Transformers - We are the Autobots, They are the Decepticons.

***Spoiler Warning***

Cyre2067 said:
I agree Scio, Transformers was a lot like ninja turtles, the themes and ideology are very similar.
Click to expand...
What really got me was the line that went something like "The human race is a young race, and they have much to learn" - while true, this is coming from a glorified cellphone (literally) that just happened to obtain feet and guns through interaction with spooky alien energy, with the first words out of its mouth something like "kawabungaaaa". Seriously, remember the cellphone scene in the glass box that explains their origins and how it just miraculously developed tiny missiles and machine guns, and I mean really, tiny missiles(!) and tiny machine guns(!!)? Glad to know that these are the most advanced weaponry ideas in all of creation, which actually makes us at the top of our game here, on the level with mystical all-spark creating aliens and stuff, which actually explains why we could basically freeze-dry the giant robots from space with household fire extinguishers with very little effort on our part. Actually, our weapons wasted those robots into scrap metal. We didn't need autobots at all. We wasted that scorpion decepticon with a few precision fighter-bombers, and blew the legs off of an autobot (by accident). So, if we mobilized the rest of our military, it would be just a matter of time before those bots were all done anyway. In a certain sense that makes you feel good, that we're not so helpless. Unfortunately it's totally unrealistic (and typical for Hollywood), as usual, as we're the equivalent of an angry newborn baby compared to any real aliens with the technology to get here and intention to blow us up, not to mention hyperdimensional "aliens", where our power is more like an angry fetus..

And I really loved the scene a few seconds into the credits - Sam's mom said that she believes that living in a free country means that the government would obviously tell us if there were any aliens on earth or threatening earth, which actually made the whole theater laugh at her naivete and stupidity. I was happy to see that most people laugh at the absurdity of that belief, despite the fact that it was a hypocritical laugh cuz most of them have similar beliefs, but nevertheless, the movie at least throws the idea of how ridiculous such beliefs are in your face, combines it with the idea of "free nation" and basically reminds people that, well, this is all nonsense (as obviously, the entire movie, the government hasn't said a word in public about giant robots from space, despite the fact that the battle was in busy metropolitan cities..).

And there was no acting in the movie except Sam the main character. Everybody else was an extra, or comic-relief, or just a random expandable hottie that every action movie has just to have one. And the way a decepticon literally flicked a human and killed him instantly, saying something like "stupid rodent", actually made the whole theater laugh. That was a bit shocking/creepy/psychopathic, nobody seemed to be bothered by it. The guy was flicked, he instantly screamed from the pain, and slammed into a car and broke every bone in his body - kinda like a human can flick a fly. I was bothered by that scene and the audience's reaction, tho im not sure if the movie intended for this to be funny or not, but if it did, that's also creepy - this is PG-13, a kid's movie, the theatre was swarming with babies, kids of all ages, etc. So THAT is ok, but a little bit of nudity causes national outrage? Talk about twisted beyond all sanity. Interesting how the audience can be manipulated by its own pathocratic conditioning to not care about a human life and find the most painful/horrific/graphic death funny, and at another time made to cry if somebody pricks their finger or is dumped by their significant other. Really demonstrates our lack of conscience and instead a bunch of stupid conditioned/subjective morality - we can be manipulated to have any reaction the movie wants us to, regardless of who is hurt and how. That's scary.

***End Spoiler***
 
Yeah i thought Shia's (Sam) acting was superb. I really felt like he was in the situation and acting as anyone else would in his shoes.

***Discussion of Spoilers***
I also enjoyed that scene that flashed in the credits, and everyone in my theater also had a laugh when his mom commented on how 'open' and 'free' societies function.

I have to admit, i was guilty of laughing when i saw the human get flicked. I don't really know why I laughed... at the time it seemed funny; human get's flicked by giant robot = funny in my mind. That and it's not real, and we aren't sure if he died or not, thou it did look hella painful....
 
<< Ahm, people, what's up with you lately? I find it strange that for some reason forum members started to poke other members eyes, and this is second time within 2 last days. Maybe it would be best for all of us to try and observe those "poking" programs before posting, eh? >>

I think that's a positive suggestion, Keit. For my taste, I see much more poking than even that. Gentle as doves is most effective, remember? It has nothing to do with the "make nice" program, IMO.
 
Be sure to make the distinction between a "make nice program" that is run to ensure acceptance in a group by the communicator versus consideration (in advance) that a poke in the eye by the communicator to the recipient might lead to self-ostracization (in one or the other or BOTH) while processing the communication (and/or responses).

Consider the context or raison d'etre of this site. My understanding is that it is to shake loose total reliance on the wetware perception mechanism that is so easily fooled, as the primary means of understanding.

In any exchange, some perception and evaluation is undertaken: the communicator proposes a snippet of world view as seen by him/her, has it evaluated by the recipient, which has the onerous task (if they BOTHER, but they are here on this site for this very thing!) of comparing or "trying to fit or match" the information to their own collection of perceptions and if it doesn't quite fit at the first level (neocortex automatic processing), looks to extract the meaning of an unknown pattern, while simultaneously trying to run simulations of possible meanings from the construct/perception of everything the communicator has communicated heretofore.

About all you can do is engage and reflect in a well disciplined way. But engaging is the first step, however awkward.

And awkward I have been. Raw and open. Not being raw and open would involve perception management, premeditated maneuvering and essentially manipulation.

Having said that, I will be totally sincere here in saying that some of my posts were not made in sincerity on the surface, but were sincere in their goals. The goal was processing of an idea or perception re-evaluation (with surrounding context), but I took on a "role", played the clown, as it were. Whatever the mechanism, the exchange and thought displacement occurred. And that displacement could apply to the receiver, to the communicator or both! That is the goal.

I absolutely abhor stepping on toes, but am also deeply frustrated with how things are, and how things are is directly related to how people are.

I'm trying to reconcile my abhorance to the seemingly needed actions.

It's a biggie lesson.
 
To veer back on topic:

We all went to catch the Transformers movie a few nights ago.

Pretty fun movie. It didn't take itself seriously, which made the good vs evil fare not ridiculous.

The effects were par for the course, but man, the SCALE! You could really get a sense of 3D there and size.

Fantastic for that, and true to form they were. I loved this movie more than I ever liked the cartoons, which is a definite first. It was immersive.

Well done, and fun.

I stole a glance to my little one at the part where the "rig" first drives up, knowing who it was (and he to). He was awaiting, wanting to see Optimus Prime. And I knew why.

Optimus Prime: we are Brothers in Arms.

Fight to serve. In any guise.
 
I saw this movie today and HOLY COW SO FREAKING AMAZING , especially the best special effect ever I have ever seen, it looks like the robots are so damn real, highly recommended!





----SPOILER----

SOA wrote:
The guy was flicked, he instantly screamed from the pain, and slammed into a car and broke every bone in his body - kinda like a human can flick a fly. I was bothered by that scene and the audience's reaction, tho im not sure if the movie intended for this to be funny or not,
Click to expand...
the cinema I was in they all laughed like hell at that scene, its kinda obvious because, there is a fight scene and everyone is so focused on it (ooohhh, aahhhh, oeeh) and then suddenly a bit of silence and then that flick scene comes out of nowhere, so I think it really was intended to be funny, just like you said a human that flicks a fly.
 
Adam said:
the cinema I was in they all laughed like hell at that scene, its kinda obvious because, there is a fight scene and everyone is so focused on it (ooohhh, aahhhh, oeeh) and then suddenly a bit of silence and then that flick scene comes out of nowhere, so I think it really was intended to be funny, just like you said a human that flicks a fly.
Click to expand...
Yeah that does make sense, I see how it is funny given the context, but at the same time, the guy was flicked by a giant robot, which while funny due to the comedic timing and how it was done, is also extremely painful and probably deadly for the guy. It took me a second to realize that in the movie, the first instinct was to laugh, then I realized the seriousness/pain of what just happened to the guy, and that gave me a bit of a shock that it was funny yet not so funny if you're there. It's kinda confusing because on the one hand the whole movie is full of humor and this is most likely just another bit of humor, but on the other, if you were IN the movie (as in, a person experiencing that reality), and saw the guy being flicked, you'd probably be horrified and wonder if you're next when the giant killing machine sees you. If somebody is savagely beaten to a bloody pulp with some heavy object by a psychopath, nobody would find that funny at all. But this is the equivalent of that - a giant robot psychopath, and because he's so much stronger, his flick is equivalent to being hit by a fast moving car, as the person was flung into a car very very seriously. So while I understand why the context is humorous, I'm having some difficulty reconciling the fact that we're supposed to laugh at something that, under a different context like a car accident or an attack by a group of human psychopaths, would be horrifying. And I can see both perspectives in myself, the urge to laugh, and the urge to cringe, so I guess they both hit me at the same time in the threatre, and that gave me a shock.

But it does make me wonder about humor in general. I mean, I'm sure we've all seen movies about Nazis for example, where a group of people are taking turns kicking some helpless person as they stand around laughing. There are countless examples of this sort of stuff happening today, it's just a psychopath's normal way of entertaining itself when it can get away with it. So, my question would be, would things like that included in movies condition our humor to be more psychopathic, to be able to more and more see the pain and suffering of others as funny, as long as the context is funny? Are we being conditioned to basically approach that group of nasties as close as possible without realizing it? And of course the answer is "yes" in the general sense, but I mean specifically about humor, and specifically scenes like that, etc. It makes it more effective in an audience, if everybody else is laughing, it makes you wanna laugh, and if you have doubt you instantly rationalize that it must be ok to laugh at since everybody laughs at it, it must really be funny, so you laugh too. Would a scene like this really be funny 50 years ago?

I don't wanna come off as somebody's grandma saying "kids these days and their vile humor" etc, but seriously, am I off my rocker on this one, if I was to see that scene in the same light as a savage attack by a human psychopath? Am I missing something or creating what isn't there? Do robots change the nature of what goes on? And I'm not trying to be all "moralistic" or "righteous" on anybody who laughed at that scene, I laughed too at first, it's just a moment later I was hit with the shock of "Wait a minute, why am I laughing at this anyway?" when I really thought about what just happened and my reaction to it. So I totally understand the urge to laugh, I'm just questioning this urge at that particular moment, and wondering if it's healthy, justified, if it's really something funny and should be funny to a non-psychopathic mind, or if it's psychopathically influenced?

Ever notice how people who don't get a joke laugh anyway? And not cuz they wanna pretend they got it, but because they literally convince themselves that they got it, they imagine what CAN be funny about it, and laugh, because others laugh and they assume that those others must get something, so it must really be funny, and somehow they *think* they get it too, literally. I know that sounds weird but an example of that happened just yesterday. My family and I were watching Jay Leno's "headlines" section that I downloaded off the internet (people send him real articles and headlines that have funny mis-spellings and mistakes etc, and he shows them on Mondays), and basically there was a headline with the word "derserve" instead of "deserve". Nothing really interesting, cuz "derserve" isn't really a word, so there is no "word play" going on, no real humorous element at all, just a spelling mistake. But Leno showed it anyway, and read "derserve" in a sort of German accent way. So we laughed, and my brother laughed, my mom did etc. Then my mom asked "Ok, but what does derserve mean?", and I said "nothing, it's just a spelling mistake". Suddenly it wasn't so funny anymore. And my brother instantly said "Oooh cuz I thought it meant something else too, k that's not so funny then". So I was sitting there wondering what the hell I just witnessed. My family laughing together, but at humor that didn't even exist, cuz everybody assumed that the word "derserve" must have some funny meaning they aren't aware of, so it must be really funny, and they laughed at the imaginary humor that wasn't even there! And then they asked, and turns out there is no such word, it's nothing more than a meaningless spelling error. So that killed that joke, a joke that never even existed. I thought that was noteworthy, and I almost said something to point out what just happened, but that would ruin all the fun of witnessing it happening lol, plus it would be hard to explain and would interrupt Leno.

But how often does everybody do something like this, filling in the blanks because a joke or humor comes from a humor "authority", and we expect that if it comes from authority it MUST be funny! In the case of the movie, the authority was the audience. They laugh, so we "fill in the blanks" mechanically and instantly (so without even realizing it), and suddenly whatever we're seeing becomes literally funny to us, so we're not even fake-laughing, we really do see humor in it, even if that humor might not even be there at all! Could that be the case with that scene in the movie as well?
 
ScioAgapeOmnis said:
Adam said:
the cinema I was in they all laughed like hell at that scene, its kinda obvious because, there is a fight scene and everyone is so focused on it (ooohhh, aahhhh, oeeh) and then suddenly a bit of silence and then that flick scene comes out of nowhere, so I think it really was intended to be funny, just like you said a human that flicks a fly.
Click to expand...
Yeah that does make sense, I see how it is funny given the context, but at the same time, the guy was flicked by a giant robot, which while funny due to the comedic timing and how it was done, is also extremely painful and probably deadly for the guy. It took me a second to realize that in the movie, the first instinct was to laugh, then I realized the seriousness/pain of what just happened to the guy, and that gave me a bit of a shock that it was funny yet not so funny if you're there. It's kinda confusing because on the one hand the whole movie is full of humor and this is most likely just another bit of humor, but on the other, if you were IN the movie (as in, a person experiencing that reality), and saw the guy being flicked, you'd probably be horrified and wonder if you're next when the giant killing machine sees you. If somebody is savagely beaten to a bloody pulp with some heavy object by a psychopath, nobody would find that funny at all. But this is the equivalent of that - a giant robot psychopath, and because he's so much stronger, his flick is equivalent to being hit by a fast moving car, as the person was flung into a car very very seriously. So while I understand why the context is humorous, I'm having some difficulty reconciling the fact that we're supposed to laugh at something that, under a different context like a car accident or an attack by a group of human psychopaths, would be horrifying. And I can see both perspectives in myself, the urge to laugh, and the urge to cringe, so I guess they both hit me at the same time in the threatre, and that gave me a shock.

But it does make me wonder about humor in general. I mean, I'm sure we've all seen movies about Nazis for example, where a group of people are taking turns kicking some helpless person as they stand around laughing. There are countless examples of this sort of stuff happening today, it's just a psychopath's normal way of entertaining itself when it can get away with it. So, my question would be, would things like that included in movies condition our humor to be more psychopathic, to be able to more and more see the pain and suffering of others as funny, as long as the context is funny? Are we being conditioned to basically approach that group of nasties as close as possible without realizing it? And of course the answer is "yes" in the general sense, but I mean specifically about humor, and specifically scenes like that, etc. It makes it more effective in an audience, if everybody else is laughing, it makes you wanna laugh, and if you have doubt you instantly rationalize that it must be ok to laugh at since everybody laughs at it, it must really be funny, so you laugh too. Would a scene like this really be funny 50 years ago?

I don't wanna come off as somebody's grandma saying "kids these days and their vile humor" etc, but seriously, am I off my rocker on this one, if I was to see that scene in the same light as a savage attack by a human psychopath? Am I missing something or creating what isn't there? Do robots change the nature of what goes on? And I'm not trying to be all "moralistic" or "righteous" on anybody who laughed at that scene, I laughed too at first, it's just a moment later I was hit with the shock of "Wait a minute, why am I laughing at this anyway?" when I really thought about what just happened and my reaction to it. So I totally understand the urge to laugh, I'm just questioning this urge at that particular moment, and wondering if it's healthy, justified, if it's really something funny and should be funny to a non-psychopathic mind, or if it's psychopathically influenced?

Ever notice how people who don't get a joke laugh anyway? And not cuz they wanna pretend they got it, but because they literally convince themselves that they got it, they imagine what CAN be funny about it, and laugh, because others laugh and they assume that those others must get something, so it must really be funny, and somehow they *think* they get it too, literally. I know that sounds weird but an example of that happened just yesterday. My family and I were watching Jay Leno's "headlines" section that I downloaded off the internet (people send him real articles and headlines that have funny mis-spellings and mistakes etc, and he shows them on Mondays), and basically there was a headline with the word "derserve" instead of "deserve". Nothing really interesting, cuz "derserve" isn't really a word, so there is no "word play" going on, no real humorous element at all, just a spelling mistake. But Leno showed it anyway, and read "derserve" in a sort of German accent way. So we laughed, and my brother laughed, my mom did etc. Then my mom asked "Ok, but what does derserve mean?", and I said "nothing, it's just a spelling mistake". Suddenly it wasn't so funny anymore. And my brother instantly said "Oooh cuz I thought it meant something else too, k that's not so funny then". So I was sitting there wondering what the hell I just witnessed. My family laughing together, but at humor that didn't even exist, cuz everybody assumed that the word "derserve" must have some funny meaning they aren't aware of, so it must be really funny, and they laughed at the imaginary humor that wasn't even there! And then they asked, and turns out there is no such word, it's nothing more than a meaningless spelling error. So that killed that joke, a joke that never even existed. I thought that was noteworthy, and I almost said something to point out what just happened, but that would ruin all the fun of witnessing it happening lol, plus it would be hard to explain and would interrupt Leno.

But how often does everybody do something like this, filling in the blanks because a joke or humor comes from a humor "authority", and we expect that if it comes from authority it MUST be funny! In the case of the movie, the authority was the audience. They laugh, so we "fill in the blanks" mechanically and instantly (so without even realizing it), and suddenly whatever we're seeing becomes literally funny to us, so we're not even fake-laughing, we really do see humor in it, even if that humor could not even be there at all! Could that be the case with that scene in the movie as well?
Click to expand...
nice long post, but I think that it was the same case as in that scene, you see I sometimes laugh as well just like that because others laugh aswell even if don't really understand what it is about, it goes automatic.
So if we start to really THINK and I mean THINK about that scene, then yes it is very disturbing, but people laugh about it because it was spontaneous and they all laughed at the ''flick'' everyone who was laughing was not thinking about the bones of that human being of course, they only saw the ''flick'' , they don't THINK about it because it goes automatic.

people who are more conscious of their own thoughts and have more control about their own system, they will know that it was disturbing, because you see more pain in the world and read more about it and you realize the horror in which we are, so basically we are tired of these psychopaths manipulating us and killing us , I think that's one of the main reasons that you had a shock, because you are conscious of it and because you know of these psychopaths, but those people around you in the cinema they are not aware of these psychopaths.

Maybe if the entire room in that cinema was aware about these monsters which we call psychopaths, they would not laugh so hard or much, maybe they would laugh for a sec because of the spontaneous flick but then they would stop laughing and feel empathy for the dude that got killed.
 
Hmmm, aren't we all more or less conditioned to laugh at violence, when it is exaggerated? Like in all those good ole cartoons with Tom&Jerry, Sylvester&Tweety, Donald Duck, etc, etc? I guess we could trace it back even to old school Flip&Flap movies. Somehow, along the way all those beaten, smashed, smeared, stumped, knocked, driven over characters began to loose their cartoonish appearance and today we find ourselves laughing at real looking guy being seriously hurt.

What a precise, cold-blodded consequence...
 
Adam said:
Maybe if the entire room in that cinema was aware about these monsters which we call psychopaths, they would not laugh so hard or much, maybe they would laugh for a sec because of the spontaneous flick but then they would stop laughing and feel empathy for the dude that got killed.
Click to expand...
It really was the idea of flicking a human that was the clincher, cuz if he picked up the person and threw him at something, or squeezed him in his fist till he died, it would not have been funny. This is probably why the C's had to "adapt" to our humor I think.

But it seems that all humor comes from pain - it is the root of all humor. Some is just mild, other not so much. But it seems that any joke, any situation, what is funny about it is something uncomfortable happening to somebody who did not expect it - or something along those lines. I can't think of any joke or situation that is humorous and does not involve somebody's discomfort or pain of some sort. Happiness is not funny, but shock, surprise, pain, can be. Humor is really an interesting quality, but according to the C's, it extends to all densities, and only intensifies in our ability to experience it. But then, is "pain" at the root of humor on all densities? Maybe, but I guess it's just not immediately obvious, at least to me, what it is about pain that results in the pleasurable experience of laughter. But there's definitely a connection, and if it really is in all densities, it might have a universal significance. And somehow I get the feeling that humor is more STO than STS. Perhaps because STS focuses on service to self, so what is painful/uncomfortable for self is a dis-service, it is not a "good time". But STO when it runs into crazy/unexpected situations can laugh at itself and its predicament, take it as it comes, and enjoy the universe's own "sense of humor" and infinite possibilities of how things can turn out.

The question is, when is pain funny, when is it not, and why? Psychopaths laugh at causing pain to others. We can laugh at the pain of others, and our own pain. But there's definitely a difference there. Normal people don't stand around beating somebody senseless and having a good time over it. So it seems that through media/entertainment ponerogenesis, it's like this line is being blurred, whether intentionally or just as a natural result of pathocratic influence on our world.

[deleted part of post, I had too much stream of consciousness, too little sense! (even less than usual!)]

J0da: My thoughts exactly!
 
Another way you could look at humour and the situation that engendered it, especially in the case where a violent situation provoked it, is a mild (or more) case of disassociation.

SAO made a fine distinction above: if you had been on the scene where the human was flicked and certainly hurt, it wouldn't have been funny at all. So why is it funny when you are not there, but still can simulate in your mind being there? Physical disassociation in the guise of "it doesn't affect my real physical safety at this very moment" so it is ok, but still it is bad, at which point the feeling of laughter comes in. Maybe it is some sort of TMI shutdown sequence at this point, however short.

Almost every other sort of humour involves a mistep versus the reality of the situation (I'm trying to be generic here).

But as mentioned by others, the reason some laugh could be a mark of their makeup: one could laugh as in "ahh, you sucker!" (psychopathic based, not a real laugh but a type of facial gesture) or "ahh, geez, kinda glad it ain't me!" which has some empathetic component to it, and a self-preservation "phew" moment of an imminent danger being flushed away from situational conscience.


I'm sure there's more to it than that, though.
 
j0da said:
Hmmm, aren't we all more or less conditioned to laugh at violence, when it is exaggerated? Like in all those good ole cartoons with Tom&Jerry, Sylvester&Tweety, Donald Duck, etc, etc? I guess we could trace it back even to old school Flip&Flap movies. Somehow, along the way all those beaten, smashed, smeared, stumped, knocked, driven over characters began to loose their cartoonish appearance and today we find ourselves laughing at real looking guy being seriously hurt.

What a precise, cold-blodded consequence...
Click to expand...
Exactly, I think this is one of the main reasons...why people even laugh at that kind of things, another example is Jurassic Park 1, where a guy runs to a toilet to escape from the T-Rex, and then the T-Rex smashes the toilet house, and looks at the guy sitting on it, and eats him, and you hear his bones crack, and people laugh like hell.

Or it was Jurassic Park 2, can't remember.

edit:
interesting subject actually, I never really thought about WHY we just laugh sometimes without even understanding what it is we are laughing about.
 
re: Flicking - I think it's also important to remember it is just a movie. Our response to it is gauged based on that level of awareness. If we were in that situation IRL our reaction would be completely different and more appropriate to the situation.
 
ScioAgapeOmnis said:
But it seems that all humor comes from pain - it is the root of all humor. Some is just mild, other not so much. But it seems that any joke, any situation, what is funny about it is something uncomfortable happening to somebody who did not expect it - or something along those lines. I can't think of any joke or situation that is humorous and does not involve somebody's discomfort or pain of some sort.
Click to expand...
It made me think about the kind of absurd humour that were practiced by the Monthy Python for example.
They sure had their share of slapstick moment but to me it seems that they were creating discomfort in your perception of an event they were acting out.
I think this is a more intelligent way of making laugh because it involves you as well, you're not only witnessing, you're participating, although maybe unwillingly of something so bizarre that it made you laugh, a common stress release response I suppose.

SAO said:
I get the feeling that humor is more STO than STS. Perhaps because STS focuses on service to self, so what is painful/uncomfortable for self is a dis-service, it is not a "good time". But STO when it runs into crazy/unexpected situations can laugh at itself and its predicament, take it as it comes, and enjoy the universe's own "sense of humor" and infinite possibilities of how things can turn out.
Click to expand...
I think STS cannot get the more subtle kind of humour because it involves more than just pain and discomfort of others.
I think there is a distinction between humour and laughing at something/someone, humour involves your intellectual faculties, where laughing at (which would more STS imho) does not, it's just a reaction osit.

STS would not like to be the center of the joke but if it's you, then it's okay, because there is something to be gained from it, I mean most of us have been in this situation where someone was the laughing stock of everyone and you may have joined in, to fit within the group even if you realized that it wasn't funny for the person.
It did happen when I was a kid because it was better "him/her" than me.
It just does not feel right but you shut down your conscience.

Laughing at other's people pain and discomfort is schadenfreude

Although we known that pain and discomfort isn't always a bad thing, if it can help you understand how you're working inside out but if it was caused at your expense to make laugh someone (candid cameras), I think that's where the distinction is osit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom