Hardly, I mostly just didn't want to further the IM vs TF debate as no doubt would happen if I pulled up scenes for us to debate on. Had it not been for the Mod's request, you'd probably be looking at one of my overlong posts on the marvel films and I'm personally not about to test Hunter in such an outright way.
Further, I clearly stated that if I were to, it would no doubt been seen as unequal for it's pretty clear people see the tf scenes in a hyperbolic fasion and out of context to a fault whereas these same people are full of all kinds of apologetic rhetoric for the IM scenes. The double standard I stated initially which brought all this about would and has surely run amok on such an attempt. Thus, I see no point.
I haven't changed the subject once, it's always and still about the double standard and even if I have to dredge up every film made since 1958 that hasn't been met with this level of outrage but could have easily been, then it will still be on the same subject. The subject of selective outrage(in case you haven't been following).
WTH to this bolded part here, it actually did make me double take.
Sorry friend but you have it pretty wrong and backwards. I don't have a problem with the so called sexism or whatever buzz word it's being called now, in the TF films. I think it's par for the course and fully acceptable by my standards, plus it has it's various purposes to story and aesthetics. It's everyone that walks around and in here wearing the self righteous cap claiming they have an issue with the sexism and exploitation present in these TF films. They are the ones asserting the positive. I say, if YOU have this problem with the TF films, then where pray tell is this same or any such outrage for the same or similar elements in all these other movies produced in hollywood, marvel or the sandlot or anything? Ergo the burden is on YOU to explain YOUR double standard. I don't have anything to explain. In bringing up these other films, I'm helping YOU see the parallels and asking you to....I digress.
You are claiming I said that I hate sexism and I'm now giving it a pass in a film I like? At this point I'm sure you see the irony here, for it's very much the reverse. You are claiming you hate sexisim and yet you give it a pass at every opportunity. I'm not the one that walks around marvel(or any film) sections claiming the treatment of women is unbearable or what not. I'm actually pretty consistent in my tolerance.
Not sure if you read my post properly(or perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been) but when I referenced Wolf of Wall Street it was specifically because that film was exploitative in ways Bay detractors could on dream. Thus I asked the poster if he found these TF films 'that much worse' or as bad. I wanted to point out the grave difference between what he thinks he's accusing Bay of doing vs a film that actually does it. Does anyone here find the TF films offend them to the levels Wolf does(or is supposed to)? Because I certainly do not. I'm pretty bloody curious, cause I'm hearing alot of people pull out the usual type of Bay hyperbole. Now that we have that straight, it only proves what exactly?
As for that last part, the story point of her changing into the white dress was a recurring character point in that she was clearly insecure with her boyfriend leaving her behind for college and impress him with something he didn't expect(among other things). Sometimes girls/guys have a difficult transition into long distance relationships especially on the issue of college and particularly when it boils down to being left behind. Those fears were played up and seemingly confirmed when she arrived. That's the purpose of the scene. As for the underwear you spotted. Stop the presses, a frame of underwear made it to final cut, it seemed like a candid costume change to me. Seeing as it was the same colour as her dress, I didn't even notice the underwear till it was pointed out. Bay pointing out that the scene ALSO serves as eye candy, given fox was pretty much topping the maxim lists at that point I can see where that comes from, still it doesn't debunk one's ability to analyze a story point. This would be like Justin Lin explaining in a DVD commentary no less, that the shot in the similarly PG13 rated Fast Five in which Gal Godot struts around in slow motion and less clothing than any of bay's lead/supporting females(not in Pain&Gain) have ever had the pleasure of strutting around in; as what it is, Eye candy for the young/old male driven audience(cause that's hollywood) without delving into the obvious story point it serves as well. This is my trying to avoid the fast furious series cause well...not sure. Bring me to the next point:
Now could bay have shot that differently, sure, I don't see her riding her bike in a dress but perhaps a costume change off camera? But wait a minute, in the spirit of sticking to the subject; Did he actually do anything outside the hollywood norm? Well I suppose that begs the question of if Black Widow changing in the back of car, her underwear showing(for more than a frame) explicitly along with cleavage, whilst under a maze gaze(played up by the fact that he almost crashed) in IM2 is the norm? You tell me. Was that a story point or eye candy? Cause it certainly was the same thing if not worse.
-This ^ is precisely the point. What's the point of me even attempting to bring up a comparison when you show your bias on your own in this very scenario. Either the bay stuff is seen in a hyperbolic way, or the corresponding stuff is simply ignored. Underwear, who'd have thunk.
As I discussed earlier Megan fox left the series cause she was fired by her Jewish producer(s) after messing up and directly offending them, if not the entire industry(hitler was real and far worse than any working director). She made that mistake cause she doesn't like how totalitarian bay is on his sets, I don't remember two words about exploitation or sexploitation. Read her quote, read it twice and it all remains the same. Considering the types of roles she's done since then, from Jenifer's body in which she played a ****(non virgin sacrifice trope) with flesh coloured sticky's on her nipples with nothing else, and was in that 'This is 40' film, in which she played a 'slow' clothing retail clerk(too slow for even that job) that mostly got oogled and stripped down and had her boobs fondled.....I doubt it was bay asking her to do pg13 stuff that really had her walk off.
Shia's sentiments on the matter had nothing to do with why fox left but rather why the set was alot more charitable and calm when a professional like Rosie showed up. That is, she was far more comfortable with her sexuality given her profession and experience.....Still, I suppose we can all spin that stuff any way we please.
Who said anything about anyone falling in line like Anniston? I have to say, your entire post has been me correcting you in this manner and I have to imagine it's not deliberate... I said the scene in TF3 with Rosie shows far less and for far less time, than the stuff we've been seeing from Anniston(a women who had a pretty clean image). Again my meaning wasn't to condone or even rationalize one over the other. It was to provide perspective. One scene goes this far, another scene far further and maybe when this difference is pointed out(thrown in one's face) they can look back at the former scene with correct/better perspective. I do think it funny that bay is known around here as some great womanizer yet he's not making films in which his stars do strip teases(even ones that serve character like True Lies). It's like if he was making an R rated comedy than he could do whatever he wants and everyone would simply cheer? I'd find that particularly disingenuous to a fault.
Lastly, You can hold Bay accountable all you want(in spite of arguments against such a thing). Just make sure your outrage and accountability are consistent. Otherwise you will be deemed a hypocrite....by me. If like me, you are going to give bay a pass, then like me, feel free to give a pass to the rest of hollywood when you write up your reviews. That's the crux here. Consistency(me) vs Selective outrage(the ilk).
I feel like Lennox is the easiest to explain away. He is probably just stationed elsewhere and not part of the black ops team hunting the Autobots. But Sam's presence is a bit harder to just brush away, since he was BFFs with the Autobots and everything. I feel like there should've at least been a line. Hell, say he was collateral damage in the CIA's hunt for the Autobots. Talk about upping the stakes. 
