|
Lord Krangdar posted:To me the joke is that they have misunderstood human culture by mistaking media depictions of race for reality, becoming blatant stereotypes that stand out in the name of fitting in. I found that pretty funny when I watched the film, and that's not some subjective thing up for debate even if your experiences differ. I'm kind of curious at this point whether you think it's possible for any film to be racist at all. Could you give us an example of unambiguous racism in a movie that can't be explained away as the film actually making an ironic statement about perceptions? Just to throw the obvious one out of the way here- if you look at Birth of a Nation in the context of D.W. Griffith's career, and especially in context of the fact that he later made Intolerance, it's easy to interpret the so-called lazy blacks of the film as actually being the victims of naive Northern oppression, being forced into positions of power before they were ready. Even more problematic parts, like the attempted rape of a white woman by a black man, can much more easily be seen as being the inevitable outcropping of poor governance. Heck, I'd be willing to bet a decent amount that this was in fact exactly D.W. Griffith's original intention. At the same time, I think it would be pretty horribly naive to say that Birth of a Nation isn't a racist film at all just because this is a reading of the film that can be easily supported on textual and exculpatory evidence. quote:Oh but I forgot I'm only allowed to judge the film by how those other people interpreted it. And they, all of them, think "jive-talking and flapping jaws and monkey ears are funny". You seem to think this is hyperbole. You must not be very familiar with the world where people unironically argue that it's not racist to say nigga because it's a completely different word from friend of the family.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:08 |
|
|
The Lord of the Rings is pretty racist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 11:30
|
|
|
Devout Christian posted:72 new posts in the Transformers thread today? I thought a teaser trailer might've been released or someth-- Oh, racist robots. Ugh, people are discussing a movie in this thread, instead of fawning over a commercial? How terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
The key to this whole argument is whether the twins are (symbolically) black people or not. If they're incomprehensible raceless aliens taking on minstrelry as a way to interact with humans in a way they'd understand, then Krangdar is right (or at least on the right track) and they can easily be read as a criticism of the stereotype itself. The trouble is the twins' minstrelry never actually functions as a disguise. We never see them behave like aliens. Their subservience and idiocy isn't part of their role, it's who they really are; they picked up those familiar stereotypes because they were descriptive of their real identities. The role of Transformers in general in all three films is to serve as a kind of heightened symbol for neoliberalism; in other words, they are us. So basically the film says: Transformers are America, America has a stupid and subservient underclass, and that stupid and subservient underclass maps perfectly to (a stereotype of) black people. The fact that the twins act like a stereotype instead of acting like real people doesn't matter, because the stereotype is being used to draw an analogy about real people (in order to say something horribly racist about them.) And just as an illustrative example, Optimus Prime works the same way, just in a manner that serves the film better thematically. He borrows constantly from the imagery of American leaders and heroes, and acts like a selfish psychopath. This isn't an abstract criticism of "the stereotype of America;" it's straight up saying that America's leaders and the nation's actions as a world power are psychopathic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
Olibu posted:In fact, the film is so embarrassed by them that after that film, they are never seen or mentioned of again. Considering that the film shows the failure of the surveillance society (the Decepticons cruise around cities as they please without setting off the detectors), it's perhaps apt that this Orwellian attempt to drop the Twins into the memory hole also wasn't quite successful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
It's important to remember that Optimus can shoot beams out of his eyes that transform reality itself. See the scene in Transformers 1, where the Earth cracks and peels away to reveal a holographic Cybertron 'inside.' This goes back to Terry's points about clothing and nakedness in the film: Optimus presents Cybertron as a vision of Earth stripped bare. The world melts away to reveal the machinery beneath, as in They Live. But Optimus 'dresses it up', blames it all on Megatron. This is how the Twins must be understood. Underneath the cars, they are the same monsters as everyone else, the same machines, but they are clothed in neon colours and gold teeth. They are illiterate and whatever, and that's 'OK' - illiteracy is a real issue - but the Twins don't wear their monstrosity with pride. They disguise it with non-confrontational, non-threatening, tolerable jokiness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Devout Christian posted:72 new posts in the Transformers thread today? I thought a teaser trailer might've been released or someth-- Oh, racist robots. you're really doing this in the thread about analyzing the first three movies? seriously? Do you realize how stupid you just made yourself look
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
I see where Lord Krangdar is going with this, and in the context of the movies as a criticism of hyper-capitalist libertarian utopia America it sort of works. The Transformers are a hyperbolic microcosm of the state as a whole, so it makes sense that they'll have hyperbolic negative stereotypes with the lampshade of "they learned it from watching YOU dad!".SuperMechagodzilla posted:I'd remind that Jar-jar is the de facto protagonist of his film, and is badly mistreated by the white dudes around him even if he is clumsy and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I see where Lord Krangdar is going with this, and in the context of the movies as a criticism of hyper-capitalist libertarian utopia America it sort of works. The Transformers are a hyperbolic microcosm of the state as a whole, so it makes sense that they'll have hyperbolic negative stereotypes with the lampshade of "they learned it from watching YOU dad!". I agree. The main problem with it is that the movie just doesn't execute the idea that well. The reason Terry gave (which for the most part I'm willing to accept) is that the culprit for this was a rushed production schedule and shoddy screenwriting as a result of the strike. What I like about Terry's argument is that you can share it with a random person and they may well actually believe it, because Optimus Prime constantly acts like a psychopath. With the Twins, first you'd have to get someone to admit they were racist at all for the alternate reading to work. And that's really an uphill battle. Incidentally, I saw a random Transformers scene at a mall yesterday, and it really is striking how impossible it is to tell the difference between the good robots and the bad robots in fight scenes, They're both equally brutal. About the only thing that could be reasonably be called an out-of-context clue is that the Autobots tend to be more colorful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
When the movie first came out, more than one person in CD reported people walking out of the theater laughing at "the friend of the family robots." Subversion!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Incidentally, I saw a random Transformers scene at a mall yesterday, and it really is striking how impossible it is to tell the difference between the good robots and the bad robots in fight scenes, They're both equally brutal. About the only thing that could be reasonably be called an out-of-context clue is that the Autobots tend to be more colorful. I guess the take away to this is if you want to believe that the films were made badly in order to show off fancy CGI with no thought of how it should actually look, or if it it's trying to tell you that all the violence is barbaric and there are no real differences between the two sides.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This is how the Twins must be understood. Underneath the cars, they are the same monsters as everyone else, the same machines, but they are clothed in neon colours and gold teeth. They are illiterate and whatever, and that's 'OK' - illiteracy is a real issue - but the Twins don't wear their monstrosity with pride. They disguise it with non-confrontational, non-threatening, tolerable jokiness. While not exactly a sidetrack, the monstrous fanged ape Bamboozled blackface still stands out; Optimus is a nasty subversion of an idealized Real American Hero but that doesn't hit as hard as distasteful stereotypes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Considering that the Autobots learned our language by reading the internet, the twins were pretty tame really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Ash1138 posted:Considering that the Autobots learned our language by reading the internet, the twins were pretty tame really. There should be a Pusher Autobot. We already know the Terrible Secret of Space.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:I'm kind of curious at this point whether you think it's possible for any film to be racist at all. Could you give us an example of unambiguous racism in a movie that can't be explained away as the film actually making an ironic statement about perceptions? Well the first example that comes to mind is the third episode of Star Trek TNG, where the Enterprise crew has to deal with the backwards, savage black people of some lovely Space Africa. That said, I'm not a fan of the internet's recent trend of "problematic content" hunting in general. Generally I'm always going to attempt to interpret art in a way that brings out the value of the work, if possible. Like I haven't seen Birth of a Nation but even a film intended as straight up racist propaganda could tell us something about the totally wrong worldview behind that kind of racism, so it can still have value and meaning beyond those bad intentions. Some Guy TT posted:You seem to think this is hyperbole. You must not be very familiar with the world where people unironically argue that it's not racist to say nigga because it's a completely different word from friend of the family. Well I live in Canada, where we still have racism obviously but not with the same background and current manifestations as in America. But you misunderstood me there: I'm sure those people exist, I just don't see any reason for us to lower or narrow our own interpretations to their level. That's why I gave the example of Tyler Durden; no matter how many people think he is the hero of Fight Club that will never be a good interpretation of that film because it ignores half the film. So like this: Corek posted:When the movie first came out, more than one person in CD reported people walking out of the theater laughing at "the friend of the family robots." Subversion! So dumb people are dumb and come away with dumb opinions about movies, so what? Why are all of us discussing these films here and now supposed to care so much about what dumb racists thought of them? We can do better. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Dec 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:So dumb people are dumb and come away with dumb opinions about movies, so what? Why are all of us discussing these films here and now supposed to care so much about what dumb racists thought of them? We can do better. Sorry, I just felt like the actual implications of the twins were being forgotten. I don't acquiesce to racists, but I do acknowlege them. I went to the page in Terry's pdf about them and was linked to the Transformers Wiki mocking them. This isn't really related, but the Wiki puts on such a sarcastic tone about everything. It's perfect for Transformers and much better than Wookieepedia. How did that even happen that this is The Only Good Wiki?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Payndz posted:For all Michael Bay's claims that the Twins weren't in DOTM at any point, someone with sharp eyes and too much time on their hands found several shots where they appear in the film, both as cars and even in CGI Autobot form. (There's also a suspicious two-car-sized gap in the convoy when the Autobots are driving out to the shuttle launch pad; it would have been straightforward enough for ILM to paint them out...) I'm really, really entertained that this short youtube is formatted the same way that 9/11 truther and moon-landing hoax claimers format their crazy conspiracy "unveiling the truth" videos.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
Cinnamon Bastard posted:I'm really, really entertained that this short youtube is formatted the same way that 9/11 truther and moon-landing hoax claimers format their crazy conspiracy "unveiling the truth" videos. As if Buzz Aldrin wasn't in this movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Corek posted:Sorry, I just felt like the actual implications of the twins were being forgotten. I don't acquiesce to racists, but I do acknowlege them. If you thought that sort of racism was in the past, Michael Bay's movie has shown you otherwise. It's like shining a spotlight on the audience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
Looks like we know what the Bugatti in Age of Extinction transforms into: It's Drift-chan! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:10
|
|
 Is that a new design for Optimus beside SamuraiBot?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
You can use text analysis to support just about any alternate reading you want, but at a certain point you have to deal with the bare facts of the text, and something as noxious and gratuitously racist as those robots in Transformers 2 are borderline unwatchable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
penismightier posted:You can use text analysis to support just about any alternate reading you want, but at a certain point you have to deal with the bare facts of the text, and something as noxious and gratuitously racist as those robots in Transformers 2 are borderline unwatchable. It's not gratuitous if the film's about racism. There's a big reveal that the Decepticons are not a race but a class, and it has no bearing on the plot whatsoever. It serves no purpose except to show that the heroes were motivated by racism. They'd assumed that Decepticons were just born evil. See also the film's treatment of (how Sam perceives) women.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:There's a big reveal that the Decepticons are not a race but a class, and it has no bearing on the plot whatsoever. When does that happen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
penismightier posted:You can use text analysis to support just about any alternate reading you want, but at a certain point you have to deal with the bare facts of the text, and something as noxious and gratuitously racist as those robots in Transformers 2 are borderline unwatchable. But my point that the Transformers act out skewed ideas of Earth culture based on the internet and other media isn't an "alternate reading", it is the bare facts of the text. Watching that should be uncomfortable, but not because the movie is racist. Society is racist. If aliens came to Earth, would we be proud of what they see of our society and culture? No, and the film throws that in our faces. That discussion was more than a month old, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:not because the movie is racist. Society is racist. No, I believe this at all. You can create a plausible textual workaround for it, but it's basically the philosophical version of adapting Star Wars canon to iron out bloopers. The fact is, filmmaker Michael Bay inserted noxious and inflammatory stereotypes in a film for children, and the only way to see it as something beyond shuck-and-jive is to apply metatextual critical thinking that children lack. It's just despicable to put those characters out there in a work like this and lean on deep reading to back it up. I realize this sounds like anti-intellectualism, but I don't think it is, I'm just dealing with the material of the material. I don't think you can brush inflammatory open wounds and stereotypes that are actively harmful off with puzzlebox everything-is-not-what-it-seems readings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
penismightier posted:When does that happen? They go to Jetfire for help and they're like WHOA gently caress HE HAS A DECEPTICON SYMBOL ON HIS BODY. Jetfire then casually explains to them that being a Decepticon is a choice, and they're totally surprised. The depiction of the twins is also directly related the scene with the short military guard. The heroes joke that he must have a Napoleon complex, but they discover that he totally loves America - specifically New York - allowing them to fool him. This is the exact same relationship the twins have to Optimus Prime. The twins genuinely believe in Optimus' rhetoric of freedom and equality, and the heroes tolerate their attempts at helping, but the twins are still very clearly subordinate. They are Jar Jar Binks figures, and George Lucas employed the Gungans the same way. The heroes pretend to respect them in order to exploit them. Meanwhile, they're all gung-ho about trying to be cool and helpful, not realizing that they're being exploited. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
Huh, I didn't remember that at all. My point remains, though, which is that though that characterization may be made defensible by certain readings of the text, it's completely indefensible when you place the movie in its context. It's a disgusting, sleazy thing to do, one that even in its most charitable reading preys on and legitimizes a particularly ugly and unresolved stereotype which belongs dead. Kids - the target audience - should not see that, they don't have the critical faculties to decide whether or not the film "condones" it, they'll just absorb it as something normal and okay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
But its not deep, puzzle-y, particularly meta, or a work-around. I'm not talking about 5th dimensional chess meta-ironic subtext whatever. The basic premise of Transformers is alien robots who come to Earth and disguise themselves as loaded symbols from human culture. "Everything is not what it seems" is inextricable from that basic concept. Optimus is an alien but he appropriates the form of a truck with racing stripes, as well as the shtick of a patriotic American leader. The twins are aliens but they take the form of Earth concept cars and their shtick is sourced from common racial stereotypes. It's weird that this one point is so controversial when its totally in line with everything Terry has said about the films (though even she shied away from it). Seeing the Twins for what they are is seeing all the Autobots for what they are; they're aliens with their own agendas playing at false roles humans can recognize. Anyway, what you think that kids must think of the films is not the same as "the bare facts of the text". I'm talking about the latter, which is the approach you suggested before doing the exact opposite. And I'm not trying to defend Michael Bay, I'm defending the movies themselves. Looking at a movie through the viewpoint of a kid who doesn't understand it is a good way to misunderstand a movie. Any movie, not just Transformers. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
It's "controversial" because I see Terry's thread as a great rhetorical game but one that doesn't really get anyone anywhere. I like Transformers 2 and 3, and I think Bay is one of the most innovative and brilliant voices in American film. I also think hehas a bad habit sometimes of being our Riefenstahl. Deal with what the films are and where they lay. They're giant toy commercials for children. Painting those characters as Fetchit stereotypes may have helped your reading of the film, but the practical downside is that a bunch of kids have this: That is absolutely detestable and culturally damaging. I don't give a poo poo whether the Autobots and Truckman are the good guys or whatever, I give a poo poo about whether the very talented filmmaker Michael Bay laid stones to normalize one of the most insidious and hateful caricatures in US history. I don't believe in reading film like a Rabbinical scholar, I can't divorce this decision from its cultural impact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
I think we're talking about two totally different things. I'm talking about the films (the text). You're talking about the marketing and what you think kids think about them. If we're going to talk about the latter, what messages exactly do you imagine kids are taking away from the film's depictions of the Twins? When I watch and interpret a film I do so as myself. I don't see the point or value of interpreting a film as a child or those other people, yet it seems to keep coming up (other examples are the Slevin thread, the Star Trek Into Darkness thread). Why would I limit my own interpretation to a child's or a dumb racist misogynist? I can do better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:When I watch and interpret a film I do so as myself. I don't see the point or value of interpreting a film as a child or those other people, yet it seems to keep coming up (other examples are the Slevin thread, the Star Trek Into Darkness thread). Why would I limit my own interpretation to a child's or a dumb racist misogynist? I can do better. You don't see the point of evaluating the impact of images, that you yourself have expressed are full of meaning, on the minds and character of the children those images are created for? It's the same poo poo with Into Darkness, one can make fifty million canonical reasons "why" Khan was whitewashed, but in practical real life, it's just one less Indian role on screen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
penismightier posted:You don't see the point of evaluating the impact of images, that you yourself have expressed are full of meaning, on the minds and character of the children those images are created for? I said exactly what I don't see the point of, there's no need to re-word it into something different. And are you even really evaluating that, beyond just assuming stuff? How do you actually know the impact it had on children? What exactly do you think that impact has been? When I was a kid I sometimes questioned why fictional aliens would be speaking human languages, I don't see why a kid couldn't question why aliens would be acting out human stereotypes. With STID I was referring to the discussion over the scene with Alive Eve/Carol Marcus's brief underwear shot. And my position on both those controversies had nothing to do with canon. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Huh, I didn't remember that at all. My point remains, though, which is that though that characterization may be made defensible by certain readings of the text, it's completely indefensible when you place the movie in its context. It's a disgusting, sleazy thing to do, one that even in its most charitable reading preys on and legitimizes a particularly ugly and unresolved stereotype which belongs dead. Kids - the target audience - should not see that, they don't have the critical faculties to decide whether or not the film "condones" it, they'll just absorb it as something normal and okay. That's just an appeal to author intent though. I don't think it matters, I don't think children are the real 'intended' audience - and I also honestly don't think they're that dumb. Or, at least not dumb enough that we need to fool them. The film demonstrates the performative effects of a racist ideology. The twins are inferior, on a socio-symbolic level (i.e. the entire distorted hyperreality of the film), because they are treated as inferior by the heroes: "It's not merely an interpretation of what blacks are, but an interpretation that determines the very being and social existence of the interpreted subjects." (Z, Violence) So, the film is actually quite accurate about the underlying racism in Optimus' liberal ideology. And though it sounds hopeless, the film is actually making a clear point against the racism, and offers a solution: "The bondsman has to disavow that he acts merely as the Lord's body and act as an autonomous agent, as if the bondsman's bodily laboring for the lord is not imposed on him but is his autonomous activity. [...] The paradox not to be missed here is that the bondsman (servant) is all the more the servant, the more he (mis)perceives his position as that of an autonomous agent". (Z, The Thing from Inner Space) By making their servitude and lack of autonomy overt, instead of disavowing it, the film honestly helps to understand their situation. Promoting, instead, a Captain Planet-style multiculturalism would actually be more harmful for the kids at home because, well, they'd be told Optimus' lies. See how Iron Man includes a token 'good Muslim' to disguise its racism. That's a far more harmful film - promoted as light, happy, and inoffensive to the same audience. Kids should very quickly, like most people, grow to detest these characters (or at least shake their head at them, as I do). But it's not because of their race, but because of the racist ideology the film exemplifies/satirizes. The film, as it exists, is conducive to that reading. Just tell them the truth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I said exactly what I don't see the point of, there's no need to re-word it into something different. And are you even really evaluating that, beyond just assuming stuff? How do you actually know the impact it had on children? What exactly do you think that impact has been? For a moment there I was about to type why, point-by-point, injecting virulent racism into a kid's movie is a Very Bad Thing To Do, but I'll let you work through it. SuperMechagodzilla posted:I don't think it matters, I don't think children are the real 'intended' audience - Hasbro Studios Presents quote:and I also honestly don't think they're that dumb. Or, at least not dumb enough that we need to fool them. It has nothing to do with being dumb, it has everything to do with being ignorant. penismightier fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
penismightier posted:For a moment there I was about to type why, point-by-point, injecting virulent racism into a kid's movie is a Very Bad Thing To Do, but I'll let you work through it. It's not racism, though. It's about racism. My interpretation comes from "the bare facts of the text". You, along with everyone else so far, have skipped over the part where you actually explain or defend your interpretation based on the text itself. Skipped right over saying why the film is racist to pretending I'm defending racist kid's movies (instead of what I'm actually doing; saying why its not racist). Imagining a hypothetical person who interprets the film your way is not enough. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:My interpretation comes from "the bare facts of the text". You, along with everyone else so far, have skipped over the part where you actually explain or defend your interpretation based on the text itself. Skipped right over saying why the film is racist to pretending I'm defending racist kid's movies (instead of what I'm actually doing; saying why its not racist). Imagining a hypothetical person who interprets the film your way is not enough. Stop loving quoting me back at me, that is incredibly obnoxious. I mean the bare facts of the text as a text, not an alternate universe. I'm talking about the facts of the film as a film, what it's doing and who it's doing it for. "Out of universe," as the sci-fi wikipedias say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Stop loving quoting me back at me, that is incredibly obnoxious. I mean the bare facts of the text as a text, not an alternate universe. I'm talking about the facts of the film as a film, what it's doing and who it's doing it for. "Out of universe," as the sci-fi wikipedias say. If you meant that you should have said it. Because my interpretation actually is about the text, whereas you started out saying to focus on the text and then focused on everything but (the film's marketing and tie-in products, what you imagine about a child audience, assumptions about Michael Bay's intentions). Generally I don't interpret any film by its marketing. It has nothing to do with seeing the film as an alternate universe, unless you think any time you interpret why a character acts the way they do you're treating the film as an alternate universe. Also funny how before my interpretation was too meta-textual for you, now apparently the exact same viewpoint is too literal. How'd that happen? I would like you to stop dancing around it and say exactly what racist messages the film is sending and why you think they're there, like what exactly are you worried that kids are going to pick up on?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:my interpretation actually is about the text, whereas you started out saying to focus on the text and then focused on everything but (the film's marketing and tie-in products...) Hold up: marketing and stuff are actually vital contexts. It's very important that the film itself - and the entire worldview - is repeatedly underlined as being the product of a corporation. This is part of how the film tells the truth to kids. That honesty is the important thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:08 |
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Also funny how before my interpretation was too meta-textual for you, now apparently the exact same viewpoint is too literal. Where and when did I say that? You're trying to pull this loving "I outdodged you" smug game but it's not working because you on a basic level have yet to once address what I said in the first post you responded to. I'm saying now exactly what I said when I started this insane conversation - I don't give a poo poo about your interpretation of the events of the loving second Transformers movie, I'm talking about the cultural merits of sticking a loving classic shuck and jive stereotype in a film CREATED FOR AND SOLD TO children. I don't care I don't care I don't care whether Truckman is a bad guy. I don't care about your reading. I don't care and have never cared about any of that, and have never once addressed the merits of it. I'm talking about the cultural impact of the film, which seems to be something you're completely incapable of even conceptualizing let alone discussing. penismightier fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:05
|
|