Age of Extinction Transformers 4 USER REVIEW THREAD

What do you rate transformers 4?

  • AMAZING!

  • Great

  • Good

  • Ok

  • Meh

  • Average

  • Not good

  • Very bad

  • Horrible

  • Transformers 2 (Suicide would have been better)


Results are only viewable after voting.
How was X-Men Days Of Future Past racist?

What film were they watching. It wasn't racist at all.

This is like when people said Transformers Revenge of the Fallen was racist and that wasn't at all.

Honestly some people in this world are idiots.
 
The point I was making isn't about the marvel films. It's about story telling and hollywood. I used the sandlot this time but clearly it didn't stick. Nor will it ever. The reason why other films are being brought up is to point out hypocrisy plain and simple. It's not a matter of proving the white castle film is better than citizen kane(or even saying one likes one more than the other). It more like people pointing out something in one film, asserting that thing is a negative and then ignoring it in the and all other films. It's selective outrage and speaks to not being genuine about ones criticism. = Disingenuous.

That's why you keep seeing other films being brought up.

The point has been made several times without mentioning other films, several times has it been explained that this overreaction to a simple element or style of film making is opportunistic if not off base. Providing reference is what it's come to in order to wave the double standard flag as right as rain. Perhaps in your explanation and defense of these same or similar things in other films will be better understand the real issue. You make a huge deal out of something on principle in one film and then when it appears in another, nothing what so ever. That's pretty much it.
If Bay had a girl pull off an action scene in nothing but underwear what do you think would happen? 'Well she was just experimented on...etc' Right.
And please, Potts, isn't the only women in those marvel films but again, I'm not going into that.

As for Xmen being racist, that's not my thought but I've read the sentiment a few times. Namely the native american character and stereotypes. But I digress. The disingenuous assertion makes plenty sense but you got it backwards.

To the bolded: Yes but those things don't exist! Not to the level that they do in Bay's movies.

If someone can point to one Marvel movie where there is a shot comparable to the Rosie McPoutyface low angle, slow motion shot focusing on her ass i will concede.

And the females in most of the Marvel movies are strong characters. Hayley Atwell's Peggy. A great female character. Paltrow's Pepper is a great character who holds her own with RDJs Stark. Johansson's Black Widow, who i admittedly wasn't a big fan of until The Winter Soldier, is a great, three dimensional character who has her own motives and who holds her own with all the men. Cobie Smulders Maria Hill is also a strong character in her own right. Who kicks ass and is respected and trusted even by Nick Fury. Sure then you have Jane Foster and Darcy, who are pretty weak. But at least in the first Thor film Jane had an arc of her own and did some important things.

Bay's females are there only to be worshiped like Fox's character. Or rescued and protected like the characters in Dark of the Moon and Age of Exinction. Or we have the woman in Dark of the Moon who is a ball busting *****.

That is their sole purpose.

Sure in the first film we had a highly intelligent female computer expert. She did some important things like crack the Decepticon code etc. The first film is a good movie though as far as i'm concerned. The sequels are just Bay let off the leash. And it isn't even the good Michael Bay. His TF sequels are nothing on The Rock or Armageddon or even Bad Boys.
 
^ well said, endless. Bay left off the leash is the prohlem. But hey, he makes the studios money so we'll be seeing more of this in the upcoming years.
 
@Endless
I think you need to re-examine your definition of: 'strong/great' female character for it seems interchangeable at times. Is it about having a sense of self, is it about having an arc or story, is it about having skills, is it about being strong/stern, is it about moral measures such as loyalty, is it about never having the camera oogle you in a shot(I mean in slow motion and from a low angle like in bays films and supposedly not the other ones)? For example all the women in Badboys are solid imo...what's more, I've yet to hear a proper deconstruction as to what it is about this Tessa character that sets women back in hollywood. That is outside of the same hyperbolic things that were said about the similar paradigm used in Armageddon.

That along with your definition of a bay film for he's made more than the last 3 TF films. "Bay doesn't give women good roles.." So your thoughts on the Island? for example.

I find it funny that you focus on the francis mcdermott character with the epithet of 'one dimensional bull buster' in the negative here completely disregarding her equivalent and (far hotter) incarnation in the other films..
This is pretty much the issue. Here and there arguments depending on whatever you deem is bothering you at the time.

That's great that you think Marvel(studios I imagine) is exempt (I don't) but this has always been an issue that goes beyond even those films. It's about why the hollywood buck stops here exactly. That's what the bolded part was, is, and will continue to be about.
 
Last edited:
M-Bay is smart enough to make movies which sells enough to make money rain
his movies as we know are totally popcorn flicks with unlimited action & less story material which the GA actually likes mostly teens and they have been subjected to this Classical conditioning experiment so whenever their is Bays name involved in project people are likely to throw money .
which is to say the ninja turtles is coming on its way to make some more explosions is likely going to set his name as top action director .
 
@Endless
I think you need to re-examine your definition of: 'strong/great' female character for it seems interchangeable at times. Is it about having a sense of self, is it about having an arc or story, is it about having skills, is it about being strong/stern, is it about moral measures such as loyalty, is it about never having the camera oogle you in a shot(I mean in slow motion and from a low angle like in bays films and supposedly not the other ones)? For example all the women in Badboys are solid imo...what's more, I've yet to hear a proper deconstruction as to what it is about this Tessa character that sets women back in hollywood. That is outside of the same hyperbolic things that were said about the similar paradigm used in Armageddon.

Liv Tyler's character was great in Armageddon. She had a couple of great scenes where she showed a real strength of spirit. She on occasion was the one telling the guys what to do. I remember the scene where she admonishes the Pentagon guys when they decide to detonate the nuke early.

Bay's females in his Transformer sequels are just vapid eye candy that exists either to be worshiped or rescued.

The Tessa character is meant to be strong, she is a rebel. But how many times is the term "protect" used when talking about her? She just needs to be protected. Whether by her dad or her man. Protect. Protect. Protect. Women need to be protected right!? I could see Bay was going for the same kinda father-daughter relationship Armageddon had. But it just wasn't as effective because Tessa is a weak character.

And then you have a whole scene constructed around the innuendo of her being good with her hands. And she's 17 years old. Great stuff.

That along with your definition of a bay film for he's made more than the last 3 TF films. "Bay doesn't give women good roles.." So your thoughts on the Island? for example.

You know i'm only talking about his Transformer sequels.

I find it funny that you focus on the francis mcdermott character with the epithet of 'one dimensional bull buster' in the negative here completely disregarding her equivalent and (far hotter) incarnation in the other films..
This is pretty much the issue. Here and there arguments depending on whatever you deem is bothering you at the time.

She was a caricature. She had no other purpose than to be a ball buster. Someone like Maria Hill is also a ball buster, but she wasn't a caricature. We know more about her character other than her abrasive personality.

That's great that you think Marvel(studios I imagine) is exempt (I don't) but this has always been an issue that goes beyond even those films. It's about why the hollywood buck stops here exactly. That's what the bolded part was, is, and will continue to be about.

I'm still waiting for one, just one example of a Marvel film, or any recent superhero film for that matter, that uses females as overt and blatant sexual objects or male fantasies as much as Bay does.

Just one example comparable to the low angled, slow motion ass shot of Rosie McPoutyface.

And the buck stops here because these films are turned up to 11, in everything. They take the tropes of the genres and just dial them all the way up. It's like an action blockbuster on a cocktail of MDMA and LSD. They are the most outrageous and overt films you can get.
 
I'm still waiting for one, just one example of a Marvel film, or any recent superhero film for that matter, that uses females as overt and blatant sexual objects or male fantasies as much as Bay does.

Just one example comparable to the low angled, slow motion ass shot of Rosie McPoutyface.
This is exactly it, that is the whole point. Nobody has yet to provide a single compelling example, not one, in a movie supposedly riddled with "undeniable gratuitous t&a" shots. Yet here we are arguing back and forth.
Bay's films are on a level all their own, and that is accepted by everyone save for the most dedicated contrarians.
 
How many times is the term protect used? This is the part where I ask you how many times is the term protect used on Sam or various other male characters in other movies. So when a movie about an over protective father delves into the issue of protecting this important person, it's some gender equality issue because she happens to be a woman(girl)? Even newer levels of double standards spring forth.

Worshiped or Rescued...Again I wonder what you think of the great majority of disney films but then I suppose that would be 'deflection'.
Still not sure how you explained just what it is that makes Tessa a weak character. Being captured and having an innuendo made at her expense of course completely disregarding the other and more pertinent side of the same innuendo. Disregarding alot of things for example, there is a scene in the film when the team leaves the decision of 'stay or go' up to this useless female. The idea that she's actually the one that takes care of the father, that she's her own person..etc.

And no, I didn't know you were only talking about Transformer sequels. Your posts as they pertain to bay and his proclivities very much don't entirely read that way. Not when you say things like 'Bay doesn't know how to convey women' (......in the tf sequels). Well, at least we narrowed down the parameters.

I did expect you go that route with the hill apology. Par for the course if you ask me. I see a great deal more dimension from Tessa but then again, she's less of a supporting character. I personally don't tend to expect all that much from that sort of supporting character. I try to actually be consistent. But then again when it comes to caricatures, similar can be seen in the tf source material, though never with a female. I suppose doing such things with male is more acceptable for some twisted reason.

I don't see any reason to give you an example for I don't believe in your premise. You want me to provide an example of a marvel film that does what it is you accuse this one bay scene of doing correct? I say one bay scene cause every time I refer to an issue outside of this one literal scene, there is a bypass of sorts, and we find ourselves back here again. The problem however is that this one bay scene in question doesn't even do what it is you say it's doing. Entirely ignoring the story points it's conveying(non complacency in the face of lavish circumstance), it's very much executed with alot of restraint. Unless a glimpse of an under garment back side, followed by legs and lots of feet is some new/great low. I was surprised it wasn't even in slow motion tbh. Contextually, this is somehow more exploitative and unnecessary than jumping around explosions in a bikini? A girl, who is in the role sugar daddy(yes not sure one tends to catch the role reversal there) waking up in her own apt and titillating her lover in her own bed? Next we'll be coming down on a life guard walking down a ladder showing too much leg and a glimpse of her bikini rear, contextually. It is this scene right? You want someone to point you in the direction of a scene that technically hits this level of 'coverage'...a level of 'coverage' far surpassed by Jen Anniston herself in a string of her films mind you yet it somehow lands bay in a realm all his own. To be honest, I personally found that level of 'coverage' in the 'iron-ettes' dance opening alone.

Secondly, if this is your definition: overt and blatant sexual objects or male fantasies. Then I suggest you look up the several articles on why female super heroes dress the way they do(both on the page and in the films), why catwoman is running around in skin tight latex and heels with the butt exposed to the camera when on the bike or the cleavage zipper down and batman/cap not so much.
Your definition itself betrays you, and leads into hypocrisy whether you know/like it or not. Thirdly, my personal argument was already presented on the issue of IM2 and all the decisions pertaining women surrounding it from camera to circumstance(see introductions, female journalism, back seat costume changes..etc). Most importantly, I feel if I really dig into this issue with more footage and discourse it might devolve into an even greater disregard for what the mod requested us not to do in the first place, more than we already have that is. Anyways, you keep avoiding the issue and harping on this marvel thing as if to narrow the target to that which you can try and manage. This is about bay as he relates to all directors for he seemingly get's more **** than all of them combined, there in lies the double standard. I mean, do you find the portrayal of women bay films(the TF sequels apparently) all that much worse than say wolf of wall street? Leads or otherwise..

Then you finish off throwing as many hyperbolic statements as you can find hoping at some if not all stick. You really think for two seconds that these films are the 'most overt' anything or are you just saying that? They have the most slow motion, the most destruction, the most blood or violence or the most humor...it's just as much as you see elsewhere if not less, only for some reason it's popular to think 'the buck' really has stopped here. Still, do you actually believe in what you are saying or are you just going for the shock of it all. Cause reading your words, I'm thinking bay movies play like this. This last TF in particular.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly it, that is the whole point. Nobody has yet to provide a single compelling example, not one, in a movie supposedly riddled with "undeniable gratuitous t&a" shots. Yet here we are arguing back and forth.
Bay's films are on a level all their own, and that is accepted by everyone save for the most dedicated contrarians.

That scene in The Dark World where Thor is washing his abs is pretty gratuitous.

Oh, you mean women. Yeah, there aren't really. Pretty much all women in the MCU have been presented as more than just a sex symbol.
 
Nobody has yet to provide a single compelling example, not one, in a movie supposedly riddled with "undeniable gratuitous t&a" shots.
I've already provided two, if you can't even admit those two blatantly clear examples then there's no point to me providing another 10 or 20 examples.

Ultimately some people can only acknowledge racism and misogyny in movies that they don't like.

That scene in The Dark World where Thor is washing his abs is pretty gratuitous.

Oh, you mean women. Yeah, there aren't really. Pretty much all women in the MCU have been presented as more than just a sex symbol.

That's not the point being debated. What's being debated is the presence of gratuitous T&A and T&A-like shots, camera angles, et cetera. That doesn't preclude a role for the character, for example Uhura in Star Trek 2009 has a decent role where she contributes to the plot but she also has the underwear scene in her apartment with the green woman.
 
Last edited:
And then you have a whole scene constructed around the innuendo of her being good with her hands. And she's 17 years old. Great stuff.

Are you actually being bothered by a 17 year old being sexually active?
The median age for an American to lose their virginity is 16.
 
I've already provided two, if you can't even admit those two blatantly clear examples then there's no point to me providing another 10 or 20 examples.

Ultimately some people can only acknowledge racism and misogyny in movies that they don't like.

I've already gone to great pains to explain why those two shots are not comparable to anything Bay has done in his movies. I think you and one other poster involved in this discussion are the only people who find those at all comparable. You have latched onto those two instances because they are the only thing that, on the surface, may potentially resemble what Bay does; if not, feel free to provide me with more examples. Certainly one of those 10 or 20 "undeniably gratuitous shots" you speak of will show what you are saying.
 
Last edited:
I've already gone to great pains to explain why those two shots are not comparable to anything Bay has done in his movies. I think you and one other poster involved in this discussion are the only people who find those at all comparable. You have latched onto those two instances because they are the only thing that, on the surface, may potentially resemble what Bay does; if not, feel free to provide me with more examples. Certainly one of those 10 or 20 "undeniably gratuitous shots" you speak of will show what you are saying.
Myself, Marvin, dark b, agreed on those IM3 shots, and even The Endless acknowledged it.

And if you can't admit those two there's no point in continuing further. It's been a long time since I watched IM2 and IM3, watching them again to take notes would take significant effort (and 5 hours of time) so I'm not going to do it for a discussion where the other side just can't acknowledge any failing at all.

Anyway you prove my point. You can't acknowledge T&A shots as problematic when they show up in a movie you like. You go to "great pains" to explain them away.
 
I'll note that there are also non-sexual strong female characters in these movie, like the CIA (??) director in Transformers 3, or the scientist in Transformers 4 who found Grimlock's cousin under the ice, or the Hong Kong agent.
 
Myself, Marvin, dark b, agreed on those IM3 shots, and even The Endless acknowledged it.

And if you can't admit those two there's no point in continuing further. It's been a long time since I watched IM2 and IM3, watching them again to take notes would take significant effort (and 5 hours of time) so I'm not going to do it for a discussion where the other side just can't acknowledge any failing at all.
You, my friend, have completely missed my point.
Here's a post of mine from several pages ago:
No one is saying that these things don't exist in any way shape or form in the IM/Marvel studios films.
What we are saying is that they are nowhere near as blatant or incessant as in the TF films. Surely you can understand where we are coming from. Truth be told I'm having a hard time thinking of any other recent film franchise that objectifies and plays up the female form as much as TF.
You have two examples, two, which you are waving around to prove this argument of yours. One of them you even admit is debatable.
And even if I conceded to these two (and for the record I don't, they are nothing like what Bay has put into his films) it's going to take a lot more than two examples for you to make a compelling argument that these movies, as you put it, contain "T&A shots [that] are no better than equal" to the Transformer films. You are grasping at straws.
And as I said, no one is saying every woman is puritanical and clothed head to toe in the IM films. T&A shots might be present but, as we have been saying for pages and pages and will continue to do so, they are not overtly gratuitous or objectifying in the way Bay does them.
The two are not comparable. That is the entire disagreement.
If they were, you'd have more examples to bring up. Two days ago you said bringing up more than two examples would be easy to do, yet you haven't done so. That shows me all I need to know about your side of this discussion.

Anyway you prove my point. You can't acknowledge T&A shots as problematic when they show up in a movie you like. You go to "great pains" to explain them away.
And you've proven the converse to be true; if you see a film you don't like, you find problems where there aren't any (racism in X-men, t&a in Iron Man, etc).
And even if I did find these two shots you speak of problematic, it still wouldn't put it on the level as the Transformers movies.
As I've said, it's tough to think of a recent franchise that plays up the t&a and sexuality of it's female stars as much as this one.
 
Last edited:
And you've proven the converse to be true; if you see a film you don't like, you find problems where there aren't any (racism in X-men, t&a in Iron Man, etc).
Actually, I gave DoFP a "B" grade in my original review, which was long and posted on this forum. I enjoyed the movie. I point out these issues or at least make an effort to in films I both like and dislike, so your point fails.

You have two examples, two, which you are waving around to prove this argument of yours. One of them you even admit is debatable.
And even if I conceded to these two (and for the record I don't,
Once you can concede these two clear examples of gratuitous lurid camera angles I will see benefit in furthering this discussion.

I won't bother with chapter 2 until we've done chapter 1.
 
Last edited:
Liv Tyler's character was great in Armageddon. She had a couple of great scenes where she showed a real strength of spirit. She on occasion was the one telling the guys what to do. I remember the scene where she admonishes the Pentagon guys when they decide to detonate the nuke early.

Bay's females in his Transformer sequels are just vapid eye candy that exists either to be worshiped or rescued.

The Tessa character is meant to be strong, she is a rebel. But how many times is the term "protect" used when talking about her? She just needs to be protected. Whether by her dad or her man. Protect. Protect. Protect. Women need to be protected right!? I could see Bay was going for the same kinda father-daughter relationship Armageddon had. But it just wasn't as effective because Tessa is a weak character.

And then you have a whole scene constructed around the innuendo of her being good with her hands. And she's 17 years old. Great stuff.



You know i'm only talking about his Transformer sequels.



She was a caricature. She had no other purpose than to be a ball buster. Someone like Maria Hill is also a ball buster, but she wasn't a caricature. We know more about her character other than her abrasive personality.



I'm still waiting for one, just one example of a Marvel film, or any recent superhero film for that matter, that uses females as overt and blatant sexual objects or male fantasies as much as Bay does.

Just one example comparable to the low angled, slow motion ass shot of Rosie McPoutyface.

And the buck stops here because these films are turned up to 11, in everything. They take the tropes of the genres and just dial them all the way up. It's like an action blockbuster on a cocktail of MDMA and LSD. They are the most outrageous and overt films you can get.

Why do you keep bringing up examples from TF1,TF2, and TF3 to support your attacks on TF4?

There was clearly a change in style with the 4th movie. It's still problematic, but it is now within the distribution of what we get from Hollywood blockbusters, rather than being an egregious outlier.
 
Last edited:
Here the issue, Bay is visually a good director for propaganda of (Product placement, Cars, Hot & Sexy girls, The Military, slow motion effects in action ,and of course BIG ASS Explosions ) but that's it. He isn't a good story driven, character arcing director . He's now done 4 film in this series and is probably going to do Movie 5 in 2016

I've enjoyed all the transformers film as a fan of action and seeing my favourite childhood character robots come to life, But I feel that a great weakness in this franchise is the human factor and the overly usage of crude humor that just gets ridiculous .

I look at the cartoons featuring the Transformers, most notably (G1, Beast Wars & TRANSFORMERS: PRIME) and it's truly remarkable that tv animation gets the storytelling better than all four Bayfilm.
 
Why do you keep bringing up examples from TF1,TF2, and TF3 to support your attacks on TF4?

There was clearly a change in style with the 4th movie. It's still problematic, but it is now within the distribution of what we get from Hollywood blockbusters, rather than being an egregious outlier.

The first 3 films are far more relivent to this discussion than any marvel film is. Especially since all the reviews I'm reading state this film is "more of the same" of the first 3. Further more we have been asked not to turn this thread into a versus IM3 thread, and turning it into a vs marvel thread isn't any better. Especially when those movies are bad comparisons as they do far more to showcase the male body then the female. Captain America and Thor come to mind.

And Marvin, your refusal to list an example of a scene in marvel that mirrors the tone and intention of one of these gratuitous bay moments only proves you are I able too. And further bringing up other films that have nothing to do with the film, or previous comparisons to the film brought up isn't accomplishing anything other than show us how you are deflecting the arguments presented. When your logic gets backed into a corner you change subject.

Honestly, do you not see the hypocrocy of claiming that the problem is industry wide, and then saying because this is a problem in other movies it shouldn't be a problem for these movies, essentially saying that since other movies do the same thing it's justifiable? You claim to hate sexism in all films, yet refuse to acknowledge that their might be some in transformers simply because it's a film you like. And honestly, the fact that you compare how women are portrayed in the pg13 transformer movies to the way woman are portrayed and photographed in the wolf of wall street of all films, a film that is essentially a 3 and a half hour orgy (with an orgy of drugs as well) only proves how distasteful bay's treatment of woman are.

And for whoever tried to say viewing bay's scenes as sexual was ignoring the story points, consider this. In TF2 there's a scene where Megan fox changes from a skin tight biker outfit into a white dress outside, in the middle of the day. There's a brief shot that shows her panties. In the behind the scenes footage of that scene on the DVD, bay said he filmed that as eye candy for the 14 year old boys. There was no reason or story point other than that. Also, during the time Megan fox got fired from part 3, there was an interview where Shia was talking about how Bay likes to shoot his women, and how it made Megan uncomfortable and that she was getting tired of being a sex symbol in these films. But I guess that's because she just didn't get her scenes huh? She should just fall in line because Jennifer Anniston movies, and wolf of Wall Street. That's essentially what you are saying by comparing those movies. That women who aren't happy with how bay treats her women characters should just suck it up because it's an industry problem, and bay shouldn't be held accountable for his contributions to that problem.:whatever:
 
Here the issue, Bay is visually a good director for propaganda of (Product placement, Cars, Hot & Sexy girls, The Military, slow motion effects in action ,and of course BIG ASS Explosions ) but that's it. He isn't a good story driven, character arcing director . He's now done 4 film in this series and is probably going to do Movie 5 in 2016

I've enjoyed all the transformers film as a fan of action and seeing my favourite childhood character robots come to life, But I feel that a great weakness in this franchise is the human factor and the overly usage of crude humor that just gets ridiculous .

I look at the cartoons featuring the Transformers, most notably (G1, Beast Wars & TRANSFORMERS: PRIME) and it's truly remarkable that tv animation gets the storytelling better than all four Bayfilm.

And considering the level of cheese in g1, and the fact that it only existed as a weekly half hour toy commercial, that's saying a lot. Someone took a toy commercial and termed it into a compelling story with its own lore. I'm not sure what Michael bay did, but it's definitely a downgrade. He contradicts his own set ups for his lore every movie. Instead of expand on his story and flesh it out he starts over every film. An odd tactic.

Edit, In the next movie we discover that a group of transformers are responsible for winning the civil war, and teaching America that slavery is wrong. In movie 6, we discover that before that, another group of transformers came to earth and showed Ben Franklin what electricity was. And in movie 7 we learn unicron created the earth... To mate with it. His return means the earth is screwed.
 
Last edited:
And Marvin, your refusal to list an example of a scene in marvel that mirrors the tone and intention of one of these gratuitous bay moments only proves you are I able too. And further bringing up other films that have nothing to do with the film, or previous comparisons to the film brought up isn't accomplishing anything other than show us how you are deflecting the arguments presented. When your logic gets backed into a corner you change subject.
Hardly, I mostly just didn't want to further the IM vs TF debate as no doubt would happen if I pulled up scenes for us to debate on. Had it not been for the Mod's request, you'd probably be looking at one of my overlong posts on the marvel films and I'm personally not about to test Hunter in such an outright way.
Further, I clearly stated that if I were to, it would no doubt been seen as unequal for it's pretty clear people see the tf scenes in a hyperbolic fasion and out of context to a fault whereas these same people are full of all kinds of apologetic rhetoric for the IM scenes. The double standard I stated initially which brought all this about would and has surely run amok on such an attempt. Thus, I see no point.

I haven't changed the subject once, it's always and still about the double standard and even if I have to dredge up every film made since 1958 that hasn't been met with this level of outrage but could have easily been, then it will still be on the same subject. The subject of selective outrage(in case you haven't been following).
Honestly, do you not see the hypocrocy of claiming that the problem is industry wide, and then saying because this is a problem in other movies it shouldn't be a problem for these movies, essentially saying that since other movies do the same thing it's justifiable? You claim to hate sexism in all films, yet refuse to acknowledge that their might be some in transformers simply because it's a film you like. And honestly, the fact that you compare how women are portrayed in the pg13 transformer movies to the way woman are portrayed and photographed in the wolf of wall street of all films, a film that is essentially a 3 and a half hour orgy (with an orgy of drugs as well) only proves how distasteful bay's treatment of woman are.
WTH to this bolded part here, it actually did make me double take.
Sorry friend but you have it pretty wrong and backwards. I don't have a problem with the so called sexism or whatever buzz word it's being called now, in the TF films. I think it's par for the course and fully acceptable by my standards, plus it has it's various purposes to story and aesthetics. It's everyone that walks around and in here wearing the self righteous cap claiming they have an issue with the sexism and exploitation present in these TF films. They are the ones asserting the positive. I say, if YOU have this problem with the TF films, then where pray tell is this same or any such outrage for the same or similar elements in all these other movies produced in hollywood, marvel or the sandlot or anything? Ergo the burden is on YOU to explain YOUR double standard. I don't have anything to explain. In bringing up these other films, I'm helping YOU see the parallels and asking you to....I digress.
You are claiming I said that I hate sexism and I'm now giving it a pass in a film I like? At this point I'm sure you see the irony here, for it's very much the reverse. You are claiming you hate sexisim and yet you give it a pass at every opportunity. I'm not the one that walks around marvel(or any film) sections claiming the treatment of women is unbearable or what not. I'm actually pretty consistent in my tolerance.

Not sure if you read my post properly(or perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been) but when I referenced Wolf of Wall Street it was specifically because that film was exploitative in ways Bay detractors could on dream. Thus I asked the poster if he found these TF films 'that much worse' or as bad. I wanted to point out the grave difference between what he thinks he's accusing Bay of doing vs a film that actually does it. Does anyone here find the TF films offend them to the levels Wolf does(or is supposed to)? Because I certainly do not. I'm pretty bloody curious, cause I'm hearing alot of people pull out the usual type of Bay hyperbole. Now that we have that straight, it only proves what exactly?

As for that last part, the story point of her changing into the white dress was a recurring character point in that she was clearly insecure with her boyfriend leaving her behind for college and impress him with something he didn't expect(among other things). Sometimes girls/guys have a difficult transition into long distance relationships especially on the issue of college and particularly when it boils down to being left behind. Those fears were played up and seemingly confirmed when she arrived. That's the purpose of the scene. As for the underwear you spotted. Stop the presses, a frame of underwear made it to final cut, it seemed like a candid costume change to me. Seeing as it was the same colour as her dress, I didn't even notice the underwear till it was pointed out. Bay pointing out that the scene ALSO serves as eye candy, given fox was pretty much topping the maxim lists at that point I can see where that comes from, still it doesn't debunk one's ability to analyze a story point. This would be like Justin Lin explaining in a DVD commentary no less, that the shot in the similarly PG13 rated Fast Five in which Gal Godot struts around in slow motion and less clothing than any of bay's lead/supporting females(not in Pain&Gain) have ever had the pleasure of strutting around in; as what it is, Eye candy for the young/old male driven audience(cause that's hollywood) without delving into the obvious story point it serves as well. This is my trying to avoid the fast furious series cause well...not sure. Bring me to the next point:
Now could bay have shot that differently, sure, I don't see her riding her bike in a dress but perhaps a costume change off camera? But wait a minute, in the spirit of sticking to the subject; Did he actually do anything outside the hollywood norm? Well I suppose that begs the question of if Black Widow changing in the back of car, her underwear showing(for more than a frame) explicitly along with cleavage, whilst under a maze gaze(played up by the fact that he almost crashed) in IM2 is the norm? You tell me. Was that a story point or eye candy? Cause it certainly was the same thing if not worse.
-This ^ is precisely the point. What's the point of me even attempting to bring up a comparison when you show your bias on your own in this very scenario. Either the bay stuff is seen in a hyperbolic way, or the corresponding stuff is simply ignored. Underwear, who'd have thunk.

As I discussed earlier Megan fox left the series cause she was fired by her Jewish producer(s) after messing up and directly offending them, if not the entire industry(hitler was real and far worse than any working director). She made that mistake cause she doesn't like how totalitarian bay is on his sets, I don't remember two words about exploitation or sexploitation. Read her quote, read it twice and it all remains the same. Considering the types of roles she's done since then, from Jenifer's body in which she played a ****(non virgin sacrifice trope) with flesh coloured sticky's on her nipples with nothing else, and was in that 'This is 40' film, in which she played a 'slow' clothing retail clerk(too slow for even that job) that mostly got oogled and stripped down and had her boobs fondled.....I doubt it was bay asking her to do pg13 stuff that really had her walk off.
Shia's sentiments on the matter had nothing to do with why fox left but rather why the set was alot more charitable and calm when a professional like Rosie showed up. That is, she was far more comfortable with her sexuality given her profession and experience.....Still, I suppose we can all spin that stuff any way we please.

Who said anything about anyone falling in line like Anniston? I have to say, your entire post has been me correcting you in this manner and I have to imagine it's not deliberate... I said the scene in TF3 with Rosie shows far less and for far less time, than the stuff we've been seeing from Anniston(a women who had a pretty clean image). Again my meaning wasn't to condone or even rationalize one over the other. It was to provide perspective. One scene goes this far, another scene far further and maybe when this difference is pointed out(thrown in one's face) they can look back at the former scene with correct/better perspective. I do think it funny that bay is known around here as some great womanizer yet he's not making films in which his stars do strip teases(even ones that serve character like True Lies). It's like if he was making an R rated comedy than he could do whatever he wants and everyone would simply cheer? I'd find that particularly disingenuous to a fault.

Lastly, You can hold Bay accountable all you want(in spite of arguments against such a thing). Just make sure your outrage and accountability are consistent. Otherwise you will be deemed a hypocrite....by me. If like me, you are going to give bay a pass, then like me, feel free to give a pass to the rest of hollywood when you write up your reviews. That's the crux here. Consistency(me) vs Selective outrage(the ilk).
 
Last edited:
I don't find it particularly offensive or anything but it is often crudely obvious and awkward.

So the film is exactly what I expected, a mildly enjoyable mess. Maybe that is to kind. Its to long, doesn't feel that cohesive and is more often than not let down by humans.

Perhaps its a bit early to comment, I'm not sure I've taken all of it in. Watching this is like having a shotgun held against your head and the trigger pulled and then having it happen a few more times after that.
 
@scrattrex, the endless and Flint thank you sooo much For the last few pages!! God bless you for pointing out the flaws n their approach n arguments. I gave up a loong time ago, and I'm telling you guys all. Forget trying to argue with them. You are NEVER gonna win. They will NEVER see the point. You are all wasting your time! But Thk !
 
Actually, I gave DoFP a "B" grade in my original review, which was long and posted on this forum. I enjoyed the movie. I point out these issues or at least make an effort to in films I both like and dislike, so your point fails.
A simple keyword search of DOFP in your posts shows that you have spent the majority of your time calling it "overrated" and picking apart all it's problems. Which would be understandable, nothing wrong with critiquing a film you enjoyed, if not for the fact that nearly every single one of your posts about the film is negative.
You say you enjoyed it, but most people who liked a film don't spend most of their time making posts like these:

So I think my point remains. Feel free to look for yourself.
Once you can concede these two clear examples of gratuitous lurid camera angles I will see benefit in furthering this discussion.

I won't bother with chapter 2 until we've done chapter 1.
We've already discussed the first one, you yourself even said it was debatable. It's a three second shot that shows her back after her and Tony spent a night together. If these movies were anywhere near as bad as you say they are, they would have displayed her fully and let the camera hang but instead we get a quick shot that shows her sitting down in a chair and turning and looking at the camera, which, as you even said, makes sense given the story.
So no, that absolutely does not count as gratuitous t&a. There is nothing gratuitous about that.
And as for the one scene with Pepper (out of 4 films she has one scene you all find problematic, I think that says everything) she was literally just experimented on, as the Endless said. Also it's a sports bra, which is designed to be sexy and not practical. The camera never hangs on her breasts, it never goes overboard in displaying her body. She's wearing a sports bra, and kicking ass. That's it.
And that is exactly the point, which you are missing so spectacularly; no one is saying that women never show skin in these films. No one is saying that female sexuality is completely absent from these movies, or that women are all puritanical and dressed to be as modest as possible. What we are saying, and pay attention here, is that the way the film makers portray women in these movies is nowhere near comparable to Bay and his films.
If they were you'd have a lot more examples to bring into this discussion. But you don't.
@scrattrex, the endless and Flint thank you sooo much For the last few pages!! God bless you for pointing out the flaws n their approach n arguments. I gave up a loong time ago, and I'm telling you guys all. Forget trying to argue with them. You are NEVER gonna win. They will NEVER see the point. You are all wasting your time! But Thk !
It really is pointless. I'm about done, as this is our fourth or fifth page of derailing this thread. Apologies to the mods.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,355
Messages
22,090,509
Members
45,886
Latest member
Elchido
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"