Megan Fox and the Transformers Debacle

Kimia

According to Shia La Beouf (god how I detest him), the reason Megan Fox had such a falling out with the Transformer's director is because he tried to make her seem too sexy and inappropriate. I find this hard to believe, especially as she is more than happy to be as sexy as possible in photo shoots and other movies.

It pisses me off that she trades on being a 'strong' woman who stood up to the bad director man when she obviously will be as sexy as is necessary when she wants to be. This is the same woman who has been quoted as believing herself 'too beautiful' to be successful in Hollywood.

What kind of a message is this sending? It just reeks of manipulation and deceit. I hate the fact that she is happy to use 'female empowerment' as an excuse to be a bad employee. It's like accusing her employer of sexual harrassment because he got annoyed that she wouldn't do the exact same job she has always done.

Or am I way off base and my dislike of Megan Fox is warping my viewpoint?

Jerrica

tbh it's secondhand information reported by the entertainment media - not exactly bastians of honest reporting. This week Bradley Cooper made a throwaway remark in response to a question as to whether Dublin would be a suitable location for Hangover 3 and next thing you know it's become an OMG HOLLYWOOD IS COMING TO VISIT!!1!1!1!1 "fact".

I don't think it fair to slate someone who may or may not have done something based on what an ex co-star may or may not have said.

Kimia

Thanks Buzz.

parker kent

Kimia wrote: »

Or am I way off base and my dislike of Megan Fox is warping my viewpoint?

It probably is warping your view. Where does she say she is doing it for female empowerment? Indeed where has she actually said anything? If she did leave for those reasons and has since kept quiet about it, surely that is admirable? If she were using female empowerment as an excuse in the manner you say, she would surely shout it from the roof tops?

I don't see how her deciding to be in photoshoots has anything to do with her character in a movie. Photoshoots are done on her own terms, this movie presumably was not going to be done on her terms. Images and movies are different things, her viewing them as different things is not that surprising.

Kimia

parker kent wrote: »

It probably is warping your view. Where does she say she is doing it for female empowerment? Indeed where has she actually said anything? If she did leave for those reasons and has since kept quiet about it, surely that is admirable? If she were using female empowerment as an excuse in the manner you say, she would surely shout it from the roof tops?

I don't see how her deciding to be in photoshoots has anything to do with her character in a movie. Photoshoots are done on her own terms, this movie presumably was not going to be done on her terms. Images and movies are different things, her viewing them as different things is not that surprising.

She hasn't been quiet at all. She blasted the director, saying that the movie was not about 'acting' and compared him to hitler! That was where this all started!

parker kent

Kimia wrote: »

She hasn't been quiet at all. She blasted the director, saying that the movie was not about 'acting' and compared him to hitler! That was where this all started!

I meant quiet in terms of what you said in the first post. You say:

According to Shia La Beouf (god how I detest him), the reason Megan Fox had such a falling out with the Transformer's director is because he tried to make her seem too sexy and inappropriate.

Which means this is Shia La Beouf saying she left for those reasons, not Megan Fox. I didn't say she hadn't spoken out, I said she hasn't spoken out in terms of what you say. She hasn't mentioned female empowerment.

For what it is worth, I read her interviews in The Guardian and a few other publications after she left Transformers. She did make some good points about being filmed washing a car by Michael Bay when she was a teenager. So Shia probably has a point.

Trash has been on reviewing duties for the past few weeks but I couldn't let this little gem go unearthed for you. Talking to Megan Fox who was in town for the Transformers 2 premiere, I found her more forthright and intelligent than her performance in the mega-hit would suggest. The role demands that she drapes herself over motorbikes and runs around in a vest. How did she get the part which has made her what lads' mags call the "hottest girl on the planet". She told me she went to director Michael Bay's house to audition and he made her wash his Ferrari while he filmed her. She said she didn't know what had happened to that footage. When I put it to Bay himself, he looked suitably abashed. "Er, I don't know where it is either."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jul/05/johnny-depp-megan-fox

Kimia

Yes, I see what you mean. Yea that director dude comes across quite creepy. What was getting my goat is the fact that she appeared to be picking and choosing when to be used as a sexy character as a means to getting what she wants and then complaining about being used as a sexy character. It just doesn't add up for me. I would prefer her to be consistent. I do see your point though that it's second hand.

Dudess

Beyoncé once apparently stated that she was "cansei de ser sexy" - Portuguese for "tired of being sexy" (what the Brazilian group CSS took their name from). Hmmm... if she was "tired" of it, surely she'd tone it down? Then again though, she has the record company and all the other puppeteers to answer to.

Kimia

That's my point Dudess, but I did make it very badly. It just annoys me when an actress like Megan Fox will use whatever means necessary to get her career going in Hollywood and then will moan incessently about not being taken seriously, that she's too beautiful etc and in Megan Fox's case (although I'm aware that it's SLB who's speaking for her here) - that she's tired of being used by lecherous old directors. If you're tired of being too beautiful/sexy then stop trading on your looks then?

johnny_ultimate

I'm a hetrosexual male and actually felt quite uncomfortable at the way Michael Bay filmed Fox (who I should add I'm far from a fan off, although do have some respect that she jumped ship from this wretched franchise). His directorial style seemed to be - point camera at ass, play crappy music over it. It just seemed to be trying to hard - as if he was telling the audience "Look! Attractive woman!"

Of course, sexism is the least of the film's worries. The racist spree in part two actually made the treatment of female characters seem positively progressive.

Links234

Didn't Michael Bay start off his career directing pornography? or am I wrong?

doesn't really matter, he hasn't made a good movie since the rock.

Chuchoter

Megan Fox profiting on her body is not who you should be angry at. Be angry at Hollywood who outright refuses to give women proper stories anymore because they can't/won't sell them. Fewer and fewer films put women in complex, main roles or pass the Bechdel test at all. Movies in terms of the presence of proper,well developed female characters are really,really poor these days.

Links234

crayolastereo wrote: »

Megan Fox profiting on her body is not who you should be angry at. Be angry at Hollywood who outright refuses to give women proper stories anymore because they can't/won't sell them. Fewer and fewer films put women in complex, main roles or pass the Bechdel test at all. Movies in terms of the presence of proper,well developed female characters are really,really poor these days.

what films can you think of recently that would pass the Bechdel test?

Hanna is the only one that comes to mind for me

Chuchoter

I don't really watch a huge number of films in the cinema anymore (so expensive!) but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Black Swan maybe? Its a really tiny number. The best you get anymore is women with a bit of personality as love interest, like Astrid in How to train your dragon (that I did see! Me with my very mature movie tastes :P)

krudler

Links234 wrote: »

what films can you think of recently that would pass the Bechdel test?

Hanna is the only one that comes to mind for me

That Bechdel test is a pretty ropey argument when it comes to dissecting women in movies tbh. For those who dont know what it is, its simply a movie that has:

1.two female characters
2.who talk to each other
3.and not about a man

Now is this one scene with two female characters? or one line of dialogue? I could name dozens of movies off the top of my head that pass this in one form or another, it neither makes them inheriently sexist or non sexist.

Megan Fox didnt seem to have an issue with portraying herself as over sexualised in Jennifer's Body though.

krudler

crayolastereo wrote: »

I don't really watch a huge number of films in the cinema anymore (so expensive!) but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Black Swan maybe? Its a really tiny number. The best you get anymore is women with a bit of personality as love interest, like Astrid in How to train your dragon (that I did see! Me with my very mature movie tastes :P)

How To Train Your Dragon was one of my favourite movies last year, if it wasnt for Toy Story 3 it would have been the best animated movie of the year. Its a fantastic movie and I really wish more people would give it a chance.

Chuchoter

krudler wrote: »

That Bechdel test is a pretty ropey argument when it comes to dissecting women in movies tbh. For those who dont know what it is, its simply a movie that has:

1.two female characters
2.who talk to each other
3.and not about a man

Now is this one scene with two female characters? or one line of dialogue? I could name dozens of movies off the top of my head that pass this in one form or another, it neither makes them inheriently sexist or non sexist.

Megan Fox didnt seem to have an issue with portraying herself as over sexualised in Jennifer's Body though.

Its the whole movie and it has to pass all three conditions. Its not supposed to test if a movie is sexist or not sexist or feminist. Its to test if womens stories are represented at all. If you have no story you are irrelevant and interchangeable.The Bechdel Test is the most basic thing a film needs to pass, then you can look at all the other things.

Links234

krudler wrote: »

That Bechdel test is a pretty ropey argument when it comes to dissecting women in movies tbh. For those who dont know what it is, its simply a movie that has:

1.two female characters
2.who talk to each other
3.and not about a man

Now is this one scene with two female characters? or one line of dialogue? I could name dozens of movies off the top of my head that pass this in one form or another, it neither makes them inheriently sexist or non sexist.

Megan Fox didnt seem to have an issue with portraying herself as over sexualised in Jennifer's Body though.

I don't think the Bechdel test is meant to be all that serious, or to be taken as a good way for an intellectual dissection of women's roles in movies, it's about representation, that's all. I mean, Sucker Punch passes the test for crying out loud!

parker kent

crayolastereo wrote: »

Megan Fox profiting on her body is not who you should be angry at. Be angry at Hollywood who outright refuses to give women proper stories anymore because they can't/won't sell them. Fewer and fewer films put women in complex, main roles or pass the Bechdel test at all. Movies in terms of the presence of proper,well developed female characters are really,really poor these days.

I'd agree with this and add to my earlier points that Megan Fox was a teenager when Bay first got his hands on her (so to speak). There has to be an allowance for somebody making decisions as a teenager that they later regret.

Also, surely she is within her rights to trade on her looks whenever she wants? If she decides that certain films are going too far, then that's her decision.

krudler

I've mentioned this before but James Cameron is hands down the best writer of strong female characters in movies, has been since The Terminator came out, every film he's made either has a female character as the central or one of the central protagonists (The Terminator, Aliens, Titanic, The Abyss, Avatar).

Is Hollywood not making movies about interesting female characters because they dont want to? or because people dont go see them? take a look at the differences between the box office takings of say, Sex and The City or Mamma Mia, and compare that to something like Changeling, or Amelia. light and fluffy romcoms makes more money compared to movies with more serious themes, is it the audiences fault?

Chuchoter

The films are marketed mostly to 16-35 year old straight men and then as a side note women 25+. You can't blame the audience for not going to see something they're not being sold, and moreso something they've been trained not to want to see. The reason they called Tangled Tangled was they didn't want to alienate boys by making it a 'girls' film.

parker kent

krudler wrote: »

Is Hollywood not making movies about interesting female characters because they dont want to? or because people dont go see them? take a look at the differences between the box office takings of say, Sex and The City or Mamma Mia, and compare that to something like Changeling, or Amelia. light and fluffy romcoms makes more money compared to movies with more serious themes, is it the audiences fault?

You can't compare those types of films. Worthy, serious movies very, very rarely make anywhere near the same amount as mainstream fluff. I think if you avoid blockbusters/popcorn movies, you will see interesting female characters. But bar the odd exception, those films don't catch a wider audience. It is no different to TV. The Wire had a fraction of the audience of crap like CSI.

krudler

parker kent wrote: »

You can't compare those types of films. Worthy, serious movies very, very rarely make anywhere near the same amount as mainstream fluff. I think if you avoid blockbusters/popcorn movies, you will see interesting female characters. But bar the odd exception, those films don't catch a wider audience. It is no different to TV. The Wire had a fraction of the audience of crap like CSI.

There ya go so, if audiences keep going to crap they'll keeping making crap. Its like the people who told me they went to The Hangover 2 knowing it wouldnt be as good as the first, then complaining its crap, so why go then?

Standards in mainstream movies have definitely dropped in the past few decades,but thats as much the audiences fault as the studios.

parker kent

krudler wrote: »

There ya go so, if audiences keep going to crap they'll keeping making crap. Its like the people who told me they went to The Hangover 2 knowing it wouldnt be as good as the first, then complaining its crap, so why go then?

Standards in mainstream movies have definitely dropped in the past few decades,but thats as much the audiences fault as the studios.

It has also seen the elimination of films with medium budgets. They are all blockbusters with massive budgets (and super safe scripts as a result to target the popcorn brigade) or sub 10 million budgets such as The Kings Speech. Now I loved The King's Speech, but Hollywood did make some great films that had medium budgets. Now it is either Oscar worthy movies or brainless crap (with the occasional exception. Yes Christopher Nolan I am looking at you :pac:

But to get back to the point at hand, I don't think we should look at mainstream movies for great female characters. There are very few that have great characters full stop.

krudler

parker kent wrote: »

It has also seen the elimination of films with medium budgets. They are all blockbusters with massive budgets (and super safe scripts as a result to target the popcorn brigade) or sub 10 million budgets such as The Kings Speech. Now I loved The King's Speech, but Hollywood did make some great films that had medium budgets. Now it is either Oscar worthy movies or brainless crap (with the occasional exception. Yes Christopher Nolan I am looking at you :pac:

But to get back to the point at hand, I don't think we should look at mainstream movies for great female characters. There are very few that have great characters full stop.

I was watching the Bourne trilogy last weekend, now there are three movies that have women in prominent roles, granted one of them is Bournes love interest, but shes the catalyst for the sequels essentially. then theres Pam Landy the CIA operations director and Nicky the other operative, all play hugely important roles in what could have been a male dominated series of movies.

parker kent

krudler wrote: »

I was watching the Bourne trilogy last weekend, now there are three movies that have women in prominent roles, granted one of them is Bournes love interest, but shes the catalyst for the sequels essentially. then theres Pam Landy the CIA operations director and Nicky the other operative, all play hugely important roles in what could have been a male dominated series of movies.

Well that would be part of what I call the occasional exception. You still get some good mainstream movies, but most are decided by marketing teams, focus groups and with an eye on a sequel. Bourne was just well made, both the male and female characters have more depth than most films of it's ilk.

I think anybody looking for movies with women in prominent roles, playing complex characters should start watching more world cinema.

krudler

parker kent wrote: »

Well that would be part of what I call the occasional exception. You still get some good mainstream movies, but most are decided by marketing teams, focus groups and with an eye on a sequel. Bourne was just well made, both the male and female characters have more depth than most films of it's ilk.

I think anybody looking for movies with women in prominent roles, playing complex characters should start watching more world cinema.

I hate that movies are made by committee these days, the plot is an afterthought to Burger King toys and merchandise.

parker kent

To give this thread some context, here is what Shia LaBeouf said:

“Megan developed this Spice Girl strength, this woman-empowerment [stuff] that made her feel awkward about her involvement with Michael, who some people think is a very lascivious filmmaker, the way he films women,” LaBeouf said. “Mike films women in a way that appeals to a 16-year-old sexuality. It’s summer. It’s Michael’s style. And I think [Fox] never got comfortable with it. This is a girl who was taken from complete obscurity and placed in a sex-driven role in front of the whole world and told she was the sexiest woman in America. And she had a hard time accepting it. When Mike would ask her to do specific things, there was no time for fluffy talk. We’re on the run. And the one thing Mike lacks is tact. There’s no time for [LaBeouf assumes a gentle voice] ‘I would like you to just arch your back 70 degrees.’”

I don't think there is anything wrong with what Megan Fox has done. She was taken as young teenager and put in a world that was probably confusing and alluring. Think how any teenager would react in the situation she found herself in. That she would decide to step away from that as she got into her 20s is not surprising.

I think people accusing her of having it two ways are being incredibly unfair and show a lack of understanding of a situation a teenage girl ended up in. She was basically brought in to sex-up anything she has been in since she was 16. That is bound to screw you up a bit.

seenitall

parker kent wrote: »

I think people accusing her of having it two ways are being incredibly unfair and show a lack of understanding of a situation a teenage girl ended up in. She was basically brought in to sex-up anything she has been in since she was 16. That is bound to screw you up a bit.

Reminds me of Thandie Newton's case, who was "seduced" :rolleyes: by the director Duigan while filming "Flirting"; she would have been 16 at the time (although I remember reading she was actually 15 at the time of filming - I have a feeling she has decided to cover his ass by claiming she was legal while still disclosing the story for the benefit of other vulnerable young girls in the industry, just my supposition).

The disturbing thing is the amount of moronic comments on-line, to the tune of: "It's called the casting couch, dear - you can't go profitting from it and then claim being vulnerable."

(BTW, "Flirting" is a great little film, and Thandie is actually scorching in it - she looks her age but very, very foxy with it, making Nicole Kidman look like a bland wallflower in comparison - IMO anyway ).

shinikins

Its been mentioned a few times in this thread that Megan Fox was a teenager when the Transformers series began. Well I'm sorry, she was 21 when the first movie was released, which makes her an adult, who made adult decisions, and one of those decisions was to actively pursue roles in which she is plays seriously sexed up characters. Her whole career is based on her looks, her most recent "serious" role(and I use that term very lightly) is of a striper/angel who spends most of her time on film in little or no clothing. Smacks of hypocrisy to me.

parker kent

shinikins wrote: »

Its been mentioned a few times in this thread that Megan Fox was a teenager when the Transformers series began. Well I'm sorry, she was 21 when the first movie was released, which makes her an adult, who made adult decisions, and one of those decisions was to actively pursue roles in which she is plays seriously sexed up characters. Her whole career is based on her looks, her most recent "serious" role(and I use that term very lightly) is of a striper/angel who spends most of her time on film in little or no clothing. Smacks of hypocrisy to me.

She was 16 when the video of her washing the car that I am talking with Michael Bay was recorded. The same age as when she replaced an actress on Hope & Faith. That is what I am talking about. I'm not equating her getting into the TV and movie industry with her role in the first Transformers.

People can make decisions early in a career that they regret. Even at 21, she could still make poor decisions, particularly given some of her formative years were spent as I have referred to above.

pickarooney

krudler wrote: »

I've mentioned this before but James Cameron is hands down the best writer of strong female characters in movies, has been since The Terminator came out, every film he's made either has a female character as the central or one of the central protagonists (The Terminator, Aliens, Titanic, The Abyss, Avatar).

Pedro Almodovar is miles ahead in this respect.

shinikins

parker kent wrote: »

She was 16 when the video of her washing the car that I am talking with Michael Bay was recorded. The same age as when she replaced an actress on Hope & Faith. That is what I am talking about. I'm not equating her getting into the TV and movie industry with her role in the first Transformers.

People can make decisions early in a career that they regret. Even at 21, she could still make poor decisions, particularly given some of her formative years were spent as I have referred to above.

Apparently that was part of an audition she went through for her role in Transformers, so I highly doubt she was 16. Yes people can regret decisions they make early on in their career-but you don't go on to repeat the same mistake ad infinitum. She's also been incredibly vocal in a negative way about the Transformers franchise, and now has the gall to complain that she's being treated in this way just because she is a girl. You don't bite the hand that feeds you and then say "its not my fault"

seenitall

pickarooney wrote: »

Pedro Almodovar is miles ahead in this respect.

Pedro Almodovar vacillates wildly between writing strong female characters ("All About My Mother", "Volver") and some rather disturbing misogynist slant stuff ("Kika", "Talk To Her" - rape played for laughs, and rape as "love", respectively).

(I strongly suspect that his latest, "The skin I live in" will fall in to the second category, from what I've seen of the teaser trailer anyway.)

johnny_ultimate

There are a tonne of writers and directors out there creating strong female characters and protagonists - Hayao Miyazaki (Spirited Away, Howl's Moving Castle, most of his other films), Charlie Kaufman (the ensemble female cast of Synecdoche New York are astonishing), Darren Aronofsky, Almodovar as mentioned above, Joss Whedon etc... I'd say Lars von Trier too, but while I admire his ability to give talented actresses a real chance to shine (Kidman, Watson, Gainsbourg, Bjork and apparently Kirsten Dunst too) his female characters tend to wind up dead / mutilated more often than not :pac: And going back to Hollywood, there's plenty of actresses frequently receiving strong roles. Michelle Monaghan and Olivia Wilde have both brought brains as well as beauty to what could easily have been standard 'generic love interest' roles. Natalie Portman is doing an amazing job racking up respectable roles - hell, even in her shallow role in Thor she's a frickin' astro-physicist! Jennifer Lawerence completely owned Winters Bone. And they're the younger ones - look at the likes of Helena-Boham Carter, Catherine Keener, Diane Lane, Helen Mirren and plenty more getting fantastic roles time and time again.

Cinema is far from devoid of excellent actresses and female characters. It's just the worst Hollywood writers just tend to use a 'girl' as an excuse to attract a male audience in / give the male protagonist someone to lust after. And Michael Bay is the most deplorable of the lot in that regard.

In any case, it's not like we males get off easy. Look at any film with Gerard Butler in it. I'd swear the directors of his deplorable output want to make guys seem like ****ing idiots :pac:

parker kent

shinikins wrote: »

Apparently that was part of an audition she went through for her role in Transformers, so I highly doubt she was 16. Yes people can regret decisions they make early on in their career-but you don't go on to repeat the same mistake ad infinitum. She's also been incredibly vocal in a negative way about the Transformers franchise, and now has the gall to complain that she's being treated in this way just because she is a girl. You don't bite the hand that feeds you and then say "its not my fault"

The film was released when she 21. Production (including special effects etc) would have taken around 18 months. Casting, planning etc could have taken the same amount. It isn't beyond belief that she was very young. Maybe she is being over the top by saying 16, but she would almost certainly have been a teenager.

shinikins

parker kent wrote: »

The film was released when she 21. Production (including special effects etc) would have taken around 18 months. Casting, planning etc could have taken the same amount. It isn't beyond belief that she was very young. Maybe she is being over the top by saying 16, but she would almost certainly have been a teenager.

production (including casting) started on that movie in April 2006, it was released in July 2007, she was still legally an adult.

enfant terrible

crayolastereo wrote: »

The films are marketed mostly to 16-35 year old straight men and then as a side note women 25+. You can't blame the audience for not going to see something they're not being sold, and moreso something they've been trained not to want to see. The reason they called Tangled Tangled was they didn't want to alienate boys by making it a 'girls' film.

If there was a big enough market for it there would be more films for that age group.(women 25+)

Hollywood exec's only care about one thing and that's making money, not trying to make young guys happy.

ahem!!

There was also a rumor that Bay had Fox audition for the role by taping her washing his car.

Apparently when asked where the vid was, Bay said 'It's lost', rather than denying such a video or audition ever existed.

He's not the worlds greatest director. He does objectify women.

But when Fox went for the role she would have to have been fairly naive to think she was auditioning for anything other than eye candy.

And likening one of the most bankable directors in Hollywood to a Nazi, especially one with such strong connection to Spielberg...not smart.

Actually come think of it, it might have struck a dead note with Hasbro too. Off the top of my head, i would guess Brian Goldner is Jewish too.

Shia is a motormouth btw. He has a tendency to speak first, think later.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The racist spree in part two actually made the treatment of female characters seem positively progressive.

It was specifically said in the first movie that they learned how to speak English from the Internet.

One might argue that the racially insensitive characters to which you're referring
are actually a parody of those who take on certain speech patterns, behaviour, in an attempt to look 'cool'.

Some of you might consider this position...others may round on me...because.

The movie was a mess...but some of the 'issues' that have been attributed to it are not necessarily a fair criticism.

parker kent

shinikins wrote: »

production (including casting) started on that movie in April 2006, it was released in July 2007, she was still legally an adult.

That hardly changes my point, I said she was a teenager. Which she was.Which is why I said:

Maybe she is being over the top by saying 16, but she would almost certainly have been a teenager

.

Surely you can agree that people are not as adept at decision making when they are teenagers? Do you not see how a young girl could easily make a decision she later regrets? I don't think she was some cunning, manipulative minx. She's just a girl who for whatever reason wanted to act/be in showbusiness etc.

Plus we still don't actually know what age she was when the video was made.

shinikins

parker kent wrote: »

That hardly changes my point, I said she was a teenager. Which she was.Which is why I said:

.Maybe she is being over the top by saying 16, but she would almost certainly have been a teenager

Surely you can agree that people are not as adept at decision making when they are teenagers? Do you not see how a young girl could easily make a decision she later regrets? I don't think she was some cunning, manipulative minx. She's just a girl who for whatever reason wanted to act/be in showbusiness etc.

Plus we still don't actually know what age she was when the video was made.

Your right, we don't know what age she was, so why say?

parker kent wrote: »

She was 16 when the video of her washing the car that I am talking with Michael Bay was recorded.

If people are not as adept at decision making in their teen years, why then are they allowed to choose their college course, drive a car, have a child, vote-these are all things that hugely affect your life. Yes, people regret decisions they make, but most tend to live with them and learn from the experience. Megan Fox knew what she was getting into, made a huge gaffe by complaining about Bay to the press and was dropped from the movie because of that. She's moaning that it was too sexed up, and yet she goes on to make another two movies where she spends most of her screen time with little or no clothing on. She's chosen to portray herself as a sex symbol, yet complains when she is treated as such.

Logical Fallacy

crayolastereo wrote: »

Megan Fox profiting on her body is not who you should be angry at. Be angry at Hollywood who outright refuses to give women proper stories anymore because they can't/won't sell them. Fewer and fewer films put women in complex, main roles or pass the Bechdel test at all. Movies in terms of the presence of proper,well developed female characters are really,really poor these days.

One of the highest earning area's for Hollywood is 18-30 year old males, so they are only aiming for the demographic that makes them back the cash.

I could give a long and boring post on why Hollywood is dying on it's ass, why female actors don't get the decent roles and why girls don't clamour to the cinema to support them in those roles....but it would be boring.

Long story short, Hollywood is dead weight, independent and foreign cinema is awesome.

Support it.

With regard to Megan Fox....she got caught out talking **** about a director and lost a role over it, end of really. Shia is coming on the defensive because filming is wrapped, their is no Transformers 4 and they can't edit him out now. Basically being a white knight that got hit with traffic lights as he tried to come to her defense.

Kimia

parker kent wrote: »

That hardly changes my point, I said she was a teenager. Which she was.Which is why I said:
.

Surely you can agree that people are not as adept at decision making when they are teenagers? Do you not see how a young girl could easily make a decision she later regrets? I don't think she was some cunning, manipulative minx. She's just a girl who for whatever reason wanted to act/be in showbusiness etc.

Plus we still don't actually know what age she was when the video was made.

Parker you sound like a lovestruck naive teenager yourself right now. She portrays herself as a sex symbol and then complains because she is seen as a sex symbol. It's irritating.

parker kent

shinikins wrote: »

Your right, we don't know what age she was, so why say?

You just posted my clarification, given I have already stated we don't the exact age, should I have to say so again? Regardless of her age, she was still a teenager. Which is what my point was about.

If people are not as adept at decision making in their teen years, why then are they allowed to choose their college course, drive a car, have a child, vote-these are all things that hugely affect your life. Yes, people regret decisions they make, but most tend to live with them and learn from the experience. Megan Fox knew what she was getting into, made a huge gaffe by complaining about Bay to the press and was dropped from the movie because of that. She's moaning that it was too sexed up, and yet she goes on to make another two movies where she spends most of her screen time with little or no clothing on. She's chosen to portray herself as a sex symbol, yet complains when she is treated as such.

Surely I don't have to explain that people are generally not as adept at decision making when they are a teenager?

None of my posts are connected to her out bursts in interviews. She often sounds ridiculous when doing so. Nonetheless, I was making specific points in relation to earlier posts. Also, as I say above, surely she is allowed to decide how she wishes to be portrayed in movies?

If she has decided to leave the token sex symbol roles behind, that is her choice. I don't see why she should be sneered at for making that decision. This is not a Nathaniel Hawthorne novel, there is no need for women to feel shame and wear a scarlett letter showing their shame.

shinikins

parker kent wrote: »

Surely I don't have to explain that people are generally not as adept at decision making when they are a teenager?

None of my posts are connected to her out bursts in interviews. She often sounds ridiculous when doing so. Nonetheless, I was making specific points in relation to earlier posts. Also, as I say above, surely she is allowed to decide how she wishes to be portrayed in movies?

If she has decided to leave the token sex symbol roles behind, that is her choice. I don't see why she should be sneered at for making that decision. This is not a Nathaniel Hawthorne novel, there is no need for women to feel shame and wear a scarlett letter showing their shame.

But thats the whole point, she was hired to play a role that was already written, the only control she has over this is to decide whther or not she wants to take that role. Thats like you or I taking a job as a waitress and complaining that your manager won't allow you to cook the food. Its laughable that she accepted a role where she knew she was playing a sexual stereotype, but then complains afterwards!! And yet she's still accepting the same type of role, over and over again. She's not leaving the token sex symbol roles behind, she's actively seeking them out.

As for your point about teenagers, I'll refer back to my own, at 18 you are legally an adult, so unless she was deemed unfit to make her own decisions by a court or medical professionals she has to accept the consequences of her actions. Its all part of life and growing up, and becoming a responsible adult.

parker kent

shinikins wrote: »

But thats the whole point, she was hired to play a role that was already written, the only control she has over this is to decide whther or not she wants to take that role. Thats like you or I taking a job as a waitress and complaining that your manager won't allow you to cook the food. Its laughable that she accepted a role where she knew she was playing a sexual stereotype, but then complains afterwards!! And yet she's still accepting the same type of role, over and over again. She's not leaving the token sex symbol roles behind, she's actively seeking them out.

They are not comparable examples so I'm not going to bother with them. She was happy to be in Transformers and has said so. However, she seems to want to avoid permanently being the hot chick in films and May was no doubt wanting to amp up the role. She is also likely to have matured and realised that such roles lead to typecasting. Again that is all normal.

However, I imagine her problems relate to the way young girls are treated in Hollywood. The car washing example is one such incident. I really should not need to explain the issues actresses may face in Hollywood. So whilst she presumably has no issue using her sexuality in movies (and why not), there is a line.

As for your point about teenagers, I'll refer back to my own, at 18 you are legally an adult, so unless she was deemed unfit to make her own decisions by a court or medical professionals she has to accept the consequences of her actions. Its all part of life and growing up, and becoming a responsible adult.

A few issues:

You cannot seriously state that people are experienced and wise enough as a teenager to make decisions they won't regret. That is one point I am making throughout these posts. Some people seem to want to hold her to decisions she made at that time. If any actress decides to use sexuality in an early role. that should clearly not mean they are hypocrites for wanting to expand their horizons after a few years. Yet that is what seems to be suggested here.

My second issue is that surely by leaving Transformers and not wanting to be in such roles, she is showing signs of growing up.

Basically to me, this thread has a lot of resentment towards her. I'm not going to say I'm a massive fan of her, but there seems to be an unreasonable level of hostility towards her. It seems to resolve around the fact that in early films which were recorded when she was between 16 and 21 (not limited to Transformers) she used her sexuality. So what? Is that a crime? Should she punished for looking like she does and using it to he advantage?

People complain about there being no roles for actresses in Hollywood, well why will those roles be created in Hollywood when this is the attitude shown towards women? Compare it to French cinema where women frequently use their sexuality yet it is not used as a stick to beat them with.

Kimia

parker kent wrote: »

It seems to resolve around the fact that in early films which were recorded when she was between 16 and 21 (not limited to Transformers) she used her sexuality. So what? Is that a crime? Should she punished for looking like she does and using it to he advantage?

People complain about there being no roles for actresses in Hollywood, well why will those roles be created in Hollywood when this is the attitude shown towards women? Compare it to French cinema where women frequently use their sexuality yet it is not used as a stick to beat them with.

Parker, I don't know if you're intentionally missing the point here or what. The point is, she used her sexuality to define and progress as an actress, to the point where she actively pursued roles where she is objectified as a sex symbol, and then complained about being objectified.

You can't have it both ways. And I believe that this kind of behaviour gives other women a bad name.

Kinetic^

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

their is no Transformers 4

Thank christ for that, hopefully someone makes something good of it in a few years.

shinikins

parker kent wrote: »

You cannot seriously state that people are experienced and wise enough as a teenager to make decisions they won't regret. That is one point I am making throughout these posts. Some people seem to want to hold her to decisions she made at that time. If any actress decides to use sexuality in an early role. that should clearly not mean they are hypocrites for wanting to expand their horizons after a few years. Yet that is what seems to be suggested here.

My second issue is that surely by leaving Transformers and not wanting to be in such roles, she is showing signs of growing up.

Basically to me, this thread has a lot of resentment towards her. I'm not going to say I'm a massive fan of her, but there seems to be an unreasonable level of hostility towards her. It seems to resolve around the fact that in early films which were recorded when she was between 16 and 21 (not limited to Transformers) she used her sexuality. So what? Is that a crime? Should she punished for looking like she does and using it to he advantage?

People complain about there being no roles for actresses in Hollywood, well why will those roles be created in Hollywood when this is the attitude shown towards women? Compare it to French cinema where women frequently use their sexuality yet it is not used as a stick to beat them with.

But she's not expanding her horizons, and she's not trying to break out of the "hot girl" mode! Since she basically slated Bay she has gone on to make three more films in which she plays the amped up sexual stereotype that you seem to think she wants to get away from. All these films were made after she had turned 21 so surely she had matured enough by then to be able to make an adult decision.

Its not a crime to use your sexuality, and I certainly don't hold it against her, she is stunning to look at, but an extremely poor actress IMO. However you can't have it both ways, you can't act like a sex siren and then complain because people are treating you as a sex symbol. I agree with Kimia, it gives women as a whole a bad name.

neveah

My interpretation of Shia's comments was that Michael Bay could be quite vulgar in his use of language when he was giving Megan direction and she had an issue with this.

"When Mike would ask her to do specific things, there was no time for fluffy talk. We're on the run. And the one thing Mike lacks is tact. There's no time for 'I would like you to just arch your back 70 degrees'."

If that's the case then I don't think it's a debate about whether she is using her looks when it suits her. She always knew she originally got the role because of her looks and that she would have to 'look pretty'. It was an opportunity to make the big time, not many young unknown actresses would turn it down. I don't think she had a problem with being the 'pin up'. Words from the lady herself:

"I think all women in Hollywood are known as sex symbols. That's what our purpose is in this business. You're merchandised, you're a product. You're sold and it's based on sex. But that's okay. I think women should be empowered by that, not degraded." - Entertainment Weekly, June 2009

It sounds like she just had a massive personality clash with Michael Bay and she particularly didn't like his directional style. That's my two cents on it anyway

Slightly going off topic here but I thought Megan Fox was absolutely stunning in the first transformers movie but I'm so sorry she went at her lips especially as she's so young, it didn't do anything to enhance her looks, it had the opposite effect imo.