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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

Originally Posted by DTH

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.

Originally Posted by Vid Electricz

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]

Originally Posted by 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 may not be an idiot, but you have horrible taste. Congratz.

[Hotwire]

Originally Posted by spider_rob

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]

Originally Posted by Hotwire

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]

Originally Posted by spider_rob

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]

Originally Posted by Hotwire

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]

Originally Posted by Rock Sexton

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Hotwire

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]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

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.

[Spider-Who?]

Originally Posted by Vid Electricz

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/2008/0...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/2011/06/2...ransformers-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]

Originally Posted by Spider-Who?

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]

Originally Posted by Spider-Who?

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 ). 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!

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]

Originally Posted by Vid Electricz

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?]

Originally Posted by Vid Electricz

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 ).

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!

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Grievous

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]

Originally Posted by Episode29

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.