|
I can't believe the old thread was over a year ago; I just recently re-watched Transformers and The Island with that thread in mind. It was striking how rough and haphazard the film-making was in the Island compared to the slickness and efficiency of Transformers (apart from that trilogy's bloated plot- I'm just talking about the way the films are assembled). When the old thread was still going did we know there was going to be a fourth Bay film yet? I'm curious to see how it fits into the themes Terry has identified.
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
Hey wasn't the church in the OP's first picture also in The Island?Robot Style posted:I don't know if it had been officially announced yet, but if this billboard from Trans4mers is any indication, Great!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
HiriseSoftware posted:The "church" is actually the Michigan Central Depot in Detroit, which has been shuttered since 1988. Bay used it in The Island, Transformers (2007) and Dark of the Moon. In Transformers it was the "building with the statues on top" where Sam took the cube. Ok, thanks. I thought it was in the first Transformers, too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
Terry van Feleday posted:I just admire all the work and thought that went into bringing this character to life, and my greatest regret about him is that he couldn’t find his way into a movie I can actually recommend people to watch. I'd say this thread and its predecessor represent a pretty good recommendation for watching the films. Milky Moor posted:It always frustrates me when people bad-mouth the movie designs. I think they're great, and agree with all the reasons you pointed out, Terry. ... However, I don't think there is anyone who will disagree with you about Megatron's third design - it really is wonderfully evocative and I think it's a bit unfortunate that we only barely see it. I agree. Even the moments when the designs are just whirling blurs of machine parts are beautiful to me- like a visual representation of Autechre music, or this awesome music video/visualization: http://vimeo.com/40162986 Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Marcus Nispel's Friday the 13th is literally a sequel to Transformers 1. Trent, the rich Jock who insults Sam at the lakeside party re-appears in F13 as a major character. I couldn't believe you were being literal so I looked this up, and wow you're right. What a weird decision. Maybe I'll watch that tonight.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Danger posted:Friday the 13th (2009) is one of the best films of the Aughties Well, I quite enjoyed that just now. I'm sure I missed a lot, having never seen any of the other Jason films. The detail that stuck out the most was the moment where two characters find a skull (Jason's mom's?) in the wall, which they drop into a dirty bathtub. They jump back, disgusted, but then seconds later the girl jumps right into the bathtub with the skull to get away from Jason. Not sure why but I liked that. There's kind of a running theme of subjective boundaries throughout. For some reason there were a lot of really blurry close-ups, though, for no apparent reason. And I'm not sure why they re-used a character from Transformers, but that's still pretty funny.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
But is Linkin Park still doing the theme song?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Personally, I like that the film's staunchest defender has to admit how vile and nearly unwatchable the second movie is. Nah, I watched the whole trilogy because of the original thread (had previously only seen the first one, and hated it back then) and I definitely enjoyed that one the most. Except for some of the poo poo with Seymour which just went on and on. Number one still follows that kinda standard template where the underdog hero tries to get the girl and the car and save the world. Second one dispenses with a lot of that and just goes off in its own weird tangents. Along with more memorable actions scenes, to me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main issue people still have with the second film is "The Twins" being egregious racist stereotypes (fake edit- and judging by HUNDU's post as I was writing this, looks like that is the case). But the explanation that the Transformers are acting out what they know about Earth culture from Earth media is one of those "its not even subtext, its just text" things. The Twins should not be seen as a literal representation of racist stereotypes, but as alien robots acting out stereotypes that already exist in our culture. Just like Optimus is acting out the cultural idea of how a hero looks and talks without actually being heroic at all. I mean isn't Terry's central idea that you can watch the films and not have to agree with everything the Autobots/protagonists do? And even that the films can be seen as being entirely about that? EDIT - And before someone says "lol ironic racism", I'm not saying the film was being racist ironically but rather that you can see it as about racist stereotypes rather than as advocating them. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I can definitely understand not rewatching (or even initially watching), say Redneck Zombies or Vampiyaz, but something on the budget level of Transformers should be able to either not have the content or handle it in a way that it doesn't make huge swathes of the population embarrassed to be in the theater. What do "budget levels" have to do with anything?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Maarak posted:There's a wide gulf between simulated violence and minstrelsy, even if the intent is to skewer American pop culture. What makes it "minstrelry", though? Considering the actual context of the films.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
RoadCrewWorker posted:I don't follow - the predictable discomfort/camp you expect and seek out is completely different from the surprise of how disgusted/regretful for paying the fee a movie makes you feel. But you don't have to regret watching a film just because it depicts or deals with uncomfortable things. Which is why the comparison to horror movies it apt.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:You can say it reflects culture in the US because of autobots studied our culture and the internet for some time before contacting us, but all that says is that through all their learning about human history and how people communicate with each other, the autobots came to the conclusion that black people talk like this. This is the opposite of "dealing with uncomfortable things." Yeah, exactly. If aliens just learned about human culture through our internet and pop culture they would get some extremely skewed and offensive views about the roles and behavior of various races. Because our media collectively depicts skewed and offensive generalizations about the roles and behavior of various races. That is the uncomfortable fact. RoadCrewWorker posted:Oh no, of course not in general, but that certainly largely depends on the viewers subjective judgment of how well it actually "depicts and deals with" them. It's certainly an incredibly easy thing to gently caress up spectacularly. Alright. Maarak posted:Is the blackface in Tropic Thunder not blackface because there's context? I haven't seen that film so I don't know the context. But in theory someone could make a film about blackface or depicting blackface without the resulting film advocating blackface. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Dec 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Maarak posted:Agreed, but that doesn't make it any less unpleasant. Bamboozled certainly doesn't advocate blackface, but it's grueling to watch the segments of the Mantan minstrel show within the film. Okay. Well I'm not going to try and dictate to other people what they can and can't be uncomfortable with. But just for me discomfort is not necessarily a bad reaction to art. For example I used to suffer from panic attacks so some parts of Antichrist were quite hard for me to watch but that doesn't mean I think its a bad film or even a bad experience.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:The reason why this is such a suspect defense that no one ever comes away with is because the twins themselves are often the butt of the racist jokes on the film instead of the institution of racism itself. The film is not mocking people of color through the Twins because the twins are not people of color, neither literally/diegetically nor symbolically. Diegetically they are alien robots acting out human stereotypes, and symbolically they represent the stereotypes themselves. If "minstrelry" is mocking black people then mocking minstrels is mocking the oppressors, not the oppressed. All of the Autobots do act blatantly racist, actually, and especially in the second film. Terry went into detail on that in her analysis. Milky Moor posted:It's also not how the Twins talk and act but how they look - big ears, ape-like appearance, gold teeth... Remember, they're Transformers. They transform their appearances and personalities based on Earth culture. Again, that's not even subtext its just the basic premise. The progression you point out between films just means the second film made the not-even-subtext even more blatant, but people still didn't get it. Some Guy TT posted:As much as I enjoy Terry's takedown of the Transformers franchise, it's important to keep in perspective that even if this is the intentional reading of the film, it's still not the reading the clear majority of audiences get out of it. Most people see Transformers as unironically being a big dumb robot movie. Contextual excuses for the Twins being racist caricatures are pretty weak when most people watched those scenes and thought "lol look at those robots acting like dumb niggas". I'm not going to limit my interpretation of any film to a vague assumption of how the majority of people must interpret the film. That seems like a total dead end to interpretation, criticism, and discussion. Even in your made up example of the hypothetical viewer's thought process the key word is "acting". Acting out or depicting stereotypes in a cartoonish way is placing them in the realm of cartoons, no more real than coyotes dropping anvils on road runners. If someone can't understand that then the issue is with their basic thought processes and not any film. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Olibu posted:I'm sure someone who is better with words than I am can explain in detail why that line of thinking is entirely wrong. Hey, good addition to the discussion! That's all this is, after all. Entirely wrong, really? So what, the Twins are diegetically oppressed people of color and not alien robots? Wow, and some people thought SMG and Terry's readings were far out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
Maarak posted:Excluding popular readings of the film from discussion is myopic. Who said to do that? Not me. Lord Krangdar posted:I'm not going to limit my interpretation of any film to a vague assumption of how the majority of people must interpret the film. That seems like a total dead end to interpretation, criticism, and discussion. Include them in the discussion, sure. But a vague and cynical idea of what "the masses" think (without actually thinking about it) should not be the final world nor should it constrict how we're allowed to interpret a film. I choose to do better. Because Tyler Durden is not the hero of Fight Club. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
Olibu posted:It's the more the idea of "This racism is okay because it's criticizing racism" that is entirely wrong. Good thing I didn't say that at all, then. I've written a number of posts on the subject, why not quote one of them instead of making up that quote which says something else? I'm not defending racism, but rather saying that its not racism in the first place. Nobody is able to give a good argument for why we should see it as the latter at all. If you changed your fake quote to say "depicting racism is okay if it's criticizing racism" that would be more accurate to what I've been saying, and that applies to many films besides Transformers 2- such as Django Unchained, or Schindler's List, or Roots, and on and on. Maybe, like you said, someone who is better with words than you are can explain in detail why my line of thinking is entirely wrong. I'm waiting. Honestly, I would love to have an actual discussion about this; that's why I'm posting here. But "someone else can explain why you're wrong" as your only position does not make for a good discussion. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
If you're literally, or even figuratively, twitching over a disagreement about movie interpretation (and not even a particularly hostile one) maybe you should calm down before continuing the discussion further? Where I mainly disagree with you is that you've decided the parts of the film I've cited are "throw-away" and therefore not meaningful/relevant for no particular reason. Actually its more than just those lines in the first film, its a pattern throughout. That includes the character of Jazz in the first film, Bumblebee using clips of Earth media to communicate with the humans, and really the whole premise of the films: the Transformers transform based on what they see from Earth culture. Why do you think Optimus has flame decals on him? What do flame decals mean to an alien, any more than human racial stereotypes? You're also doing that thing where those other people won't get my line of reasoning from the film therefore we shouldn't, but again no matter how many people think Tyler Durden is the bad-rear end hero of Fight Club I'm still not going to see that as a good interpretation of the actual film (because it ignores half the film). And again, even in the most basic surface level reading of the film the Twins are still alien robots acting out human stereotypes, and not straight depictions/employments of those stereotypes. The films I listed are more focused on racism primarily than Transformers 2 is, yes. But the point was that its possible to depict racism on film without advocating it. I'm not sure what points you're making with that first paragraph. quote:Again, I admit I'm not the best with words, some of that is rambling, but there is a reason Terry kept ending entire blocks of text throughout the analysis with, "And yet people on the internet claim the twins aren't racist." IIRC those people were denying that the characters had anything to do with racial stereotypes at all. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
To me the joke is that they have misunderstood human culture by mistaking media depictions of race for reality, becoming blatant stereotypes that stand out in the name of fitting in. I found that pretty funny when I watched the film, and that's not some subjective thing up for debate even if your experiences differ. Oh but I forgot I'm only allowed to judge the film by how those other people interpreted it. And they, all of them, think "jive-talking and flapping jaws and monkey ears are funny". quote:More to the point, making it out as if they represent "the stereotypes themselves" instead of victims of stereotypes is a strange tautological distinction in this case because -- and this is key, here -- the twins aren't the butt of jokes because they act racist, they're the butt of jokes because they act "black." They don't represent the victims of the stereotypes because they're alien robots acting out the stereotypes that they learned from humans, and not black humans. How can you argue that they're both the victims of the stereotypes and then in the next paragraph say they are the minstrels doing the mocking? Why can't we relate the racism between the robots to human racism? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 08:23
|
|
|
I understand what "represent" means non-literally, which is why I said they represent stereotypes themselves. You know that. They don't represent actual black people because they are acting like black stereotypes and not actual black people. Which is why they represent black stereotypes. The robot racism is related to human racism because both are racism. And both are in the films. And the robot racism follows patterns of otherizing, stereotyping, generalizing, us vs. them etc. jus like human racism. And because of how the third film begins. Not sure why those other people's sense of humour is objective but mine is just interpretation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 09:30
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:I'm kind of curious at this point whether you think it's possible for any film to be racist at all. Could you give us an example of unambiguous racism in a movie that can't be explained away as the film actually making an ironic statement about perceptions? Well the first example that comes to mind is the third episode of Star Trek TNG, where the Enterprise crew has to deal with the backwards, savage black people of some lovely Space Africa. That said, I'm not a fan of the internet's recent trend of "problematic content" hunting in general. Generally I'm always going to attempt to interpret art in a way that brings out the value of the work, if possible. Like I haven't seen Birth of a Nation but even a film intended as straight up racist propaganda could tell us something about the totally wrong worldview behind that kind of racism, so it can still have value and meaning beyond those bad intentions. Some Guy TT posted:You seem to think this is hyperbole. You must not be very familiar with the world where people unironically argue that it's not racist to say nigga because it's a completely different word from friend of the family. Well I live in Canada, where we still have racism obviously but not with the same background and current manifestations as in America. But you misunderstood me there: I'm sure those people exist, I just don't see any reason for us to lower or narrow our own interpretations to their level. That's why I gave the example of Tyler Durden; no matter how many people think he is the hero of Fight Club that will never be a good interpretation of that film because it ignores half the film. So like this: Corek posted:When the movie first came out, more than one person in CD reported people walking out of the theater laughing at "the friend of the family robots." Subversion! So dumb people are dumb and come away with dumb opinions about movies, so what? Why are all of us discussing these films here and now supposed to care so much about what dumb racists thought of them? We can do better. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Dec 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
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. But my point that the Transformers act out skewed ideas of Earth culture based on the internet and other media isn't an "alternate reading", it is the bare facts of the text. Watching that should be uncomfortable, but not because the movie is racist. Society is racist. If aliens came to Earth, would we be proud of what they see of our society and culture? No, and the film throws that in our faces. That discussion was more than a month old, by the way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
But its not deep, puzzle-y, particularly meta, or a work-around. I'm not talking about 5th dimensional chess meta-ironic subtext whatever. The basic premise of Transformers is alien robots who come to Earth and disguise themselves as loaded symbols from human culture. "Everything is not what it seems" is inextricable from that basic concept. Optimus is an alien but he appropriates the form of a truck with racing stripes, as well as the shtick of a patriotic American leader. The twins are aliens but they take the form of Earth concept cars and their shtick is sourced from common racial stereotypes. It's weird that this one point is so controversial when its totally in line with everything Terry has said about the films (though even she shied away from it). Seeing the Twins for what they are is seeing all the Autobots for what they are; they're aliens with their own agendas playing at false roles humans can recognize. Anyway, what you think that kids must think of the films is not the same as "the bare facts of the text". I'm talking about the latter, which is the approach you suggested before doing the exact opposite. And I'm not trying to defend Michael Bay, I'm defending the movies themselves. Looking at a movie through the viewpoint of a kid who doesn't understand it is a good way to misunderstand a movie. Any movie, not just Transformers. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
I think we're talking about two totally different things. I'm talking about the films (the text). You're talking about the marketing and what you think kids think about them. If we're going to talk about the latter, what messages exactly do you imagine kids are taking away from the film's depictions of the Twins? When I watch and interpret a film I do so as myself. I don't see the point or value of interpreting a film as a child or those other people, yet it seems to keep coming up (other examples are the Slevin thread, the Star Trek Into Darkness thread). Why would I limit my own interpretation to a child's or a dumb racist misogynist? I can do better.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
penismightier posted:You don't see the point of evaluating the impact of images, that you yourself have expressed are full of meaning, on the minds and character of the children those images are created for? I said exactly what I don't see the point of, there's no need to re-word it into something different. And are you even really evaluating that, beyond just assuming stuff? How do you actually know the impact it had on children? What exactly do you think that impact has been? When I was a kid I sometimes questioned why fictional aliens would be speaking human languages, I don't see why a kid couldn't question why aliens would be acting out human stereotypes. With STID I was referring to the discussion over the scene with Alive Eve/Carol Marcus's brief underwear shot. And my position on both those controversies had nothing to do with canon. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
penismightier posted:For a moment there I was about to type why, point-by-point, injecting virulent racism into a kid's movie is a Very Bad Thing To Do, but I'll let you work through it. It's not racism, though. It's about racism. My interpretation comes from "the bare facts of the text". You, along with everyone else so far, have skipped over the part where you actually explain or defend your interpretation based on the text itself. Skipped right over saying why the film is racist to pretending I'm defending racist kid's movies (instead of what I'm actually doing; saying why its not racist). Imagining a hypothetical person who interprets the film your way is not enough. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Stop loving quoting me back at me, that is incredibly obnoxious. I mean the bare facts of the text as a text, not an alternate universe. I'm talking about the facts of the film as a film, what it's doing and who it's doing it for. "Out of universe," as the sci-fi wikipedias say. If you meant that you should have said it. Because my interpretation actually is about the text, whereas you started out saying to focus on the text and then focused on everything but (the film's marketing and tie-in products, what you imagine about a child audience, assumptions about Michael Bay's intentions). Generally I don't interpret any film by its marketing. It has nothing to do with seeing the film as an alternate universe, unless you think any time you interpret why a character acts the way they do you're treating the film as an alternate universe. Also funny how before my interpretation was too meta-textual for you, now apparently the exact same viewpoint is too literal. How'd that happen? I would like you to stop dancing around it and say exactly what racist messages the film is sending and why you think they're there, like what exactly are you worried that kids are going to pick up on?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Anyways, I was thinking. It's interesting how the new Autobot designs seem to be continuing the trend of eschewing the 'car bits and pieces' that were very obvious in the first film. Optimus is still a truck but you wouldn't know that looking at his new design. It's like the Autobots have thrown off all pretext of appearing like cars or trucks in human-form and instead appear like alien soldiers and warriors. I really liked the designs from the first film so, really, I'll miss it. To me it looks like they tried to combine the original design with a suit of armor, which makes sense with Optimus riding a dragon and wielding a sword.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 19:08
|
|