quote:

Originally posted by Presley:
I get what your saying, as I said above. I said who cares?

Michael Bay and the millions this movie rakes in cares.

You don't get it. All those things I mentioned are to widen the viewing audience, to make the most money. Why would they limit themselves to kids when they don't have to? Is that a smart business plan?

The "Transformers" was an 80's phenomenon. The cartoon, the toys...all the kids who played with them are in their 30's and early 40's now. Michael Bay has said repeatedly in interviews that they were appealing to this group when they made the first movie.

the movie was absolutely orgasmic

The movies was very entertaining. However, the best Transformers movie is still the original, 1986 Transformers the Movie.

Sobek,

Allow me to try to bring a third-party view. Your arguments may be valid, but they don't counter Presley's point at all. They can market the movie to old geezers if that's where they see the $'s. The point here is, they marketed it to kids as well. If you're running ads on Nickelodeon, you're marketing to 5 & 6 year olds. Based on the comments here, some content is inappropriate for most kids that age. And yes, I realize it's rated PG-13.

It's almost akin to the cigarette argument. You can label them with nasty warnings and all, but if you market them to kids, you're wrong in my book.

quote:

Originally posted by kmd00:
Sobek,

Allow me to try to bring a third-party view. Your arguments may be valid, but they don't counter Presley's point at all. They can market the movie to old geezers if that's where they see the $'s. The point here is, they marketed it to kids as well. If you're running ads on Nickelodeon, you're marketing to 5 & 6 year olds. Based on the comments here, some content is inappropriate for most kids that age. And yes, I realize it's rated PG-13.

It's almost akin to the cigarette argument. You can label them with nasty warnings and all, but if you market them to kids, you're wrong in my book.

Everything about the movie was designed to appeal to a wider audience. Does running ads on Nickelodeon negate that fact that much of the movie was specifically targeted to an older audience?

I agree that marketing on Nickelodeon was questionable. However, you are also talking about a network that ran cartoons like "Ren and Stimpy" for years, and I would argue that Ren and Stimpy was far worse than the few salty words in Transformers 2. So IMO, that network has never been exclusive for little kids either.

It doesn't take a genius to realize the movie was made to appeal to a wider audience than just little kiddies. I just don't see the logic behind thinking that advertising on Nickelodeon would automatically make a parent powerless to object to letting their kids see a PG13 movie.

I think the ratings are there for a reason. There are strict guidelines that they go by. How many times was the f-word used, how much violence, how much nudity. These ratings are there for a reason. If a movie is pg 13 then you shouldn't bring a kid younger than that to that movie. I mean its not like the movie was rated g and they happen to throw in all these swear words and sexual innuendos. They didn't trick anyone into thinking it was anything else besides a pg 13 movie.

As I recall, even the movie "ET" had several 4 letter curse words and it was rated PG. Would you guys think Spielberg was out to ruin little kids as well? Is our society really swirling down the toilet as Presley claims?

No disagreement there LiLo. I would not take my soon-to-be 9 year old to see it. Now, my 12 year old, who turns 13 next month? She probably hears much worse at school already, so yeah.

I believe Presley admitted he fell prey to his kid's begging, so that point has been made.

Still, the movie is clearly marketed to kids, and the producers clearly want kids to go see it. I would just love to see them take a higher road on one end or the other. Either don't market to kids at all, or make it without the few offensive words that require ear muffs. That's all.

Someone probably knows the answer to this, but why wouldn't they make two versions of the movie, one clean and one trashy, like many in the music industry do?

quote:

Originally posted by kmd00:
Someone probably knows the answer to this, but why wouldn't they make two versions of the movie, one clean and one trashy, like many in the music industry do?

They do. Blockbuster video had a bad reputation for only carrying the cleaner version of movies. So much so that they would refuse to carry a movie if a watered down version was not provided for a movie that did not make their cut. Once people caught on, Blockbuster had to stop this and I believe now that carry all versions of movies.

quote:

Originally posted by sobek:

quote:

Originally posted by kmd00:
Someone probably knows the answer to this, but why wouldn't they make two versions of the movie, one clean and one trashy, like many in the music industry do?

They do. Blockbuster video had a bad reputation for only carrying the cleaner version of movies. So much so that they would refuse to carry a movie if a watered down version was not provided for a movie that did not make their cut. Once people caught on, Blockbuster had to stop this and I believe now that carry all versions of movies.

I don't believe Blockbuster ever did that, what's your source?

My dad used to subscribe to a service called cleanflix (I think that's what it was called) where they edited movies for language and nudity. You could rent these clean versions just like you rent netflix. The movie industry got angry at them for editing their "art" and sued. Not sure how things ended up but the movie business doesn't want people cleaning up their movies and "compromising artistic integrity".

quote:

Originally posted by Dread Pirate
I don't believe Blockbuster ever did that, what's your source?

I don't have solid proof, such as a formal statement from BB admitting guilt. It's just an old, but widespread, rumor. In my personal experience, I have rented many movies from BB that were missing scenes that I remember seeing in the theater. I even purchased some of these movies to confirm I was not imagining things, and sure enough the scenes were real. A little digging on the internet showed that countless others noticed the same thing.

Maybe it's just a myth and it was pure coincidence that the movies I rented were unintentionally stocked with edited versions.

quote:

Originally posted by sobek:

quote:

Originally posted by Dread Pirate
I don't believe Blockbuster ever did that, what's your source?

I don't have solid proof, such as a formal statement from BB admitting guilt. It's just an old, but widespread, rumor. In my personal experience, I have rented many movies from BB that were missing scenes that I remember seeing in the theater. I even purchased some of these movies to confirm I was not imagining things, and sure enough the scenes were real. A little digging on the internet showed that countless others noticed the same thing.

Maybe it's just a myth and it was pure coincidence that the movies I rented were unintentionally stocked with edited versions.

In the case of Unrated Director's cuts with stronger content, BB would not carry them. I can give a few examples. Bad Lieutenant, which was originally rated NC-17, was also released in an R-rated version as well. BB only carried the R-rated version. Both movies American Psycho and True Romance came in unrated Director's Cut versions with stronger language, more graphic violence, and longer nude takes. BB only carried R-rated versions.

quote:

Originally posted by Gregory Mottola:

quote:

Originally posted by sobek:

quote:

Originally posted by Dread Pirate
I don't believe Blockbuster ever did that, what's your source?

I don't have solid proof, such as a formal statement from BB admitting guilt. It's just an old, but widespread, rumor. In my personal experience, I have rented many movies from BB that were missing scenes that I remember seeing in the theater. I even purchased some of these movies to confirm I was not imagining things, and sure enough the scenes were real. A little digging on the internet showed that countless others noticed the same thing.

Maybe it's just a myth and it was pure coincidence that the movies I rented were unintentionally stocked with edited versions.

In the case of Unrated Director's cuts with stronger content, BB would not carry them. I can give a few examples. Bad Lieutenant, which was originally rated NC-17, was also released in an R-rated version as well. BB only carried the R-rated version. Both movies American Psycho and True Romance came in unrated Director's Cut versions with stronger language, more graphic violence, and longer nude takes. BB only carried R-rated versions.

I have no doubt that they would carry an R rated version over the unrated directors cut, I don't dispute that. My point is that I do not believe they took an R rated movie that had been cleaned up and put it on the shelf instead of the original R rated movie. When a studio release two versions of the movie I can see where they may choose one over the other instead of both. Maybe I misunderstood what was being said, I thought Sobek was implying they had an edited version of a movie that was not released by the studio.

I also heard rumors of Blockbuster editing on thier own movies. Look where Blockbuster is now. I don't think I know anybody who goes to a video store anymore to rent movies, except my parents, and they just got an ansewring machine a few years ago.

I thought the movie was really good. Sure it has some swearing and such but let me tell you, its nothing my 10 year old has not heard at public school and if you guys don't think your 7,8,9,10 year old kids are hearing the exact same things at school you are mistaken. Kids are learning things at a much earlier age than we ever did. None the less my 10 year old loved it.