Dark of the Moon Sexism, Racism, Jingoism and Homophobia- That's entertainment!

[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...

 

[Vid Electricz]

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 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.





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 "*****" (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, 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).

 

[Micromind]

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.