|
I don't think that'd bother him really. It'd not be much weirder than having live humans wiggle around in him while he's trying to fight Decepticons.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I think part of the problem is that every time marketing is brought up nobody wants to talk about it, but in this specific case its very difficult to separate Transformers from its marketing and target audience because they came built into the franchise before Michael Bay ever decided to do the first movie. So he could have made the most thematically complex film possible and it still wasn't likely to get through to a large portion of the audience, a lot of them almost certain to be children. Comes down to what you think kids can handle, and how sheltered you think they should be and for how long. The problem is all the arguments against the Twins have been contextual rather than textual. Here let me make an attempt at a textual argument. The Twins playing a subordinate role to the other autobots to draw a parallel between the media depictions of lower class black culture and the exploited working classes makes only the most obvious point about race and class privilege in that it only manages to point out that it exists. It lacks any sort of real insight beyond that. As such while it could be said to be anti-racist it is a wholly ineffectual anti-racism. Masturbatory even. Ash1138 posted:The scans weren't always quick. Bumblebee can't speak because he saw the goatse side of the internet. Ratchet can't fix it because he doesn't know what caused it. How could you truly describe that to someone? If Bumblebee could vocalize his thoughts, it would be a blood curdling scream He knew enough of both the English language and American popular culture to construct sentences out of audio samples. That alone doesn't make you incorrect, but he couldn't have only seen the "goatse side" because he had a grasp of various films, tv shows, and songs. Regardless, it's only a minute or two of the run time and doesn't seem as important in context as it actually is. Doesn't make it bad, just makes it a difficult reading to see at first glance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
"The Transformers films mention race so they are racist, and therefore bad. If you want to 'interpret' the images you were shown, you are also racist and therefore lose the argument. Here have a literally racist picture (which I keep on hand to post at a moment's notice(???)). I am not racist, because uhh uhh you are psychotic!!!!" A good post in the Transformers Discussion Thread For Discussing Transformers. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
There really should be a ban on personal attacks on this forum. It's ridiculous how often actual criticism (both accurate and wildly off the mark) is dismissed with a bunch of accusations and name calling. If you disagree with someone's conclusions explain why you big stupid dumb heads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:"The Transformers films mention race so they are racist, and therefore bad. If you want to 'interpret' the images you were shown, you are also racist and therefore lose the argument. Here have a literally racist picture (which I keep on hand to post at a moment's notice(???)). I am not racist, because uhh uhh you are psychotic!!!!" This is a bit of a strawman.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
porfiria posted:This is a bit of a strawman. It's my interpretation of Uncle Boogeyman's text. Like with Skips and Mudflap, my reflection of his posting is an interpretation of what his posting looks like to me. Now for the real question: Should Uncle Boogeyman's posts be shown to children???
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Aside from anecdotal musings, it would be difficult to say what kind of effect these movies would have on children. There really hasn't been a sufficient argument or sufficient evidence to sustain that kind of claim. It also makes a statement that children are far too ignorant to understand the world around them meaningfully. The best that can be done is to ask children what they think about the films, or specific scenes, and go from there. Any studies at all, any data, would be preferable to the shrill personal attacks and keyboard rage. But to address just who exactly these films were intended for, they are unquestionably violent and adult in nature. Even without the sub textual readings provided by CD, these are very complex films, very uncomfortable films. Not to mention, they've consistently been rated as PG-13 in the United States. And many viewers pick up on the nuance of these films, the disturbing nature of what is suggested, without quite being able to enunciate their disgust.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
I haven't actually watched Transformers 2, but while "The autobots are deliberately mimicking our society, and since our society is racist the autobots themselves replicate and engage in that racism" explains the inclusion of the Twins it doesn't in and of itself excuse the specific portrayal of the twins. In the Ender's Game novel, there's always an airtight plot-based justification for all the prepubescent kids going around naked constantly, but you still have to step back and look at how that's actually shown and to what ends. Were the Twins actually shown in a sympathetic light? From what I recall, Transformers 1 had a number of gags that were just like, hey, look at this (human) dude with a funny accent and behavior pattern. Transformers 2 could easily have been trying to have its cake and eat it too by putting some gross stereotype up onscreen and laughing uproariously at it and then suddenly going poker-faced and turning to stare at the camera and being all "Were you laughing along with me just now? Look at you. Look at you. You monster. You monster."
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
If it is any consolation, I find that that the Skids and Mudflap toys are not really popular. I can still find some on shelves in toy stores.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I haven't actually watched Transformers 2, but while "The autobots are deliberately mimicking our society, and since our society is racist the autobots themselves replicate and engage in that racism" explains the inclusion of the Twins it doesn't in and of itself excuse the specific portrayal of the twins. The trick is if the plot is truthful. Are there people who act like the twins in reality? Of course! They actually exist - but who cares? Racism is a pathology. Racists are only a symptom. The twins, as a product of racism, are also a symptom. Likewise, we are seeing something very dangerous in this thread now: people are more concerned with being called a racist (or calling others racist) than with actually fighting racism. That's the Tumblr trap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Sprecherscrow posted:He knew enough of both the English language and American popular culture to construct sentences out of audio samples. That alone doesn't make you incorrect, but he couldn't have only seen the "goatse side" because he had a grasp of various films, tv shows, and songs. Regardless, it's only a minute or two of the run time and doesn't seem as important in context as it actually is. Doesn't make it bad, just makes it a difficult reading to see at first glance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:If it is any consolation, I find that that the Skids and Mudflap toys are not really popular. I can still find some on shelves in toy stores. I bought them out of irony. Only because they were trying to get rid of all the old ROTF crap. I still have them too, actually. Not my best decision.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The trick is if the plot is truthful. Are there people who act like the twins in reality? Of course! They actually exist - but who cares? People fitting that stereotype obviously exist, but there are plenty of different ways to portray them onscreen or on the page or whatever. It can't be true that every conceivable constellation of camera angles/lines of dialogue/plot contrivances involving such a character are equally inoffensive/unobjectionable/laudable/whatever just because they're technically capable of having happened. For instance, the Star Wars prequels could have been much more derisive of Jar Jar and the other Gungans - instead of showing them deliberately manipulated, it could instead show them repeatedly squander shining opportunities that the generous and long-suffering Jedi continuously pass them, or something. At a certain point, the onscreen portrayal ceases to be an indictment of injustice and becomes instead a straightforward example of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:People fitting that stereotype obviously exist, but there are plenty of different ways to portray them onscreen or on the page or whatever. It can't be true that every conceivable constellation of camera angles/lines of dialogue/plot contrivances involving such a character are equally inoffensive/unobjectionable/laudable/whatever just because they're technically capable of having happened. Yeah but, in this case, the film equates them to that short border guard who gives up his dignity because he buys into American ideology. There's also the key point that the Twins are in the film to replace Jazz, the breakdancing guy who dies pointlessly in Transformers 1. The twins are an extension of that same character. Can you imagine a Decepticon character acting like that too? Nope, because they are a different sort of grotesque. They're abject, monstrous, but also self-aware and unapologetic. The twins say "we're ninjas lol", while the Decepticons say "we are dogs". SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
What the hell is going on in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
You know what? I don't care. Argue about racism all you want, but cool it with the personal attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
I'm kind of tempted to start a thread about the conflict between abstract film discussion and the potential harm commonly misread films can have in corrupting the population. It seems like this exact same argument seeps into random threads all the time and the only real difference is the specific movie being discussed. But that would probably be a poo poo thread anyway, even if it would be convenient to just have all that conversation going on in the same place. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:I'm kind of tempted to start a thread about the conflict between abstract film discussion and the potential harm commonly misread films can have in corrupting the population. It seems like this exact same argument seeps into random threads all the time and the only real difference is the specific movie being discussed. Can we include this batshit crazy thing I ran into? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afzq0tg22EM
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
That would be a cool and interesting thread. There are tons of movies culturally accepted as 'bad' or 'racist' or 'mediocre' that might be worth re-looking at, I know there's a Bad Movie Thread but one specifically for more in-depth analysis and discussion would be fun. It is kind of strange how some of the more well-known film analysts turn out to be batshit crazy. Rob Ager, the Kubrick's Gold Story guy, is a pretty big conspiracy theorist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
Beyond arguing over that one contentious element, I think there's a broader point here. There's a weird asymmetry where, like, Terry can provide hundreds of pages of analysis (with pictures, even) yet no matter how much support she provides it will never be enough to elevate her reading beyond an amusing "re-interpretation", "alternate reading", or "rhetorical game". On the other hand nobody ever feels the need to support, or really even to define, the supposed default interpretation to which everything else is assumed subordinate. Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Beyond arguing over that one contentious element, I think there's a broader point here. There's a weird asymmetry where, like, Terry can provide hundreds of pages of analysis (with pictures, even) yet no matter how much support she provides it will never be enough to elevate her reading beyond an amusing "re-interpretation", "alternate reading", or "rhetorical game". On the other hand nobody ever feels the need to support, or really even to define, the supposed default interpretation to which everything else is assumed subordinate. Why is that? Because the consensus is the norm and if you disagree you're being contrarian or 'trying to feel smart'. I've been discussing the star wars films with friends lately and the best reasoning they can come up with for them being bad is awful rhetoric like 'it's bad' or 'everyone else thinks it's bad' or 'the acting is wooden' or 'I just didn't enjoy it okay' without any engagement with the text of the film. Numerous points now I've had film students disagree with me without having any sort of response to the actual points, like I'll talk about how cool it is that Lucas made the Jedi less heroic than people expected and the more subtle ways it presents societal decadence and I'll get a response like 'hm very interesting, but have you considered that the films are bad?' Like, what? A lot of film discussion has this very off-putting scent of objectivity to it, like people will talk about how self-evident it is that a film is bad or good so therefore, all the 'evidence' people who disagree talk about must be somehow false.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
That's the other related attitude, that only Good Movies are worthy of analysis or discussion. And we determine what is a Good Movie without/before analysis by... ? Nobody ever says.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:That's the other related attitude, that only Good Movies are worthy of analysis or discussion. And we determine what is a Good Movie without/before analysis by... ? Nobody ever says. Watching it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:That's the other related attitude, that only Good Movies are worthy of analysis or discussion. And we determine what is a Good Movie without/before analysis by... ? Nobody ever says. I'm kind of sympathetic to where you guys are coming from, but I think I can answer this one. The one unforgivable sin a film can commit is to be boring, and I definitely know that before I do an in-depth analysis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I'm kind of sympathetic to where you guys are coming from, but I think I can answer this one. The one unforgivable sin a film can commit is to be boring, and I definitely know that before I do an in-depth analysis. Ok, sure. Like, of course nobody has to engage with any film if they're just not interested. But then why should that person's opinion be automatically elevated above someone who actually took the time to analyze the film in detail (like Terry)? Also, I've found that an initially boring film can get more interesting the more you engage with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Ok, sure. Like, of course nobody has to engage with any film if they're just not interested. But then why should that person's opinion be automatically elevated above someone who actually took the time to analyze the film in detail (like Terry)? It shouldn't! I generally don't post in threads about media that disinterests me, because I know that my opinion of it won't be sufficiently informed to be worth sharing. On the other hand, there are some movies (the Matrix sequels come to mind) which, no matter how much you argue that a great deal of thought went into them, that a great deal of meaning can be gleaned from them -- even no matter how much I agree -- it still doesn't save them for me. I'm willing to keep my mouth shut, but not willing to deny that some kinds of badness are immediately recognizable and/or hard to articulate. But I was actually pretty entertained by the Transformers movies, so there's that. 
Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Yeah that's certainly possible. Some films are more fun/interesting to discuss or think about than they are to actually sit and watch. Like while watching both Only God Forgives and Beyond the Black Rainbow I felt bored and kinda confused about what to feel or think about what I was seeing. But since then the imagery and mood of both films has remained so memorable and beautiful in my head that I now look back on them as good movies.Uncle Boogeyman posted:Watching it. Watching a film is inseparable from interpreting it, though. Both Terry and the supposed default viewer have watched and interpreted the film, she's just putting more effort into the latter. And for example my opinion and interpretation of Transformers changed completely from when I watched it as a teenager to watching it recently, after reading Terry's analysis. But the film itself did not change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Beyond arguing over that one contentious element, I think there's a broader point here. There's a weird asymmetry where, like, Terry can provide hundreds of pages of analysis (with pictures, even) yet no matter how much support she provides it will never be enough to elevate her reading beyond an amusing "re-interpretation", "alternate reading", or "rhetorical game". On the other hand nobody ever feels the need to support, or really even to define, the supposed default interpretation to which everything else is assumed subordinate. Why is that? This analysis is not random dreaming. Identifying themes in trends in the way the films are structured is the closest thing we can get to "objectivity" in analysis. When most of the film's facial close-ups are dedicated to the supposed villain, he has the most emotive mimics out of everyone in the movie, and he goes from feeding babies to a longing POV shot of him gazing up at heaven, that's not me. Thing is, people might not like to admit it, but they have analysed the film. A film without interpretation is just a series of images without meaning. In this case, however, this is not a conscious process: "You don't notice, but your brain does." When a person operates on the cultural default assumption that a film can only have one possible meaning, the statement "I believe my analysis is consistent with the film as portrayed" tends to be interpreted(!) as carrying the additional statement of "thus your understanding of the film is wrong". Naturally, people then get tetchy about this, even if they aren't able to quite articulate a counterpoint or even the nature of their disagreement. Someone I know recently saw Dark Side Moon for the first time - after I had already told her many of the key points of my fascination with- and understanding of the film. Being a natural contrarian, she deliberately went into it with the mindset that I'm wrong and it's a popcorn action flick - unsuccessfully. She simply couldn't bring herself to engage with it as such. Her main point of contention was how much more human and relatable the CGI robots were than the completely farcial human protagonists. "They were such obvious, ridiculous parodies", she said. "I could clearly tell I wasn't meant to relate to them at all." It's all a difference of context. Some Guy TT posted:I'm kind of tempted to start a thread about the conflict between abstract film discussion and the potential harm commonly misread films can have in corrupting the population. It seems like this exact same argument seeps into random threads all the time and the only real difference is the specific movie being discussed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
It is very interesting how so many people seem to be able to understand right off that the human characters in these movies are ridiculous parodies, but that same understanding never seems to extend to the Transformers. I guess a big part of it is the nostalgia factor and Optimus' awesome voice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
There's some important tension between form and content to factor in, I think. The form of Bernie Mac's scenes in part 1 is 'just goofy comedy', but the presentation is unsettling. Like, just the basic image of Bolivia's cousin(?) going blind from the clown makeup melting into his eyes. It's awful. This comes into play later, in the gratuitous scene where Bumblebee upgrades himself. Mikaela asks, paraphrased, 'if Bee can look like anything, why'd he choose to look like a piece of crap?' The obvious counterpoint is that people like Bobby Bolivia have no choice. Then, think of who's saying this; Mikaela's a car thief, from a broken home, who puts a ton of effort into her outwards appearance - in an unspoken effort to secure an upper-class boyfriend. The idea that Bee would look 'trashy' on purpose is bizarre to her. She's pressured to fit in and 'marry up.' This is the context in which the twins 'try to look badass', and in which Megatron adopts his Mad Max truck form. It's all appearance, but one is clearly more authentic. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Bumblebee's '77 Camaro form is interesting in that he's specifically an older car with a beat-up exterior but an engine that's been recently upgraded. And since all of that is a fabrication, that represents a personal choice on his part to be, well, more than meets the eye. Mikaela and Sam, of course, have no interest in that and prefer the showy concept car form. They're more distinctly impressed that he looks cool now than that he's a drat shapeshifter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Terry van Feleday posted:Please do this. Even poo poo threads can hold the occasional great post, and I'd like to read more on this topic. Well, if Terry asks I have to do it, since I owe her for making these threads in the first place. Here you go. The rest of you can pay off that debt by not shitposting there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
First trailer for AoE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv6fVuvcHis
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
I gotta admit, the dude's face turning into a gun and shooting Optimus is a nice role-reversal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Is that megatrons alt form? Also Swoop and Grimlock look badass! They appear to be deceptions though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Welp, I'm excited for a Transformers movie. WTH. Optimus riding a giant robot dinosaur. I'm there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 02:51
|
|
The MSJ posted:First trailer for AoE. Came here to post this. It does feel weird that there's no Shia LeBouf, though. The Transformer at about ten seconds in, slashing up that car, makes me think of Megatron. Or is it Galvatron? Who knows.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
The tweaked Transformer designs should clear up any confusion for folks who apparently can't discern basic shapes as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
How the heck does a transforming robot get a buttcape made of metal?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Pelican Dunderhead posted:How the heck does a transforming robot get a buttcape made of metal? Dotm already had metal undulating fat rolls We are well past the metal buttcape stage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 05:15
|
|
