Megan Fox and the Transformers Debacle

pickarooney · 05-06-2011 01:03AM

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 · 05-06-2011 01:25AM

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 · 05-06-2011 01:41AM

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 · 05-06-2011 02:44AM

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 · 05-06-2011 03:31PM

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 · 05-06-2011 05:30PM

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 · 05-06-2011 05:38PM

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!! · 05-06-2011 05:57PM

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 · 05-06-2011 06:35PM

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 · 05-06-2011 07:36PM

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 · 05-06-2011 07:42PM

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 · 05-06-2011 09:54PM

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 · 05-06-2011 10:26PM

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 · 05-06-2011 11:02PM

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 · 05-06-2011 11:41PM

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 · 06-06-2011 12:00AM

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^ · 06-06-2011 12:03AM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

their is no Transformers 4

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

shinikins · 06-06-2011 12:25AM

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 · 06-06-2011 12:43AM

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.

Megan Fox and the Transformers Debacle

Comments