At least it was a joke, even if it wasn't funny.

People criticize Devastator's balls, Simmons' ass, the farts, the swearing, all the gross and crude humour, but at least someone somewhere actually finds those kinds of things funny under different circumstances, even if it's just immature teens snickering to each other. They are at least jokes, as unfunny and lowbrow as they are.

The scene with Shane doesn't make any sense. Nobody finds that funny, it is inhumanly detached from the concept of humour. There's no punchline, no subversion of expectation, no play on words or situational irony or anything approaching a comedic scenario. It is merely discussing whether or not sex between and seventeen year old and an older man counts as rape in Texas.... which as of 2014 legally did not anyway, as the age of consent was 17, so the discussion on the Romeo/Juliet law is fucking pointless, creepy, and unnecessary.

Balls on a robot could be considered by some to be funny, because the joke is that robots should not have balls, hence the subversion of expectation. Simmons' ass could be seen as humourous because he so blatantly changes in public and wears Superman-style underwear of his own division. Those are at least something approaching some kind of joke, even if the vast majority of people would not laugh.

Discussing statutory rape laws isn't funny, nor does the movie do anything to make it funny, if that's even possible. And it's totally unnecessary because the characters' ages do not factor into the plot. They could have just left out the entire scene and the movie would be unchanged. It serves no purpose but to make the audience uncomfortable.

Precisely.

Lorenzo di Bonaventura, the stooge of the non-Don Murphy variety who believes humans canonically created the Transformers in the Bay movies.

 

They probably did more research into statutory rape laws in Texas than they did into the actual lore of the franchise.

 

Except they didn't, because Tessa was of legal age in Texas in AOE.

 

I dearly would love an interview with Ehren Kruger, if only to finally understand the authorial intent behind the most controversial of the five bay films and why the fuck we had shit like legalized minor sex in a franchise supposedly about space robots.

Oh, it damn well should - you want to explain to a six year old why a dude is having his heart ripped out of his chest and he isn't dying?

Because until Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, where the above scene happens, the only mid-level ratings were G and R. PG-13 was invented specifically for that scene in Temple of Doom because it's pretty damn disturbing for a child, but not violent enough to justify the R rating.

 

I remember seeing this in theaters, and people were like dead-silent when this popped up. Imagine watching a Transformers movie and not expecting it to have a scene where a 20 year old due who looks 30 discuss the legality of dating and banging his not-of-legal-age girlfriend in front of her father. Because THIS is what we needed in those films; discussions about age of consent!

Fuck this man.

 

The funny thing about all this is, Nicole Peltz was 19 at the time of this film's release. Meaning, she was like 18, when filming. Making this whole thing completely unnecessary. Something the shoe horned in. They didn't have to make the character 17. And, if she was 17 in real life, all they would have to do is wait until she WAS 18.

And, then not include this line in all together. they shoe horned this line in on purpose, just because.

 

One word Magic

 

Oh to think how much I would have paid to have a been fly on the wall to the see reaction for whoever came up with that idea in the writer's room.

 

Magic does not undo emotional trauma.

 

Wheelie dry humping Megan Fox's leg would be sexual misconduct

 

3 years difference is absolutely nothing.

The thing is, if she was 18. They couldn't have a minor daughter and her overprotective single father. (They could but even more awkwardness could have been made)
And they could still have had a overprotective father without a scene with texan sex laws.

The law it self do make sense, since it is there to protect teenagers with a small age difference, where one is still 17, and remove a big grey area that exists other places in the world. It's just not the right movie to promote something that is belonging to movies like American Pie.

 

I'm from Texas and was 17 when AoE came out. Honestly that scene didn't bother me so much at the time because some of my peers in highschool, both at my school and other schools, were in that same situation. Funny and coincidentally enough, I first saw AoE with my best friend at the time, who was 17, and her 20 year old boyfriend. We laughed out loud at the romeo/juliet law scene. I think to us the age gap really wasn't big so it was no big deal. But I understand why folks are creeped out by it. Admittedly, while I sure as heck won't do it, it doesn't bother me as much since its really a 3 year gap and 17 is the age of consent in Texas. Do I think it's wierd now? Yes. Would I do it? Heck no. Do I think its wrong? Not entirely, but it is pushing the limits. I guess its also situational. I think for AOE its less bothersome for me since Shane and Tessa did actually start dating while both were still in highschool. Once again, I knew someone else who did that in highschool. That's just my two cents. I don't expect people to agree with me though since this was just the environment I lived through in highschool.

If y'all find the age of consent in Texas creepy enough though, then get ready for this:
The age of consent is 16 in 31 states.
Legal Age of Consent in All 50 States - Survivor Alliance

Y'all I thought it was just Ohio that was fucked up with that consent age before viewing this thread, now y'all got me finding out that over 60% of the states in the U.S allow that shit, including D.C (not a state, I know).


But yeah, it did not need to be in the movie.

 

Controversial opinion:

It's just poorly executed drama that was put into the story. Some other filmmaker out there would put nuance into a scene like that.

i.e. Knives Chau and Scott Pilgrim's relationship

 

Fathers and mothers don’t stop being protective of their children when they’re 18. It’s not like a switch is flipped in the brain and all feelings of paternal worry just stop. We still worry, we just try not to be too overt about it.

But trust me, if my kids brought home a smug douche like Shane, age 17 or 27 it wouldn’t matter. I’d still make my objections known.

 

As I said. If she was 18. It would just be another form of awkwardness.
It's just what they do.

 

I found Cade's response to the law hilarious and truthful.

Cade: "Romeo and Juliet, huh? Do you know how those two ended up?"

Tessa: "In love."

Cade: "Dead!"

While, in its entirety, it's not one of the many scenes in the movie I like, I think it's great the Bay movies have controversial things in them, because controversial things can start a dialogue.

 

Looks at almost every thread ever.

I don't know if that's a good thing.  

 

I prefer my robo gorillas to be neutered, it cuts down on the aggression,

 

it was a failed attempt to address Cade's fear of history repeating itself.

 

Now that I think about it, the scene may have been intended to be skeevy as hell, to put us in Cade's shoes and firmly against Shane. Look at how Shane's also portrayed as a sniveling wimp. Though honestly, I'd have had the scene take place in Optimus's cab and have Optimus chime in on the utter wrongness going on there, and that literally the only reason Optimus doesn't dump his ass on the side of the road for it is because of security concerns, i.e. Cemetery Wind finding Shane and Shane squealing.