|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Hold up: marketing and stuff are actually vital contexts. It's very important that the film itself - and the entire worldview - is repeatedly underlined as being the product of a corporation. Well like usual you and I are sorta arguing the same thing but our viewpoints are not quite compatible. That said, I'd be open to discussing the marketing and toys and stuff as context (yet still not text) except that I didn't give a poo poo about these movies when they first came out and so I missed all that stuff. I have a hard time picturing these films being for kids though; when I saw the first one quite young all I remember just being totally baffled at how completely uncool, unlikeable, and unheroic Optimus and his buddies were. But back then I thought that automatically made it a bad movie. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Jan 23, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
penismightier posted:Where and when did I say that? Well if that's not what you meant with the alternate universe thing then I have no idea what you mean by that. Aren't you saying I'm too concerned with the literal events of the second Transformers movie? quote:You're trying to pull this loving "I outdodged you" smug game but it's not working because you on a basic level have yet to once address what I said in the first post you responded to. This doesn't have to be smug games, it can be a discussion. Though now its probably gotten way too meta to work anymore. quote:I'm saying now exactly what I said when I started this insane conversation - I don't give a poo poo about your interpretation of the events of the loving second Transformers movie, I'm talking about the cultural merits of sticking a loving classic shuck and jive stereotype in a film CREATED FOR AND SOLD TO children. I don't care I don't care I don't care whether Truckman is a bad guy. I don't care about your reading. I don't care and have never cared about any of that, and have never once addressed the merits of it. I'm talking about the cultural impact of the film, which seems to be something you're completely incapable of even conceptualizing let alone discussing. Well this is exactly why I have to quote you back at you. You specifically mentioned alternate readings in a response to a discussion sparked by my alternate reading in the first place. You implied that these alternate readings do not adequately deal with the bare facts of the text. That was how you started this insane conversation, and it looked like addressing the merits of that stuff to me. Why don't you tell me what is the cultural impact of the film? You say I have yet to address that, but you haven't even really done so (despite me asking a couple of times now). I don't regularly interact with many children, let alone discuss with them the impact of the Transformers movies on them. How could I conceptualize such a thing? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Just to throw the obvious one out of the way here- if you look at Birth of a Nation in the context of D.W. Griffith's career, and especially in context of the fact that he later made Intolerance, it's easy to interpret the so-called lazy blacks of the film as actually being the victims of naive Northern oppression, being forced into positions of power before they were ready. Even more problematic parts, like the attempted rape of a white woman by a black man, can much more easily be seen as being the inevitable outcropping of poor governance. Well, it's really more the whites who are the oppressed (by Silas Lynch) in Birth of a Nation. At no point, except for maybe the South Carolina Senate scene, are the blacks shown as "unready". The equivalent of Jar Jar is the swooning Confederate soldier who is overcome by Lillian Gish (who was a fan favorite for decades - see Gish's memoirs).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
Isn't it better to be honest with children about the nature of the world they live in rather than lie to them, even if the truth is uncomfortable? One of the things I hated the most about growing up was passing through the magical event horizon where suddenly I was 'an adult now' and got told these horrible things I was never prepared for in my youth about how the world actually works. Let's be honest, these Transformers films aren't for kids. They're for us, the people who were kids when the Transformers were really a thing. If a company wants kids to see it, that's fine, but these Transformers have decades of cultural baggage and cannot be the same things we saw on television on Saturday morning. It's dishonest to pretend they're the same thing. Even then, are Skids and Mudflap going to turn children into racists? Or perhaps are they going to show kids that racism, even culturally hegemonic racism, exists? Is the latter really a bad thing, and why? Edit: Furthermore, it's not meta-textual or whatever to notice that the Transformers are literally made out of our cultural imagery. They reflect us. When one of them decides to be a stereotype we personally deem 'racist', the robot is being very telling about us. I don't particularly care if kids realise that or not - it is in the film. What you seem to want (could be misreading you here) is for the signifiers of racism to go away, because you don't trust children to not internalise it and become 'corrupted', or racist themselves. That's not a very nice way to think about children, if true. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Isn't it better to be honest with children about the nature of the world they live in rather than lie to them, even if the truth is uncomfortable? One of the things I hated the most about growing up was passing through the magical event horizon where suddenly I was 'an adult now' and got told these horrible things I was never prepared for in my youth about how the world actually works. There is a significant difference between being upfront with your child about some of the less pleasant aspects of the world and expecting them to have the maturity to understand that Mr. Bay is using Stepin Fetchit stereotypes as a commentary on modern American culture, which would be inappropriate for your child to do in, say, the middle of a grocery store. The robots being racist caricatures because our society is racist is text, not subtext, but recognizing that requires you to already appreciate how racist our society is, making the Transformers franchise a pretty terrible way to inform your children about racism. penismightier posted:I'm saying now exactly what I said when I started this insane conversation - I don't give a poo poo about your interpretation of the events of the loving second Transformers movie, I'm talking about the cultural merits of sticking a loving classic shuck and jive stereotype in a film CREATED FOR AND SOLD TO children. Well, sure. And all the lingering rear end shots. And all the grotesque face-ripping. But where I disagree is back where you started: penismightier posted:You can use text analysis to support just about any alternate reading you want, but at a certain point you have to deal with the bare facts of the text, and something as noxious and gratuitously racist as those robots in Transformers 2 are borderline unwatchable. If you understand what the movie is doing, and willing to roll with it, the twins are fascinating, and not just in retrospect, but while you're watching the movie. I just don't get where you're coming from with "borderline unwatchable."
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
It's like being offended at Johnny Depp's Tonto
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
So you're saying it's the correct reaction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:If you understand what the movie is doing, and willing to roll with it, the twins are fascinating, and not just in retrospect, but while you're watching the movie. I just don't get where you're coming from with "borderline unwatchable." Well if you attempt to watch Transformers 2, one of the things you may notice is that it's borderline unwatchable. Lord Krangdar, please keep explaining how those racist-rear end robots are A-OK. It's dope.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
It seems like he has been explaining his fairly succinct reading of the characters in context with the rest of the film for the past page and a half, which didn't include anywhere how they are A-OK (in fact looked like he was making the opposite point).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Danger posted:It seems like he has been explaining his fairly succinct reading of the characters in context with the rest of the film for the past page and a half, which didn't include anywhere how they are A-OK (in fact looked like he was making the opposite point). Shush, it's funnier when Krangdar does his wishy-washy defense of racist caricatures than when you do it for him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
"They represent a repetition of deeply ingrained systemic racism inherent in late-capitalist liberal democracy" isn't much of a defense of racist caricatures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Well if you attempt to watch Transformers 2, one of the things you may notice is that it's borderline unwatchable. In the theater I found Transformers 2 headache inducing, particularly the final segment in the desert. I felt like the kid in The Men Who Stare At Goats that Spacey doses and assaults with strobes. (Yes I'm aware The Men Who Stare At Goats came out afterwards, I'm just making a point.) It was sensory bombardment. I think one of the more unfortunate things about these movies is that in the first film there's that little montage of the Autobots coming to Earth and assuming various forms based on quick scans of the internet. Pretty much the entire cultural context of the characters across all the films stem from this idea, but it whizzes by so fast it doesn't seem particularly important at the time. Two years later it probably isn't going to come to mind and Transformers 2 doesn't do much to reinforce it. The Twins being so egregiously racist puts the onus on the film to make any symbolic role the characters play really worth it. The themes being present elsewhere in the film in Jetfire or the Constructicon doesn't really justify the Twins so much as it renders them unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Danger posted:"They represent a repetition of deeply ingrained systemic racism inherent in late-capitalist liberal democracy" isn't much of a defense of racist caricatures. It's a defense of them in Transformers 2 though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Why's "Criticism of Transformers 2" a higher priority than "Criticism of Liberal Democracy"? You don't want to fall into the tumblr trap, where your concerns are divorced from authentic antiracism. Michael Bay is just a man, and Revenge Of The Fallen is just a movie. The fans, the children... these are not the source of racism. Multiculturalism is white supremacy, and I'd prefer if the children were not taught otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
A movie can be about murder without saying murder is A-OK. It can depict racism without saying racism is A-OK. I can defend that movie without automatically being an advocate of murder and racism. This is really basic stuff. Which I guess is why hypothetical children who we imagine not understanding such basic things are needed to make the opposing point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
What the hell are you even trying to say? That because criticisms of Liberal Democracy exist, that somehow excuses racist caricatures? That makes no loving sense whatsoever, and you're falling into the same sort of "tumblr trap" by acting like one issue means it's okay to be horrible about something else. And Krangdar, you're being intentionally obtuse. Normalizing racist imagery is damaging to a work's audience, and the intended audience of the Bay films is, at least partially, children. People start forming opinions about these sorts of things long before they can fully articulate them, and those... things are entirely unsuited for a film like this, or indeed for any work that's not actively and explicitly criticizing the people who would support using them. A Shitty Reporter fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
He is saying the these racist caricatures are criticisms of liberal democracy. That they aren't excusable is the exact, ironic point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
No Your Other Left posted:And Krangdar, you're being intentionally obtuse. Normalizing racist imagery is damaging to a work's audience, and the intended audience People start forming opinions about these sorts of things long before they can fully articulate them, and those... things are entirely unsuited for a film like this, or indeed for any work that's not actively and explicitly criticizing the people who would support using them. What would constitute 'active and explicit' criticism and why/how is that different form the Transformers project? That the twins are racists stereotypes is the entire point, an overt criticism of "the people who would support using them" (even if that would include Michael Bay) is toothless and apologetic. The entire underlying economic and social structure is what supports and maintains them in the real world, Transformers is a virtual expression of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Look, at the end of the day this is all just re-interpreting the films for fun, and our own readings of it do not excuse those characters' inclusions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
No Your Other Left posted:And Krangdar, you're being intentionally obtuse. Normalizing racist imagery is damaging to a work's audience, and the intended audience of the Bay films is, at least partially, children. People start forming opinions about these sorts of things long before they can fully articulate them, and those... things are entirely unsuited for a film like this, or indeed for any work that's not actively and explicitly criticizing the people who would support using them. What opinion do you think children who watched Transformers 2 formed about these things, and why do you think that? Remember that the stereotypes are acted out by alien robots. I don't see why a child too young to conceptualize abstract ideas is going to link these alien robots to real black people. But then nobody has come out and said if that is what they're afraid of, or what else they're afraid of happening. We just get vague references to the "cultural impact" of the film- which is? The films now seem like an active and blatant criticism of American culture to me, but I have no idea what kids think of them (outside of my own experience when I was younger which doesn't match what you guys are saying at all). Which is why I watch and interpret films as myself and not as a hypothetical child. No Your Other Left posted:Look, at the end of the day this is all just re-interpreting the films for fun, and our own readings of it do not excuse those characters' inclusions. Mine does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Mine does. Congratulations on making excuses for horrific racism, I guess. I'm sure that's very intellectually satisfying for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Congratulations on making excuses for horrific racism, I guess. A movie can be about murder without saying murder is A-OK. It can depict racism without saying racism is A-OK. I can defend that movie without automatically being an advocate of murder and racism. This is really basic stuff. Which I guess is why hypothetical children who we imagine not understanding such basic things are needed to make the opposing point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
The same thing other such caricatures teach. That "those people" who supposedly act like that are idiots, less worth respect than others, or inherently worse. Just because they're made of metal doesn't excuse the writers or character designers for what they made. That sort of writing, and being exposed to that sort of writing at an early age, establishes such things as amusing and acceptable in a child's mind. It makes it easier for them to accept or even enjoy such stereotypes when they're applied more directly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
No Your Other Left posted:Look, at the end of the day this is all just re-interpreting the films for fun, and our own readings of it do not excuse those characters' inclusions. It absolutely doesn't excuse it. The characters are inexcusable. Actually understanding the film (which is only re-interpreting if your initial interpretation is wrong), does, however, justify their inclusion. No Your Other Left posted:It makes it easier for them to accept or even enjoy such stereotypes when they're applied more directly. This is an explicit claim about child development and child psychology. Out of curiosity, what's your expertise or basis for the claim?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
edit: nah actually I'll just let you keep digging without me helping you out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:It's very fun to watch you keep digging your own hole and all, but a racist caricature is not "depicting racism." I haven't been talking about that picture or racist caricatures in general, I've been talking about the film Transformers 2. If you had a scene in a movie where somebody had that picture displayed prominently in their home, that would be the film depicting racism. That doesn't necessarily make the film racist. No Your Other Left posted:The same thing other such caricatures teach. That "those people" who supposedly act like that are idiots, less worth respect than others, or inherently worse. Just because they're made of metal doesn't excuse the writers or character designers for what they made. That sort of writing, and being exposed to that sort of writing at an early age, establishes such things as amusing and acceptable in a child's mind. It makes it easier for them to accept or even enjoy such stereotypes when they're applied more directly. I'm not sure that is true. The opposite could happen just as easily. As a child grows up they realize that media depictions don't reflect reality. They can realize that cartoonish racial stereotypes don't reflect reality any more than cartoon gravity, where you don't fall unless you look down. This is why its important context that the entire film is totally unrealistic, cartoonish, and blatantly inconsistent about even the most basic things (such as where the characters are in the world). Again though this is just speculation about the thought processes of strangers. We don't know. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Congrats on catching that quote, because the irony of Uncle Boogeyman using a racist caricature to argue that the inclusion of a racist caricature in a media product is inexcusable was pretty rich.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Congrats on catching that quote, because the irony of Uncle Boogeyman using a racist caricature to argue that the inclusion of a racist caricature in a media product is inexcusable was pretty rich. My posting is not a media product, dingus. Also I'm pretty sure that's not what irony means. Like, do you think I personally created that old-tymey racist advertisement?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:My posting is not a media product, dingus. Hey, look, another thing you're wrong about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Hey, look, another thing you're wrong about. Now you're just bordering on actually psychotic so I'm content to leave you and Krangdar to enjoy that hole you're digging together. By this point it's gotta be big enough for the both of you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
The Internet is pretty clearly a form of media. You seem to be graduating from just plain wrong to delusional.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Hey, look, another thing you're wrong about. Actually that's the exact "criticizing racism" thing I talked about in my post. It's pretty loving clear he was using it that way, and quite frankly I don't believe you didn't understand this. You're just being deliberately thick about it because you're a racist who doesn't want to openly admit it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Now you're just bordering on actually psychotic so I'm content to leave you and Krangdar to enjoy that hole you're digging together. By this point it's gotta be big enough for the both of you. There's no hole. We're discussing a film in this film discussion forum while you repeat snark to yourself about straw-men of strangers on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
No Your Other Left posted:Actually that's the exact "criticizing racism" thing I talked about in my post. It's pretty loving clear he was using it that way, and quite frankly I don't believe you didn't understand this. You're just being deliberately thick about it because you're a racist who doesn't want to openly admit it. Of course I understood he was criticizing racism. That's the entire loving point, that it's acceptable to include racist images inside of an anti-racist argument. No Your Other Left posted:You're just being deliberately thick about it because you're a racist who doesn't want to openly admit it. Yeah, that's a reasonable conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
I will say that watching a bunch of sheltered white nerds* defend the use of wildly offensive racist imagery in their '80s nostalgia toy robot movie is, in its own way, strangely edifying re: the world we live in today. *I could, admittedly, be wrong about this part, I'm just going off past experience
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Huh, I feel the same way about watching a depressed shut-in try to make himself feel superior by insulting strangers on the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Huh, I feel the same way about watching a depressed shut-in try to make himself feel superior by insulting strangers on the Internet. See? We're all learning something today!  The internet can be fun!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Awww, it's nice to see you smile  You use to smile all the time, Boogeyman. People always told me, "little Boogey has such a nice smile, he really lights up a room!" Whatever happened to my happy little boy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
Sprecherscrow posted:In the theater I found Transformers 2 headache inducing, particularly the final segment in the desert. I felt like the kid in The Men Who Stare At Goats that Spacey doses and assaults with strobes. (Yes I'm aware The Men Who Stare At Goats came out afterwards, I'm just making a point.) It was sensory bombardment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:50
|
|
