Dark of the Moon Megan Fox WON'T be in TF3

[terry78]

A female in a Bay movie is like a female in an Apatow movie. You're just there to be a semi-catalyst for your male lead's growth. And for eye candy.

 

[M.O.Steel]

A female in a Bay movie is like a female in an Apatow movie. You're just there to be a semi-catalyst for your male lead's growth. And for eye candy.

i 'm sorry i can't agree.

that was fox's role in transformers, but in all his other films, the female is very important to the story

tea leoni, scarlett johansen, liv tyler, gabrielle union, kate beckingsale, were all very much important to the story. all were pretty ofcourse, but they had an active role in the story. Fox and transformers on the other hand was pure eye-candy in every sense of the word. and did not really contribute anything to the plot.

i also think it's unfair to include apatow. cathrine keener? kathrine heigl? leslie Mann? even though they are beautiful women, hardly consider them "eye-candy" (well maybe Kheighl, but she was the pregnant girl in a movie called knocked up)

 

[spidermangalarz]

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/05/31...-rosie-huntington-whiteley-in-transformers-3/

wow that gif is perfect lmao

i wont bash the girl because who knows how this will turn out.... and come on we all know we are going to see this movie when it comes out.... seriously you know you are twice

 

[*Dead*End*]

come on we all know we are going to see this movie when it comes out.... seriously you know you are twice

At least! I want to anyway.

Saw TF1 9x in a regular theatre 1x on a giant IMAX screen (also brought 10 people with me). Saw TF2 3x in IMAX (had 5 people join me).

The year TF1 came out, I boycotted all other movies (Spiderman3, Pirates3, Diehard4 and whatever else came out).

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I really dont get the thinking in getting a model to play this role, and IMO a not very attractive model either, there are any number of actresses out there who are nicer looking than this model and can act, Mila Kunis, Gemma Arterton, Alexa Davalos and Jessica Biel all immediatly spring to mind, non of them have given stunning performances but they have proven they can act and are all better looking than this so-called model.

 

[Rumpy Bulge Dubz]

^yes but they all cost money

a no name model is just cheaper and gives him the effect he's looking for

 

[Jake Cassidy]

A 'so-called model'? You may not find her attractive but she IS a model.

Personally, I think she's ****in' hot. Damn sexy voice too. t:

 

[Donut]

Who did she sleep with to get the role ? Seems like a good job to have hot women sleep with you just to get to the top

 

[Ipodman]

At least! I want to anyway.

Saw TF1 9x in a regular theatre 1x on a giant IMAX screen (also brought 10 people with me). Saw TF2 3x in IMAX (had 5 people join me).

The year TF1 came out, I boycotted all other movies (Spiderman3, Pirates3, Diehard4 and whatever else came out).

Yea I rememered I didnt even see Spider-man 3 or Pirates 3 at that time t:

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^yes but they all cost money

a no name model is just cheaper and gives him the effect he's looking for

They wouldnt cost much, probably less than Fox, as non of them have been in any big movies.

A 'so-called model'? You may not find her attractive but she IS a model.

Personally, I think she's ****in' hot. Damn sexy voice too. t:

Sorry, I just done really find her attractive at all, if she walked past me in the street I dont think i'd look twice.

 

[Ipodman]

They wouldnt cost much, probably less than Fox, as non of them have been in any big movies.



Sorry, I just done really find her attractive at all, if she walked past me in the street I dont think i'd look twice.

And you'd look twice at Megan Fox from the first movie?

 

[GL1]

And you'd look twice at Megan Fox from the first movie?

Or at 90% of the actresses in Hollywood sans makeup, for that matter?

Rosie is at least as attractive as Megan Fox, and more shapely, imo. And she's cheaper which means that's one more fight scene we'll get to see.

You guys make it sound like Megan Fox is an actual actress.

 

[Ipodman]

Well... I wonder what Bumblebee thinks of her.....

 

[baerrtt]

i 'm sorry i can't agree.

that was fox's role in transformers, but in all his other films, the female is very important to the story

tea leoni, scarlett johansen, liv tyler, gabrielle union, kate beckingsale, were all very much important to the story. all were pretty ofcourse, but they had an active role in the story. Fox and transformers on the other hand was pure eye-candy in every sense of the word. and did not really contribute anything to the plot.

i also think it's unfair to include apatow. cathrine keener? kathrine heigl? leslie Mann? even though they are beautiful women, hardly consider them "eye-candy" (well maybe Kheighl, but she was the pregnant girl in a movie called knocked up)

The complaint regarding both Bay and Apatow exists because they're films are considered sexist by some where if not always the lead women the other wordless female characters exist soley as eye candy. Those aforementioned actressess in Bay's past movies may be 'important' to their respective stories but if not as blatant as Fox in the TF films they still ultimately serve as lust figures .

Whether it be the most striking feature of Leoni's character in BAD BOYS (her short skirt) or the well documented fact that Bay bullied Beckinsale on the set of PEARL HARBOUR because he didn't feel she was hot enough once you get past the superficial this is a director who ultimately doesn't care about his female 'characters'.

And despite the anger shown here the hiring of a Victoria's Secret model to play the lead female part in a major blockbuster just confirms something I've always known and accepted even when Bay had actual and otherwise good actressess working for him (Fox aside).

 

[GL1]

tea leoni, scarlett johansen, liv tyler, gabrielle union, kate beckingsale, were all very much important to the story. all were pretty ofcourse, but they had an active role in the story. Fox and transformers on the other hand was pure eye-candy in every sense of the word. and did not really contribute anything to the plot.

i also think it's unfair to include apatow. cathrine keener? kathrine heigl? leslie Mann? even though they are beautiful women, hardly consider them "eye-candy" (well maybe Kheighl, but she was the pregnant girl in a movie called knocked up)

His point does have some merit. Bay has a formula of two male leads with a second female lead that reflects them, but does not actually exert force on the plot, nor does she have a growth arc. They are wife characters, hostages, sidekicks, love interests, informants on a good day. Not heroes. It's hard to 'root' for them because they don't really do anything. There may be exceptions (I can't think of one, be happy to hear one) but this trend is kinda obvious. This doesn't make them bad movies, or bad for women, but the point is that the women represented are ineffectual, and the plots of the movies in question support it.

Eye Candy is relative. In Funny People is Leslie Mann not the object of affection? Is she not more attractive than everyone else in the film? That said, at least Judd moves away from the two male leads with female reflector at times.

But then we can go to Hollywood as a whole and say this same thing for 90% of the directors we have. Even in RomComs, the 'women's genre' women can't even manage to drive the plot most of the time. We could say something about society as a whole now, but that would be a different debate.

 

[Marvin]

His point does have some merit. Bay has a formula of two male leads with a second female lead that reflects them, but does not actually exert force on the plot, nor does she have a growth arc. They are wife characters, hostages, sidekicks, love interests, informants on a good day. Not heroes. It's hard to 'root' for them because they don't really do anything. There may be exceptions (I can't think of one, be happy to hear one) but this trend is kinda obvious. This doesn't make them bad movies, or bad for women, but the point is that the women represented are ineffectual, and the plots of the movies in question support it.

Eye Candy is relative. In Funny People is Leslie Mann not the object of affection? Is she not more attractive than everyone else in the film? That said, at least Judd moves away from the two male leads with female reflector at times.

But then we can go to Hollywood as a whole and say this same thing for 90% of the directors we have. Even in RomComs, the 'women's genre' women can't even manage to drive the plot most of the time. We could say something about society as a whole now, but that would be a different debate.

why point out a flaw in the business that is hollowood when you could just blame bay

it's nothing new, look at action movies throughout the 80's and into the 90's (before women started getting their own) something as random as big trouble in little china for a top of the head example...

and most superhero movies pretty much use the girl as a device that get's captured by the villan and forces the lead to make a "choice"
(ahem, every batman/spiderman/superman..etc movie i can recall)

bay isn't doing anything new, perhaps that's the problem. maybe he should make the sequel to juno next. than again, we did get both pearl harbour and the island.

 

[chaseter]

Or at 90% of the actresses in Hollywood sans makeup, for that matter?

Rosie is at least as attractive as Megan Fox, and more shapely, imo. And she's cheaper which means that's one more fight scene we'll get to see.

You guys make it sound like Megan Fox is an actual actress.

Money saved does not mean more for us. It could mean more profit for the studio.

Also, compared to Rosie, Megan Fox is a veteran actor. Compared to Rosie, Paris Hilton is a veteran actor

 

[*Dead*End*]

Money saved does not mean more for us. It could mean more profit for the studio.

You may be right about studios saving money, perhaps it will help them to realize that the TRANSFORMERS franchise is profitable, and will give us yet more movies

 

[chaseter]

I think Bay will do 3 and then quit to do Bad Boys 3. Transformers may live on with another director but I think Bay is done after 3.

 

[M.O.Steel]

The complaint regarding both Bay and Apatow exists because they're films are considered sexist by some where if not always the lead women the other wordless female characters exist soley as eye candy. Those aforementioned actressess in Bay's past movies may be 'important' to their respective stories but if not as blatant as Fox in the TF films they still ultimately serve as lust figures .

Whether it be the most striking feature of Leoni's character in BAD BOYS (her short skirt) or the well documented fact that Bay bullied Beckinsale on the set of PEARL HARBOUR because he didn't feel she was hot enough once you get past the superficial this is a director who ultimately doesn't care about his female 'characters'.

And despite the anger shown here the hiring of a Victoria's Secret model to play the lead female part in a major blockbuster just confirms something I've always known and accepted even when Bay had actual and otherwise good actressess working for him (Fox aside).

like i said, i don't agree with you. they are gorgeous women, but like marvin said, hollywood movies are beautiful people. yet, somehow, bay is at fault here? they are always lust figures. but so are the men right? dushamel, smith, harnett, affleck, so it's not like he just picks good looking women.

but i can also argue with you that they do in fact play a huge roles in the film. tea leoni, yes in short skirt, is the center of witnessing a murder that was the basis of the story. bay yelling at KB for not looking hot enough, i dunno, but in terms of story, she was the center of the love triangle showcased in the movie. union is head CIA agent investigating the drug trafficking. scarlett johanssen in the island and fox in transformers are porbalby the only one i can think of that are more of what you are talking aobut. Fox, you can literally pick her out of the movie, and the movie wouldn't change one bit.

so yes bay is doing that now, but he didn't do it in his previous movies.

 

[M.O.Steel]

edit

 

[M.O.Steel]

His point does have some merit. Bay has a formula of two male leads with a second female lead that reflects them, but does not actually exert force on the plot, nor does she have a growth arc. They are wife characters, hostages, sidekicks, love interests, informants on a good day. Not heroes. It's hard to 'root' for them because they don't really do anything. There may be exceptions (I can't think of one, be happy to hear one) but this trend is kinda obvious. This doesn't make them bad movies, or bad for women, but the point is that the women represented are ineffectual, and the plots of the movies in question support it.

Eye Candy is relative. In Funny People is Leslie Mann not the object of affection? Is she not more attractive than everyone else in the film? That said, at least Judd moves away from the two male leads with female reflector at times.

But then we can go to Hollywood as a whole and say this same thing for 90% of the directors we have. Even in RomComs, the 'women's genre' women can't even manage to drive the plot most of the time. We could say something about society as a whole now, but that would be a different debate.

bay makes action movies for guys. so naturally it would seem like that. He is planning to do a romantic drama, i'm sure there will be a stronger women

as i mentioned in my other post, i feel that it is incorrect to say that they don't push the plot. especially KB in pearl harbor, but also GU and TL in teh bad boys movies. yes they are beautiful, but they do serve a plot. fox didn't at all.

leslie mann is beautiful, maybe the most in the movie (which isn't really that difficult consider adam sandler and seth rogan are your main characters), but she wasn't exactly "eye candy". She was a sidekick maybe, but she was very important to the plot of a cancer patient and his long lost love.

i just feel that you guys are a bit harsh on bay...and apatow.

 

[The Apatow Crew]

"more shapely" Are you kidding me? Really?


That new chick is skinnier then Megan. And I'm not talking about Megan currently, but in the first two movies.

 

[Sentinel X]

Or at 90% of the actresses in Hollywood sans makeup, for that matter?

Rosie is at least as attractive as Megan Fox, and more shapely, imo. And she's cheaper which means that's one more fight scene we'll get to see.

You guys make it sound like Megan Fox is an actual actress.

It boggles my mind how people find her unattractive. Seriously? ...if she didn't "steal" the role from Megan would she still be so hated?

And its is really funny. It seems like people do think Megan is an actual actress and I've been saying Megan Fox IS on equal footing with your typical VS model. Is she hot? Definitely...but thats about it.

Money saved does not mean more for us. It could mean more profit for the studio.

Also, compared to Rosie, Megan Fox is a veteran actor. Compared to Rosie, Paris Hilton is a veteran actor

I'm sorry. But Megan Fox isn't a veteran actor compared to ANYBODY. And secondly, where did you see the new girl act to come to that conclusion? And third, does the role of the hot love interest really require any acting ability at all? I don't think so.

 

[chaseter]

This girl has been in nothing. Megan Fox has been in movies and tv shows. So yes, she is a veteran compared to somebody that has done absolutely nothing. It just reiterates the fact that this girl was hired for looks, nothing more and nothing less.

People whined that Megan Fox was not a good actress and they applauded when she was booted out. Go back and look in this thread! They then turn around and hire a model with no acting experience and to see all the open jawed responses in here was hilarious.

These movies have a ton of chances to be better but they just piss those chances into the wind.