The Energon Pub

SlyTF1 wrote:

shamone wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

shamone wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

F Prime wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:This is all bullshit. All of it. I would sit here and point out why all of it is BS, but I have better things to do...and I'm at SCHOOL. Doing NOTHING.

And the award for most useful comment goes to.......

What is the point of a post like this? The fandom fights enough without people intentionally throwing gas on the fire without even bothering to hide it in a comment that could be considered useful.

The point is that everything that he posted is bullshit, even though I don't feel like giving an explanation. That's the point.

so there is no point then, other than you can have another little rant

And to aknowledge that you lie.

well to acknowledge that you need to prove it.

merely stating it is not acknowledging it.

I don't need to prove a damn thing.

Ya, you do actually. Or be prepared to be called a liar yourself. Do us all a favor and just stop. You spout so much useless crap, your posts pretty much have zero meaning and ignorant to boot. If you have proof to support your aurguments then provide it. Otherwise, there just constant rants about crap you really know nothing about that you try and point out as being facts without anything to back them up.

JetOptimus23 wrote:

F Prime wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

F Prime wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:This is all bullshit. All of it. I would sit here and point out why all of it is BS, but I have better things to do...and I'm at SCHOOL. Doing NOTHING.

And the award for most useful comment goes to.......

What is the point of a post like this? The fandom fights enough without people intentionally throwing gas on the fire without even bothering to hide it in a comment that could be considered useful.

The point is that everything that he posted is bullshit, even though I don't feel like giving an explanation. That's the point.

I'll take "Pointless" for the win.

Girls! you're both pretty!

Seriously guys, your beating a dead horse here. Lets just agree that the movies aren't perfect and that we have our own opinions about them.

Shake hands, gentlemen?

*blushes* I always knew I was the belle of the ball!

Actually, I don't have a horse in this race (the "debate" is between SlyTF1 and shamone.)

Although ignoring is the best option, I get irritated when people don't bother to put any effort into a discourse. Saying (in this case literally) "Your arguments are BS but I won't tell you why" is just so smug and worthless. It gets in my eyes and irritates my brain.

It is probably my fault for expecting reasoned rhetoric and debate on a transformers forum.

5150 Cruiser wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

shamone wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

shamone wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

F Prime wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:This is all bullshit. All of it. I would sit here and point out why all of it is BS, but I have better things to do...and I'm at SCHOOL. Doing NOTHING.

And the award for most useful comment goes to.......

What is the point of a post like this? The fandom fights enough without people intentionally throwing gas on the fire without even bothering to hide it in a comment that could be considered useful.

The point is that everything that he posted is bullshit, even though I don't feel like giving an explanation. That's the point.

so there is no point then, other than you can have another little rant

And to aknowledge that you lie.

well to acknowledge that you need to prove it.

merely stating it is not acknowledging it.

I don't need to prove a damn thing.

Ya, you do actually. Or be prepared to be called a liar yourself. Do us all a favor and just stop. You spout so much useless crap, your posts pretty much have zero meaning and ignorant to boot. If you have proof to support your aurguments then provide it. Otherwise, there just constant rants about crap you really know nothing about that you try and point out as being facts without anything to back them up.

Too bad I don't feel like typing paragraphs of proof. Just because I don't feel like typing it doesn't mean I don't know anything about it. I just don't feel like typing it.

shamone wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

shamone wrote:4. so you acknowledge there were homophobic slurs, despite calling me out for being a bullsh@@@er and a liar and a spoofer earlier. Fine. And i agree that gays do slag each other off, it doesnt susprise me, but context is important. just as its uncomfortable for white guys to use the n word, as opposed to black guys, the same applies to homophobic banter.

No, I said I didn't remember it. Then I read your post, watched the scene in question and yes he said the line: "Go cry to your boyfriend."

What you're doing is underestimating my ability to not give a flying slag. Tossing out a slur and directing at the "intended target" are two different things. It's just like with the Twins and their nature as Transformers. People say they are black caricatures, but the problem with this arguement is that they are not human. Would you call a white guy who acts like a stereotyped ghetto punk (aka, a "wigger") a black caricature? No, he's a person who acts like an idiot. The Twins are robots who act like idiots, they'd need to be of African descent in order to be a caricature.

If you ask me, automatically associating the Twins antics with blacks is more racist than anything done with them in the film itself.

ok im not going to re-engage the twin debate, neither of us will meet in the middle, so its futile.

my point was that you called me out on it, saying i was making things up. You have to remember when you post the history remains

I'm sorry, but you better have a damn good explanation for were you saw homophobia in the Transformers films unless you want your entire arguement against them thrown out. The antisemitism was just silly, this seems like an outright lie.

you even called me out saying i didnt reply to you when I had. then you didnt have the courtesy to say, yeh you werent lying, because even if you didnt find it homophobic, the comment can be seen that way, without much of a stretch in the imagination.

Anyway the point is you jump into arguments with baseless attacks and misquoted and misinterpreted notions, again in this thread, saying i didnt watch the scene i commented on. I think i have shown you evidence that i have seen the scene. and again you focused on one of four points i made !

I expect another passive aggressive attack in response

I've stated before I didn't notice your response, and that I went back and confirmed the mentioned line in the movie was spoken, and that any of the "targets" worth his salt wouldn't have cared. Trying to twist events to make me look like the bad guy isn't helping your misguided cause.

Anyway I've had enough with your own passive agressive, faux intellectual presence. You're clearly here just to carry on the arguement and get in the last word, and I deal with enough people like in real life every day without having put up with another online in an attempt to justify my enjoyment of something created purely for entertainment. I feel pathetic having stooped to your level so often in this discussion as it is.

Lemme give you some advice before I drop this conversation. Stop trying to protect people who don't want protecting from stuff they don't need to be protected from. Learn to recognize real racism and biggotry and stop confusing it with cartoonish humor.

SlyTF1 wrote:Too bad I don't feel like typing paragraphs of proof. Just because I don't feel like typing it doesn't mean I don't know anything about it. I just don't feel like typing it.

Then don't participate in any debates. Cause thats how things work. Otherwise, like i said, be prepared to be called a liar. Which at this point, you are intill you can prove otherwise.

Capt.Failure wrote: Lemme give you some advice before I drop this conversation. Stop trying to protect people who don't want protecting from stuff they don't need to be protected from. Learn to recognize real racism and biggotry and stop confusing it with cartoonish humor.

Bingo! I'm with Capt. Failure on this. People are finding racicim and stereotypes in damn near everything these days. I understand that people have different levels of what offends them and what not, but at some point they need to stop being overly sensitive and just reconise the humor in things. Nearly all movies have some sort of stupid crack like the "wine to your boyfriend" one liner. Bottom line is there is, and never will be a such thing as a completely non offensive movie.

Capt.Failure wrote:

shamone wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

shamone wrote:4. so you acknowledge there were homophobic slurs, despite calling me out for being a bullsh@@@er and a liar and a spoofer earlier. Fine. And i agree that gays do slag each other off, it doesnt susprise me, but context is important. just as its uncomfortable for white guys to use the n word, as opposed to black guys, the same applies to homophobic banter.

No, I said I didn't remember it. Then I read your post, watched the scene in question and yes he said the line: "Go cry to your boyfriend."

What you're doing is underestimating my ability to not give a flying slag. Tossing out a slur and directing at the "intended target" are two different things. It's just like with the Twins and their nature as Transformers. People say they are black caricatures, but the problem with this arguement is that they are not human. Would you call a white guy who acts like a stereotyped ghetto punk (aka, a "wigger") a black caricature? No, he's a person who acts like an idiot. The Twins are robots who act like idiots, they'd need to be of African descent in order to be a caricature.

If you ask me, automatically associating the Twins antics with blacks is more racist than anything done with them in the film itself.

ok im not going to re-engage the twin debate, neither of us will meet in the middle, so its futile.

my point was that you called me out on it, saying i was making things up. You have to remember when you post the history remains

I'm sorry, but you better have a damn good explanation for were you saw homophobia in the Transformers films unless you want your entire arguement against them thrown out. The antisemitism was just silly, this seems like an outright lie.

you even called me out saying i didnt reply to you when I had. then you didnt have the courtesy to say, yeh you werent lying, because even if you didnt find it homophobic, the comment can be seen that way, without much of a stretch in the imagination.

Anyway the point is you jump into arguments with baseless attacks and misquoted and misinterpreted notions, again in this thread, saying i didnt watch the scene i commented on. I think i have shown you evidence that i have seen the scene. and again you focused on one of four points i made !

I expect another passive aggressive attack in response

I've stated before I didn't notice your response, and that I went back and confirmed the mentioned line in the movie was spoken, and that any of the "targets" worth his salt wouldn't have cared. Trying to twist events to make me look like the bad guy isn't helping your misguided cause.

Anyway I've had enough with your own passive agressive, faux intellectual presence. You're clearly here just to carry on the arguement and get in the last word, and I deal with enough people like in real life every day without having put up with another online in an attempt to justify my enjoyment of something created purely for entertainment. I feel pathetic having stooped to your level so often in this discussion as it is.

Lemme give you some advice before I drop this conversation. Stop trying to protect people who don't want protecting from stuff they don't need to be protected from. Learn to recognize real racism and biggotry and stop confusing it with cartoonish humor.

dude this is the umpteenth time you have stooped to insult rather than debate.

You bemoaned the fact that "movie haters" are abusive and trolls, yet you launch into an attack anytime someone tries to engage with you on purely a rational reasonable level.

you seem to forget that your posts are saved here, so please advise me who has been the unreasonable one here.

I am not campaigning for any minority, believe it or not, you dont have to be a minority to oppose, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, etc.

I never said anyone needed to be offended by it, jsut that there was potential for people to be offended, and it was needless to include the material which could achieve that.


and please advise what my level is, and why you would feel pathetic to stoop to it

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote: Lemme give you some advice before I drop this conversation. Stop trying to protect people who don't want protecting from stuff they don't need to be protected from. Learn to recognize real racism and biggotry and stop confusing it with cartoonish humor.

Bingo! I'm with Capt. Failure on this. People are finding racicim and stereotypes in damn near everything these days. I understand that people have different levels of what offends them and what not, but at some point they need to stop being overly sensitive and just reconise the humor in things. Nearly all movies have some sort of stupid crack like the "wine to your boyfriend" one liner. Bottom line is there is, and never will be a such thing as a completely non offensive movie.

i agree people have different sensitivities.

and yes most movies have lines which veer to the offensive side, but it is context which is the key.

Borat can be antisemetic and homophobic. Why because its an adult movie and the character is meant to be laughed at not with.

The TF movies are obstensibly for children, the twins a character they should be able to relate to (young and immature), therefore when they say lines like that, its tacitly approving this sort of discourse for that age group.

I dont want to re-engage this debate about the way minorities are represented in the movies however, we can agree to disagree i think

5150 Cruiser wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:Too bad I don't feel like typing paragraphs of proof. Just because I don't feel like typing it doesn't mean I don't know anything about it. I just don't feel like typing it.

Then don't participate in any debates. Cause thats how things work. Otherwise, like i said, be prepared to be called a liar. Which at this point, you are intill you can prove otherwise.

\

no more needs to be said

SlyTF1 wrote:

shamone wrote:

Iamwarhorse wrote:

shamone wrote:


taking prisoners is more difficult i agree, but thats what seperates the good from the bad, mercy.

You think taking prisoners is what separates the good from the bad?

I assume you dont

which would suggest you believe the following are moral

- extra judiciary executions
- shooting a wounded and incapicated foe in the face
- ignoring the geneva convention
- entering a sovereign state, surrounding and breaking into someones home and shooting them in the face

Who gives a damn about morals!? When you go to war, you keep your freaking morals in your pocket.

when you become like your enemy what are you fighting for anymore

You're fighting to make sure that none of your enemies live. That's what you fight for. To make sure they never see the light of day again...or the dark of night.

in response to this, i post this, which i came across today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K75w6p7cKB8

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote: Lemme give you some advice before I drop this conversation. Stop trying to protect people who don't want protecting from stuff they don't need to be protected from. Learn to recognize real racism and biggotry and stop confusing it with cartoonish humor.

Bingo! I'm with Capt. Failure on this. People are finding racicim and stereotypes in damn near everything these days. I understand that people have different levels of what offends them and what not, but at some point they need to stop being overly sensitive and just reconise the humor in things. Nearly all movies have some sort of stupid crack like the "wine to your boyfriend" one liner. Bottom line is there is, and never will be a such thing as a completely non offensive movie.

I wonder what the PC group would have thought of today if G1 was on, and Optimus pulled that "boobies" line, or when Octane was actually searching the internet for porn!

shamone wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote: Lemme give you some advice before I drop this conversation. Stop trying to protect people who don't want protecting from stuff they don't need to be protected from. Learn to recognize real racism and biggotry and stop confusing it with cartoonish humor.

Bingo! I'm with Capt. Failure on this. People are finding racicim and stereotypes in damn near everything these days. I understand that people have different levels of what offends them and what not, but at some point they need to stop being overly sensitive and just reconise the humor in things. Nearly all movies have some sort of stupid crack like the "wine to your boyfriend" one liner. Bottom line is there is, and never will be a such thing as a completely non offensive movie.

i agree people have different sensitivities.

and yes most movies have lines which veer to the offensive side, but it is context which is the key.

Borat can be antisemetic and homophobic. Why because its an adult movie and the character is meant to be laughed at not with.

The TF movies are obstensibly for children, the twins a character they should be able to relate to (young and immature), therefore when they say lines like that, its tacitly approving this sort of discourse for that age group.

I dont want to re-engage this debate about the way minorities are represented in the movies however, we can agree to disagree i think

Both movies were rated PG-13 and I think the 3rd one is too, they aren't kids movies.

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

shamone wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote: Lemme give you some advice before I drop this conversation. Stop trying to protect people who don't want protecting from stuff they don't need to be protected from. Learn to recognize real racism and biggotry and stop confusing it with cartoonish humor.

Bingo! I'm with Capt. Failure on this. People are finding racicim and stereotypes in damn near everything these days. I understand that people have different levels of what offends them and what not, but at some point they need to stop being overly sensitive and just reconise the humor in things. Nearly all movies have some sort of stupid crack like the "wine to your boyfriend" one liner. Bottom line is there is, and never will be a such thing as a completely non offensive movie.

i agree people have different sensitivities.

and yes most movies have lines which veer to the offensive side, but it is context which is the key.

Borat can be antisemetic and homophobic. Why because its an adult movie and the character is meant to be laughed at not with.

The TF movies are obstensibly for children, the twins a character they should be able to relate to (young and immature), therefore when they say lines like that, its tacitly approving this sort of discourse for that age group.

I dont want to re-engage this debate about the way minorities are represented in the movies however, we can agree to disagree i think

Both movies were rated PG-13 and I think the 3rd one is too, they aren't kids movies.

This too. Don't jump in a pool then complain when you get wet.

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

shamone wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote: Lemme give you some advice before I drop this conversation. Stop trying to protect people who don't want protecting from stuff they don't need to be protected from. Learn to recognize real racism and biggotry and stop confusing it with cartoonish humor.

Bingo! I'm with Capt. Failure on this. People are finding racicim and stereotypes in damn near everything these days. I understand that people have different levels of what offends them and what not, but at some point they need to stop being overly sensitive and just reconise the humor in things. Nearly all movies have some sort of stupid crack like the "wine to your boyfriend" one liner. Bottom line is there is, and never will be a such thing as a completely non offensive movie.

i agree people have different sensitivities.

and yes most movies have lines which veer to the offensive side, but it is context which is the key.

Borat can be antisemetic and homophobic. Why because its an adult movie and the character is meant to be laughed at not with.

The TF movies are obstensibly for children, the twins a character they should be able to relate to (young and immature), therefore when they say lines like that, its tacitly approving this sort of discourse for that age group.

I dont want to re-engage this debate about the way minorities are represented in the movies however, we can agree to disagree i think

Both movies were rated PG-13 and I think the 3rd one is too, they aren't kids movies.

and there was me thinking that the entire transformer fiction franchise was a glorified kids commercial.

hence the kid friendly rating

shamone wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote:The TF movies are obstensibly for children, the twins a character they should be able to relate to (young and immature), therefore when they say lines like that, its tacitly approving this sort of discourse for that age group.

I dont want to re-engage this debate about the way minorities are represented in the movies however, we can agree to disagree i think

Both movies were rated PG-13 and I think the 3rd one is too, they aren't kids movies.

and there was me thinking that the entire transformer fiction franchise was a glorified kids commercial.

hence the kid friendly rating[/quote]


Three times I've tried to put together a polite, sensible response here, and have assininely hit the esc key on accident, losing my **** text.
So, I'm just passing through, just reading a few threads, and I have to ask: of the above sentences, which one is it???

After two years, both sides use the same line. It's for kids/its not for kids. Well, which is it? It can't always be whichever one suits your purpose of the moment, and at some time, you're going to need to pick one. If the movie is for kids, then there shouldn't be balls on robots, or masturbation or pot jokes, or scantily clad women, or any of that. If it's not for kids, then always saying "it's for kids" ought to be abandoned as a defence, becuase it's pretty lame. Either way it's lame, but it's really become this cop out line.

Carry on, I'm just sharing a thought.

Dagon wrote:

shamone wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote:The TF movies are obstensibly for children, the twins a character they should be able to relate to (young and immature), therefore when they say lines like that, its tacitly approving this sort of discourse for that age group.

I dont want to re-engage this debate about the way minorities are represented in the movies however, we can agree to disagree i think

Both movies were rated PG-13 and I think the 3rd one is too, they aren't kids movies.

and there was me thinking that the entire transformer fiction franchise was a glorified kids commercial.

hence the kid friendly rating

Three times I've tried to put together a polite, sensible response here, and have assininely hit the esc key on accident, losing my **** text.
So, I'm just passing through, just reading a few threads, and I have to ask: of the above sentences, which one is it???

After two years, both sides use the same line. It's for kids/its not for kids. Well, which is it? It can't always be whichever one suits your purpose of the moment, and at some time, you're going to need to pick one. If the movie is for kids, then there shouldn't be balls on robots, or masturbation or pot jokes, or scantily clad women, or any of that. If it's not for kids, then always saying "it's for kids" ought to be abandoned as a defence, becuase it's pretty lame. Either way it's lame, but it's really become this cop out line.

Carry on, I'm just sharing a thought.[/quote]

im saying that the product is marketed for children, bright colours, toys, the cartoons.

kids movies can have adult jokes in them. they are usually subtle however. transformers wants to appeal to a very narrow demographic. the kids and the teens.

that is not an easy mix

shamone wrote:

Dagon wrote:

shamone wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote:The TF movies are obstensibly for children, the twins a character they should be able to relate to (young and immature), therefore when they say lines like that, its tacitly approving this sort of discourse for that age group.

I dont want to re-engage this debate about the way minorities are represented in the movies however, we can agree to disagree i think

Both movies were rated PG-13 and I think the 3rd one is too, they aren't kids movies.

and there was me thinking that the entire transformer fiction franchise was a glorified kids commercial.

hence the kid friendly rating

dagon wrote:Three times I've tried to put together a polite, sensible response here, and have assininely hit the esc key on accident, losing my **** text.
So, I'm just passing through, just reading a few threads, and I have to ask: of the above sentences, which one is it???

After two years, both sides use the same line. It's for kids/its not for kids. Well, which is it? It can't always be whichever one suits your purpose of the moment, and at some time, you're going to need to pick one. If the movie is for kids, then there shouldn't be balls on robots, or masturbation or pot jokes, or scantily clad women, or any of that. If it's not for kids, then always saying "it's for kids" ought to be abandoned as a defence, becuase it's pretty lame. Either way it's lame, but it's really become this cop out line.

Carry on, I'm just sharing a thought.

im saying that the product is marketed for children, bright colours, toys, the cartoons.

kids movies can have adult jokes in them. they are usually subtle however. transformers wants to appeal to a very narrow demographic. the kids and the teens.

that is not an easy mix

I know, I think I am of the same opinion as you. What I'm trying to say is that everyone says that. "It's for kids...." And depending on what side of the fence you're on, or the point you're trying to make, it means different things. I think we're all in agreement that Transformers is a franchise that caters to children, and that's fine and good. But the "it's for kids" line is used as a finishing move when people are either tired of debating or unable to offer more solid evidence. It's like giving up.
If the movies are for kids, then they shouldn't contain some of the humor or frankly, the level of violence that they do. And I'm not a bleeding heart or a prude, and I'm not getting all "Think of the children!!!" here.
If pot brownies are alright because the movie isn't for children, then saying the Washington/New Jersey map error or the geographic goofs are perfectly fine because it's a kids' movie is then a falacious agruement. If it's for kids, then it should be for kids all the way, and not just when it's convienient.

Just saying, yeah? I'm not looking to piss anyone off, I'm just saying. If the story doesn't need to be Anna Karenena because it's a movie for kids, that's fine. I'm totally good with that. But then if it's for kids, why are there nads and drugs and skanky looking girls and violence and death and masturbation and all of that? It invalidates itself, but it gets used like its some great logical weapon. Maybe it's just the way it sounds to me, but it's crappy arguing.

Dagon wrote:

shamone wrote:

Dagon wrote:

shamone wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote:The TF movies are obstensibly for children, the twins a character they should be able to relate to (young and immature), therefore when they say lines like that, its tacitly approving this sort of discourse for that age group.

I dont want to re-engage this debate about the way minorities are represented in the movies however, we can agree to disagree i think

Both movies were rated PG-13 and I think the 3rd one is too, they aren't kids movies.

and there was me thinking that the entire transformer fiction franchise was a glorified kids commercial.

hence the kid friendly rating

dagon wrote:Three times I've tried to put together a polite, sensible response here, and have assininely hit the esc key on accident, losing my **** text.
So, I'm just passing through, just reading a few threads, and I have to ask: of the above sentences, which one is it???

After two years, both sides use the same line. It's for kids/its not for kids. Well, which is it? It can't always be whichever one suits your purpose of the moment, and at some time, you're going to need to pick one. If the movie is for kids, then there shouldn't be balls on robots, or masturbation or pot jokes, or scantily clad women, or any of that. If it's not for kids, then always saying "it's for kids" ought to be abandoned as a defence, becuase it's pretty lame. Either way it's lame, but it's really become this cop out line.

Carry on, I'm just sharing a thought.

im saying that the product is marketed for children, bright colours, toys, the cartoons.

kids movies can have adult jokes in them. they are usually subtle however. transformers wants to appeal to a very narrow demographic. the kids and the teens.

that is not an easy mix

I know, I think I am of the same opinion as you. What I'm trying to say is that everyone says that. "It's for kids...." And depending on what side of the fence you're on, or the point you're trying to make, it means different things. I think we're all in agreement that Transformers is a franchise that caters to children, and that's fine and good. But the "it's for kids" line is used as a finishing move when people are either tired of debating or unable to offer more solid evidence. It's like giving up.
If the movies are for kids, then they shouldn't contain some of the humor or frankly, the level of violence that they do. And I'm not a bleeding heart or a prude, and I'm not getting all "Think of the children!!!" here.
If pot brownies are alright because the movie isn't for children, then saying the Washington/New Jersey map error or the geographic goofs are perfectly fine because it's a kids' movie is then a falacious agruement. If it's for kids, then it should be for kids all the way, and not just when it's convienient.

Just saying, yeah? I'm not looking to piss anyone off, I'm just saying. If the story doesn't need to be Anna Karenena because it's a movie for kids, that's fine. I'm totally good with that. But then if it's for kids, why are there nads and drugs and skanky looking girls and violence and death and masturbation and all of that? It invalidates itself, but it gets used like its some great logical weapon. Maybe it's just the way it sounds to me, but it's crappy arguing.

well im agreeing with you i think

i think th content is not appropriate, to overt. the reason i have an issue though is the dcrass racial stereotyping and the homophobic jokes, which have no place in a kids movie

Well, why can't we have our cake and eat it too? Transformers was intended for kids, but those kids are now grown up, and we don't mind a more adult oriented film (or, at least I don't) I have no problem with the content.

There have been other incidents as well, that seemed to work out fine in harmony. The Terminator movie, especially the second one, while Rated R, still had an appeal to kids with the Terminator finally protecting a young John Connor. There were toys and such sold to kids, but the movie still retained it's adult theme. Aliens is another movie, primarily aimed at adults, but with the Hudson and Newt character, made it somewhat friendly for the occasional parent who had to bring in their kids. As with Terminator, it also would have toys marketed towards kids.

Here's a infamous story. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. They originate from some serious comics, not meant for kids, but when they appeared in their first animated series, it was pure kiddy fare. A few years later, the motion picture came out. Critic hit, hard core TMNT hit, parent's worst nightmare with all the swearing and Raph nearly getting killed. Next installment, movie took a nose dive and geared purely for the kiddies, caving into the parents demands. The TMNT never really recovered to it's prime.

I guess I am saying, is, something may have certain aspects of it marketed towards children, I still think we need to give them the benefit of the doubt about dealing with adult oriented material. Kids are more mature than we want to give them credit for. Tell you right now, if I was going to produce a live action Transformers, I would skip the PG-13 crap and go directly to Rated R! Terminator 2 style!!!!!

Iamwarhorse wrote:Well, why can't we have our cake and eat it too? Transformers was intended for kids, but those kids are now grown up, and we don't mind a more adult oriented film (or, at least I don't) I have no problem with the content.

There have been other incidents as well, that seemed to work out fine in harmony. The Terminator movie, especially the second one, while Rated R, still had an appeal to kids with the Terminator finally protecting a young John Connor. There were toys and such sold to kids, but the movie still retained it's adult theme. Aliens is another movie, primarily aimed at adults, but with the Hudson and Newt character, made it somewhat friendly for the occasional parent who had to bring in their kids. As with Terminator, it also would have toys marketed towards kids.

Here's a infamous story. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. They originate from some serious comics, not meant for kids, but when they appeared in their first animated series, it was pure kiddy fare. A few years later, the motion picture came out. Critic hit, hard core TMNT hit, parent's worst nightmare with all the swearing and Raph nearly getting killed. Next installment, movie took a nose dive and geared purely for the kiddies, caving into the parents demands. The TMNT never really recovered to it's prime.

I guess I am saying, is, something may have certain aspects of it marketed towards children, I still think we need to give them the benefit of the doubt about dealing with adult oriented material. Kids are more mature than we want to give them credit for. Tell you right now, if I was going to produce a live action Transformers, I would skip the PG-13 crap and go directly to Rated R! Terminator 2 style!!!!!

Well, I could only see that working if the pottyhumor would go away and make way for a more universal type of humor. The thing with the electricitywires and Ironhide was a good clean joke. Stepping on the ornaments in the garden worked well as far as I'm concearned.

The question isn't if kids would want to see it, it's giant robots (duh), but finding the middle way for these movies to stay enjoyable for both audiences. Rating it R wouldn't help the kids, would it? In order to exist, Transformers NEED to sell toys and were not what's kepíng that afloat.

'Banning the kids from the cinema is a baaaaad move.'

Iamwarhorse wrote:Well, why can't we have our cake and eat it too? Transformers was intended for kids, but those kids are now grown up, and we don't mind a more adult oriented film (or, at least I don't) I have no problem with the content.

There have been other incidents as well, that seemed to work out fine in harmony. The Terminator movie, especially the second one, while Rated R, still had an appeal to kids with the Terminator finally protecting a young John Connor. There were toys and such sold to kids, but the movie still retained it's adult theme. Aliens is another movie, primarily aimed at adults, but with the Hudson and Newt character, made it somewhat friendly for the occasional parent who had to bring in their kids. As with Terminator, it also would have toys marketed towards kids.

Here's a infamous story. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. They originate from some serious comics, not meant for kids, but when they appeared in their first animated series, it was pure kiddy fare. A few years later, the motion picture came out. Critic hit, hard core TMNT hit, parent's worst nightmare with all the swearing and Raph nearly getting killed. Next installment, movie took a nose dive and geared purely for the kiddies, caving into the parents demands. The TMNT never really recovered to it's prime.

I guess I am saying, is, something may have certain aspects of it marketed towards children, I still think we need to give them the benefit of the doubt about dealing with adult oriented material. Kids are more mature than we want to give them credit for. Tell you right now, if I was going to produce a live action Transformers, I would skip the PG-13 crap and go directly to Rated R! Terminator 2 style!!!!!

This is just disingenious and why i have trouble taking fansformers seriously

In no way shape or form can aliens or terminator 2 be compared to transformers in terms of their relatability towards children

The TF franchise is a toy selling enterprise primarily. Aliens and terminator are strictly not for children. yes they got licensed toys, but they were an after thought, not the sole reason for their existence

shamone wrote:

Iamwarhorse wrote:Well, why can't we have our cake and eat it too? Transformers was intended for kids, but those kids are now grown up, and we don't mind a more adult oriented film (or, at least I don't) I have no problem with the content.

There have been other incidents as well, that seemed to work out fine in harmony. The Terminator movie, especially the second one, while Rated R, still had an appeal to kids with the Terminator finally protecting a young John Connor. There were toys and such sold to kids, but the movie still retained it's adult theme. Aliens is another movie, primarily aimed at adults, but with the Hudson and Newt character, made it somewhat friendly for the occasional parent who had to bring in their kids. As with Terminator, it also would have toys marketed towards kids.

Here's a infamous story. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. They originate from some serious comics, not meant for kids, but when they appeared in their first animated series, it was pure kiddy fare. A few years later, the motion picture came out. Critic hit, hard core TMNT hit, parent's worst nightmare with all the swearing and Raph nearly getting killed. Next installment, movie took a nose dive and geared purely for the kiddies, caving into the parents demands. The TMNT never really recovered to it's prime.

I guess I am saying, is, something may have certain aspects of it marketed towards children, I still think we need to give them the benefit of the doubt about dealing with adult oriented material. Kids are more mature than we want to give them credit for. Tell you right now, if I was going to produce a live action Transformers, I would skip the PG-13 crap and go directly to Rated R! Terminator 2 style!!!!!

This is just disingenious and why i have trouble taking fansformers seriously

In no way shape or form can aliens or terminator 2 be compared to transformers in terms of their relatability towards children

The TF franchise is a toy selling enterprise primarily. Aliens and terminator are strictly not for children. yes they got licensed toys, but they were an after thought, not the sole reason for their existence

I'm not sure disingenious is the right word, but I do think it's a misguided example. I get what warhorse is saying about toys and marketability, but shamone is correct that the kid link was totally an afterthought, whereas with Transformers the kid link is pretty immediate.