Revenge of the Fallen The Twins: Racist?

[Colossal Spoons]

What the hell?? How in the world is Jazz worse than the Twins. At least Jazz was not acting ghetto the WHOLE movie like the twins. Jazz only did a breakdance and said " Whats Crackin Little *****es" thats it. Plus Jazz was more noble than the twins he wanted to save bumblebee when he got captured.

Only? lol

 

[MadVillainy]

I acutally have only hear 2 black people complain about the racism of the twins

but Im surprised nobody has complained about the role of women. Which, I still dont find offensive but still surprised people havent been complaining about it

 

[terry78]

Well, racist or not, Bay still managed to make his budget back, and come this next week, then some.

 

[MadVillainy]

well even Klansmen still have dayjobs

 

[Angry Sentinel]

I don't think it was an attempt at being racist... it was simply a way to add that stereotypical 'characterization' of 'kewl urbanized hippness' to the movie because it would make the movie more appealing to that demographic.

Actually, the assumption that only black people fall into that demographic is more racist than the attempt to draw them to the movie.

 

[Krimasen]

Actually, the assumption that only black people fall into that demographic is more racist than the attempt to draw them to the movie.

Agree. "Hipness" and "urban behavior" goes across all differing kinds of cultures.

 

[XxCovertAcexX]

I don't know if its just me but I hate when people start playing the racism card about the littlest things. Just because the twins seemed like black people doesn't necessarily mean they were racist. In fact I did not hear a single racist thing leave their mouths! The closest thing was "We don't do a lot of reading", did they ever stop and think that their are some white people that also "do not do a lot of reading"?

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Was it just me or did the both of them kinda sound like Katt Williams?

And Chris Tucker

 

[LostSon88]

Actually, the assumption that only black people fall into that demographic is more racist than the attempt to draw them to the movie.

After he saw the movie, I told my friend (who is African American) about this idea about the twins are racist.

...he had no idea what I was talking about and didn't find the twins offensive in any way.

 

[The Guard]

Blacks and Crime/Slanted Media:

The media doesn't usually talk about good things, period, but they do occassionally. I've seen plenty of stories over the years about successful black business people, teachers, cops, fireman, soldiers, and just everyday ordinary people who did good things. And I've seen bad ones. I simply don't buy that the media only portrays the bad side of black culture. And like a lot of things I really don't think there's any way to measure it across the board.

Anyone who attends college or high school and graduates, will graduate with blacks who do, and who go on to be successful, to have varied careers, etc. In the real world, that stuff is out there. I just don't see the logic in suggesting that these positive images aren't out there at all, or that there's some conspiracy to cover it up.

I'd be interested in what you consider a specific "black problem" that doesn't fall into some larger problem across the country and world. What do you mean "put into a corner and pointed out"?

True, society as a whole places a ridiculous emphasis on color, and not the larger issues. But that goes for both sides, so to speak. And as long as it is about color, it will be about color. We have got to get past that politcal outlook, in my opinion, for any kind of true equality to exist.

Which is, of course, much, much easier said than done.

And I wonder how much of this negative imaging makes things like racial profiling, redlining, disparity in home loans for blacks and whites (which affects the wealth gap between whites and blacks, perhaps one of the truest measures of economic freedom), following blacks around in stores, limiting the number of black youths that can come into stores at times, not picking up black people in cabs, etc.

I have no idea, and that's sort of a broad question. I do know that a lot of this profiling is probably done because of experience, not just because of inherent, unproven bias.

High risk loans often end, like high risk insurance, badly for all parties involved.

Wealth gap? Elaborate?

People who follow people around in a store probably have some individual inherent bias against the followees, and I've frankly never seen this happen in my life, or met someone who has. I have a friend who's a security guard. They watch everyone, and if you look like you could potentially steal something, even if you aren't going to, they will often follow you. This goes for security guards, store reps, you name it.

How much of that behavior comes from an actual reading of crime statistics? Or how much of it comes from perceptions of how black people are, perhaps shaped in part by the media?

For police culture, and maybe someone here with a law enforcement background can chime in on this, it's my understanding that a lot of the reason cops profile simply comes from experience. I've studied this stuff, and I've talked to a lot of cops, and the consensus is that profiling is done because profiling, in certain areas and situations, works.

BTW, back in the day, just look back at some of the way 'respectable' papers like the New York Times referred to black people. I only bring it up to say there is a precedent for slanted coverage.

There is a precedent for slanted coverage. There is also a precedent for being sued for such things now. I'd have to see some examples, but again, I really don't see this kind of thing across the board.

There's one drama series headlined by a black person, on the network and basic cable shows, and that's a lot of channels: Hawthorne. CW recently cancelled The Game and Everybody Hates Chris. CBS also cancelled The Unit. Currently, Tyler Perry has two sitcoms on TBS. To my knowledge, there is one black sitcom coming in the fall on FOX, Brothers (which I guarantee you won't last long; the commericals look terrible), and the animated Cleveland Show (though Cleveland Brown is voiced by a white guy; some of the cast at least will be black). To be fair, there are blacks threaded throughout TV. The network execs couldn't get away with having almost zero blacks these days but most of the roles are sideline or support characters.

Huh. Wasn't aware of that.

You keep saying well white characters suffer the same problems of lack of development, etc. That's true. But I think you fail to grasp that there are so many more roles for white actors, so many different types of character roles that whites play in comparison to black.

I don't fail to grasp that at all. I just don't believe there are no decent roles for black people. And if there aren't, I suspect there's a money driven reason behind it, which isn't fair, but hey, it's also show business.

Certain things sell. Certain things don't.

Why aren't Derek Luke, Lauren London, Sharon Leal, Meagan Goode, Columbus Short, and other members of young black Hollywood, getting the
kind of push that Megan Fox and Shia LeBouf for example have?

Is it for lack of talent? Is it for lack of looks? Is it because of marketability? If so, why is that? Could it be that whites, and other international markets are still reluctant to support blacks except for Will Smith?

Why haven't they gotten that kind of push? Because relatively few actors and actresses do.

In all seriousness, given the two names you gave, it's probably because they didn't get personally discovered by Steven Spielberg and Michael Bay respectively. Hollywood fame and recognition is usually all about who you know, and where you came into the business and make your mark. Not who you are, or your talent levels compared to those around you.

There are plenty of people who will never make it out of an extra role who could probably act circles around most movie stars, including some of the greats.

I'm sure for the people above, a part of their lack of visibility has to do with a lack of high profile black roles, which are invariably filled by people like Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Morgan Freeman, Jamie Foxx, Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Lawrence Fishburne, Halle Berry, Djimon Hounsou, Eddie Murphy, etc. People who know people, who have been marketed, and proven marketable, in most cases.

But again, while it's not on the same level, it is similar to the way that there are only so many high caliber roles for white people, both men and women. Probably more, but still, white actors have to contend with people who were there first, who have more clout, are more recognizable, etc.

A lot of Hollywood and superstardom is luck and who you know.

Do we have a way to go in Hollywood before equality? Sure. We have a long way to go everywhere, in many respects, not just racially.

I would imagine the reason that Hollywood hasn't cashed in on urban superheroes is because they feel that the urban market doesn't like superheroes quite as much as other markets do. I think there was an article about that a few years ago, fairly interesting. I wish I could find it again.

Anyway, Halle Berry, lead role or not (No one had as much time as Jackman), was a very visible part of all three X-Men movies. She was a selling point of X2 and THE LAST STAND.

I know there haven't been a lot of non-black superhero movies over the last ten years. There are a number of heroes fans and studios apparently want to see before characters like Black Lightning. When something like GREEN LANTERN and heck, WONDER WOMAN, or something like CAPTAIN AMERICA can barely get off the ground, is it really all that surprising that BLACK LIGHTNING hasn't been made?

There was a time when the only news on something like IRON MAN was DeCaprio or Cruise saying "Yeah, I might be interested". This is slowly changing. However, if Denzel Washington went to someone and said "I want to make Black Panther", you can bet it would probably be made. That's basically what got BLADE made (Snipes interest and commitment to the project), and that's what got HELLBOY (Del Toro's commitment) made, and frankly, most remotely obscure or even slightly known superhero movies that have been made have some passionate individual behind them. Even the crappier ones. That hasn't happened, apparently, with most of the black characters. But again, it hasn't happened with most of the great white characters, either, until fairly recently.

I think we'll see black supeheroes. It's just, like anything else, a matter of time.

The only ones I would say had significant roles for blacks were The Spirit, Daredevil, Iron Man (and that's a maybe), the Batfilms. The point I'm trying to make is there has been an explosion in comic book films recently and black projects have not ridden that wave.

You know who else hasn't ridden that wave until fairly recently, and even then it's been tough to get these off the ground?: THE FLASH, GREEN LANTERN, WONDER WOMAN, AQUAMAN, the JLA, JONAH HEX, SGT ROCK, LOBO, CAPTAIN AMERICA, THOR, SUB-MARINER.

Black superheroes haven't "ridden the wave", probably because most well known black superheroes are secondary or tertiary characters. John Stewart is the third or fourth most famous and interesting Green Lantern to most GL and DC fans, even after an animated series where he had quite a sizeable role. Black Lightning leads the Outsiders...ok...who the hell are the Outsiders to most people? Cyborg got time on SMALLVILLE, but he's a member of The Titans, not a solo character, and not terribly, terribly interesting to begin with. The Falcon is Captain America's pal. Steel is about the fourth or fifth most deserving spinoff character in the Superman universe, and already had a movie, which was terrible, and I doubt studios are going to want to take that risk again. So he'll be a supporting character if she shows up again. SPAWN is a similar situation. Todd MacFarlane waxes about a sequel, but where is it?

Sure, films COULD be made about those characters, but we both know it's just not that simple.

Of course you have argued that its based on the popularity of these projects. To some extent that's true, but there have been more than one obscure project made (all the Alan Moore films, Road to Perdition, The Spirit, AHOV, for example) during this period.

And these projects have had incredibly passionate (if misguided) people behind them.

I think the history of race in comics and the lack of support for black heroes, not to mention other non-white male heroes, has played a factor in it.

If by that you mean "There aren't a lot of great solo black heroes", then yes. But there are perfectly logical reasons Marvel made say, THE INCREDIBLE HULK, THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA and THE AVENGERS before committing to LUKE CAGE.

Also, I think that has played a role in how many mainstream black characters headline books, which is a good sign of their popularity. As it stands now, Black Panther and War Machine have their own title. The new Azrael's is coming. That's about it. Three, at DC and Marvel combined. Spawn, at Image, is no longer a black character to my knowledge and I'm not sure if there are any black headliners at Image. I heard something about the Free Agent, a Captain America type that's coming. Also, Image is working with Tyrese to produce Mayhem, which is also coming later this fall.

Black Lightning is heading the Outsiders (though his name is not above the credits so I don't know if he counts), Steel and his niece were the main stars of the recently cancelled Infinity Inc, and blacks are on almost every team book at both companies, and spread throughout various series. So there is more exposure. But how important the roles they play is debatable. And how many most white readers know or care about, or could see or would support if given a shot on the big screen is unknown. Even Blade was a C-list, or D-list character and Goyer and Snipes struck gold with him, and he hasn't found much success on the printed page.

I do want to give the comics companies more credit though. They've improved much since I was a kid. They've produced good stuff like Captain America: The Truth, and Marvel is standing behind Black Panther, and recently there have been quite a few miniseries about Vixen, Black Lightning, Cyborg, Storm, Blue Marvel, Bishop, so that's all a step in the right direction. Luke Cage: Noir is coming later this summer.

Here's the thing. There could be a ton of solo titles, and it wouldn't matter that much. Comic fans make up a miniscule percantage of the population, and the studio won't turn a profit if they can't engage the general public.

But sadly, John Stewart has been featured in Geoff Johns GL series, but I don't know how much development he's received.

John Stewart may be the biggest waste of potential in comics. Short of Mosaic, John Stewart has long been a static, relatively uninteresting character. I have no idea why writers can't take him anywhere interesting, but they just don't.

I think he's still a second banana, despite his great role in the JL/JLU series. Only recently has Jim Rhodes again stepped out of Stark's shadow with his War Machine series, though in the movies he's still at the sidekick stage. I don't have a problem with sidekicks per se, but when most of the major white characters are the main heroes and a good deal of the blacks are sidekicks or sideline characters, scoring a diversity point but not doing much else, I do have a problem with that. I feel that might be the case still for too many black characters.

Then here's the issue: The characters that are well known all started out as second and third stringers, or aren't very well known period, or compelling, compared to well known characters who existed prior to their creation. The solution would seem to be new black superheroes, but the larger issue is that this is often an attempt just to make a "black superhero". Very few of them end up compelling.

Hopefully someone will find a balance. HANCOCK was moving in that direction a bit.

I'm not suggesting all blacks have embraced the N word. Gangster rappers tend to have done so, it seems. It tends to use it in a particular light.

I think that gangsta rap has helped to promote a negative image of blacks, young urban blacks in particularly, but the ghetto tag has filtered beyond the inner city, helped by the popularity of rap music. It has had a tremendous impact on how many young blacks see the world and themselves in it, and it has influenced other aspects of the mass media, and it has shaped perceptions. Perhaps I shouldn't say all. But to me, I think there has been largely limited social interaction among blacks and whites.

It has gotten better over time, but there are still gaps there, and if there is an information void, and you don't want to do the work-because sometimes it's hard work-really getting to know another person and another culture, particularly between blacks and whites due to our shared history-then the media can provide a short hand. And if you're seeing stuff like Bill O'Reilly going to a Harlem restaurant and marveling about how the black patrons weren't shouting or cursing, or how FOX tried to link domestic violence (Chris Brown-Rihanna) to hip hop culture, etc., I fear you might not want to get to know other people because you think you already do courtesy of the media. Of course, about the domestic violence thing, they threw in James Brown, Jim Brown, Ike Turner (I think) and a token white guy just for good measure.

That just strikes me as generalizing. I believe it's up to individuals to work out how they see the world, who they want to be, who they want to follow, how to act, etc.

Gangster rap may have influenced some of that, but not on its own. People have to make choices about how to act and what to believe most of the time.

A minstrel was an uneducated black person (a white person's idea of a black person), simple, fun loving, or perhaps scheming.

So...a jock?

What is the image projected by most gangsta rappers-ignorant, more concerned with street learning than book learning, love to go to parties and do drugs and sleep with women, and scheming or hustling to make money usually by exploiting other blacks. There are differences. There is a violence component that wasn't there with the minstrels, the minstrels knew they had to be non-threatening to white people if they wanted to avoid getting blacklisted or lynched. The gangsta rapper doesn't have to worry about that of course, and despite the occassional vague criticism of the system, most of the gangsta rap focuses on exploiting the people they at the same time say they are 'representing'. And far too many young black people IMO have bought into this for a variety of reasons and allowed gangsta rap to cloak itself with a label of authencity that many young whites have gobbled up as authentic. I would argue that many whites also saw the minstrels as authentic too, or at least wished it were so. Neither the gangsta or the minstrel is a threat to white people. The gangsta is more a threat to his own community and the minstrel was more an embarrassment to his own community. It's not a direct link, but I do think the images promoted by gangsta rap are the descendants of the minstrel images.

I wouldn't say the gangster is no threat to white people. I'd say they're a threat to damn near everyone, per most portrayals.

I know it's your opinion, but I think this is more generalizing. The gangster rap may be an evolved form of the minstrel images in a very loose sense, but the differences, the major, major differences, should be obvious. Gangster rappers choose this image. Minstrel concepts were thrust upon blacks. There is an entirely different approach to gangster rap, a different power structure.

Yes, it can be seen as negative.

But, and here I go again, it's eerily similar to white society's jocks and frat boys and bad boys on motorcycles, right down to the idea that violence and physical force and hedonism and exploiting others is what people should respect.

I think it's a larger societal trend, and I think gangster rap tapped into that to become popular, and that's what concerns me more than anything racial about it.

And while you clearly consider the gangster rapper image negative, obviously not everyone does, because it's rather baffingly become pretty popular.

If you're going to be concerned about what a less than creatively sensitive artist does, I mean, there's nothing I can say to ease your mind. You keep saying negative, negative, negative, and missing the point that a lot of our society considers this stuff positive for whatever reason.

 

[MadVillainy]

After he saw the movie, I told my friend (who is African American) about this idea about the twins are racist.

...he had no idea what I was talking about and didn't find the twins offensive in any way.

honestly only 2 black ppl found it offensive that I know of

 

[Cmill216]

There was nothing racist about them. They were just completely horrible characters who wasted screentime and ILM time.

 

[craigdbfan]

It should have gone towards Sideswipe.

He was one of the coolest characters right behind Optimus in this movie. Bumblebee demonstrated great fighting abilities to, but Sideswipe maneuvered and carried himself in such an awesome way that the Twins could have easily been scrapped to give SS that amount of screen time instead.

 

[FaT_tONle]

A side note, but am I the only person who thinks the language is a bit excessive? I thought these were supposed to be light PG-13 films. The sexual/crude humor aside (since that's one of the main ways they actually pull off some comedy), I wouldn't want to take a really young kid to this movie.

 

[CelticPredator]

Well...they arent for young kids. There for kids ages 10 and up. Mostly for horny teenagers....they all talk about Megan Fox's boobies bouncing around.

 

[Jake Cassidy]

A side note, but am I the only person who thinks the language is a bit excessive? I thought these were supposed to be light PG-13 films. The sexual/crude humor aside (since that's one of the main ways they actually pull off some comedy), I wouldn't want to take a really young kid to this movie.

These movies are aimed at teenagers, not little kids. I thought that was obvious.

 

[Nathan]

With Bay already saying that the Twins were for the kids, I would say this is also aimed at young children. And kids are already a part of the main audiences. It's called Transformers, you can bet that parents will take their children to see it.

 

[Jake Cassidy]

It depends on who he was referring to when he said kids. I call teenagers kids all the time. I also call them annoying little ********s. t:

It doesn't matter anyway. It's the parents' responsibility what they let their kids see. That's why there are ratings.

 

[dark_b]

It depends on who he was referring to when he said kids. I call teenagers kids all the time. I also call them annoying little ********s. t:

It doesn't matter anyway. It's the parents' responsibility what they let their kids see. That's why there are ratings.

yes when Bay says kids he doesnt mean 3-8 year olds.

when i see a 15 year boy i say hey kid.

 

[dark_b]

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=transformers+racist&search_type=&aq=f

 

[BlackLantern]

There was nothing racist about them. They were just completely horrible characters who wasted screentime and ILM time.

They were annoying, not racist...I find it similar to the RE5 issue, I don't think it was done with a malicious intent, just done to fill space or push the story forward

 

[MadVillainy]

Even tho I dont think they were racist I think bay should come out and apologize (or has he done that already)

 

[BlackLantern]

Bay does not apologize...or not that I've seen

 

[CelticPredator]

But for what? He said the actors came up the characters on the spot......sooooo...


The gold tooth? Boo hoo?

 

[dark_b]

Even tho I dont think they were racist I think bay should come out and apologize (or has he done that already)

this is where some people are crossing the line .

i will now start looking on google for german kids who act like this.