The Energon Pub

I am rather upset at the level of misogyny and patriarchy portrayed in the Transformers movie.

The way Megan Fox's character was portrayed in the beginning of the Transformers movie represents a disrespect of women in general. How is she portrayed in the beginning of the film? Basically as nothing more than an unrealistic size 2 sex object. She's seen walking around in a super tight skirt and sexualized to the nth degree with Sam looking at her like a pig for the most part. Even in the instance where she portrays her "more than meets the eye" part, displaying her mechanical skills by opening up Bumblebee's hood. In that instance, when she's supposed to be portrayed as more than "tits and ass", she's simply doing another sexy pose baring her cleavage to all.

The rest of the movie displays hope for Megan's character as she dons more clothes and displays a great degree of intelligence and courage for her character. She actually becomes an interesting and intelligent character.

So why was there a need to portray her as a "demeaning to women" size 2 "tits and ass" super slutty looking character in the beginning? Did those behind the movie feel it would not sell unless she was portrayed that way in some part of the film? That the bots and fully fleshed out characters not defined by their sexuality was not enough to market this movie to boys and men who are the target audience. Talk about misogyny, patriarchy, and disrespecting women completely, especially those women who are into Transformers and female movie goers in general. And talk about insulting the intelligence of the movie audience!

And why is it that all women in movies have to look like what the majority of women do not? They have to be super thin with "perfect" bodies and big boobs? Hollywood sure likes to contribute to making the majority of women feel miserable and like nothing more than worthless sex objects for the most part.

Please don't portray anymore female humans, Arcee, and any other female robots in such a misogynist and patriarchal way. Please portray them as real and interesting characters who do not exist for male gratification and are not defined exclusively by their sexuality.

I have nothing against romance and like it. But females don't have to be portrayed as shallow one-dimensional sex objects to have memorable characterizations and engage in heartfelt romances with males. Nor do all females have to have romances with other males. Another thing I am tired of is the idea that a women is not complete unless she is engaged in a romance with a guy. I am also tired of women being defined by their reproduction and being seen as weird and selfish if they do not wish to be married and/or have children.

Here we go again.

I though she was the deepest human character in the movie. She had a troubled past, saved Sam's life, and drove Bumblebee straight into a heated gunfight. Like you said yourself there was more to her than just looks. And have you seen the way teenage girls dress these days? It's like they all buy their clothes from the Jailbait Emporium.

Dude, seriously. How many threads have you created now just to pick apart one topic at a time about the movie?

Just .... don't watch it if every scene offends you or upsets you in some way.

I agree with your sentiments Moldavite, though I do understand the need for her to be there. Basically to give those who are not interested in Transformers something to look at during the movie.

The movie has to be catered for a general audience because they're the ones who need convincing to get into the seats. They don't need to cater for Transformers fans because they're going to see the movie for the sole reason that it has "Transformers" in the title.

Moldavite, aren't you answering your own question here? Yes, Mikaela is portrayed as a typical hawt girl in the beginning so that she can easily show development throughout a single film. By introducing her as mere eye candy but gradually morphing her into a heroic wizzkid, the makers did just what you wanted them to do.

Rushie wrote:Moldavite, aren't you answering your own question here? Yes, Mikaela is portrayed as a typical hawt girl in the beginning so that she can easily show development throughout a single film. By introducing her as mere eye candy but gradually morphing her into a heroic wizzkid, the makers did just what you wanted them to do.

Careful, I don't think Moldavite wanted you to use logic.

Because if logic were used in the beginning, the thread never would have taken place.

Evil_the_Nub wrote:Here we go again.

I though she was the deepest human character in the movie. She had a troubled past, saved Sam's life, and drove Bumblebee straight into a heated gunfight. Like you said yourself there was more to her than just looks. And have you seen the way teenage girls dress these days? It's like they all buy their clothes from the Jailbait Emporium.

Her character development was great, don't get me wrong.

I understand where the authors were going with her. They wanted to portray her as a steotypical hot girl only to undo that steotype in so many ways.

Problem was, she was still handled in a very cheap and unintelligent way in the beginning of the movie.

Why did she have to walk around like a cat in heat in practically nothing at all during the beginning of the movie and act so shallow if she is not like that at all to begin with?

What I hated the most was the stupid "hood" scene (the scene where she is lifting up Bumblebee's hood).

This was supposed to be the scene where she showed herself to be more than a one dimensional hot girl character. And what do they do to her in that scene? Objectify her more than in any other part of the movie. The main focus was not on her intelligence and mechanical ability. It was on her boobs for crying out loud!

And even though she is portrayed as such an intelligent and interesting character with amazing potential throughout the rest of the movie, where does she wind up at the end of the movie? The same way as she was at the beginning of it. She's on top of Sam being objectified again rubbing her boobs against him on top of Bumblebee for crying out loud! I guess a simple holding of hands or a simply kiss just wouldn't do. I mean Sam and her just barely met eachother!

What really upsets me is the way Hollywood loves to make "average" women feel miserable about themselves by only using women in movies that represent 5% of the population and can't act half the time!

Senor Hugo wrote:

Rushie wrote:Moldavite, aren't you answering your own question here? Yes, Mikaela is portrayed as a typical hawt girl in the beginning so that she can easily show development throughout a single film. By introducing her as mere eye candy but gradually morphing her into a heroic wizzkid, the makers did just what you wanted them to do.

Careful, I don't think Moldavite wanted you to use logic.

Because if logic were used in the beginning, the thread never would have taken place.

So I guess questioning the misogynist patriarchy so embedded in the U.S. culture is somehow stupid and lacking in logic?

Here's a nice article on the sexism portrayed in this movie:

http://blogs.feministsf.net/?p=196

I never watched Transformers as a kid. I saw my first episode of the cartoon series a few weeks ago, and I was lost in a complex and fast-moving plot that left me staring at the lovely robot battles with my mouth hanging open.

Today I saw the new Transformers film. As a posthuman geek who loves her relationship with machines, I’m all about awesome CG robot battles. In this aspect, Transformers didn’t disappoint. The battles were awesome, and the film was way less corny than I would have expected anything live action about sentient alien robots. Although I’m unfamiliar with the Transformers franchise and television series, I think the film was an incredibly well done adaptation of a cartoon.

The Autobots verses Decepticon plot was certainly the film’s strongest point. However, as a cyborg-identified woman, I felt a little left out by the film. I’ll discuss specifically the women in Transformers in this post. Some spoilers behind the tag.


Out of a hefty-sized cast, there are three women in Transformers who get to say more than a line or two (all white): Mikaela, the classmate of protagonist Sam, (Megan Fox); Judy, Sam’s mom (Julie White); and Maggie, some kind of young genius recruited by the Pentagon (Rachael Taylor).

The only time any of the three named women speak to each other is when Sam’s parents catch Mikaela in his room, and his mother, overjoyed that her nerdy son is apparently getting some action, compliments Mikaela for being cute.

I started off with a sour taste for Mikaela. During the first hour, she does two cool things: she knows how to fix Sam’s car and she walks away from her boyfriend (for good) when he calls her his little bunny. But also within that hour, the film establishes that Mikaela is oblivious to Sam is despite being his schoolmate for years, dates jerks because she likes guys with big arms and tight abs, admits she hides her knowledge about cars from guys so they’ll like her, with a vacant facial expression asks Sam if he thinks she is shallow, and is called a jock concubine and hoe by Sam’s friend. It’s a nice guy trope: nerdy but deserving Sam is overlooked because girls are shallow. The traits don’t especially set her up sympathetically unless we’re supposed to desire her for her body and Sam’s unsettling infatuation.

Once the corny setup is through (which I thought relied too much on racism and sexism to get viewers to both laugh and quickly identify with characters) and the real action begins, Mikaela actually turns out to be pretty cool. Without giving too much away, she ends up being a lot more competent, clever, and useful during action sequences than Sam. I can think of more examples of Mikaela physically saving male characters than the other way around.

Yet it is Sam who is the hero, the one who gets the cool car and the hot babe. Mikaela’s coolness was just about making her a better prize for Sam. That’s ultimately what Mikaela is reduced to in the last scene, when she lays lays out across Sam on the hood of Bubblebee a human/machine threesome I could have found intriguing if I hadn’t been so bothered by how Mikaela was treated in the film.

I’m not really sure why Sam is the star of the star of Transformers other than it’d be too radical for filmmakers to tell a story about battling robots through the eyes of anyone but a teenage white boy. As if the rest of us just wouldn’t get why Autobots are cool, or it’s be too much to ask of said teenage boys to identify with a character unlike themselves in a scifi action flick.

I don’t think Transformers expected women to really engage with this film. I don’t think I was supposed to identify with Mikaela–I think I was supposed to identify with Sam for wanting her.

Thankfully, there was Maggie, the code cracker math whiz. She was by far my favorite human character. Still white, still thin and conventionally beautiful, she was smart and competent and nobody’s love interest. I just wish there could have been more female characters of her caliber.

I think she needed the adventure with Sam to break away from her addiction to 'tight abs and big arms' and get the courage to be herself, breaking away from the sexy stereotype.

If you're offended by Hollywood's portrayal of women perhaps (don't be upset by this) you should get some help with nutrition and exercise. I'm not intimidated by Hollywood hunks cos (although they're really handsome and I@m not) I've built myself a body to be proud of. Anyone can do it if they have (1) motivation (2) no gland problems (3) a non-freaky bone structure.

moldavite wrote: The way Megan Fox's character was portrayed in the beginning of the Transformers movie represents a disrespect of women in general. How is she portrayed in the beginning of the film? Basically as nothing more than an unrealistic size 2 sex object. She's seen walking around in a super tight skirt and sexualized to the nth degree with Sam looking at her like a pig for the most part. Even in the instance where she portrays her "more than meets the eye" part, displaying her mechanical skills by opening up Bumblebee's hood. In that instance, when she's supposed to be portrayed as more than "tits and ass", she's simply doing another sexy pose baring her cleavage to all.

So why was there a need to portray her as a "demeaning to women" size 2 "tits and ass" super slutty looking character in the beginning? Did those behind the movie feel it would not sell unless she was portrayed that way in some part of the film? That the bots and fully fleshed out characters not defined by their sexuality was not enough to market this movie to boys and men who are the target audience. Talk about misogyny, patriarchy, and disrespecting women completely, especially those women who are into Transformers and female movie goers in general. And talk about insulting the intelligence of the movie audience!

Two things:

1. There is a very simple reason why, and nevermind that it happens to be common for most popcorn action movies. In this case, there was a good reason why. Because the scene was shown from the POV of a sex-starved adolescent male.

As for it being a problem in all movies, yes I agree with you, but I'm an adult and I can take it.

2. It was the best part of the movie.

moldavite wrote: I guess a simple holding of hands or a simply kiss just wouldn't do. I mean Sam and her just barely met eachother!

Incorrect!!!!

You know what I find funny about your threads......you spend so much time and vocabulary trying to analyze and nick pick this movie to death and in your in depth annalis you forget or ignor some of the simple facts of the film.

Sam and Milka had gone to the same school since 1st grade.And even thou she never really noticed Sam they had met before.

As for the level of "Patriarchy".....I didnt see any.The word is used to describe a family unit in which the father is the supreme authority......and Sam's father was "no way in hell" the supreme authority of his house hold.

If he were his wife and son could not speak back to him.

moldavite wrote:So I guess questioning the misogynist patriarchy so embedded in the U.S. culture is somehow stupid and lacking in logic?

But your not "questioning the misogynist patriarchy so embedded in the U.S. culture"....your question why it was present in the Bay TF movie.

And to some degree you just answered the question yourself.

The fact that such concepts are so rooted in American society explains why there are examples of it in "pop culture".

Who cares if they just barely met each other?

1. He was desperate, and she was a slut. Lucky guy got some on top of Bumblebee. Can you blame her for wanting to have some fun? It was just making out. Can you blame him for going for it?

-- OR --

2. They were brought closer by surviving all the horrendous ordeals. It's simple psychology. Happens all the time in cases like these.



If you want to complain, complain about something that matters. I heard somewhere that Megan Fox said Bay was a pig on set. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I mean, can you imagine that? She shows up for the first day of shooting, wearing something perhaps a little more racy than she was used to, and the f'ing director lacks all kinds of class and starts making comments.

On the set of Transformers for God's sake.

moldavate quit triple posting ,no one cares about your post count

moldavite wrote:

Senor Hugo wrote:

Rushie wrote:Moldavite, aren't you answering your own question here? Yes, Mikaela is portrayed as a typical hawt girl in the beginning so that she can easily show development throughout a single film. By introducing her as mere eye candy but gradually morphing her into a heroic wizzkid, the makers did just what you wanted them to do.

Careful, I don't think Moldavite wanted you to use logic.

Because if logic were used in the beginning, the thread never would have taken place.

So I guess questioning the misogynist patriarchy so embedded in the U.S. culture is somehow stupid and lacking in logic?

It's not stupid, it's just pretty useless to interpret movies about giant robots being in line with the U.S. cultural policy on mysogyny and patriarchy. It's only a movie, and I'd be willing to bet large, large sums of money that the U.S. isn't the only place on earth that could even be said to have these problems.

I do agree somewhat with moldavite. What I wanted to see was a differant kind of female character portrayed, not some stereotype ultimate-reason-she's-really-there-is-to-be-laid-by-male-main- character type female. I mean, really, that IS why she's there!

Plus it gets boring after a while seeing that over and over again, as if that is all the movie producers can think of for a female character, and they can't be a little more creative. Interesting characters make good movies people will remember for a long tme, and not just "Wow, its so cool!" but gets forgotten even after a large number of folks went and seen it.