|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 20, 2024 7:14:53 GMT
This made me uncomfortable. This is one of the most in your face sexual moments I have seen in a family film. Herbie squirts oil all over Linday Lohan's chest. Was not expecting that. I can't blame him though. She looks fantastic in this movie.  |
|
|
|
Post by ghostintheshell on Jun 20, 2024 7:35:56 GMT
Bah, thats nothing compared to Wheelie the little decepticon humping Megan Fox's leg and this series is particularly popular among kiddies and nerdies!   |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 20, 2024 7:41:11 GMT
Bah, thats nothing compared to Wheelie the little decepticon humping Megan Fox's leg and this series is particularly popular among kiddies and nerdies! I don't consider Transformers a family film. It is PG-13. Herbie Fully Loaded is rated G. |
|
|
|
Post by ghostintheshell on Jun 20, 2024 7:53:01 GMT
Bah, thats nothing compared to Wheelie the little decepticon humping Megan Fox's leg and this series is particularly popular among kiddies and nerdies! I don't consider Transformers a family film. It is PG-13. Herbie Fully Loaded is rated G. MPAA rating doesnt mean anything now. Herbie's reference wasn't that apparent and kinda subtle when you think about it but Transfformers literally showed that little perv bot humping her leg. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 20, 2024 8:02:51 GMT
I don't consider Transformers a family film. It is PG-13. Herbie Fully Loaded is rated G. MPAA rating doesnt mean anything now. Herbie's reference wasn't that apparent and kinda subtle when you think about it but Transfformers literally showed that little perv bot humping her leg. I still don't consider Transformers a family film. It is a Michael Bay movie that is made for the Michael Bay crowd. The fact it is a Transformers movie is incidental. The PG-13 rating means that it can show stuff like that. The fact that Herbie is more subtle is what makes it worse. It is a movie sold to children, while Transformers is sold to teenagers. Not to mention that Transformers is basically making a dog reference, whereas Herbie, while more subtle, is making an ejaculation on someone's private parts reference. Anyway, this is a dumb thing to be arguing about. |
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Jun 20, 2024 9:02:18 GMT
20 years ago  |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 20, 2024 12:11:52 GMT
MPAA rating doesnt mean anything now. Herbie's reference wasn't that apparent and kinda subtle when you think about it but Transfformers literally showed that little perv bot humping her leg. I still don't consider Transformers a family film. It is a Michael Bay movie that is made for the Michael Bay crowd. The fact it is a Transformers movie is incidental. The PG-13 rating means that it can show stuff like that. The fact that Herbie is more subtle is what makes it worse. It is a movie sold to children, while Transformers is sold to teenagers. Not to mention that Transformers is basically making a dog reference, whereas Herbie, while more subtle, is making an ejaculation on someone's private parts reference. Anyway, this is a dumb thing to be arguing about. Especially when you consider that scene in Herbie is clearly not supposed to be sexual, you're only choosing to see it that way. I'm guessing the car was giving her attitude in that scene. (I just watched it on youtube, that's exactly what happened.) She threatened to leave the car, and it started acting up; honking its horn and whatnot. She deactivated the horn, and in retaliation it spit up oil on her. Not unlike a kid spitting at someone or a monkey throwing shit. It's slapstick, it isn't sexual in nature. That's a completely different concept than having a robot humping the hot chick's leg. |
|
|
|
Post by ghostintheshell on Jun 20, 2024 13:17:18 GMT
I still don't consider Transformers a family film. It is a Michael Bay movie that is made for the Michael Bay crowd. The fact it is a Transformers movie is incidental. The PG-13 rating means that it can show stuff like that. The fact that Herbie is more subtle is what makes it worse. It is a movie sold to children, while Transformers is sold to teenagers. Not to mention that Transformers is basically making a dog reference, whereas Herbie, while more subtle, is making an ejaculation on someone's private parts reference. Anyway, this is a dumb thing to be arguing about. Especially when you consider that scene in Herbie is clearly not supposed to be sexual, you're only choosing to see it that way. I'm guessing the car was giving her attitude in that scene. (I just watched it on youtube, that's exactly what happened.) She threatened to leave the car, and it started acting up; honking its horn and whatnot. She deactivated the horn, and in retaliation it spit up oil on her. Not unlike a kid spitting at someone or a monkey throwing shit. It's slapstick, it isn't sexual in nature. That's a completely different concept than having a robot humping the hot chick's leg. Exactly! I think OP is probably in the minority for thinking it's a sexual reference. LiLo's car oil spill is tantamount to a Llama spitting on someone for pissing them off or a monkey flinging poo. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 20, 2024 13:36:58 GMT
Don't have a huge stake in whether or not this is a cumshot reference (could go either way, the 00s were a golden age for bizarre sexual references in kids movies, though at the same time Gisnep was prudish enough to reduce LiLo's tit size for the poster), all I know is that the SNL sketch around this time where she plays busty Hermione helped usher me into adulthood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 20, 2024 14:17:58 GMT
Don't have a huge stake in whether or not this is a cumshot reference (could go either way, the 00s were a golden age for bizarre sexual references in kids movies, though at the same time Gisnep was prudish enough to reduce LiLo's tit size for the poster), all I know is that the SNL sketch around this time where she plays busty Hermione helped usher me into adulthood. Was it though? I heard something about a recent documentary on this topic and I can't help but wonder if this is exactly what I'm talking about here. Literally anything takes on a whole new meaning if you view it through a certain lens. "I heard so and so is a creep, now when I go back and look at all of their creative output, it's so obvious everything was a sexual reference. Weird how I didn't notice it until now." Even if you want to interpret this Herbie scene that way as an adult, there's no way a kid is going to see it that way, so there's nothing to complain about. Hell, Ghostbusters is rated PG (granted, ratings were different in 1984) and features a blatant sexual reference as Stantz dreams about a ghost lady giving him head. I guarantee I had no idea what was going on in that scene in the theater as a 7 year old. And if your child (of whatever age the OP deems too young for this alleged content) thinks of this Herbie scene as a sexual reference, then their innocence has already set sail, and you have new set of problems. |
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on Jun 20, 2024 14:24:43 GMT
20 years ago |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 20, 2024 14:47:37 GMT
Don't have a huge stake in whether or not this is a cumshot reference (could go either way, the 00s were a golden age for bizarre sexual references in kids movies, though at the same time Gisnep was prudish enough to reduce LiLo's tit size for the poster), all I know is that the SNL sketch around this time where she plays busty Hermione helped usher me into adulthood. Was it though? I heard something about a recent documentary on this topic and I can't help but wonder if this is exactly what I'm talking about here. Literally anything takes on a whole new meaning if you view it through a certain lens. "I heard so and so is a creep, now when I go back and look at all of their creative output, it's so obvious everything was a sexual reference. Weird how I didn't notice it until now." Even if you want to interpret this Herbie scene that way as an adult, there's no way a kid is going to see it that way, so there's nothing to complain about. Hell, Ghostbusters is rated PG (granted, ratings were different in 1984) and features a blatant sexual reference as Stantz dreams about a ghost lady giving him head. I guarantee I had no idea what was going on in that scene in the theater as a 7 year old. And if your child (of whatever age the OP deems too young for this alleged content) thinks of this Herbie scene as a sexual reference, then their innocence has already set sail, and you have new set of problems. Well, look at the Shrek movies for instance. The first has things like a guy named Farquaad (fuck-wad), who gets accused of "compensating for something" and gets a literal boner while looking at ladies in bed. Plus other things like the magic mirror reassuring him that Snow White ism't getting a train run on her by the seven dwarves. Around the same time, the third Harry Potter shows students fucking on the map at the end. Those are also actual kids movies, whereas I never really saw GB as one. And as you said, ratings were different then - PG-13 didn't even exist yet. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 20, 2024 14:52:42 GMT
I still don't consider Transformers a family film. It is a Michael Bay movie that is made for the Michael Bay crowd. The fact it is a Transformers movie is incidental. The PG-13 rating means that it can show stuff like that. The fact that Herbie is more subtle is what makes it worse. It is a movie sold to children, while Transformers is sold to teenagers. Not to mention that Transformers is basically making a dog reference, whereas Herbie, while more subtle, is making an ejaculation on someone's private parts reference. Anyway, this is a dumb thing to be arguing about. Especially when you consider that scene in Herbie is clearly not supposed to be sexual, you're only choosing to see it that way. I'm guessing the car was giving her attitude in that scene. (I just watched it on youtube, that's exactly what happened.) She threatened to leave the car, and it started acting up; honking its horn and whatnot. She deactivated the horn, and in retaliation it spit up oil on her. Not unlike a kid spitting at someone or a monkey throwing shit. It's slapstick, it isn't sexual in nature. That's a completely different concept than having a robot humping the hot chick's leg. I disagree. I think the director clearly knew what he was doing. Granted, could it be me with a dirty mind? Yes, but I bet if I asked the director I would get exactly what I think. Look at that shirt they put her in in that scene and then right after Justin Long comments that she looks good, when he already saw her earlier in that scene. Also there is a more direct sexual reference where Herbie's antenna gets erect when he looks at a "female" car. My point about Transformers isn't that it isn't more blatantly sexual (obviously in Herbie a kid isn't going to pick up on any sexual undertones), it is that Transformers ISN'T a kids mivie. That is what I was arguing about. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 20, 2024 16:36:14 GMT
Was it though? I heard something about a recent documentary on this topic and I can't help but wonder if this is exactly what I'm talking about here. Literally anything takes on a whole new meaning if you view it through a certain lens. "I heard so and so is a creep, now when I go back and look at all of their creative output, it's so obvious everything was a sexual reference. Weird how I didn't notice it until now." Even if you want to interpret this Herbie scene that way as an adult, there's no way a kid is going to see it that way, so there's nothing to complain about. Hell, Ghostbusters is rated PG (granted, ratings were different in 1984) and features a blatant sexual reference as Stantz dreams about a ghost lady giving him head. I guarantee I had no idea what was going on in that scene in the theater as a 7 year old. And if your child (of whatever age the OP deems too young for this alleged content) thinks of this Herbie scene as a sexual reference, then their innocence has already set sail, and you have new set of problems. Well, look at the Shrek movies for instance. The first has things like a guy named Farquaad (fuck-wad), who gets accused of "compensating for something" and gets a literal boner while looking at ladies in bed. Plus other things like the magic mirror reassuring him that Snow White ism't getting a train run on her by the seven dwarves. Around the same time, the third Harry Potter shows students fucking on the map at the end. Those are also actual kids movies, whereas I never really saw GB as one. And as you said, ratings were different then - PG-13 didn't even exist yet. This is post-Aladdin, where Robin Williams raised the bar for what you could say in kids movies. I don't know if he said anything sexual in nature, but all the references (anachronistic for the film) were stuff only adults would understand. It changed kids' movies forever. Writers figured out they could throw in gags to entertain the adults, so they could still enjoy a mind-numbing kids' movie. The next logical step was the stuff you're talking about. And this is my point, kids have no idea what any of that stuff means. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 20, 2024 16:41:59 GMT
Especially when you consider that scene in Herbie is clearly not supposed to be sexual, you're only choosing to see it that way. I'm guessing the car was giving her attitude in that scene. (I just watched it on youtube, that's exactly what happened.) She threatened to leave the car, and it started acting up; honking its horn and whatnot. She deactivated the horn, and in retaliation it spit up oil on her. Not unlike a kid spitting at someone or a monkey throwing shit. It's slapstick, it isn't sexual in nature. That's a completely different concept than having a robot humping the hot chick's leg. I disagree. I think the director clearly knew what he was doing. Granted, could it be me with a dirty mind? Yes, but I bet if I asked the director I would get exactly what I think. Look at that shirt they put her in in that scene and then right after Justin Long comments that she looks good, when he already saw her earlier in that scene. Also there is a more direct sexual reference where Herbie's antenna gets erect when he looks at a "female" car.
My point about Transformers isn't that it isn't more blatantly sexual (obviously in Herbie a kid isn't going to pick up on any sexual undertones), it is that Transformers ISN'T a kids mivie. That is what I was arguing about. Good, so a clear sexual reference appears in this film for comparison. If Herbie put up his antenna when Lohan popped his hood, or shot oil on her when she was stroking him or something, you'd have a point. In context it makes no sense as a sexual reference. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 20, 2024 17:41:17 GMT
Well, look at the Shrek movies for instance. The first has things like a guy named Farquaad (fuck-wad), who gets accused of "compensating for something" and gets a literal boner while looking at ladies in bed. Plus other things like the magic mirror reassuring him that Snow White ism't getting a train run on her by the seven dwarves. Around the same time, the third Harry Potter shows students fucking on the map at the end. Those are also actual kids movies, whereas I never really saw GB as one. And as you said, ratings were different then - PG-13 didn't even exist yet. This is post-Aladdin, where Robin Williams raised the bar for what you could say in kids movies. I don't know if he said anything sexual in nature, but all the references (anachronistic for the film) were stuff only adults would understand. It changed kids' movies forever. Writers figured out they could throw in gags to entertain the adults, so they could still enjoy a mind-numbing kids' movie. The next logical step was the stuff you're talking about. And this is my point, kids have no idea what any of that stuff means. I haven't been following this debate too closely, but I'm sure movieman knows most young kids aren't familiar with the act of cumming on tits and this would be squarely in the "for the dads" category, if it's even a reference to that. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 20, 2024 18:12:28 GMT
This is post-Aladdin, where Robin Williams raised the bar for what you could say in kids movies. I don't know if he said anything sexual in nature, but all the references (anachronistic for the film) were stuff only adults would understand. It changed kids' movies forever. Writers figured out they could throw in gags to entertain the adults, so they could still enjoy a mind-numbing kids' movie. The next logical step was the stuff you're talking about. And this is my point, kids have no idea what any of that stuff means. I haven't been following this debate too closely, but I'm sure movieman knows most young kids aren't familiar with the act of cumming on tits and this would be squarely in the "for the dads" category, if it's even a reference to that.  |
|
|
|
Post by Roberto on Jun 20, 2024 19:24:24 GMT
Yeah that was a strange moment. Not a big deal though, as it's just a gag for the grown ups that kids won't understand anyway. Weird, but harmless.
I actually saw this movie for the first time about 6 months ago. It was quite fun. And she does look great in it. If I remember correctly there might have been a few other subtle innuendos as well, but for the most part it's a very wholesome movie.
|
|
