FCC Content Filtering Inquiry sets sights on Transformers Films

Oh yeah? I know all about the FCC .

so its ok for a 13yr old but then if you're 12, suddenly its wrong? because god knows there's such a jump in maturity or whatever between those ages.

always found these "age restrictions" funny, regardless if its for movies or music or television or drinking or anything really.

its bad enough they added ratings to television but now they wanna control what trailers play on there? wow....and my god, do parents that actually follow these ratings even exist? are there parents who will refuse to let their child see something because the tv said its bad? i sure as hell hope not.


how about just letting parents you know....be a parent and they can decide what is or is not appropriate.

When I was a kid, there were these two kids down the road who weren't even allowed to watch The Simpsons, the favourite show of all their friends at the time, because TV told their parents that it was too bad for them... Mind you they were also restricted to G-rated movies and their parents kept a close watch on what music they listened to...
Parents like this do exist, they want to shield their children from whatever harshness they perceive in the world. However it should also be noted that these same parents usually don't monitor their kids internet access, and figure that just because THEY don't know how to get around content filters and blockers, their kids won't either.
I'm very glad I never had this problem.

My eyes can't roll back any further in my head...for a variety of reasons...

This is silly. The very audience for Transformers istelf is underneath that age.

My girlfriend & I have a 3 year old son who we clash quite a bit about what he watches and whatnot. She had a very strict christian upbringing & lived a very sheltered life and she wants to do the same thing to our son. I raised myself starting when I was 11, I've been hooked on drugs, been to rehab for alcohol, been an enforcer for the local MC(Motorcycle Club) and I pretty much grew up in bars(with my parents) so I have somewhat more lenient views. But I must say though I love Transformers and so does my son, I even felt dirty when I took him to the theatre to see ROTF. we had been watching trailers and following it for over a year and he was very excited. Me & my girl agreed to take him to it because the first one wasn't that bad and our son knows the difference between reality(people with guns and strangers with candy) and fantasy(giant robots that turn into inanimate objects and whatnot). Since it was rated PG-13 the same as the first one we decided he could come to see it. Imagine my disdain for the ratings system and Bay when within the first 5 minutes they had already said "ass" and frequently got more foul as the movie went on. I can't really understand how it managed to have the same rating as it's predecessor, just seems like the MPA dropped the ball on that one quite a bit. I think that the whole ratings system needs a dramatic overhaul so that it is a bit more clear for parents to used it to deem things appropriate for their children. But ultimately I believe that it's the parent's duty to filter what their children view. Sorry for the long rant but I figured this would be information that helped explain just how strange I think these ratings are.
PS: i'm not a bad parent just because I had a "colorful" life, I do not want my son to have the same experiences I did, but i'm not going to completely shut him off from the world or take anything away from him that might help him grow into the man he'll become.

Forgotten wrote:My girlfriend & I have a 3 year old son who we clash quite a bit about what he watches and whatnot. She had a very strict christian upbringing & lived a very sheltered life and she wants to do the same thing to our son. I raised myself starting when I was 11, I've been hooked on drugs, been to rehab for alcohol, been an enforcer for the local MC(Motorcycle Club) and I pretty much grew up in bars(with my parents) so I have somewhat more lenient views. But I must say though I love Transformers and so does my son, I even felt dirty when I took him to the theatre to see ROTF. we had been watching trailers and following it for over a year and he was very excited. Me & my girl agreed to take him to it because the first one wasn't that bad and our son knows the difference between reality(people with guns and strangers with candy) and fantasy(giant robots that turn into inanimate objects and whatnot). Since it was rated PG-13 the same as the first one we decided he could come to see it. Imagine my disdain for the ratings system and Bay when within the first 5 minutes they had already said "ass" and frequently got more foul as the movie went on. I can't really understand how it managed to have the same rating as it's predecessor, just seems like the MPA dropped the ball on that one quite a bit. I think that the whole ratings system needs a dramatic overhaul so that it is a bit more clear for parents to used it to deem things appropriate for their children. But ultimately I believe that it's the parent's duty to filter what their children view. Sorry for the long rant but I figured this would be information that helped explain just how strange I think these ratings are.
PS: i'm not a bad parent just because I had a "colorful" life, I do not want my son to have the same experiences I did, but i'm not going to completely shut him off from the world or take anything away from him that might help him grow into the man he'll become.

can I say that I agree? RotF deserves this. so long as the toys don't get pulled before I finish getting the autobot cars.

Parents cant decide on commercials! I mean come on its a commercial!
I think its wrong i mean they can block rated r commercials but PG-13
Hasbro has tons of toys for kids under 13! Just sayin it aint right!

isn't the parent's decision to say what there child should or should not watch?

Worrying about filtering non-explicit ads for a movie based on toys. This is all kinds of pathetic.

This is pretty damn funny if you ask me. What will hasbro do? Their main demo is kids. And the movies arent even that bad. From what iv seen they were pg13 cause of a few choice words used. Seeing as how hasbro has what 3 years until teh next movie im sure they'll figure some thing out. But on another note, half the damn shows the kids watch these days are worse than both TF movies combined. Shouldnt the FCC be worrying about what they can watch for free and on their own instead of some thing their parents have to physically take them to see? Ill never understand how regulation corporations(is the fcc a corp?) work.

The FCC is a bunch of hypocrytes....they have no lives. I wonder how many of them took their underage children to the movie and bought popcorn and all !!!

Hard Hacker wrote:This is silly. The very audience for Transformers istelf is underneath that age.

While the majority of the audience for the toys might be under that age, I doubt that can be said for the film franchise. I have always felt that it is a conflict of interests to have a film that is rated PG-13 or R that has an accompanying toy line that is obviously directed to an age younger than the film is rated.

My parents were pretty strict about which films I could watch when I was growing up and they adhered pretty strongly to the PG-13 rule being for 13 and up, with a few exceptions. When I was a kid, we didn't have a lot of PG-13 movies (or R for that matter) that featured products or characters that were geared toward me. I think Batman might have been really the first for my generation, or at least for me personally, where the film was PG-13 and there was a massive push of toys to younger kids.

I'm a new parent. I don't have to worry about this with my 4 month old at the moment. But I will one day. I don't know where I'll stand on all of this stuff. My fiancee watched all of the crazy horror movies as a kid and she doesn't feel that there's much wrong with that whereas I'm not desensitized to all of the violence, gore, etc and am glad that I'm not. Hopefully we'll be able to figure out a happy compromise because I don't feel that my daughter should be exposed to that.

I'm still not sure what I think of a kids toy line getting turned into a film not geared toward kids (I'm basing that statement solely off the film's rating). Definitely a conflict of interests in my opinion.

While I have some conflicting views on all of this, the bottom line is that I want it to be MY choice. Not the government's. Not someone else's. My fiancee and I will figure out what is appropriate for our children.

HA...Hahaha...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Sorry for a mild laugh attack. Anyway: this is retarded. Adn whoever said the thing about the "maturity jump" from 12 to 13, that thing don't exist, I can't keep a straight face about anything before! XD

Here's an idea: Let the parents be the parents!

I honestly dont know if there are repercussions this site for explicit text, and right now, I dont care, fuck the FCC. This is honestly RIDICULOUS. Transformers is a show and movie based of TOYS, (don't get me wrong, I'm in love with Transformers and am not at all criticizing it) to try and censor the commercials for it and claim is inappropriate, blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, is insane. If this goes to far and the toys get banned (I hope not) or they make the show have to be appropriate for figgin' 6 year olds then the FCC has finally taken it to far. The way I see it they SHOULD have a kiddy transformers show, AS WELL as a semi-more mature show for older teenagers or something, but it should not be blocked off, I mean for christs sake, its a show/movie/comic/whatever about a war between giant alien robots, its bound to be "inappropriate" at some times.

While I don't agree with agencies like the FCC, I can understand at least part of the intent of their operations. However, I object to the use of organizations, independant or government run, to create systems of censorship. I believe that ultimate responsibility comes to the parent(s) of children with respect what they are allowed to watch.

Another matter to consider is that in the wide realm of media control, censorship rulings have not shown consistency in their results.

Take the movie "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" for example. The following poster was banned by the MPAA for US theatre posters:



The reason was that it suggested sexual conduct. However, I understand that the MPAA didn't object to the following poster for "Good Luck Chuck", which was in theatres a year prior and its imagery could be interpreted in a similar fashion:



Now I know this discussion is about the FCC, not the MPAA, but I see many parallels in the failures of the efforts of both organizations.

This kind of thing is the reason I have to have an internet safety class every year.
I mean, I know what I'm not suposed to do on the internet!
Anything fun.

I'm not a Parent, I'm an Uncle. I saw ROTF with my 5 year old Nephew and My Brother(my Nephew's father). We were absolutely appalled by the amount of unnecessary foul language and sexual innuendo. As plenty of people have stated before, this is a movie about TOYS. It's said that they can't tell a Dark, Serious story because Kids won't grab onto it, but they'll tell a Lude, Obnoxious story instead? I cannot properly articulate my surprise and disgust to learn that this is one of the highest grossing movies across the world in recent memory. It is proof that Bay and the rest of the production team have no respect for this as a Mythos, but merely as a Cash-Cow Franchise that they could exploit in such a tasteless manner. And apparently, they were right; box-office numbers don't lie. While there were a handful of truly captivating visual moments that my nephew and I alike were both awe-struck by, there is no excuse for the inclusion of so much American Pie "College Humor".

My brother was deeply saddened to find out that he won't be able to watch this with his son on DVD the way he does with the first movie. I find Bay and his production team entirely irresponsible for putting out something with this amount of Nonsense Content. I am not at all surprised to see that there are groups targeting this movie as a [Prime] example of Movies with the wrong kind of content marketed at the wrong age group. I wonder if anyone has resigned or been fired over this debacle?


I almost forgot to mention; I generally LIKE Mr Bay's movies! This one was just not handled properly at all.

Why do we even HAVE an FCC?

Listen....as a kid, I watched PG-13 and R-rated movies often. I watched various Japanese animes ( before anime got huge in the mid 1990's. ), played violent games ( I have fond memories of Dayna Plato getting neck drilled, blasting monsters in Doom, and ripping Lu Kang's spine out of his body. ), and played with toy guns that actually looked like guns ( no faggy orange caps )....and I came out just fine, I don't even have a traffic ticket yet.

It's amazing how a 1 year difference is considered a huge maturity gap.
When I was 18, I was no different when I was 17....same with 20 and 21. NO DIFFERENCE! Amazing how people, especially in positions of authority, can't seem to grasp this.

The FCC ( stands for fucking censorship commies to me ) outta work on safety standards ( like cells phones that won't mess your head ), getting these damned digital TV boxes to stop pixelating, and so on....NOT decentcy standards or what your kids can and can not watch. We don't need an American Mary Whitehouse.....anyone living in the UK knows the useless bitch I am referring to.

FCC, go do us a favor an just die....and the faster the better.

I would say that the Bayverse movies are not kid friendly and shouldn't be shown to kids much younger than 13. (like it was said, 12's not a big leap, so that wouldn't be a problem either.)

There is a lot of foul language, a lot of sexual content, and ROTF is excessively violent. (Especially Optimus.)

Knowing all of this going in, if you decide to take or allow your child to see it, then it's completely on you. (As it should be.)

I could see the ads for the film be restricted to/from certain channels and times, but this is becoming nonsense.

No, I don't like the fact that my TFs have been smutted up, talk like a trucker, and kill viciously. However, it does say it's PG-13, it tells you why it's been rated as such, and as all informed parents should do, they should go see the film themselves, without junior along for the ride, see if it's something he can handle and something the parents are willing to let him see.

If parents did their jobs better, we wouldn't need groups running to the FCC like a tattletale running to the Principal. Parenting has gotten so bad that the government feels that we need a resource telling us what we can and cannot do.

Blame the parents, not the government. They wouldn't get their foot in the door if we had never opened it.

Some parents today do a genuinely terrific job.

Some do what they can, when and if possible, but fall flat on their faces from time to time. (That's a good portion of the parents today. Good people, just not perfect, and it shouldn't be expected of them either.)

And then we have the majority... parents who don't give a damn, and let their children become monsters and turn into something even worse when they grow up. (Have you ever paid attention to teenagers today? UGH. Like. A. Plague.)

Because of the majority of douchebags, we have the government stepping in and saying "You won't do it? We'll do it for you. The cost? Others will have to pay the price for your mistakes."

Be a parent, a good one.

Seibertron wrote:

Hard Hacker wrote:This is silly. The very audience for Transformers istelf is underneath that age.

While the majority of the audience for the toys might be under that age, I doubt that can be said for the film franchise. I have always felt that it is a conflict of interests to have a film that is rated PG-13 or R that has an accompanying toy line that is obviously directed to an age younger than the film is rated.

My parents were pretty strict about which films I could watch when I was growing up and they adhered pretty strongly to the PG-13 rule being for 13 and up, with a few exceptions. When I was a kid, we didn't have a lot of PG-13 movies (or R for that matter) that featured products or characters that were geared toward me. I think Batman might have been really the first for my generation, or at least for me personally, where the film was PG-13 and there was a massive push of toys to younger kids.

I'm a new parent. I don't have to worry about this with my 4 month old at the moment. But I will one day. I don't know where I'll stand on all of this stuff. My fiancee watched all of the crazy horror movies as a kid and she doesn't feel that there's much wrong with that whereas I'm not desensitized to all of the violence, gore, etc and am glad that I'm not. Hopefully we'll be able to figure out a happy compromise because I don't feel that my daughter should be exposed to that.

I'm still not sure what I think of a kids toy line getting turned into a film not geared toward kids (I'm basing that statement solely off the film's rating). Definitely a conflict of interests in my opinion.

While I have some conflicting views on all of this, the bottom line is that I want it to be MY choice. Not the government's. Not someone else's. My fiancee and I will figure out what is appropriate for our children.

Very well stated. I grew up on TF G1, GI Joe, and Speed Racer (one of the few cartoons where people died). I even remember when PG-13 became a rating! Stuff like this kills me. I have a 7 y.o. daughter and a 5 y.o. son, both of which love TFs - they've seen both movies, have the toys, etc. Being an active parent, I monitor what they watch and how it affects their behavior. I'm aware there are batteries in the remote, other channels to choose from, and if all else fails - I can always shut the damn thing off. Until all of these options break down, I can handle it. Perhaps the government should be more concerned with getting it's own crap in line first - after all, its quite the glass house they live in.

I find alot of this funny,

Not because of the FCC mind you,

But because people here seem to be under the impression that the FCC does control minds and therefore wil keep you from showing an R rated movie to a 10year old.

They can't, these people are not magical elves or trolls with powers to control your minds or your hands from pressing the play button on your DVD player....nor do they control the choice for you to go out and rent or even buy a film verses watching it's censored twin on the Telly.

They are asking to filter the foul language on a film rated for children of 13 years of age but geared towards children just by its source material of a much younger age. I really can't see any foul here.

And the Rating system is again a guideline....so adults can pick up a film Titled "Deep Impact" and be sure it's rated PG-13 verses X. And children can go watch R rated films in the theatre, as long as they are accompanied by an adult.....which is fine. It puts some responsibility into the hands of the adults allowing their children to go watch said movie.

But the ratings system, again....does not maintain magical powers. It is not a guideline for new parents to raise their children......it's a guideline for film. For entertainment. For a leisure in our life......

So again, I find it funny, people seem flustered over something geared to monitor our entertainment. Not even restrict it really, just label it.

Laters,
Josh

Convotron wrote:While I don't agree with agencies like the FCC, I can understand at least part of the intent of their operations. However, I object to the use of organizations, independant or government run, to create systems of censorship. I believe that ultimate responsibility comes to the parent(s) of children with respect what they are allowed to watch.

Another matter to consider is that in the wide realm of media control, censorship rulings have not shown consistency in their results.

Take the movie "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" for example. The following poster was banned by the MPAA for US theatre posters:



The reason was that it suggested sexual conduct. However, I understand that the MPAA didn't object to the following poster for "Good Luck Chuck", which was in theatres a year prior and its imagery could be interpreted in a similar fashion:



Now I know this discussion is about the FCC, not the MPAA, but I see many parallels in the failures of the efforts of both organizations.

just a side note "Zack And Miri Make A Porno" became simply "Zack And Miri" because of the FCC I was quite surprised when I picked up the UNRATED DVD of it and it didn't even say porno on it. You know Kevin Smith probably had a caniption over that one.

You know, Cobra Commander is the leader of the FCC, so Im not surprised.

*Listens to Eric Idle's FCC Song*



Yeah, this is ridiculous.

Great news that this is being seriously looked at.

Rotf was such a clear example of where the demographic the movie was meant for clearly did not match the audience the marketing was aimed at.

Joshua Vallse wrote:I find alot of this funny,

Not because of the FCC mind you...

I definitely agree. It's not as if the FCC has an agent in every home, waiting to pounce on the remote control to enforce its will, hehe. However, I wouldn't discount the influence of the FCC because it is:

http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html wrote:"charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

Now I don't know exactly what the FCC can realistically do or what it has done in the past to control media but it sounds like it has the authority to regulate American channels of communication. Obviously the FCC can't just come out of nowhere and start running the show, so to speak, but they seem to have some authority. However, I know little about American communication regulations so I'm just speculating wildly.

Forgotten wrote:just a side note "Zack And Miri Make A Porno" became simply "Zack And Miri" because of the FCC I was quite surprised when I picked up the UNRATED DVD of it and it didn't even say porno on it. You know Kevin Smith probably had a caniption over that one.

Wow, yeah, I can imagine Kevin Smith's reaction considering his response to the movie poster fiasco. Actually, I guess this is one thing I now know about what the FCC has done to control media.

I don't think being mad at the FCC or calling them "the Man" or whatever is the right call. Yes the movie is clearly rated PG-13, but only barely. The off color humor and some "sequences" were definitely targeted toward the older movie goers even though this film is clearly meant for kids.

Yes I said it, Transformers is meant for kids. Just cause we are adults who continue to collect them as such, the main target demographic for the brand is kids. I have my almost 3 year old son loving Transformers, he sits and watches the G1 toons all himself and I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable watching ROTF with him around.

Its really a blurry line. You've got so many people who are into Transformers of all ages. How do you satisfy everyone without making some serious compromises.

Never saw the commercials, so I don't know what content the FCC would be interested in.

Yes, perfect! This is my biggest problem with the movies. Ok, I guess it's a fair point about 12-13 years old (although maturity can jump between a year around that age), but these kids that go in when they're 5 years old or 8 years or 10 or what not, it's ridiculous.

The film is strictly PG-13 (sometimes I wonder if that's too low - society is getting slack on ratings today e.g. the original Transformers Movie had to be rated R for the violence, but these days, it usually gets a G with Low Level Animated Violence or something stupid like that) and we get all these stupid little kids getting into the Transformers community, getting toys they can't figure out at all because they're not really designed for kids and then, most of all (which pisses me off the most), I see on TradeMe (it's like eBay for New Zealanders), all these awesome collectors items, and sometimes even rare figures, get bought for stupid little kids that'll probably break them!

Now I'm not saying I don't want children to play with Transformers, but they need to stick to the stuff for them (and of course, when I say stupid children, I mean the stupid ones. The smart ones are fine, but they are generally few and far beyond these days). Like Animated, for example. But not the movie toys, and not those rare figures, because that just makes me want to cry. What confuses the hell out of me is the fact that the movie IS PG-13, but Hasbro continues to market more than half of the movie merchandise towards children as young as 3 years old. Now, fine, they can play with those toys, but why are they marketing a PG-13 film to little children? The excuse always comes up that they were always children's toys, so it's hard to change, and I guess at the end of the day, it's up to the parents to control what the children have and see, and if they're dumb enough to take them to a PG-13 movie at the age of 5, then they may as well live in a box.

But here's a point: what about figures from lines such as Masterpiece? Would you give Masterpiece Megatron to your 8-year-old son for his birthday? I think not. Unless you were an idiot, of course.

And to be honest, Transformers and Transformers Revenge of The Fallen to have plenty of sexual references and stuff. To be honest, I hate it. I mean, it's Transformers. It's bloody stupid. It was even worse the second time round, and if I'm the only one, I don't care: I hate Megan Fox. She's ugly as anything. But I took my mum to see both films, and she really didn't like Megan Fox in the second one. She pointed out it was unnecessary, all those love scenes and stuff. I can't say I disagree. But still, it's not for kids. Again, it's up to the parents, but obviously, there aren't enough smart parents in the world.

I guess I'm the only one who knows about this, so I guess I have to spread the word. If you do even a tiny amount of research on a movie you'll find the reasons it got the rating it did. This took me about 7 seconds to find, here look.

PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, language, some crude and sexual material, and brief drug material.

If you don't want to expose your kids to that, then don't take them to see the movie.

Or you could do what my parents did, see the movie yourself first THEN take the kids to see it if you approve of it.

I'm going to be brutally blunt here:

People like you, TCJJ, are ruining the fandom for the rest of us.

With that said, let's break this down, shall we?

TCJJ wrote:Yes, perfect! This is my biggest problem with the movies. Ok, I guess it's a fair point about 12-13 years old (although maturity can jump between a year around that age), but these kids that go in when they're 5 years old or 8 years or 10 or what not, it's ridiculous.

Mommy and Daddy's fault. Not the 5 or 8 year old's. Name me ONE time you've EVER, EVER witnessed a 5-8 year old walk up to a ticket booth or counter and asked for a ticket, then paid for it right out of their own pocket.

You can't. That'd be a baldfaced lie if you said yes.

The first reaction to a 5-8 year old kid walking up to buy a ticket at the counter/booth/whatever, wouldn't "OMG! They're buying a ticket for a movie they shouldn't see!" no. The first reaction would be "What the hell? Where are their parents? Somebody better call the cops! Who would leave a child alone like this??"

And what really happens? The kid is with his/her parents, and to make 'em feel big, the parents allowed them to go up to the counter under their supervision, and buy the tickets. The guy/girl behind the counter gives the kid the ticket and a wink and a nod to the parents.

Again I say, the PARENTS allow the child to see the film(s), not the attendant, the PARENTS.

TCJJ wrote:The film is strictly PG-13 (sometimes I wonder if that's too low - society is getting slack on ratings today e.g. the original Transformers Movie had to be rated R for the violence, but these days, it usually gets a G with Low Level Animated Violence or something stupid like that) and we get all these stupid little kids getting into the Transformers community, getting toys they can't figure out at all because they're not really designed for kids and then, most of all (which pisses me off the most), I see on TradeMe (it's like eBay for New Zealanders), all these awesome collectors items, and sometimes even rare figures, get bought for stupid little kids that'll probably break them!

TFTM was never rated R, nor was it going to be. (I know about the excessively violent deleted scenes, but they never made it into the final film, did they? No.) PG, all the way.

The rest of this part of your post? Absolute stupidity. (On your part, that is.)

Children aren't stupid. Not in the least. Some of them may be developmentally disabled, or have mental illness, but they're not stupid. How dare you. Plenty of people on this board have children and they should find this post of yours completely offensive.

Sounds like, to me, that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Oh and the toys? They ARE designed for kids. They always have been. Granted, they've become more complex over the years, but so have children. If you think a kid could be outsmarted by these toys, you're wrong.

ROTF Leader Class Optimus is the one figure I think could give them trouble, but with a little patience, a little time, and a little assistance, even he could be mastered by a kid. Why? Because they don't know they can't do it. Same with video games. Kids don't know their limits, and that's why they generally exceed beyond adults when it comes to video games and toys like TransFormers. We, on the other hand, know our limits and say "Crap. I can't figure that out."

And how do you know these "collectors items" are being bought for kids? How do you know it's not an adult who's embarrassed to openly admit they're buying a toy, for themselves? Didn't think of that? No, of course not. Knee jerk reaction FTW! (Yay! Go you!)

And, even if these "collectors items" were bought for a kids, so what? The parents obviously thought it was okay for their kid to have, so the splurged a bit and bought it for 'em. If the kid happens to break it, oh well. It happens. Even collectors have broken their toys.

Stupid kids? Really? Shame on you. Did it ever occur to you that the parents are stupid? No, of course not.

I think your post here has made all of us lose a few I.Q. points. Thanks, a lot.

TCJJ wrote:Now I'm not saying I don't want children to play with Transformers, but they need to stick to the stuff for them (and of course, when I say stupid children, I mean the stupid ones. The smart ones are fine, but they are generally few and far beyond these days). Like Animated, for example. But not the movie toys, and not those rare figures, because that just makes me want to cry. What confuses the hell out of me is the fact that the movie IS PG-13, but Hasbro continues to market more than half of the movie merchandise towards children as young as 3 years old. Now, fine, they can play with those toys, but why are they marketing a PG-13 film to little children? The excuse always comes up that they were always children's toys, so it's hard to change, and I guess at the end of the day, it's up to the parents to control what the children have and see, and if they're dumb enough to take them to a PG-13 movie at the age of 5, then they may as well live in a box.

...yes you are saying you don't want kids playing with TransFormers! And all because you want more for YOU. (Selfish.)

Animated toys are stupid? Really? Tell that to the designers over at Hasbro. I'm sure they'd love to know a SUPER fan like *you* thinks their product is stupid. (The rest of us know they'd laugh at that, because in all honesty, it's a haha moment, really.) You're 110% wrong on that one. Even anti-Animated fans have openly admitted "I'll give Hasbro credit, the toys do look completely show accurate, and that in itself is no small task." There have been plenty of TF lines where the toys looked NOTHING like the show character, but we bought it because they slapped the name on it. THAT's a sign of stupidity. Oh and Animated toys are some of the best designed figures to come along in a LONG, LONG time. Give Leader Class Ultra Magnus a spin, then come back and tell me he's stupid. I don't really think you'll be able to after you see how awesome he is. But, even if you do, I'd just tell you that you're wrong, because it's true.

Kids are the #1 target demographic for these toys, and they're also the biggest buyer of the toys. Not us, KIDS.

And of course they're marketing the toys towards kids. Children have always been the primary audience, from the getgo. Let's say we were back in 1984, the popularity of TFs hasn't hit yet. How many adults do you see lining up to buy these as collectibles? ZIP. How many children do you see lining up? Countless numbers. A car/truck/plane, and it turns into a robot as well? That's two toys for the price of one. The only reasons adults would line up to buy those back then were:

1.) Two toys in one? Saves me money.
2.) I'm waiting in line to buy these because my kid won't stop driving me nuts for them.

Now that they're popular with the public (thanks to the movies), and have a 25 year history, you see adults lining up to buy 'em. Now? The toys are aimed at kids AND adults. See that? KIDS first. Then us. Hasbro's numerous panels at various conventions have admitted that kids come first, then us. And while they do listen to our input, they can only use so much of it because it might go against what the kids need and will buy.

So yes, they are marketing the toys towards the kids. And it's working. And it's reasonable. The movie? I'll agree, it shouldn't be marketed towards children. But, it all comes down to the PARENTS, and how they do their job. When I was growing up, I owned Robocop toys, watched the cartoon, loved it. I never once watched a single one of those films, outside of the heavily edited TV versions until I was 13, and even then it was Robocop 3, which was PG-13. I didn't see the first two until I was 17. (Which is the age they say is appropriate for R rated films.) My parents did their job.

Other parents do too. It's the idiot parents that ruin it for everyone else. The ones who allow their children to watch slasher flicks and the like. There's absolutely no reason why anyone with common sense and a good head on their shoulders would subject their children to such horrific content. Same applies to the TF movies. While it's not horrific content, it's not appropriate for certain audiences and the parents should step in and control what their kids can and cannot do/see/hear. Not the FCC. Watchdog groups wouldn't be springing up if parents took control of the situation instead of sitting on their fat, lazy asses all day.

You guess it's the parent's job? You guess? You're damn right it's their job. Hasbro shouldn't be marketing the film towards kids, but they did. It's up to the parents to make the right choice. Plenty of things are marketed towards kids that shouldn't be, but they are. So why now should Hasbro be singled out? Hell, if Cancer hadn't been linked to cigarettes, we'd still see Joe Cool in ads, and maybe even a cartoon.

Simple point is this: If you don't like it, don't take part in it, and don't allow your children to either. If you're willing to be even just a tiny bit patient, another offering (like Animated) will come along that will be perfect for children, and enjoyable for adults.

TCJJ wrote:But here's a point: what about figures from lines such as Masterpiece? Would you give Masterpiece Megatron to your 8-year-old son for his birthday? I think not. Unless you were an idiot, of course.

And to be honest, Transformers and Transformers Revenge of The Fallen to have plenty of sexual references and stuff. To be honest, I hate it. I mean, it's Transformers. It's bloody stupid. It was even worse the second time round, and if I'm the only one, I don't care: I hate Megan Fox. She's ugly as anything. But I took my mum to see both films, and she really didn't like Megan Fox in the second one. She pointed out it was unnecessary, all those love scenes and stuff. I can't say I disagree. But still, it's not for kids. Again, it's up to the parents, but obviously, there aren't enough smart parents in the world.

Of course we wouldn't give Masterpiece figures to children! But they're not marketed towards children either! They were designed by Takara, for the Japanese market. Takara's current offerings focus on COLLECTORS, not children. Collectors. Sometimes saying it, just isn't necessary. It's already a given that we wouldn't give Masterpiece figures to a child. You stating the obvious is just giving you another way to bitch and moan.

I agree that the sexual content, language, and excessive (keyword excessive) violence aren't necessary in the TF world. I don't like it, but that's how it is. I can either complain about it, or I can just not watch it. Simple as that. If it bothers you that much, then don't watch it. I don't like G1, I can't stand it, so I don't watch it. As for the love scenes....what are you talking about? There was nothing wrong with them. Sam and Mikaela are falling in love, they're destined to be together (apparently), and he's the hero, she's heroine. We have love scenes in Star Wars, and outside of hokey dialogue, no one complains about them. So why don't they fit in the TF world? Spike had Carly in G1, hell they even had Daniel. So why can't Sam have Mikaela?

There are stupid parents, yes, but once a person's old enough and able to fully think for themselves, it's time for them not to be stupid either.

Seriously, this post was pretty dumb. And selfish. And contradictory. On the one hand you're calling kids stupid, yet say there are smart ones (which is it, btw?), then you say kids should have "stupid toys" like Animated, but collectors and fans appreciated them far more than kids do, and it shows, And on, and on, and on.

WTF man? Do you see how crazy that sounds?

I thought PG-13 meant that any kid can see it so long as a Parent/guardian was present and with them? Technically, then, by virtue of aiming for a PG-13 rating you WANT to market to everyone possible, no?

Thinks back to the Family Guy ep regarding the FCC and laughs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NDPT0Ph5rA

ENJOY ALL!

Whatever ...Old school Tom and Jerry are volient so i guess theyll have to block them too..FCC BLOW ME!

NuclearConvoy wrote:I thought PG-13 meant that any kid can see it so long as a Parent/guardian was present and with them? Technically, then, by virtue of aiming for a PG-13 rating you WANT to market to everyone possible, no?

Actually, I'm pretty sure a kid can get in on their own without a parent, even in a PG-13 film. Only Restricted films clearly say that you must be a certain age or have parental consent to attend the viewing.

And yes, PG-13 is the most marketable rating you could work for, but we've abused it for far too long.

PG-13 allows for questionable content, and harsher language, and even some nudity, but we've allowed to grow out of control. I've seen things in PG-13 films I never imagined I'd see outside of R.

On the flip side, I've seen films that were PG-13'd and probably should've been left at PG.

We allow it, it's our fault.

I wish the film/TV/videogame rating system was based on "likelihood that this media will make your children think idiotic, obnoxious behavior is awesome and should be emulated".

By that standard, I still shouldn't have been old enough to watch Transformers 2, and I'm 36....

I'm still waiting for the first news story of a ten year old who starts humping women's legs and asking them to "suck my popsicle!" after seeing Revenge of the Fallen.

I do think the final responsibility does lie with parents and I hate electronic gizmos like this article concerns that make it easier for parents to rationalize abandoning their children to television instead of, you know, being a parent, but I do feel Hasbro was irresponsible to let one of its flagship toy properties be turned into a platform for pseudo-porno posturing of scantily-clad actresses and copious genitalia jokes... and I live in the SF Bay Area so I'm not exactly a prude.

The Rise of Cobra is not the best film ever, but it manages to avoid being any where near this lurid even if a number of the primary characters wear skintight leather outfits.

metaphorge wrote:I wish the film/TV/videogame rating system was based on "likelihood that this media will make your children think idiotic, obnoxious behavior is awesome and should be emulated".

By that standard, I still shouldn't have been old enough to watch Transformers 2, and I'm 36....

A tad harsh, but...not unreasonable.

metaphorge wrote:I'm still waiting for the first news story of a ten year old who starts humping women's legs and asking them to "suck my popsicle!" after seeing Revenge of the Fallen.

I doubt we'll see that, but I understand where you're coming from. Although the popsicle line's a possibility. However, if a kid's that impressionable, then chances are they've been made that way by their parents.

Look at the kid who's killing himself over gasoline to become a TF. He was impressionable, but the parents did nothing to step in until it was too late.

metaphorge wrote:I do think the final responsibility does lie with parents and I hate electronic gizmos like this article concerns that make it easier for parents to rationalize abandoning their children to television instead of, you know, being a parent, but I do feel Hasbro was irresponsible to let one of its flagship toy properties be turned into a platform for pseudo-porno posturing of scantily-clad actresses and copious genitalia jokes... and I live in the SF Bay Area so I'm not exactly a prude.

And again, I don't think I could disagree with this one. I hate to admit it, but Hasbro, has for all intents and purposes...sold out. (Maybe someone should clue them in that it wasn't the objectionable content that was doing the bulk of the selling, and even some of the general audience wants something different.)

metaphorge wrote:The Rise of Cobra is not the best film ever, but it manages to avoid being any where near this lurid even if a number of the primary characters wear skintight leather outfits.

....O_o

There's nothing I can say to dispute that. And I really, really want to. I love ROTF, with a passion, even with it's flaws...but I cannot argue with that. At all.

Guh. >_< Alright. I'll admit it... The Rise Of Cobra *IS* the better movie.

Oh great, the nannystate censorship nazis are at it again!!!!

I want to say to you TCJJ that you are a disgrace to TransFans around the world. Your selfish and immature nature is completely against what the fandom is. Let me tell you the reason most of us collect Transformers and watch the toons, read the comics, etc. It's because it takes us back to our child-like states. Transformers were something that gave us great comfort and joy when we were young and we strive to hold onto those feelings in our adult years through them. At least myself and the other TransFans i've met were that way. I can't think of words to convey just how sick your post made me feel. Do the world a favor and stick to butt sex because we don't need you procreating. Sorry to the rest of the site for speaking my mind, but that guy sucks.

A polite request that we can stop with the 'you are a disgrace to the fandom' ad hominem attacks, please? The world would be incredibly boring if we all thought the same. Can't we disagree *civilly*? Where I'm from you get respect by respecting others. TJCC is allowed to have his opinions. You want to change his/her (sorry) mind, name calling NEVER works. Try logic. Sheesh.

That being said, FCC has had a black eye in America ever since the dreaded Janet Jackson's Wardrobe Malfunction incident. Then, the Prince Superbowl halftime show (some moron wrote to the network, "thanks for making my son gay"--swear to god. Look it up!) That, with a resurgence in political correctness currently awash in the United States, this time from the Right, means that people are acting out their frustrations by rallying around Family Values (tm) and The Children (tm). (Us older folks: remember this from last time?) They're desperate to have any legitimacy.

Filmmakers run into problems with their movies: either they make the movie they want to make, and risk it being rated beyond a profitable demographic, or they have to tone it way down to squeeze it into one of the itty bitty ratings boxes the FCC has pre-provided. Ever see an NC-17 movie? Whoa. Now, NC-17 is odd because that used to be what an R rating meant--no kiddies! But so many people decided they were okay with letting their kids go see R movies (do you want to know how many teenagers I saw at _Inglourious Basterds_?) that they needed a HIGHER rating than that.

As for ROTF. Was it marketed towards kids? I remember seeing ads for it on Cartoon Network. So, yeah. But I have to say that the TV trailers I saw didn't really misrepresent the movie--I remember Megan hyperventilating and looking scared, I remember Megatron's hand (remember when we were guessing whose hand that was? Ahhh good times) pinning down Sam, I remember Sam telling his parents to leave, I remember the Demolisher snippets. It *looked* scary and violent to me, from the trailers. It didn't look like it was going to be a robocomedy sketch show.

So if parents saw those trailers and took their kids to the movie anyway, that's them not doing their 'due diligence'--as in *thinking*. They only have themselves to blame. And every movie theater I've ever been in will refund your money if you walk out. They had the choice to see the movie (unlike the tv spots, which came on as commercials do, whenever). Moreover, they could have walked out. I hate to invoke Judge Judy, but if you go to a restaurant and eat the steak, you can't decide afterwards, that steak wasn't very good and demand your money back later--you already ate the steak! And were I a parent, I'd be way more freaked out at the violence and scary than the (admittedly crude and vulgar) testicular references. One of them you can explain, (no, squidvester, that's awful and only trashy people talk like that), the other, the premise of the movie (violence is COOOOOOOOOOL), not so easy to argue against.

And honestly, people need to lighten up. I saw Apocalypse Now in the theaters (in the 70s, there were no movie ratings) when I was a preteen. With my parents. I'm (arguably) unscarred by the experience. NOw, if they'd taken me to Debbie Does Dallas or Deep Throat, probably a different story.

HK, seriously, stop namecalling or they'll lock this thread!

My apologies HellKitty and everyone else that I offended with my comment, but that's just what I believe. And just for clarification by saying "stick with butt sex" I was not implying that TCJJ was a homo, I just don't believe in bigotry like that. To me butt sex is just simply that, nothing homo about it, just a freaky way to practice birth control(i'm going to shut up now ). So please forgive me HellKitty.

polystyleneman wrote:Great news that this is being seriously looked at.

Rotf was such a clear example of where the demographic the movie was meant for clearly did not match the audience the marketing was aimed at.

I totally agree --I'll also add that parenting should be left to the parents, with that being said, if a movie has a kids toy line and Happy Meal toys then crude humor like that of RoTF should not be in it ...

metaphorge wrote:I wish the film/TV/videogame rating system was based on "likelihood that this media will make your children think idiotic, obnoxious behavior is awesome and should be emulated".

By that standard, I still shouldn't have been old enough to watch Transformers 2, and I'm 36....

I'm still waiting for the first news story of a ten year old who starts humping women's legs and asking them to "suck my popsicle!" after seeing Revenge of the Fallen.

I do think the final responsibility does lie with parents and I hate electronic gizmos like this article concerns that make it easier for parents to rationalize abandoning their children to television instead of, you know, being a parent, but I do feel Hasbro was irresponsible to let one of its flagship toy properties be turned into a platform for pseudo-porno posturing of scantily-clad actresses and copious genitalia jokes... and I live in the SF Bay Area so I'm not exactly a prude.

The Rise of Cobra is not the best film ever, but it manages to avoid being any where near this lurid even if a number of the primary characters wear skintight leather outfits.

Man, you nailed it! I agree 100%

I enjoyed RotF, but I had to tell friends with a 5 year old that it was just not an appropriate movie for him.

Which is a shame, because if you took out Wheelie, Devi's balls and a few other bits like that, it would have been fine. A little explosive happy maybe, but fine content wise.

There is a lot of blame to be placed on Hasbro. Like all the toon incarnations from '84 on, the point is to sell toys, and the target market is kids 13 and under. While I'm not saying the movies need to be kiddie movies like G-Force, they need to be kid friendly.

I think that Joe nailed this balance very well. It was violent to an extent, as per it's rating, but most of it was cartoon violence against faceless foes. And while there were attractive women in tight outfits, no one flashed panty shots at the camera or got humped by a toy truck. I had no problem taking my 8 year old nephew to Joe.

Are Devastator's "testicles" really all that offensive to people?
A touch unneccesary, maybe, but I didnt have anywhere near as much a problem with them as I did with the leg humping robot.

I tell you what, it seems that no matter what they do, film makers just can't win. They make a movie, put every bit of effort into it, then it gets ripped apart by the so-called critics, who in my opinion, don't know how to have fun anyway or it gets condemned by a load of P.C. hypocrites who don't know what an off button is or by hyperactive do-gooders who say that it's not good for us or our kids!!

Guys, whatever happened to freedom of choice in the USA and the UK? If you don't want to watch it or you don't want to let your kids watch it, then don't. Nobody will force you. But these so-called concerned experts who pass judgement on, it would seem, everything we do or watch or whatever need to take a back seat and chill a bit. Let people make the decision for themselves.

Is that too much to ask?

soundwavegt wrote:I tell you what, it seems that no matter what they do, film makers just can't win. They make a movie, put every bit of effort into it, then it gets ripped apart by the so-called critics, who in my opinion, don't know how to have fun anyway or it gets condemned by a load of P.C. hypocrites who don't know what an off button is or by hyperactive do-gooders who say that it's not good for us or our kids!!

This is one time their concerns have some legitimacy. TransFormers started out as a comic book, cartoon show, and toy line for KIDS.

Now, these two movies come along, and while they're aimed at kids (mainly to help sell product, not much else), they're definitely meant for a mature, and perhaps even adult, crowd.

There is content in these films that I wouldn't let any child watch until they were 13 or so. Even then, I wouldn't be pleased about it. When your heroes start swearing and become more violent than the villains, I'd say something went wrong.

The opinion of the critics, however, isn't worth a crap.

soundwavegt wrote:Guys, whatever happened to freedom of choice in the USA and the UK? If you don't want to watch it or you don't want to let your kids watch it, then don't. Nobody will force you. But these so-called concerned experts who pass judgement on, it would seem, everything we do or watch or whatever need to take a back seat and chill a bit. Let people make the decision for themselves.

Is that too much to ask?

What are you talking about? We still have freedom of choice. Just because this watchdog group is up in arms, and the FCC's being asked to step in, doesn't mean ANYthing will change. The FCC might just smooth some ruffled feathers, put on a good show, and go back to business as usual.

Oh and these watchdog groups wouldn't have a chance to get a word in edgewise if people would parent better. The old adage "Necessity is the mother of invention" fits here. These groups wouldn't form, or wouldn't have as much power, or much of a voice if today's parents did a better job.

Go to any Wal-Mart, Target, even the local mall and see how the kids act. The parents aren't doing their job. When the cashier behind the counter has to be the one who stops the sale of explicit music and restricted movies, when it should be the parent saying no...it's proof that there's a problem. A big problem.

And these watchdog groups are taking notice. And to be honest, why wouldn't they? Bad parenting is blatant these days. The parents who do their job, never get the recognition they deserve. The trashy parents who would rather let the TV babysit and raise their children are the ones we see first and foremost.

So, if they can't step in at your front door and put their foot down and prevent your children from seeing/hearing/experiencing things that aren't for them, they'll go to corporate America and try and put a stop to it there.

It sucks, it's not really fair, but parents allow it to happen by not taking control of the situation better.

Parenting is no easy task. I'm not a parent, but I have friends who are and I've seen the highs, the lows, the scares, the hopes, the fears, the joys, and it's a rollercoaster. It's a daunting, but rewarding task.

Some kids are more mature than others, this is true. Some can handle Freddy, Jason, Leatherface, or a mix of 'em all, this is true. The question is, do they NEED to? No. And that's where the door is opened. The idiot parents who don't make a decision either way and just let the chips fall where they may. That's stupid. That's dangerous.

I agree, we should have the right to choose, but when people constantly choose the wrong thing again and again, someone has to step in for the sake of the children.

We call protective services in when we see children being abused, so why wouldn't someone wouldn't want to step in and protect children from questionable content?

I've seen bad parents, I've seen the aftermath. If someone had stepped in long ago, the stories most likely wouldn't have ended in tragedy.

Blame the parents first and foremost.

Autobot032 wrote:

soundwavegt wrote:I tell you what, it seems that no matter what they do, film makers just can't win. They make a movie, put every bit of effort into it, then it gets ripped apart by the so-called critics, who in my opinion, don't know how to have fun anyway or it gets condemned by a load of P.C. hypocrites who don't know what an off button is or by hyperactive do-gooders who say that it's not good for us or our kids!!

This is one time their concerns have some legitimacy. TransFormers started out as a comic book, cartoon show, and toy line for KIDS.

Now, these two movies come along, and while they're aimed at kids (mainly to help sell product, not much else), they're definitely meant for a mature, and perhaps even adult, crowd.

There is content in these films that I wouldn't let any child watch until they were 13 or so. Even then, I wouldn't be pleased about it. When your heroes start swearing and become more violent than the villains, I'd say something went wrong.

The opinion of the critics, however, isn't worth a crap.

soundwavegt wrote:Guys, whatever happened to freedom of choice in the USA and the UK? If you don't want to watch it or you don't want to let your kids watch it, then don't. Nobody will force you. But these so-called concerned experts who pass judgement on, it would seem, everything we do or watch or whatever need to take a back seat and chill a bit. Let people make the decision for themselves.

Is that too much to ask?

What are you talking about? We still have freedom of choice. Just because this watchdog group is up in arms, and the FCC's being asked to step in, doesn't mean ANYthing will change. The FCC might just smooth some ruffled feathers, put on a good show, and go back to business as usual.

Oh and these watchdog groups wouldn't have a chance to get a word in edgewise if people would parent better. The old adage "Necessity is the mother of invention" fits here. These groups wouldn't form, or wouldn't have as much power, or much of a voice if today's parents did a better job.

Go to any Wal-Mart, Target, even the local mall and see how the kids act. The parents aren't doing their job. When the cashier behind the counter has to be the one who stops the sale of explicit music and restricted movies, when it should be the parent saying no...it's proof that there's a problem. A big problem.

And these watchdog groups are taking notice. And to be honest, why wouldn't they? Bad parenting is blatant these days. The parents who do their job, never get the recognition they deserve. The trashy parents who would rather let the TV babysit and raise their children are the ones we see first and foremost.

So, if they can't step in at your front door and put their foot down and prevent your children from seeing/hearing/experiencing things that aren't for them, they'll go to corporate America and try and put a stop to it there.

It sucks, it's not really fair, but parents allow it to happen by not taking control of the situation better.

Parenting is no easy task. I'm not a parent, but I have friends who are and I've seen the highs, the lows, the scares, the hopes, the fears, the joys, and it's a rollercoaster. It's a daunting, but rewarding task.

Some kids are more mature than others, this is true. Some can handle Freddy, Jason, Leatherface, or a mix of 'em all, this is true. The question is, do they NEED to? No. And that's where the door is opened. The idiot parents who don't make a decision either way and just let the chips fall where they may. That's stupid. That's dangerous.

I agree, we should have the right to choose, but when people constantly choose the wrong thing again and again, someone has to step in for the sake of the children.

We call protective services in when we see children being abused, so why wouldn't someone wouldn't want to step in and protect children from questionable content?

I've seen bad parents, I've seen the aftermath. If someone had stepped in long ago, the stories most likely wouldn't have ended in tragedy.

Blame the parents first and foremost.

well said mein freund

heres my two cents...LET THEM WATCH. i know that sounds strange, but think about it...if you take all this time to shield them from reality, when they finaly enter the real world, it will be a perverbial brick to the nuts.

now im not saying plop them infront of the tv and throw in Dawn of the Dead or anything, try and ween them into it. hell by the time i was 4, i was watching alien while other kids my age were watching little mermaid, and i turned out just fine.

and remember 90's nick? rockos modern life had an episode where rocko went (briefly, mind you) to a nude beach. and dont even get me started on ren and stimpy...and that was acceptible back then. so what i want to know...WHO CHANGED THE RULES? who has such a stick up there ass that they have to cause a stink about somthing as rediculous as a commercial.

i weep for the kids of those parrents. they're probly incased in bubble wrap whenever they go into there own backyard