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 ***** 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 "*****" 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.
t:
