View Single Post
Old 07-11-2011, 06:51 PM   #178
Vid Electricz
Banned User
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,845
Default Re: Sexism, Racism, Jingoism and Homophobia- That's entertainment!


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.”


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)

…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 clich├ęd 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.

…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. 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, 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.


Vid Electricz is offline   Reply With Quote