The Energon Pub

SoooTrypticon wrote:racist caricatures

The thing about Skids and Mudflap is that it's only racist if you are.

The movie was good. Does it matter what Ebert thinks? If you did or didn't like it, will it truly matter?

F*** a critic. If u don't like the movie, then don't go.

bvzxa wrote:The movie was good. Does it matter what Ebert thinks? If you did or didn't like it, will it truly matter?

F*** a critic. If u don't like the movie, then don't go.

I'm still not entirely sure what a critic's purpose is aside from telling you what HE or SHE think of a movie, but why would that matter to a moviegoer? The moviegoer probably already knows if he or she wants to see a movie even before the movie is out, and will definitely listen to friends' opinions over a critic's. I'm interested to see what they say, but by the time the review is out, I've usually made up my mind. The only time I think I've let a critic influence what I want to see is Drag Me to Hell. I thought it would be stupid, but it's getting great reviews, so I change my mind. Dunno. I guess this time the critics got to me.

I once read a review where the guy said that the movie Airheads would prompt imitators to do the same. No joke.

Still, as I've said, I think that Ebert is one of the more well-rounded critics out there. He seems to like movies from all genres and all levels of artsiness. I don't think he's as biased for or against "bad" or "good" as people make him out to be.

Burn wrote:You disagree with me one more time and i'm removing you as a friend on Facebook!

No, not that! Everyone thinks of me as That Guy Burn Knows! Without you, I'm nothing!

Me, Grimlock! wrote:Still, as I've said, I think that Ebert is one of the more well-rounded critics out there. He seems to like movies from all genres and all levels of artsiness. I don't think he's as biased for or against "bad" or "good" as people make him out to be.

I totally agree with that. ( grew up watching reviews of this one critic in the Philadelphia area named Bill Wine. While he was actually very good with some of his reviews, he absolutely despised scinece fiction/fantasy movies. 2 1/2 stars for him was about as high he ever got there, regardless.

The whole Skidz and Mudflap are “only racist if you are” debate doesn't work.

It would work if they were jive talking, can't read much, gold tooth robots who look just like the other robots.

It's the “bulgy eyes,” “big lips,” “big ears,” and “buck teeth” aspects that lock them firmly in old American racism. For any race, to be honest. Look at how immigrants were portrayed in cartoons in the 20's.

If the robots' faces looked like Prime, Ironhide, Ratchet, or Arcee, then you could say it's up to interpretation.

But instead they look like Black Face caricatures. Just like them.

I could buy the “they learned it on the internet” version of the story if not for the grotesque facial exaggerations.

Did they learn those on the internet too?

SoooTrypticon wrote:The whole Skidz and Mudflap are “only racist if you are” debate doesn't work.

It would work if they were jive talking, can't read much, gold tooth robots who look just like the other robots.

It's the “bulgy eyes,” “big lips,” “big ears,” and “buck teeth” aspects that lock them firmly in old American racism. For any race, to be honest. Look at how immigrants were portrayed in cartoons in the 20's.

If the robots' faces looked like Prime, Ironhide, Ratchet, or Arcee, then you could say it's up to interpretation.

But instead they look like Black Face caricatures. Just like them.

I could buy the “they learned it on the internet” version of the story if not for the grotesque facial exaggerations.

Did they learn those on the internet too?

I just viewed them as really ugly robot faces, sorta like every other robot in either movie.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:

Burn wrote:You disagree with me one more time and i'm removing you as a friend on Facebook!

No, not that! Everyone thinks of me as That Guy Burn Knows! Without you, I'm nothing!

Don't be so modest, Counterpunch knows you too! That just doubles your prestige points!

Delicon, not to call you out on this- but in your book, the specific and clearly intended design choices of bulgy eyes, buck teeth, big lips and big ears just fell into place alongside the tiny eyes, earlessness, and messy insect mouths found in the other robots?

Those seem pretty far apart...

I agree with you that the robots' faces are ugly across the board- but those two stand out as very clear departures from what's been deemed as the "movie aesthetic."

This is why I'm calling racist caricature on them, as they don't fit in with the rest of the movie design-wise.

The closest thing is Wheelie, and it could be brought up that he doesn't paint the most sensitive picture either.

SoooTrypticon wrote:Delicon, in regards to the Bruno material- that was my point. If people love the dog humping in this film- then they will simply adore the hijinks to be found in Bruno.

Wrong again. I just saw Transformers (third time) then immediately went to see Bruno right after and thought Bruno sucked. It's not even comparable to Borat.

Plus the crowds reaction to Transformers was better.

SoooTrypticon wrote:Well, clearly you do care what I think or I wouldn't get so many replies to posts trying to defend a love for racist caricatures and shoddy story telling.

Secondly, I think my first post regarding this ugly little film was about its relationship to Carbombia and how we haven't had something so ugly enter the franchise until now.

Last. I only "climb out of my internet hole" (how cute) to talk about this film, because generally there's little for me to contribute (pull that one out of context too, please) aside from a "that's neat" type of comment. Example, those new Sharkticons are awesome. Not much more to report there.

What I don't get, and never will, is why people are willing to settle for this, when all the other big franchises are trying so hard.

So much better stuff is being made, and we get robot pee and dog humping.

Anyhow- the one consolation I can take from this- is once more, aside from monetary gains, this film will be rewarded in only the smallest ways.

I guarantee it will be forgotten once Avatar comes out, which also features robots and aliens and cool stuff blowing up- but also has a great cast, a strong director, and without even seeing the film yet, a better script (how can it get worse?).

Come award time everyone will be talking about how ground breaking Avatar was, and Transformers will be all but forgotten.

Until the Third one comes out, featuring Step and Fetchit, a replacement for Megan Fox, and that Nerdy guy as the main character...

Bah, Transformers was awesome, but thinking it could have been better the way you are stating would have made it a boring sci-fi film that no one would care about. Seriously, think of what your stating, your asking for a movie about a kids toy to be like Titanic. Not going to happen. Would they did however was make it appeal to a wider audience then anyone could have imagined.

You must be right- because so many more people will go see Transformers 2 again this weekend, rather than Bruno. And sheer volume dictates quality.

So if more people go see Transformers, then Bruno must be terrible.

But if more people go see Bruno (which is likely), then it must be better than Transformers.

Or, a third option could be that box-office receipts have nothing to do with quality, and people will watch whatever stupid fluff is thrown at them...

edit:

And someone already made a kids film like Titanic, it was called The Dark Knight.

SoooTrypticon wrote:You must be right- because so many more people will go see Transformers 2 again this weekend, rather than Bruno. And sheer volume dictates quality.

So if more people go see Transformers, then Bruno must be terrible.

But if more people go see Bruno (which is likely), then it must be better than Transformers.

Or, a third option could be that box-office receipts have nothing to do with quality, and people will watch whatever stupid fluff is thrown at them...

edit:

And someone already made a kids film like Titanic, it was called The Dark Knight.

Your post absolutely makes no sense. None what so ever.

I said Bruno was terrible because it wasn't funny (I liked Borat). I said nothing about crowds or anything. Why are you adding that to the discussion like I said that, did you not have anything to respond with to my actual statement.

This reminds me on Family Guy when Peter says something is "Shallow and Pedantic", but has no idea what it means.

Your post absolutely makes no sense. None what so ever.

I said Bruno was terrible because it wasn't funny (I liked Borat). I said nothing about crowds or anything. Why are you adding that to the discussion like I said that, did you not have anything to respond with to my actual statement.

Well, I thought that by stating that you'd seen the film three times already, as opposed the one time with Bruno, that you were voting with your dollars.

You also mentioned that the crowd's reaction to Transformers was stronger, again citing quantity as sign of quality.

Not to mention that you missed my snark completely- in that I'm comparing trash to trash. But if you find it necessary to tell me that Transformers is better than the movie about the fake gay man who assaults witless americans, you might as well- because i was honestly wondering there.

(edit, got the two mixed up there, so hard to tell them apart)

SoooTrypticon wrote:

Your post absolutely makes no sense. None what so ever.

I said Bruno was terrible because it wasn't funny (I liked Borat). I said nothing about crowds or anything. Why are you adding that to the discussion like I said that, did you not have anything to respond with to my actual statement.

Well, I thought that by stating that you'd seen the film three times already, as opposed the one time with Bruno, that you were voting with your dollars.

You also mentioned that the crowd's reaction to Transformers was stronger, again citing quantity as sign of quality.

How is a stronger crowd reaction a sign of quantity? There were less people in Transformers (and before you go off on a diatribe, it was an earlier showing than Bruno, which I saw during the busier time slot), but there was better reaction. You could hear it in their laughs, the laughs in Bruno were "I'm laughing because this is supposed to be a punch line, but it kind of sucked." Plus people walking out of TF were talking how good it was and people in Bruno were saying how it sucked and it was no Borat. Mutually exclusive audience there with some good qualitative data (notice the word QUALITATIVE and not QUANTITATIVE), the "General Public" enjoyed Transformers. But then again, I guess being part of the "General Public" kind of demeans me as I don't enjoy watching films in a smoking robe on a leather chair in a room with teak furniture as I'm not "Shallow and Pedantic".

Just so it's not all barbs and daggers- I'll start this one off saying you've got a nice collection (which I just perused while waiting for a reply).

But then again, I guess being part of the "General Public" kind of demeans me as I don't enjoy watching films in a smoking robe on a leather chair in a room with teak furniture as I'm not "Shallow and Pedantic".

This is a clear sign of the culture wars rearing it's ugly head.

I watch Godzilla movies, work in animation, love the trailer for Robo-Geisha (do look it up) and happen to be a geek for Transformers.

When's the last time you saw a Transformer's fan in a smoking jacket, except at may BotCon?

I don't own a teak anything.

The above films mentioned are all pretty bad- but what I'm finding difficult is that people aren't discerning, or are openly making an exception for Transformers.

A show like Family Guy (which I also love) would make fun of a movie like Transformers because of how bad it is. The slow motion breast runs, the "hip kid friendly racism," the terrible, terrible acting.

I would call the Simpson's "Poochie" on Skidz and Mudflap if they weren't so much worse.

So what gives? Why make exceptions for this? Why settle?

We know a better film, that would have attracted just as many people (maybe more) could have been made- so why defend this one as quality?

There are no exceptions being made and people are not settling.

They
.
just
.
like
.
the
.
damn
.
movie
.

Is that what they said about "The Birth of a Nation" Burn?

Too
.
Simple
.

SoooTrypticon wrote:Is that what they said about "The Birth of a Nation" Burn?

Reference is lost on me.

Too
.
Simple
.

It really is. It's you who's trying to make it into something elaborate.

Sorry, it was a bit fringe. Here you go.

"The Birth of a Nation" was one of the first films made (1915) that set the template for how all films were made after. Lauded for its use of the camera and narrative it was a box office smash that no one seemed to have much problem with at the time.

Looking back at it, there's the little problem of it starring the KKK.

But the people loved it in 1915.

So let's see.

You're referencing a movie made in 1915, you bring up the whole racist angle again ... stuff of which was prominent back in those days.

Have you ever considered joining the 21st century and accepting that people's perceptions have changed?

Frankly I think you're just grasping at any straw possible to convince SOMEONE that likes the movie to start thinking along your lines. Do yourself, and everyone else a favour, just accept some of us like it. Really. Is that so hard? Just accept?

SoooTrypticon wrote:Just so it's not all barbs and daggers- I'll start this one off saying you've got a nice collection (which I just perused while waiting for a reply).

But then again, I guess being part of the "General Public" kind of demeans me as I don't enjoy watching films in a smoking robe on a leather chair in a room with teak furniture as I'm not "Shallow and Pedantic".

This is a clear sign of the culture wars rearing it's ugly head.

I watch Godzilla movies, work in animation, love the trailer for Robo-Geisha (do look it up) and happen to be a geek for Transformers.

When's the last time you saw a Transformer's fan in a smoking jacket, except at may BotCon?

I don't own a teak anything.

The above films mentioned are all pretty bad- but what I'm finding difficult is that people aren't discerning, or are openly making an exception for Transformers.

A show like Family Guy (which I also love) would make fun of a movie like Transformers because of how bad it is. The slow motion breast runs, the "hip kid friendly racism," the terrible, terrible acting.

I would call the Simpson's "Poochie" on Skidz and Mudflap if they weren't so much worse.

So what gives? Why make exceptions for this? Why settle?

We know a better film, that would have attracted just as many people (maybe more) could have been made- so why defend this one as quality?

I do appreciate the compliment!

And also enjoy a good debate!

But in all seriousness, I have no idea where your from and why you think I was sterotyping you. I was actually imagining that skit on Saturday night Live where they make fun of a movie reviewer and what I wrote above was his description. Which maybe is a part of my arguments, it seems you are assuming we are saying things for the wrong reason. I understand people try to derive a reason why people do certain things, but some times overcomplicating it, just simply does that, overcomplicates things.

And could a better film have been made? Yea, there were parts I would have changed, like when Sam was knocked out in the desert, I would not have had him see the Primes, I would have him remember when Prime says "Fate rarely calls upon us at a time of our choosing". On the flipside of the coin, had they tried to make the movie absolutely perfect, they might have gone completely in the wrong direction. But in all seriousness, my problem with your argument is that you wanted them to strive for perfection, but you don't describe what that means. As far as a summer action flick blockbuster, I don't see ow it could have been much better, the only thing I think you could be shooting for is an Oscar winning movie for the story, and it's just not going to happen with this, and if it did, it would probably be a movie that most people would think is boring.

And teak is actually a very beautiful wood.

Not grasping at straws with the likes of American soldiers reminding American soldiers that the Egyptians are "friendlies." Were we ever at war with Egypt- or is it just because Bay thinks we think everyone wears turbans and plots to hijack airplanes in "those deserty places?"

I accept that some people like it- but I will do my best to change their minds using history and maths. Or maybe just poking at your conscience and conjuring up crying grandmothers going "Why Burny, why? Think of the Egyptians."

The 1915 film points out that given time, we can begin to see the failings of a film.
Or in this case, just take out a list of clear problems this film has.

If we can say, racism was bad in 1915- then we can say it's still bad now.

And no, racism hasn't gone away yet Burn- you kinda just proved that by wondering if it had...

SoooTrypticon wrote:Not grasping at straws with the likes of American soldiers reminding American soldiers that the Egyptians are "friendlies." Were we ever at war with Egypt- or is it just because Bay thinks we think everyone wears turbans and plots to hijack airplanes in "those deserty places?"

I accept that some people like it- but I will do my best to change their minds using history and maths. Or maybe just poking at your conscience and conjuring up crying grandmothers going "Why Burny, why? Think of the Egyptians."

The 1915 film points out that given time, we can begin to see the failings of a film.
Or in this case, just take out a list of clear problems this film has.

If we can say, racism was bad in 1915- then we can say it's still bad now.

And no, racism hasn't gone away yet Burn- you kinda just proved that by wondering if it had...

Are you mainly upset that you think the movie was racist? We live in a world with people of varying intelligence that come from all different culture. It's our nature to generalize, assume, and root for our own team. The only change that will occur is that new groups will become the focus of a prejudice or sterotype.

Plus the part about "friendlies" to me was meant to alert the soldiers that humans were around. It sounds like you actually assumed the Americans thought the guys in turbans (as you put it) were terrorists when in actuality they just chose the word "friendlies" over civilians (cause Alice appeared to be a civilian, but wasn't friendly). So are you being overly sensitive to some parts and assuming it meant something else and therefor it actually did mean what only you thought or are you stating that film is showing Americans as prejudice and thus the movie is prejudice against Americans?

Going to bed but will visit again soon.

Are you mainly upset that you think the movie was racist?

Not mainly- but that's an easy one to build a foundation of "not all is right in this world" because it's so in your face.

I also dislike the bad story telling, like when characters just disappear and reappear. (Really, what is up with Bumblebee leaving Sam alone to get into trouble all the time?)Or how Jetfire has to explain the film at the two thirds mark.

The only change that will occur is that new groups will become the focus of a prejudice or sterotype.

That doesn't make it okay. That just makes it a long term problem.

Plus the part about "friendlies" to me was meant to alert the soldiers that humans were around.

I wasn't aware that the Army knew about Pretenders, as Alice is never mentioned again. And it's pretty clear that they're referring to the humans on the ground.

Why mention it at all? Since we aren't at war with the Egyptians- it strikes me as a strange thing to say.

So are you being overly sensitive to some parts and assuming it meant something else and therefor it actually did mean what only you thought or are you stating that film is showing Americans as prejudice and thus the movie is prejudice against Americans?

To quote a favorite Bowie song, "I'm Afraid of Americans."

But to be honest, I think this film reflects badly on Americans. It furthers the image that all we like is mayhem, beautiful women, and that we care little for other people's cultures.

If anyone needs to transform their views for the 21st century, maybe it's us.

With that I'm off to bed. Be safe!

SoooTrypticon wrote:

GetterDragun wrote:So are you being overly sensitive to some parts and assuming it meant something else and therefor it actually did mean what only you thought or are you stating that film is showing Americans as prejudice and thus the movie is prejudice against Americans?

To quote a favorite Bowie song, "I'm Afraid of Americans."

But to be honest, I think this film reflects badly on Americans. It furthers the image that all we like is mayhem, beautiful women, and that we care little for other people's cultures.

If anyone needs to transform our views for the 21st century, maybe it's us.

With that I'm off to bed. Be safe!

You forgot cars. Mayhem, Beautiful Women, Cars, and forget other cultures.

But seriously, it sounds like you are taking your stereotype of Americans (at this point I am assuming you are not American) and using it for your argument against this film. Let's take out the sterotype and say this movie took place in New Zealand. It just wouldn't work. The movie needs the sterotypical American to work. I can imagine the New Zealand version, they'd have Crop Dusters and Kayaks attacking the Decepticons and driving around in silly cars like Holdens and Vauxhalls.