TO EARTH

So you argument for why the military is so heavily involved in these films (the Hulk didn't even come close, BTW), is because:

A. The writer and Bay chose to write/portray them heavily into the film.
B. The writer and Bay chose to have the Transformers team up with the military.
C.The writer and Bay chose to make several characters from the military.
D. So because there are giant robots on earth, the movie must focus excessively on the military fighting them. Not focus mainly on the two warring factions of Transformers (title characters).

How did you so completely fail to grasp the parallel between that and TDK. By your line of reasoning it would go something like- There are criminals in Gotham city, the movie must focus excessively on the cops fighting them. Not Batman (title character).

Is this connecting yet? Just because you call it "asinine" doesn't mean it is


Truly. Genius. That's the kind of Uncreative, Hollywood lap dog, yes-man behavior we like to see! Your actual justification for why things were in the film is because Michael Bay chose to put them in the film. Astounding.

I've actually gone over the homophobia link SEVERAL times. But then, it's obvious that you see only what you want to see.

Being called a pussy is a far cry removed from running around mad because a gay person entered the room.

Literal minded! No room for creative or abstract thought here!

The homophobia link is not obvious and in-your-face, so it might be difficult for you to grasp something that is subtle and nuanced. No one is yelling on screen: "I hate gays!", but there are many instances where men are degraded for not behaving in a stereotypical masculine, macho fashion. The example where the robot degrades one character, calling him a "pussy" because he's afraid or showing emotion is only one example. It's a way of catering to the lowest common denominator, ensuring them that their ignorant predilections and intolerant behavior is OK. This aspect isn't as obvious as the sexism, racism and jingoism, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Hasn't ANYONE taken a literary of media analysis class? This is the most basic stuff!:doh:

The reason you think my arguments are weak and lazy (lol!) is because you are literal minded (as previously mentioned). You have the complete inability, as evidenced by your post, to think abstractly (given your stance on sexism and homophobia). For you, if there aren't clear cut, black and white instances, it might as well not exist. Like others, you keep calling for concrete, superficial examples from this film. Examples were provided in excess and you still stick your head in the sand and deny, deny, deny. Because you can't separate the argument from the definition. Even when the conversation has advanced past that point, you still keep clamoring for "examples, examples!" You're stuck in a point-by-point linear mode of thinking.


Feel free to try again if you'd like!

[C. Lee]

Feel free to try again if you'd like!

How about I say a word or two.

First thing.....everyone needs to stop trying to make themselves look smart by denouncing the intelligence of the others. Discuss things civily or don't post.

Announcing that you have attended a film class does not make your opinion better than anyone else's...it makes it different.

Now...everyone play nice in here.

[Spider-Who?]

Man! Talk about a waste of time indeed! Talk about redundant! Do you people just skip over every post that doesn't directly respond to you? I have to assume that is the case given your weak, vague attempts at discrediting my arguments (eg. half of your argument isn't even your own, and the other half is just regurgitated dramatic expressions without any credible examples to justify your claims).

Read on, eager one!

OK, despite the fact that you obviously didn't understand or grasp the "strong female characters" article in any way, shape or form given your literal-minded response.

Oh, no, I did. It's just easy for you to say I didn't to suit your needs. From what I recall from it the other day, the whole article is damning the "strong" portrayal of women because it is "unrealistic", and that its better to have a realistic (ie: flawed) character. As I mentioned, I have no disagreement with this because flawed characters are what we as an audience connect with. They are far more interesting than cookie cutter examples of perfect creatures.

If, in addition, you think that the article is sexist, then you're living on another planet, dude.

Its sad you can't comprehend sarcasm when that's all you're capable of dishing out.

It's outright sad that I have to explain to you that so many movies and television shows are male dominated that it is what is defined as "the status quo". The fact that you'd even compare a weakly written female character to a weakly written male character speaks volumes about your (lack of) understanding of how sexism plays a part in our society.

Status quo or not, the way people - man and female - are portrayed it the media is unhealthy, which is the point you are clearly missing.


It's called the "Bechdel test", look it up (Oh no! Backing up my arguments with supplementary info is soooo LAZY :whatever: ).

Good for you. Still, failing the Bechdel test hardly qualifies as an example of sexism. Bad, weak writing? Sure. Automatic sexism? Not automatically. I guess romantic comedies are totally sexist.

Megan Fox's character having daddy issues and being victimized is far from being a LEGITIMATE character flaw.

Really? I'm sure any psychiatrist and woman with emotional problems like this would strongly disagree with you. If you were to say that this wasn't handled well, or used to its fullest potential, I would certainly agree with you however.

Again, did you read the article? On top of this tacked on and obviously weak shorthand for character development, she is also assigned not only the masculine trait of being able to fix cars...but to look SO hot while doing it. All for the amusement of the horny male audience. Pathetic. You call my arguments weak when yours are barely existent.

Did you read MY posts? Obviously not because not only did I say that the character was poorly written, I've also be agreeing with you concerning the unnecessary ass shots. But again, my point has been:

1) Visual appeal is not inherently sexist.
2) Weak writing is not inherently sexist.

Was Megan Fox's character poorly written? Absolutely. So was every other character in these movies. I can certainly agree that the hype they tried to generate throughout the movie concerning the sex appeal is unneeded and unnecessary (and I can see where others like yourself might want to label it as sexist); I personally do not come to that particular conclusion.

Michael Bay utilized a better cinematographer to capture the military's presence


(This just made me laugh, to be honest)


Good, you understand humor.

A) it would be logical for the military to get involved; B) the Transformers team up with the military and C) several characters are in the military D) its a movie series where an alien WAR COMES TO EARTH

So you argument for why the military is so heavily involved in these films (the Hulk didn't even come close, BTW), is because:

A. The writer and Bay chose to write/portray them heavily into the film.
B. The writer and Bay chose to have the Transformers team up with the military.
C.The writer and Bay chose to make several characters from the military.
D. So because there are giant robots on earth, the movie must focus excessively on the military fighting them. Not focus mainly on the two warring factions of Transformers (title characters).

I will in no way disagree with the point that the movie should have focused on the Transformers. That is something EVERYONE can agree on. You're jumping to conclusions to think otherwise. My point here is that with the story Bay is choosing to tell, his inclusion of the military makes sense and how he does so is not (in my eyes) examples of jingoism.

How did you so completely fail to grasp the parallel between that and TDK. By your line of reasoning it would go something like- There are criminals in Gotham city, the movie must focus excessively on the cops fighting them. Not Batman (title character).

Is this connecting yet? Just because you call it "asinine" doesn't mean it is.

No, I quite obviously understood. But sadly, it seems while you're busy insulting my intelligence, you forget to read, because I said that just because TDK chose to handle the inclusion of cops one way does not mean everyone else must follow that rule. How would I be saying that TDK should focus on cops because that's the logic Bay used, when my EXACT closing statement was:

just because one movie handles it one way does not mean every other movie should handle it the same

Good god, boy. You have no idea what you've read.

Truly. Genius. That's the kind of Uncreative, Hollywood lap dog, yes-man behavior we like to see! Your actual justification for why things were in the film is because Michael Bay chose to put them in the film. Astounding.

Yup, that's me. Disagreeing with you (and yet, at the same time admitting to faults of these and similar films) makes me not only uncreative (HA! Me, a professional artist and musician, uncreative! - though "writer's block" is not a non-existent issue for me at times) but also a Hollywood yes man. Love your logic.

I've actually gone over the homophobia link SEVERAL times. But then, it's obvious that you see only what you want to see.
Being called a pussy is a far cry removed from running around mad because a gay person entered the room.
Literal minded! No room for creative or abstract thought here!

There's plenty of room in anything to concoct "hidden" meanings. Its human nature to look past the obvious. And I love movies that really strive for its viewers to look past the obvious. But that ability, and what one finds does not always equate to fact. That has been my point all along. YOU are finding these things. Others see it differently. It is not evidence of stupidity or ignorance for someone to see a different meaning, or even none at all.

The homophobia link is not obvious and in-your-face, so it might be difficult for you to grasp something that is subtle and nuanced. No one is yelling on screen: "I hate gays!", but there are many instances where men are degraded for not behaving in a stereotypical masculine, macho fashion. The example where the robot degrades one character, calling him a "pussy" because he's afraid or showing emotion is only one example.

Again, you claim there are so many examples, yet you only list the same one. I keep asking for examples not only in an effort for you to justify your opinion better, but because I want to better understand where you're coming from, as I personally don't recall every frame of these movies. But you keep failing to do so, outside of insults and repetitious statements about needing to look past the obvious.

And again, claiming that someone doesn't fit the "stereotypical macho man" mold isn't the same thing - its closer to justifying the sexism of the male image ("men 'must' be strong, tall, courageous leaders; they can not be weak, meek, or afraid!") than homophobia (unless they use a derogatory gay slur, imo).

It's a way of catering to the lowest common denominator

I won't disagree with that.

ensuring them that their ignorant predilections and intolerant behavior is OK.

I disagree to an extent. The quote you keep mentioning (if I recall) is between to buddy robots. Most friendship behave in a similar way at one time or another ("friendly" insults, ball busting, etc). Is this ignorant when it's between friends? If they both are on agreeable terms I don't think ignorant and intolerant are automatic labels one should assign to them. That's being quite close-minded, imo. To have it in a movie doesn't automatically equate to an assurance that this type of behavior is ok, either. Look at movies like Crash (note: I am in NO WAY comparing the quality of the two). It is one of the more racially insensitive movies I remember of the last few years. But it's the context, the intent that justifies it. Do you watch a slasher flick and think its catering to the serial killers in the audience and is sending a message of approval? (an extreme example? Maybe, but hopefully it gets the point across).

The problem is that you're assuming that the opposite of a strong willed male is a homosexual man. I personally don't agree with that sentiment, and even as a straight man, find this line of thinking to be rather childish and ignorant, as I know several gay men who fill the role of "strong, courageous" man better than other straight men I know.

This aspect isn't as obvious as the sexism, racism and jingoism, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Hasn't ANYONE taken a literary of media analysis class? This is the most basic stuff!:doh:

The reason you think my arguments are weak and lazy (lol!) is because you are literal minded (as previously mentioned).

I like how you can fully grasp how a person's mind works based on a few paragraphs. You should be a shrink. :whatever: Even if that were the case, I see nothing wrong with those who are literal minded. Every one thinks differently. No way is right or wrong. I'm sorry, but you're being an ignorant hypocrite.

No, the reason I've called your arguments weak-minded is because:
1) When people ask for more (or better) examples to which you keep referring to, you typically ignore them or simply say there are more, without further detail.

2) You can't discuss anything with someone who has a differing view without insulting them (your two posts directed towards me are perfect examples of this).

3) If 1 or 2 fail, "you just can't see the big picture" is your last line of defense; illustrated here:

You have the complete inability, as evidenced by your post, to think abstractly (given your stance on sexism and homophobia). For you, if there aren't clear cut, black and white instances, it might as well not exist.

My ability to see and think abstractly are fine, thank you. Just because I and others come to different conclusions than you does not mean anything to the contrary. Your rational concerning this is far more "black and white" then my outlook on this topic will EVER be, as my posts, while disagreeing on many points with you, also state collaborating outlooks on things as well.

Like others, you keep calling for concrete, superficial examples from this film.

Examples were provided in excess and you still stick your head in the sand and deny, deny, deny.

No, you aren't giving them. Its the same two examples, followed by explosive rational. I'm not even asking for in your face examples. But surely, if you are finding negative messages in these films, then surely there are more scenes that cause you to think this. People keep asking for more examples in order to better see where you are coming from. If there are so many instances of each of these issues, why is it so hard to list them? (And yes, these "instances" can be as obvious or deeply hidden as you want). THAT is the key to debating this. Without good examples, we really have no solid footing to discuss anything.

You're stuck in a point-by-point linear mode of thinking.

Point by point is the cleanest way to discuss things on an internet message board. So, I'm fine with that accusation.

If you're going to continue to post nothing but insults, I have no desire to continue. I'm all for cordial discussion and trying to look at things from different view points, but your increasingly juvenile reaction to others' views is not only uncalled for, but incredibly infantile and the exact opposite of what you claimed you were trying to initiate at the beginning of this thread. If you want to refrain from this useless dick waving, I'm all for continuing mature discussion. If not, then I won't waste my time with you any more as we're clearly not going to get anywhere.

[moviedoors]

As I said on another page in this thread, is a teenage girl being sexist to herself when she goes to the mall with make-up,a low cut shirt,a skirt and a thong to get guy's attention?

Not an equivalent comparison. A character dressing sexy is one thing, the director all but shoving the camera up her ass is another. Context, context, context.

[moviedoors]

The link you posted is great. It's also notable how badly Transformers 3 fails the Bechdel Test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLF6sAAMb4s

Ugh. I see the fratboy level treatment of women (and everything else) in all things Michael Bay too, but let's not go invoking the Bechdel test as a reason for it being sexist. That test has a very narrow usage, that of showing trends across huge swathes of filmmaking, but on an individual basis, you can't get more useless than that test.

[Monsieur Xavier]

All the energy you two are spending on this zero IQ film could light an entire city for a year.

Spider-Who : respect, your pain threshold is very high.

[Spider-Who?]

All the energy you two are spending on this zero IQ film could light an entire city for a year.

Ha, yeah, no argument there.

Spider-Who : respect, your pain threshold is very high.

I guess I'm just sort of a masochist when it comes to useless internet debates... :csad:

[Vid Electricz]

[QUOTE=Spider-Who?;20831609]Oh, no, I did. It's just easy for you to say I didn't to suit your needs. From what I recall from it the other day, the whole article is damning the "strong" portrayal of women because it is "unrealistic", and that its better to have a realistic (ie: flawed) character. As I mentioned, I have no disagreement with this because flawed characters are what we as an audience connect with. They are far more interesting than cookie cutter examples of perfect creatures.

So we agree about well written characters. OK...?

The reason it seemed you didn't understand is because your response was this:

Now you're saying that the sexism is evidenced by not having a "weak" character? Yes, it is film class 101 to know that your main character having flaws greatly improves the audiences ability to relate. That link you posted is nothing new, and in fact, I would go so far as to say THAT is sexist, since it deals so heavily in the idea that men are pigs who only right the "perfect" women and are mentally incapable of writing a nuanced role. How many male characters suffer the same issue, where they are perfect, physically strong, charming and a "man's" man? Where are the same people from your article crying foul there? If I recall, Megan Fox's character is flawed (as your link requests) - she comes from a bad home, whose father is in and out of jail, and this fact comes back to bite her in the ass. Her character portrayal might not be the best, but she is meant to be anything but a weak character.


Because all of this is from bias. None of the highlighted area is derived from the article. That's why it seemed you didn't understand it. Not because it "suited my needs". Nice try with the cute reversal though.

It never claims that men are pigs with the inability to write a female character. Some male writers that have written effective, compelling female characters:

Daniel Clowes
Sean Mckeever
Chris Ware

The main point that the article goes over how being super hot but performing or having a masculine trait does not a strong female character make. Which is something you stated Megan Fox's character to be.


Its sad you can't comprehend sarcasm when that's all you're capable of dishing out.


Yes, a "sarcastic" comment without any form or context which happens to directly support the statement you made about the article :doh: But props for the (attempted) insult and trying to back-pedal.

What you said:
"That link you posted is nothing new, and in fact, I would go so far as to say THAT is sexist, since it deals so heavily in the idea that men are pigs who only right the "perfect" women and are mentally incapable of writing a nuanced role.


a sentence brimming with sarcasm if ever I saw one.



Status quo or not, the way people - man and female - are portrayed it the media is unhealthy, which is the point you are clearly missing.


What a simple way to just dismiss my statement, avoid the actual argument then follow it by bringing in a point that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Yes, it's been clear for decades that neither sex is represented "healthily" or realistically in television shows and movies (This is not the issue), but it's clear that for the majority (not all) of them, women end up getting the raw end of the deal.


Good for you. Still, failing the Bechdel test hardly qualifies as an example of sexism. Bad, weak writing? Sure. Automatic sexism? Not automatically. I guess romantic comedies are totally sexist.

Many of them are. But again, not in the most obvious ways. Off the top of my head, "the Ugly Truth" and "Pretty woman" are two seemingly harmless romantic comedies chock full of sexism and misogyny.

It doesn't make a movie outright sexist by failing the Bechdel test, but relating to my last comment, it is indicative of an underrepresentation and misrepresentation of women in cinema.

Really? I'm sure any psychiatrist and woman with emotional problems like this would strongly disagree with you. If you were to say that this wasn't handled well, or used to its fullest potential, I would certainly agree with you however.

Having a father in prison is valid "problem" in real life or a story to be sure. But it is not a "character flaw". If anything, in the Transformers movie it is used as a plot device.

Bruce Wayne's parents for example, being killed is not a character flaw. Bruce (in Begins) being a a stubborn, headstrong, vengeful youth...those are character flaws.

Being an over confident know-it-all, being an eager overachiever, being neurotic or emotionally repressed are all legitimate character flaws.

"Picking the wrong types of guys" is hardly a flaw.

Did you read MY posts? Obviously not because not only did I say that the character was poorly written, I've also be agreeing with you concerning the unnecessary ass shots. But again, my point has been:

1) Visual appeal is not inherently sexist.
2) Weak writing is not inherently sexist.

Was Megan Fox's character poorly written? Absolutely. So was every other character in these movies. I can certainly agree that the hype they tried to generate throughout the movie concerning the sex appeal is unneeded and unnecessary (and I can see where others like yourself might want to label it as sexist); I personally do not come to that particular conclusion.


"Visual appeal" is not inherently sexist. That's right. The way you word it when you say "visual appeal is not inherently sexist", indicates that someone has argued that "Visual appeal IS sexist" (which I haven't). That's such a sweeping, general statement that, from the nature of this conversation, we can assume means the visual appeal of the female form. But again, this was never the issue. The issue is the execution and portrayal of the female form within the narrative, which is arguably sexist and misogynistic.

A story of fiction whether it is told well or poorly may contain sexist and misogynistic elements. So no, weak writing is not inherently sexist (this was also not an issue).


Good, you understand humor.

:dry:



I will in no way disagree with the point that the movie should have focused on the Transformers. That is something EVERYONE can agree on. You're jumping to conclusions to think otherwise. My point here is that with the story Bay is choosing to tell, his inclusion of the military makes sense and how he does so is not (in my eyes) examples of jingoism.


Again, this has to do with the execution of the material. The Hulk, again, is a good example. The Hulk portrayed the military in a way that made sense and served the story with none of the flag waving, over-the-top patriotic excesses plaguing these films. Jingoistic subtext is all over this film- the Transformers dismantling Iran's Nuclear weapons program, for example. Optimus giving a speech about how the autobots will defend the world no matter how many friends betray them with an American flag waving in the background. It's all very cheesy and obviously meant to appeal to young, simple minded children who don't know any better. That is my qualm (as I'd made clear) with the portrayal of the military in these films. Not that it didn't "make sense" within the context of the story. This kind of ideology can exist in a film passively, using undertones to endorse a certain ideology without being thrown in audience's face.


No, I quite obviously understood. But sadly, it seems while you're busy insulting my intelligence, you forget to read, because I said that just because TDK chose to handle the inclusion of cops one way does not mean everyone else must follow that rule. How would I be saying that TDK should focus on cops because that's the logic Bay used, when my EXACT closing statement was:

just because one movie handles it one way does not mean every other movie should handle it the same

Good god, boy. You have no idea what you've read.


lol. Thanks "boy". My point was not that because TDK portrayed the police force in one way that the military should be treated similarly. My point was that the movie is called "TRANSFORMERS" and they occupy much less of the story than they should. The police in TDK serve their purpose in the to the story in the peripherals and the titular DARK KNIGHT occupies the lions share of the story. Which leads to...


Yup, that's me. Disagreeing with you (and yet, at the same time admitting to faults of these and similar films) makes me not only uncreative (HA! Me, a professional artist and musician, uncreative! - though "writer's block" is not a non-existent issue for me at times) but also a Hollywood yes man. Love your logic.


You can't make one statement saying one thing and then make another, diametrically opposing it and not be a hypocrite. I called you uncreative because your justification for why the military was portrayed so heavily in the movie is essentially because the writer and director chose to create the story that way.


A) it would be logical for the military to get involved;
B) the Transformers team up with the military and
C) several characters are in the military
D) its a movie series where an alien WAR COMES TO EARTH

and I answered with this:

So you argument for why the military is so heavily involved in these films, is because:

A. The writer and Bay chose to write/portray them heavily into the film.
B. The writer and Bay chose to have the Transformers team up with the military.
C.The writer and Bay chose to make several characters from the military.
D. So because there are giant robots on earth, the movie must focus excessively on the military fighting them. Not focus mainly on the two warring factions of Transformers (title characters).

You may very well be a creative artist or whatever, but by validating the existence of something being in a film simply because it was written that way is not a very creative solution.

It makes it very similar to the hundreds of other films focusing on the military fighting aliens. Would you agree that Focusing on the Transformers themselves would be more appealing? As one poster mentioned, the Transformers could have been an epic steam-punk-esque, space-adventure with the Robots themselves at the core of the story. To make that interesting, suspenseful and funny, while still making us care for the characters (which these films did NOT do IMO), now THAT would be a magnificently creative feat to pull off.

[Vid Electricz]

Continued...



There's plenty of room in anything to concoct "hidden" meanings. Its human nature to look past the obvious. And I love movies that really strive for its viewers to look past the obvious. But that ability, and what one finds does not always equate to fact. That has been my point all along. YOU are finding these things. Others see it differently. It is not evidence of stupidity or ignorance for someone to see a different meaning, or even none at all.


You and a few others seem to think these ideas I've presented are loony and off the wall as though I'm making stuff up. The fact is that these issues have been noticed on a widespread scale:

New York Times:

…the introduction of two new Autobot characters, the illiterate, bickering twins Skids and Mudflap, both of which take the shape of Chevrolet concept cars. The characters have been given conspicuously cartoonish, so-called black voices that indicate that minstrelsy remains as much in fashion in Hollywood as when, well, Jar Jar Binks was set loose by George Lucas. For what it’s worth, the script, by Ehren Kruger, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, also includes a crack about Simmons, who’s coded as Jewish, and his “pubic-fro head.”

Ebert:

There are many great-looking babes in the film, who are made up to a flawless perfection and look just like real women, if you are a junior fanboy whose experience of the gender is limited to lad magazines…


LA Times:

“Revenge” is strictly a man’s world…Although there are female Autobots and Decepticons in the Transformer universe, they are rare and none make it into the movie.

(Well, there is one, I believe...and she gets killed immediately)

AICN:
…the frightening sidekicks of the film and the mistake this film will most likely be forever known for: Mudflap and Skids…Oh. My. God. They speak in clichéd urban slang, tossing around phrases like “I’m gonna pop a cap in your ass” while fist bumping and mumbling unintelligently in a voice that sounds like a bad Chappelle Show sketch. Then you get a close up. And they each have bug eyes and a gold tooth. Then there’s this jackass comment about them not being able to read. My jaw was on the floor.

Variety:
…a college whose students all look like twentysomething actors, and whose frat parties seem to take place at expensive strip clubs. In fact, on his first night out, Sam is treated to a sort of lap dance by a Decepticon posing as a nymphomaniacal freshman.


The Hollywood Reporter:
…Fox has little to do except look great in a tank top and tight jeans while running in slow motion…

The Associated Press:
The only robots with any discernible personality traits, aside from bravery or antagonism, are the Autobot twins, Mudflap and Skids. These are shockingly crass and unfortunate black stereotypes, jive-talking fools who can’t read and bumble their way from one mishap to the next. They are Jar Jar Binks in car form…

Film Freak Central:
Perhaps it’s time to have this conversation at some level of our culture that going into a movie deaf and blind to messages like “women are things” and “Arabs are evil” and “African-Americans are scairt” is exactly what Bay and his co-producer Steven Spielberg (for shame, man) want you to do, hope that you do, because imagine what would happen if anyone with any kind of infant moral compass were to notice that they’ve taken their 9-year-old to a movie this ugly and hateful.



Again, you claim there are so many examples, yet you only list the same one. I keep asking for examples not only in an effort for you to justify your opinion better, but because I want to better understand where you're coming from, as I personally don't recall every frame of these movies. But you keep failing to do so, outside of insults and repetitious statements about needing to look past the obvious.

You'll love this post then.

And again, claiming that someone doesn't fit the "stereotypical macho man" mold isn't the same thing - its closer to justifying the sexism of the male image ("men 'must' be strong, tall, courageous leaders; they can not be weak, meek, or afraid!") than homophobia (unless they use a derogatory gay slur, imo).

The problem is, that males, throughout history, have been the dominant sex. Women, the submissive. It may be promoting the stereotype of the "tough guy, macho man" but at the same time, decries and degrades males who do act "weak, meek or afraid" as a "pussy" (ie: woman/fa*got).

Granted, it's certainly not as pronounced as the misogyny, racism and jingoism, but elements are there.


I won't disagree with that.


I disagree to an extent. The quote you keep mentioning (if I recall) is between to buddy robots. Most friendship behave in a similar way at one time or another ("friendly" insults, ball busting, etc). Is this ignorant when it's between friends? If they both are on agreeable terms I don't think ignorant and intolerant are automatic labels one should assign to them. That's being quite close-minded, imo. To have it in a movie doesn't automatically equate to an assurance that this type of behavior is ok, either. Look at movies like Crash (note: I am in NO WAY comparing the quality of the two). It is one of the more racially insensitive movies I remember of the last few years. But it's the context, the intent that justifies it. Do you watch a slasher flick and think its catering to the serial killers in the audience and is sending a message of approval? (an extreme example? Maybe, but hopefully it gets the point across).


1- If that's how your friends act, you can keep 'em.

2-"Crash" and Slasher flicks aren't marketed towards children to sell them toys.


The problem is that you're assuming that the opposite of a strong willed male is a homosexual man. I personally don't agree with that sentiment, and even as a straight man, find this line of thinking to be rather childish and ignorant, as I know several gay men who fill the role of "strong, courageous" man better than other straight men I know.

In fact, I never said or indicated any such thing. I know gay men that don't in any way cater to the stereotypes that are often attributed to them in the media. I agree that judging someone according to that sort of extreme is childish- But look at this realistically: How are gay men often and consistently portrayed in the media? As lisping, fashion conscious, weak willed caricatures. I know there are exceptions but this caricatured portrayal has become the norm.


I like how you can fully grasp how a person's mind works based on a few paragraphs. You should be a shrink. :whatever: Even if that were the case, I see nothing wrong with those who are literal minded. Every one thinks differently. No way is right or wrong. I'm sorry, but you're being an ignorant hypocrite.

I can only work with what you give me and thus far your justifications for the alleged cases of sexism, racism, etc...have been exceedingly literal (eg. The military is in the story so much 'cause it was written that way, men and women are portrayed poorly in movies, friends bust each others balls, etc...). "Ignorant hypocrite" eh? That's a first, but being that it's come from someone on a superhero message board who is clearly just throwing out a weak insult, it is impossible for me to care.


No, the reason I've called your arguments weak-minded is because:
1) When people ask for more (or better) examples to which you keep referring to, you typically ignore them or simply say there are more, without further detail.

2) You can't discuss anything with someone who has a differing view without insulting them (your two posts directed towards me are perfect examples of this).

3) If 1 or 2 fail, "you just can't see the big picture" is your last line of defense; illustrated here:



1- You should find this post to your liking then

2- says the guy who hands out insults like candy (not that I ever complained about it though. it doesn't affect me.).

3- I actually did post my main "idea", or a more clearly defined thesis than I had in my initial post, which encompassed all the issues in the title, a few pages ago:

I'm not "offended" by the subject matter of or any specific instances of racism, sexism, etc...in these films. Like I said, I'm no prude. The truly offensive thing about these films is that they prey on the stupidity of the audience. They insult the audience by feeding them mindless, simplistic, inane stereotypes and and expect them to be happy with it. Get it now? They are so low-brow and so bottom of the barrel that they are basically made for idiots. They are telling you that to enjoy these films, you must be an idiot. They expect nothing of the audience's intelligence and in turn the audience expects nothing but meaningless entertainment. "Just turn off your brain and enjoy" becomes the slogan for every new movie released. If you don't want to face that fact, then fine. Look at the world through rose colored lenses. The cold hard truth hurts.


It's not so much "see the big picture" as, "don't get bogged down in nitpicks and peripheral issues", which serve to distract from the main point.


My ability to see and think abstractly are fine, thank you. Just because I and others come to different conclusions than you does not mean anything to the contrary. Your rational concerning this is far more "black and white" then my outlook on this topic will EVER be, as my posts, while disagreeing on many points with you, also state collaborating outlooks on things as well.

So you go from telling me that I can't judge someone's personality from some message board posts to telling me how black and white my stance is on these topics compared to you? As I said, you can only work with what you've seen the person has said...but then, you did call me an ignorant hypocrite for that.

How do you figure that my view is more simplistic than yours? You will barely even acknowledge the issues with this film I've listed, instead cooking up justification and rationalizations in it's defense. You've partially agreed on some topics, but those only end up being the one's you've brought up in the first place and that I've rebuked (the military making sense in the story instance).


No, you aren't giving them. Its the same two examples, followed by explosive rational. I'm not even asking for in your face examples. But surely, if you are finding negative messages in these films, then surely there are more scenes that cause you to think this. People keep asking for more examples in order to better see where you are coming from. If there are so many instances of each of these issues, why is it so hard to list them? (And yes, these "instances" can be as obvious or deeply hidden as you want). THAT is the key to debating this. Without good examples, we really have no solid footing to discuss anything.


Point by point is the cleanest way to discuss things on an internet message board. So, I'm fine with that accusation.

If you're going to continue to post nothing but insults, I have no desire to continue. I'm all for cordial discussion and trying to look at things from different view points, but your increasingly juvenile reaction to others' views is not only uncalled for, but incredibly infantile and the exact opposite of what you claimed you were trying to initiate at the beginning of this thread. If you want to refrain from this useless dick waving, I'm all for continuing mature discussion. If not, then I won't waste my time with you any more as we're clearly not going to get anywhere.


You're Getting awfully sanctimonious. Sure, I've dished out a few zingers, but then, I never complained about insults. You on the other hand have handed out quite a few yourself (justify them if you like) and are decrying me for doing likewise. Again, you called me an "ignorant hypocrite" a few lines up. But this sounds an awful lot like hypocrisy.

If all you see from my posts are insults then you're either not reading them whatsoever or you're trying to get a rise by playing devil's advocate. See what you get from this post. I've got a lot of fuel left for this conversation.

[/QUOTE]

[CelticPredator]

You may not be an idiot, but you have horrible taste. Congratz.
**** off.

[Rylvan]

What a witty, eloquent, cutting comeback.



I have to admit, the first half hour or so of Dark of the Moon felt rather sexist to me, what with Rosie's introductory giant close-up 3D ass shot and some of the comments made by Dempsey and LaBeouf's characters (like when he compares her to a car).

[Bruce_Begins]

Sexism, Racism, Jingoism and Homophobia- That's entertainment!

The thread title adequately describes the philosophy behind Bay's movies and he is again trusted to reboot the franchise !

[bigmac2011]

http://theworldofrossology.tk/more-than-meets-the-eye-not-likely/ .... Bay Haters Unite! (And I didn't even touch on the sub-par acting of the leading hosebeasts this cinematic idiot savant has chosen to headline his movies)

[The Morningstar]

Wow, some of these discussions are waaaaaaaaaaaay too in depth. I didn't think it was possible to have an in depth discussion about Bayformers?

[Optimus_Prime_]

I never understood how Michael Bay is any of these things. Firstly, The Rock, Revenge of the Fallen, Transformers, and Dark of the Moon basically are all about how the Government is a bunch of bums who mistreat the "common folk" who make up our military. So wait? Loving the military is a bad thing? Making a movie about how soldiers are basically forgotten, that their deaths are concealed, even from their own kin makes you a jingoist?!?

Sh**, in the first movie Michael Bay MAKES FUN OF George W. Bush, then actually is pretty fair in how he references Obama two movies later. This guy is a neocon? We must be watching different movies.

By the by, if Bay is sexist then nearly every action movie is sexist. Clearly Jon Favereau and company cast Scarlett for her ability to do a convincing Russian accent, and her believeability as a super-secret agent. Because we all know undercover agents look like that.

Then of course the age old "racism" charge. Ah yes! The man whose responsible for one of the ONLY black dominant major action film franchises is secretly a racist. That's why he made Bad Boys I and II. That's also why he made basically the only black character in Transformers a computer hacker, because we all know that old, tired stereotype. My, in the deep south they're always so concerned their computers will get hacked by black people. They burn effigies of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in the lawns of black families just trying to live their lives. I've seen it! They get called awful names like "geek" and "four eyes", it's deplorable.

Bay basically knows what sells. No one claims his products are of high quality, but Bay's skill lies in his cinematography, special FX, and his ability to deliver basically what you would consider low brow entertainment. He's basically the Chuck Lorre of movies. There's nothing sexist, jingoist or racist about it. It's like going to McDonald's, and then claiming they lack moral foundation because you don't like the food, even when they never lied to you and tried to make you think it was gourmet in the first place. When have you ever watched a Bay trailer and been like "wow, looks like Michael is going for the Oscar bait". Never! Michael Bay is a fun first priority film maker.

[The Morningstar]

And there is nothing wrong with that. But popcorn fluff stills needs to be good quality popcorn fluff. Unfortunately, the last 2 TF movies are just garbage outside of the visuals.