Jump to content

Should Megan Fox be in Transformers 3? Is it time for the arrival of Carly?


nakobass

Recommended Posts

JOP.. with the second rebuttal in your post.. you didn't really help your cause. he's saying that everyone in the theaters laughs and claps during and at the end of his movies.. now.. where i'm from.. you applaud if something is good. and i have had similar experiences at his movies.. every single one of them that i've seen.. especially transformers have had a ton of laughs and several applauses (i don't quite get the whole applauding in movie theaters thing, but hey.. whatever people wanna do)

 

 

anyways. i also hate when they replace an actor actress.. especially with the dark knight. i personally didn't think katie holmes did all that bad in batman begins. and she doesn't look that bad.. now maggie, in my opinion is hideous.. and was a horrendous actress in the dark knight.. she was like the only bad part about that movie.. i really can't express how much i disliked her.

 

and agent 539 .. are you serious? i have never ever seen anyone as attractive as megan fox at a mall, i need to go to a mall near you... or anywhere for that matter. i think she is a very uniquely attractive girl. she looks very good and there is something a little bad ass about her. and like i said before..she only really had one cringe worth moment in ROTF, in my opinion.

 

she was good when they were arguing in the beginning, she was good with wheelie, she was good when she went to meet him and he was with alice, she was good/funny in the library, she was good with wheelie humping her leg, she was okay at night in egypt, she was good while running from decepticons at the end.. but she was bad when sam almost dies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

don't know where you live, but with the same makeup staff (hell not even) a Megan Fox is a dime a dozen near me.

 

Don't get me wrong, she looks good, dam good, but the only thing that really makes her stand out is that they're just putting her out there.

 

Hell, begining of summer I went to my friends wedding. I met 2 girls in the church, they didn't look so good. By time the reception came around, they had time to get done up, I was real sad I walked away from them(especialy since we were at the same table). Both put Ms. Fox to shame.

 

Anyhow, I'm just saying, open bars are great because I still hooked up with one of them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Superconductor: Sam = Spike, and Ron = Sparkplug. The original names weren't used because they didn't fit for the following reasons: A. Who the hell goes by the name "Spike" anymore? B. Sparkplug may have been a passable nickname for Sam's dad IF he was a mechanic, but the LA movies don't give enough evidence/allusions to such a fact (actually, the big friggin' house that is the Witwicky home, to me, points away from that)

 

@ JOP: to support your argument that what's popular isn't necessarily good, twilight won best movie at the 2008 mtv movie awards over DARK F*&%IN' KNIGHT, because of multitudes of idiot teenage schoolgirls who wouldn't know a good film if it came and skull-f*&%ed them in broad daylight (in which vampires CAN NOT SURVIVE)

 

Back on topic: megan fox is just a younger clone of Angelina Jolie (whom I'm already tired of, to start) minus class and professionalism whose only talent is on the runway and (probably) in bed, The character of Mikaela Banes is unrealistic and contributes next-to-nothing to the story apart from the main character's unbelievable (as in, "cannot be believed") love interest, and should have been a cute(not necessarily hot), somewhat nerdy/geeky blonde named Carly who is more in Sam's league.

 

HOWEVER...

 

IF Mikaela returns for TF3, for continuity's sake, I'd prefer that she were played by the same, skanky, spoiled brat that portayed the character in the other two films, I'd like for the role to be either useful to the plot, or made brief and replaced with someone else who is (i.e., the above named Carly), but, at the same time, I highly doubt that dropping the character and/or model altogether would hurt the third film at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Superconductor: Sam = Spike, and Ron = Sparkplug. The original names weren't used because they didn't fit for the following reasons: A. Who the hell goes by the name "Spike" anymore? B. Sparkplug may have been a passable nickname for Sam's dad IF he was a mechanic, but the LA movies don't give enough evidence/allusions to such a fact (actually, the big friggin' house that is the Witwicky home, to me, points away from that)

 

 

Grimmy, I don't know if you're trying to school me or something, but taking your comment at face value, I couldn't agree with you less. Sam IS NOT Spike and ditto for dad. What difference does it make who goes by what name? The characters and characterizations weren't the same---that's the point I made that you missed. It's pointless for their last names to be Witwicky too. So why bother introducing a Carly character (in name or in deeds). That would be pointless as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JOP.. with the second rebuttal in your post.. you didn't really help your cause. he's saying that everyone in the theaters laughs and claps during and at the end of his movies.. now.. where i'm from.. you applaud if something is good. and i have had similar experiences at his movies.. every single one of them that i've seen.. especially transformers have had a ton of laughs and several applauses (i don't quite get the whole applauding in movie theaters thing, but hey.. whatever people wanna do)

Look at it this way: the argument ad populum is a logical fallacy whereby one essentially asserts "This is so, because it is popular" when no such logical link exists. For instance, if nakobass had stated "Revenge of the Fallen was financially successful because so many people went to see it", I couldn't help but agree. Unfortunately, that is not the argument in front of us - the argument in front of us is "Revenge of the Fallen was seen by many people; therefore, it is good."

 

Now, 'good' is an admittedly subjective term; different people have different ideas about what constitutes a measure of quality. Fortunately, there is sufficient overlap and consensus in the area of film that we have the widely accepted framework of film criticism by which to judge cinematic quality. Against this framework, Revenge of the Fallen could be judged 'not good' - the film is riddled with plot holes, one-dimensional characters and cliche dialog (to say nothing of the lowbrow humour, racial overtones and other controversial elements).

 

Yes, many people went to see Revenge of the Fallen. Yes, people applauded the film. These things alone do not a good film make. (An entertaining film perhaps, but that's a whole other ballgame.)

 

@ JOP: to support your argument that what's popular isn't necessarily good, twilight won best movie at the 2008 mtv movie awards over DARK F*&%IN' KNIGHT, because of multitudes of idiot teenage schoolgirls who wouldn't know a good film if it came and skull-f*&%ed them in broad daylight (in which vampires CAN NOT SURVIVE)

Oh fuck me. It did?

 

All I can think is this: go back forty (even fifty!) years ago, and you'll find such thoughtful television as Alfred Hitchcock Present's and Rod Serling's original, influential Twilight Zone. Now... now we get to see CSI: Miami face off against The Jay Leno Show. If that alone isn't evidence of a lack of confluence between quality and popularity, I don't know what is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd dump Bay WAAAAAYYYY before Megan Fox. She has chemistry with Shia, and is smoking hot. Bay is the one pushing shitty story elements, and not giving his actors a chance to get a decent take in (trust me, I saw it firsthand).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care whether Fox is in the film or not; I'm more worried about whether the story is actually any good and whether THE ROBOTS are in it or not. It's not like they have to monopolize the screen time but, seriously? Except for kicking each other in the face a couple of times, they were hardly in this movie! And even worse perhaps, the ones that were on screen NOT kicking each other weren't there in any capacity I actually cared about.

 

Except Prime. And Jetfire. And that was only for a minute or two. And then they killed them. Bleh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bay is the one pushing shitty story elements, and not giving his actors a chance to get a decent take in (trust me, I saw it firsthand).

Care to elaborate? It sounds as if you got to see the filming itself... I'm kind of curious as to what the story is behind that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE