Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

SlyTF1 wrote:Even I kinda find it unnecessary. I mean, they fixed it in the theatrical version, what's the point of adding it here, when you know parents are going to be pissed any way?

Exactly. It's completely unecessary.

I mean, even the two curse word inserted into the 1986 G1 movie were utterly pointless to that film, serving no other purpose than to force a PG rating upon it. Take away the two and nothing is lost from that movie.

There was no impact from those words aside from a cheap "wow" factor, and same goes for this one here. The Seven Dirty Words and other such colorful language have no place of necessity in the Transformers.

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:Even I kinda find it unnecessary. I mean, they fixed it in the theatrical version, what's the point of adding it here, when you know parents are going to be pissed any way?

Exactly. It's completely unecessary.

I mean, even the two curse word inserted into the 1986 G1 movie were utterly pointless to that film, serving no other purpose than to force a PG rating upon it. Take away the two and nothing is lost from that movie.

There was no impact from those words aside from a cheap "wow" factor, and same goes for this one here. The Seven Dirty Words and other such colorful language have no place of necessity in the Transformers.

Unless it's a more mature...thing. I mean, if there where to be an R rated TF movie in the futire (I wouldn't put it past Hasbro.), and if the story was actually trying to prove a point, then it'd be necessary.

SlyTF1 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:Even I kinda find it unnecessary. I mean, they fixed it in the theatrical version, what's the point of adding it here, when you know parents are going to be pissed any way?

Exactly. It's completely unecessary.

I mean, even the two curse word inserted into the 1986 G1 movie were utterly pointless to that film, serving no other purpose than to force a PG rating upon it. Take away the two and nothing is lost from that movie.

There was no impact from those words aside from a cheap "wow" factor, and same goes for this one here. The Seven Dirty Words and other such colorful language have no place of necessity in the Transformers.

Unless it's a more mature...thing. I mean, if there where to be an R rated TF movie in the futire (I wouldn't put it past Hasbro.), and if the story was actually trying to prove a point, then it'd be necessary.

The belief that swearing is "mature" is a fallacy. It's more mature to choose to take the higher route of not swearing than it is to give in to swearing.

I wonder if the one obvious F-bomb and secondary muddled one were added, presumably to the movie-as-originally-made given that some of you folks did seem to get to see an 'uncensored' version, specifically to GET that PG-13 rating? PG-13 is supposedly the 'best' rating for movies aimed at the tween and teen market, isn't it? No hassles about restricting entry to anybody, but also no perceptions that it's too 'tame' a movie...isn't that the market thinking? Movie sexual content and violence are still kind of subjectively assessed when it comes to ratings here in Canada. The ratings assigned can vary by region, even by province. But cursing, that's much more clearly delineated across the board. Any use of the F-bomb will bump any movie up to PG-13 here. Use it more than (I THINK) twice and you're getting an R. So...perhaps a deliberate decision on the movie-makers' part in order to get the rating they wanted? DOTM certainly didn't warrent a PG-13 in my estimation--and evidently that of our local movies review board too--for its violence alone. WAY too cartoon-like for concern...

The original Transformers movie ran as a PG feature in the theatres here also (dunno about ROTF). And we never did get to see Beast Wars--we got Beasties instead. Blame our even wonkier television ratings system for THAT one!

Biddybot wrote:I wonder if the one obvious F-bomb and secondary muddled one were added, presumably to the movie-as-originally-made given that some of you folks did seem to get to see an 'uncensored' version, specifically to GET that PG-13 rating? PG-13 is supposedly the 'best' rating for movies aimed at the tween and teen market, isn't it? No hassles about restricting entry to anybody, but also no perceptions that it's too 'tame' a movie...isn't that the market thinking? Movie sexual content and violence are still kind of subjectively assessed when it comes to ratings here in Canada. The ratings assigned can vary by region, even by province. But cursing, that's much more clearly delineated across the board. Any use of the F-bomb will bump any movie up to PG-13 here. Use it more than (I THINK) twice and you're getting an R. So...perhaps a deliberate decision on the movie-makers' part in order to get the rating they wanted? DOTM certainly didn't warrent a PG-13 in my estimation--and evidently that of our local movies review board too--for its violence alone. WAY too cartoon-like for concern...

The original Transformers movie ran as a PG feature in the theatres here also (dunno about ROTF). And we never did get to see Beast Wars--we got Beasties instead. Blame our even wonkier television ratings system for THAT one!

And they wont bump it up when Sam has done "s*** that matters"?!
Anyway, sucks for your TV ratings.

I noticed that too. I was a bit confused because I didn't recall any "f" words in the movie save for the two that are cut off and the "WTF" acronym. And I certainly didn't remember that in that scene with Sam's boss and Bumblebee, I remember him saying "freakin'". I also agree with the others who think that adding that to the home release was unnecessary. Not sure why they felt to need to put that in...

Biddybot wrote: Any use of the F-bomb will bump any movie up to PG-13 here. Use it more than (I THINK) twice and you're getting an R. So...perhaps a deliberate decision on the movie-makers' part in order to get the rating they wanted? DOTM certainly didn't warrent a PG-13 in my estimation--and evidently that of our local movies review board too--for its violence alone. WAY too cartoon-like for concern...

This would be incorrect concidering it had a PG-13 rating without the F-bomb. I don't know what country your from, but in the U.S., it's not the swear word that warrants the rating system, its how its used. Example..
Telling someone to "F*** off!", or "F*** you!", is concidered far worse than say "Wow, this robot is f***ing awesome!" So the use of one "F" word alone will not get a PG-13 rating. The story, tone, and violence, sexual referances, nudity, language all play a parts in how a movie is rated. In DOTM case, the violence, language, and sexual inuitves (sorry, not sure if that's the right word) all what gave it a PG-13 rating. And if i had to pick one that through it over the edge, i'd have to say the action/violence set it off for its PG-13 rating. Not one swear word alone.

As far as the actual use of the word in the DVD, for me its not a big deal, but at the same time, it really wasn't nessasary either. It certinbaly didn't add any humor.

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Biddybot wrote: Any use of the F-bomb will bump any movie up to PG-13 here. Use it more than (I THINK) twice and you're getting an R. So...perhaps a deliberate decision on the movie-makers' part in order to get the rating they wanted? DOTM certainly didn't warrent a PG-13 in my estimation--and evidently that of our local movies review board too--for its violence alone. WAY too cartoon-like for concern...

This would be incorrect concidering it had a PG-13 rating without the F-bomb. I don't know what country your from, but in the U.S., it's not the swear word that warrants the rating system, its how its used. Example..
Telling someone to "F*** off!", or "F*** you!", is concidered far worse than say "Wow, this robot is f***ing awesome!" So the use of one "F" word alone will not get a PG-13 rating. The story, tone, and violence, sexual referances, nudity, language all play a parts in how a movie is rated. In DOTM case, the violence, language, and sexual inuitves (sorry, not sure if that's the right word) all what gave it a PG-13 rating. And if i had to pick one that through it over the edge, i'd have to say the action/violence set it off for its PG-13 rating. Not one swear word alone.

As far as the actual use of the word in the DVD, for me its not a big deal, but at the same time, it really wasn't nessasary either. It certinbaly didn't add any humor.

Actually, this isn't quite correct. You could use the f-word once per film, in PG, in the '80s. Notable examples: Beetlejuice, BIG.

BIG was the game changer. When the boy used it, it made the MPAA crack down. That, along with a few other things made them change their minds.

One use, no matter the connotation behind it, will automatically net you a PG-13.

You may use up to three of them in a PG-13, as long as they're spaced out and without a sexual connotation. The instant it becomes sexual, it's automatically R.

The American President is one of the only films, if not the only film, to hold the distinction of pushing the boundaries and keeping it's rating. It was used three times in various connotations in a 15 minute (or less) time span. It became a notable fact, actually.

So, it's inclusion was truly unnecessary. They added it for no legitimate reason. Impact, perhaps, but it was unnecessary. Parents should feel lied to. They went to see it in theaters, it was questionable then, but their kids were old enough to enjoy it. Now this? No longer family friendly. And that's after they spent the money on the DVD/BD.

It doesn't even say that the dialogue was changed from the theatrical release like ROTF did. I find it shady.

Autobot032 wrote: Actually, this isn't quite correct. You could use the f-word once per film, in PG, in the '80s. Notable examples: Beetlejuice, BIG.

BIG was the game changer. When the boy used it, it made the MPAA crack down. That, along with a few other things made them change their minds.

One use, no matter the connotation behind it, will automatically net you a PG-13.

You may use up to three of them in a PG-13, as long as they're spaced out and without a sexual connotation. The instant it becomes sexual, it's automatically R.

Looks like you got me on a technicality, because i was thinking of beetle juice when i was typing my past post. Good Eye. But regardless, it wasn't the F-bomb that recieved iDOTM it's PG-13 rating since it wasn't used in the theater version.

BUt it sems that the MPAA comitte can in fact over rule this if they feel it nessasary. BUt it seems they do that more with the transition between PG-13 and R ratings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Pic ... ing_system

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Autobot032 wrote: Actually, this isn't quite correct. You could use the f-word once per film, in PG, in the '80s. Notable examples: Beetlejuice, BIG.

BIG was the game changer. When the boy used it, it made the MPAA crack down. That, along with a few other things made them change their minds.

One use, no matter the connotation behind it, will automatically net you a PG-13.

You may use up to three of them in a PG-13, as long as they're spaced out and without a sexual connotation. The instant it becomes sexual, it's automatically R.

Looks like you got me on a technicality, because i was thinking of beetle juice when i was typing my past post. Good Eye. But regardless, it wasn't the F-bomb that recieved iDOTM it's PG-13 rating since it wasn't used in the theater version.

BUt it sems that the MPAA comitte can in fact over rule this if they feel it nessasary. BUt it seems they do that more with the transition between PG-13 and R ratings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Pic ... ing_system

They certainly can. Which is kinda messed up. I've seen movies that clearly needed a much heavier rating and ones that weren't even close to a PG-13 but got it anyway.

The ratings system needs a massive overhaul, with public input to help them pin down exactly what goes where.

Autobot032 wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Autobot032 wrote: Actually, this isn't quite correct. You could use the f-word once per film, in PG, in the '80s. Notable examples: Beetlejuice, BIG.

BIG was the game changer. When the boy used it, it made the MPAA crack down. That, along with a few other things made them change their minds.

One use, no matter the connotation behind it, will automatically net you a PG-13.

You may use up to three of them in a PG-13, as long as they're spaced out and without a sexual connotation. The instant it becomes sexual, it's automatically R.

Looks like you got me on a technicality, because i was thinking of beetle juice when i was typing my past post. Good Eye. But regardless, it wasn't the F-bomb that recieved iDOTM it's PG-13 rating since it wasn't used in the theater version.

BUt it sems that the MPAA comitte can in fact over rule this if they feel it nessasary. BUt it seems they do that more with the transition between PG-13 and R ratings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Pic ... ing_system

They certainly can. Which is kinda messed up. I've seen movies that clearly needed a much heavier rating and ones that weren't even close to a PG-13 but got it anyway.

The ratings system needs a massive overhaul, with public input to help them pin down exactly what goes where.

I agree with that, I don't understand how a few words or nudity is considered worse than horrific violence. What were the Indiana Jones movies rated? PG or PG-13, yet they have peoples faces being melted off, heads exploding, hearts getting ripped out, and people being burned alive. I think that's the kind of stuff they should be concerned with, not a few harmless words or body parts.

Evil_the_Nub wrote: I agree with that, I don't understand how a few words or nudity is considered worse than horrific violence. What were the Indiana Jones movies rated? PG or PG-13, yet they have peoples faces being melted off, heads exploding, hearts getting ripped out, and people being burned alive. I think that's the kind of stuff they should be concerned with, not a few harmless words or body parts.

yes, Inianna Jones movies were rated PG. And it was those movies that were part of the creation of the PG-13 rating in general since so many parents created an uproar of the violence and gore.

I don't care if they say f*ck or not. I think it is stupid they would add that to the dvd release, but I don't think its a big deal. Spike said sh*t in the '86 movie.

GEEWUN wrote:I don't care if they say f*ck or not. I think it is stupid they would add that to the dvd release, but I don't think its a big deal. Spike said sh*t in the '86 movie.

And that was stupid too.

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Autobot032 wrote: Actually, this isn't quite correct. You could use the f-word once per film, in PG, in the '80s. Notable examples: Beetlejuice, BIG.

BIG was the game changer. When the boy used it, it made the MPAA crack down. That, along with a few other things made them change their minds.

One use, no matter the connotation behind it, will automatically net you a PG-13.

You may use up to three of them in a PG-13, as long as they're spaced out and without a sexual connotation. The instant it becomes sexual, it's automatically R.

Looks like you got me on a technicality, because i was thinking of beetle juice when i was typing my past post. Good Eye. But regardless, it wasn't the F-bomb that recieved iDOTM it's PG-13 rating since it wasn't used in the theater version.

BUt it sems that the MPAA comitte can in fact over rule this if they feel it nessasary. BUt it seems they do that more with the transition between PG-13 and R ratings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Pic ... ing_system

They certainly can. Which is kinda messed up. I've seen movies that clearly needed a much heavier rating and ones that weren't even close to a PG-13 but got it anyway.

The ratings system needs a massive overhaul, with public input to help them pin down exactly what goes where.

I agree with that, I don't understand how a few words or nudity is considered worse than horrific violence. What were the Indiana Jones movies rated? PG or PG-13, yet they have peoples faces being melted off, heads exploding, hearts getting ripped out, and people being burned alive. I think that's the kind of stuff they should be concerned with, not a few harmless words or body parts.

Holy damn! I didn't know they allowed such violence in PS/PG-13 movies! I remember how in the Star Wars original trillogy, people got limbs cut off all the time and they where only PG. I always wondered why.

SlyTF1 wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Autobot032 wrote: Actually, this isn't quite correct. You could use the f-word once per film, in PG, in the '80s. Notable examples: Beetlejuice, BIG.

BIG was the game changer. When the boy used it, it made the MPAA crack down. That, along with a few other things made them change their minds.

One use, no matter the connotation behind it, will automatically net you a PG-13.

You may use up to three of them in a PG-13, as long as they're spaced out and without a sexual connotation. The instant it becomes sexual, it's automatically R.

Looks like you got me on a technicality, because i was thinking of beetle juice when i was typing my past post. Good Eye. But regardless, it wasn't the F-bomb that recieved iDOTM it's PG-13 rating since it wasn't used in the theater version.

BUt it sems that the MPAA comitte can in fact over rule this if they feel it nessasary. BUt it seems they do that more with the transition between PG-13 and R ratings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Pic ... ing_system

They certainly can. Which is kinda messed up. I've seen movies that clearly needed a much heavier rating and ones that weren't even close to a PG-13 but got it anyway.

The ratings system needs a massive overhaul, with public input to help them pin down exactly what goes where.

I agree with that, I don't understand how a few words or nudity is considered worse than horrific violence. What were the Indiana Jones movies rated? PG or PG-13, yet they have peoples faces being melted off, heads exploding, hearts getting ripped out, and people being burned alive. I think that's the kind of stuff they should be concerned with, not a few harmless words or body parts.

Holy damn! I didn't know they allowed such violence in PS/PG-13 movies! I remember how in the Star Wars original trillogy, people got limbs cut off all the time and they where only PG. I always wondered why.

You could actually get away with quite a bit in that time frame. ('75-'85) Gremlins is another movie that pushed audiences and the MPAA to their limit. Cited too much gore and they were right. Spielberg didn't fight 'em on it, in fact, he spoke to Jack Valenti, personally and helped him create PG-13.

Oddly enough, Gremlins has never been recertified. Though it should be. If it returns to theaters as a lead in for the rumored sequel/reboot, it'll most likely need to be recertified and grab a PG-13.

Once PG-13 came along, the directors tried to push limits, but not at first. It took time for them to go really taboo. Today? Taboo is normal. The f-bomb in a TF movie would've never gotten through in an earlier time frame. The board is much more lax than they once were.

To be fair, it was a time of major change. The '60s were free love and nobody cared much. The '70s were decadence and over indulgence and dealt some odd and twisted blows to cinemas. The '80s were about greed, anger and violence and it was reflected in the films that were made.

Now, we're desensitized somewhat. We don't even flinch on most things.

I agree with most people on here- I think it was stupid and can't think of any other reason to include it other than shock-value.

I sat down the other night with my wife so she could finally see it and not only did I catch the f-bomb Shia mouths at the beginning in the president's office (thank you subtitles) but when Bruce says the line I cringed. It took an otherwise pretty clean movie (compared to the first two) and gave it something to cringe at every time I watch it now. I guess I can always mute it but I always won't be there when and if my daughter wants to watch it some day.

As a Christian the cursing was already bad enough now I have to worry about not one, not two, but THREE f-bombs (if you count Brains' use). I just wish they could make a Transformers film that was completely devoid of curse words and sexual innuendos etc. At least make it family-friendly.

This is a rather pointless change, but although it's not exactly a family-friendly movie already, I would've probably preferred that they have kept it the same. I don't hate all swearing, but I don't like pointless swearing like that. Still, I find it ridiculous how the MPAA ratings system automatically makes movies with a certain number of F-bombs have higher ratings. Take [i]The King's Speech{/i]. It's got purely PG material aside from the two scenes when he says lots of swear words, half of them British ones. None of them are used sexually, and it's important to the plot. It's ridiculous that it was rated R. It should've at least gotten a PG-13.

Sabrblade wrote::BANG_HEAD:

This movie just lost a bunch of brownie points with me.

There is NO point to making such a change!

And why would they bother to make such a meaningless change when they could have better spent their assets elsewhere if they were making changes? Throwing in one more F-Bomb is just stupid.

Agreed...I mean...why?

I would've much rather them add that Optimus vs ShockWave scene in that Burger King commercial...

I personlly found it funny as hell, I mean How else would you be expected to react when seeing a 16 foot tall yellow robot for the first time?

Blackmoon wrote:I personlly found it funny as hell, I mean How else would you be expected to react when seeing a 16 foot tall yellow robot for the first time?

Any number of ways that don't require an F-bomb. F-bombs are retarded.

Sabrblade wrote:

Blackmoon wrote:I personlly found it funny as hell, I mean How else would you be expected to react when seeing a 16 foot tall yellow robot for the first time?

Any number of ways that don't require an F-bomb. F-bombs are retarded.

A and Greed

Blackmoon wrote:I personlly found it funny as hell, I mean How else would you be expected to react when seeing a 16 foot tall yellow robot for the first time?

This.

SlyTF1 wrote:

Blackmoon wrote:I personlly found it funny as hell, I mean How else would you be expected to react when seeing a 16 foot tall yellow robot for the first time?

This.

That's pathetic.

Sabrblade wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Blackmoon wrote:I personlly found it funny as hell, I mean How else would you be expected to react when seeing a 16 foot tall yellow robot for the first time?

This.

That's pathetic.

Exactly. If anything, I might actually mess my pants or have a massive panic attack or even faint. You don't see that kind of crap everyday and when you do for the first time...well...