Marvin,
I stopped reading your post when you began to defend the shots of Megan Fox changing into the white dress. The director himself said that was intended for 14 year old boys to gawk at; how could you seriously try and pull a story point out of that? What more do you need, how much clearer does it have to be?
And the IM2 scene could be comparable, but the film isn't littered with shots like that. If it was, then maybe you'd have a case.
Your logic is that when a woman is shown in just a bra, it's automatically the equivalent of when Bay does a long slow pan up a woman's leg and makes juvenile jokes about an underage girl being good at hand jobs.
As we've been saying: nothing is comparable to Bay's film.
I assumed you stopped reading my posts long before that tbh.
How could I pull out a story point out of that? Probably cause I watched the film and surmised one. This is pretty much the problem here; the thought for analysis stops when when is distracted by the titillation or even admitted titillation present from bay. It's a dvd commentary. It's like if a director said something(say a giant tree falling down) was to be the huge money shot that got people to the theater. He says this on the dvd commentary in which alot of the point is to speak to what's interesting about what's on screen, and not some video analysis eassy. Does that mean because of that admission that the scene itself which very much is the big money shot in all the trailers that no doubt get's people(young boys even)there and could easily be shot differently no longer serves as a story point worth analysing on our own? Him saying it was anything doesn't change ones ability to read a story. This is very much the case with the Terminator commentaries, Cameron isn't always talking about the story points each scene serves(knife through milk carton/naked Arnold) but rather sometimes, why it’s a 'great shot' and who it might appeal to. Dance movies even more so. It's like you are looking for a reason to shut your brain off and the minute you find the excuse the game is over. Why she changed into a white dress is pretty stated, what did it serve the story was the question and I'm certain I answered it soundly. As for why it was shot that way is no different than why they shot widow in the car with her boobs hanging out(hollywood) other than the fact that the underwear was far harder to see. To come down on one and not the other, above and beyond proves my point. Now we are getting into the game of, 'well I don't see it allll over ironman'. Right.... And as if that changes what it is we are actually comparing. I think it boils down to this: If bay directed the same sequence(that of changing in the back seat) and was asked on the commentary what was it's purpose, he's have grounds to answer the question differently right?
The bay film makes an innuendo about juvenile(though seemingly legal) sex. If you want to get hyperbolic about how disturbing this is(in general) be my guest but I would only imagine you don't watch teen drama's on tv for they are littered with alot more of such things and do so with characters playing younger than seen here, and I see far less hyperbolic outrage there. Again from Teen Wolf to Vampire Diaries, Buffy,teen movies that involve teen vampires etc. Hardly the first time, nor the 'worst time', in film or tv. Of course, a HUGE make or break deal here(the director is in a class all his own) but else where....as speaks to my point. I suppose this is the part where we default back to personal tastes and speaking for ones self, making all this back and forth pointless...
But hey, it's not about the presence of it, it's the 'fact' that the quantity is incessant..
As for my logic, I never said that if one shot that contains such and such bra, it’s 'automatically equivalent' to another shot that contains some other part of a womans body and a different shooting style. That's the strawman at work. When I compare shots to be equivalent it's as I did above with the costume changes. You know the one that keeps being brought up and damned in one film(white dress) yet the other has to be brought up by myself(for it's pretty equivalent minus the story points). You suggested that if IM was littered with it than maybe my comparison of their equivalency perpetrated in both scenes and thus both movies, would have a case? I think this is why we are going around in circles, when equivalency is found and stated…it will never be enough thus why I initially asked what the point of providing examples from the marvel films would serve for with each equivalent point proven, one ‘wouldn’t have a case because of supposed quantity. As for the shot of the girls legs, when it comes to what was actually shown compared to other films..leg's, feet, a glimpse of a bikini behind, a low angle...? As if one as never watched womens vollyball on tv or live. What exactly is shown? If it’s about the style of camera, bay has shot men’s bodies the same way(badboys/pain and gain..).
Your issue isn't that you have something against the portrayal of women in film(bay films that is), It's that you have an issue with the perceived amount of such a thing as you see it in a bay film. Which I find falls into a certain level of hypocrisy on principle but is also conveniently subjective. I suppose this is the part about differing tastes. Which as I've said from the start is all well and good, until it goes beyond that, and people start speaking as to the general truths of the situation. 'One film is, one film isn't' vs 'Both films are but one isn't for me'.
The going premise here is the double standard and selective outrage that has been occurring as it pertains to ‘hollywood’ movies. Now as interesting as it has been to see the subjective up and down on womanization in these marvel films. That hardly addresses the issue. You yourself stated that the ‘bay level of what not’ is all it’s own and soley deserving of the (selective) outrage for you suggest there are no other pg 13 franchises that rival it in doing what it does(how this all actually started). This is where I point you in the direction of the pg-13 rated fast/furious series and the pg13(and PG) rated Bond(the names alone and the majority of it's female intro's) series…franchises rather as Hollywood films that do this very thing if not more so yet receive none or far more negligible levels of outrage, especially on this forum. That is, you walk into those threads and you don’t see fanboy after fanboy going on about how the women are treated or how hurt, disgusted or offended they themselves are. You won’t read reviews for these films in which critics go off about…I digress. I personally describe this as not liking a movie and playing the righteous card to damn it even further. For who can argue against sexism after all.
[YT]7Ua9QJOlM7c[/YT]Video should be titled: Twice the depravity, none of the outrage.
In conclusion, what is present in these bay films is hardly new nor it is exclusive or even 'at it’s most', in relation to the typical Hollywood output depending on the audience. The real difference lies in selective outrage any and all of his films receive. Is this not precisely the double standard as it has been described or am I missing something? And that’s only on the issue of women/sex(it happens with other issues as well).
As for how pointless this all seems, you’re right, it does perhaps seem that way. Only I personally shy away from the tactic of declaring as much in an attempt to belittle the arguments of the opposition in such a way…