Megan Fox as "Fathom"?
#41
Posted 20 August 2009 - 04:09 PM
Let them ride their short lived fame trains for as long as the public cares till they are seen for what they are, foul mouthed , talentless , shallow folks .
Beauty only lasts for so long , class lasts for a long time after beauty has faded .
#42
Posted 20 August 2009 - 05:35 PM
Or how about Jessica Biel who is not only HOT, but strikes me as a more then good enough actress. Or Jennifer Love Hewitt who is also hot and can act.
#43
Posted 20 August 2009 - 05:36 PM
As for Fathom when I first saw the news being a fan of the book I KNOW that Fox is perfect for this role. I cant think of anyone else currently that would fit the requirements.
#44
Posted 21 August 2009 - 12:11 AM
#45
Posted 21 August 2009 - 04:29 AM
Not that it's any business of yours, but I don't actually have a stack of "Fathom" comics in my house because I have to draw the collecting line somewhere. I do actually own a few comics and graphic novels, and I do still have a very large collection of Star Trek toys and other related goodies, including a Nero figure from the new movie ~ which I think is a bit crap, but I guess if wrote about that here you'd stomp on me for doing that too. Also, not that it's your place to question my motives for anything at all, I am a keen movie-goer and I actually care about how movie audiences are treated whether I own the comic books, tee-shirt or whatever specific to a franchise. This does not give me less of a right to have an opinion about Megan Fox, especially when I see regressive attitudes being shown by male members of a forum, such as those you yourself subscribe to and then try to excuse.
However, that's not really germane to this discussion because the topic is actually about the casting of Megan Fox in the role of a comicbook female, and it could have been any one of a number of female comic women, and my opinion about Megan Fox would have been the same. The reason as to why I chose to contribute this thread is because I have a good friend over at Trekunited who recently wrote a blog about her and her attitude, which is how she blipped on my radar. Also, not that it's really any of your business as to why I occasionally stop by this forum, I have spent the last year completing a post-graduate teaching qualification and gaining myself some credits towards a masters degree. This type of activity tends to be time-consuming, and now I'm on holiday and I come here because there are members here that I have known ever since the old days over at AA that you don't think we should talk about. It might also be worth mentioning that I was of the early members of this forum who joined by personal invitation from Mark a few years ago.
You may not like me or my opinions, but I don't see anything that gives you the right to "scold" me like some scool marm. Doing so simply "hijacks" the topic further because I will certainly own my right to reply, especially when my motives for even being here are being misrepresented. If you try pulling that stunt here or over at minimate multiverse (a place I visit from time to time because I know old AA people there as well) again, you can expect the same response because you don't have the right to question my presence, motivation, or methods.
I note that I am the only member being attacked by you for having an opinion against Ms Fox and being accused of being off-topic, when as far as I know the discussion has remained entirely on-topic because it has pertained to Ms Fox and her motivations for doing what she does. Another member has posted an expletive-ridden interview which pretty much supports my point about her, so why you seem to think you can deny the right to respond to that God only knows, but maybe your time would be better spent in helping Trish raise that kids of yours.
#46
Posted 21 August 2009 - 04:49 AM
Now let me again say this, read the title of the topic, IF your post is going to cover ANYTHING other then that, start a new thread, don't post it, or change your post to one that is one the subject of the topic.
#47
Posted 21 August 2009 - 04:50 AM
I don't think anyone has suggested that they hire an actress who isn't attractive. Realistically, that's not going to happen, and I guess I would want to see an absolute minger cast as Spidey either!
Nobody is suggesting that being attractive detracts from talent (if it's there), but it is true to say that the behaviour of - say - a Paris Hilton or a Lindsey Lohan, brings the whole question of a celebrity's attractiveness into question. Fox, Hilton, and Lohan are, superficially, attractive on the outside, but I would suggest that if you probably wouldn't want any of these women promoting your movie franchise because nobody's is going to take them seriously. Fox's persona and her potty-mouth are in fact likely to mitigate against her being hired to front a franchise in conservative Hollywood, especially now that she scrubbing alloys in the internet. None of that kind of behaviour screams high intelligence to me.
It's not like Hollywood is exactly short of attractive women to choose from without picking an actress who is likely to tell her audiences to eff off, or highlighting exactly how dumb her latest movie outing actually is. That's not "telling it how it is" that's just dissembing and wanting people to love her because she can't do anything to help herself out of the career doldrums she is in.
You know, there are actresses out there who not only could persuade me to be a friends of Dorothy's if I wasn't so firmly hetero, but also have intellegence, grace enough to do everything they do (even appear in dumb movies) well, and who are warm and witty in interviews. Movies need people who are going to promote the product well and who are going to treat the audiences that go to their movies with respect, anything else is going to prove counter-productive, and if you have an actress who can't string an opinon together without lasing into Anglo-Saxon is probably likely to be more of a problem in the US than it would be over here, I should think.
I rest my case...
#48
Posted 21 August 2009 - 05:05 AM
That's an interesting point in itself, because Ms Fox has claimed that she does what she does because the male-dominated movie industry leaves her with no choice, and none of it is about doing "what she wants" but about doing what she thinks she has to do in order to get noticed (for her talent). Not only does that look, smell, or sound like personal choice, it is also significant that, in a world where many actresses still manage to get roles without compromsing themselves, there is a woman who percieves that she has "no choice". The answer to that is not easily covered in one short post, but I'll leave it hanging out there for people to ponder. This ought to be of interest to all genuine fans of "Fathom", because if I were a devoted fan of that franchise, I would worry deeply that the actress playing the titular role (no pun intended!) has gone on record more than once to highlight her own views about the work she has done so far apparently being beneath her. Would her opinion be the same about "Fathom"? It's a thought... especially in a time of recession when people are dealing with high unemployment and it looks ungracious to scorn any kind of onscreen job.
#49
Posted 21 August 2009 - 06:17 AM
I really wonder what story they are going to pick. Her origin story is pretty good and I think it would translate well into the movies. On the other hand after seeing GIJOE Im a bit concerned about the underwater CGI used because the stuff in Joe was a bit under average IMO and I dont think Ive ever seen it done well.
#50
Posted 21 August 2009 - 06:35 AM
#51
Posted 21 August 2009 - 09:22 AM
#52
Posted 21 August 2009 - 09:22 AM
My question is, why not make it a CGI movie? The field of potential stars to voice it opens up possibilities considerably. You're then not tied to how good a person *looks* for the role.
#53
Posted 21 August 2009 - 02:14 PM
Could you link me to the interview? It's always easy to blame what you want to do on someone or something else. It's so much cooler, so much more "Bad girl, nasty" to blame it on someone. I didn't want to take candy Mommy, Timmy made me do it..... personally I think that she loves every minute of what she does. Rock Stars complain about life on the road then go on 2 year long tours, for example. Even if you show me an interview where she says anything even close to what you claim she says, what that really means is "I was willing to do whatever it took to be noticed faster" Sorry that is a choice. I traded what I had to do in order to get me some money that I wanted. she had a choice and she did not have to do it. It's not like Mom needs a new liver and she "had to do it" to pay for the operation. get back on the bus to wherever you came from and work at the local theater.
Here's an example. Casting agent comes up to Miss Fox, She says, Miss Fox, we have the very nice script that you would work well in. You will play this little farm wife and the part will have many many dramatic moments. In this movie you could very well showcase you talents. It pays XXX which of course will keep you living well and driving your new car. OR we have this part over here playing Fathom. You will of course have to strip down and show at the very least your breasts and maybe a bit more. However, it pays $300,000 more then the farm wife movie. The farm wife movie pays very well, but this is more.
Two week later in an interview, Miss Fox says,"In order to get the Fathom movie I had to show my breasts".
She made a choice, she choose a movie and she cashes the check when Fathom comes out.
Still I am an average guy from an average place and I have no idea what this Fathom is or about. Going to have to find a way (is Miss Fox the way?) to get a whole lot of people that have no idea in the world who or what Fathom is, to get interested in coming to see it. From what I've seen so far, it interest me very little and let's face it, I'm a nerd.
#54
Posted 22 August 2009 - 04:29 AM
I'm afraid that I can't link you directly to the article (but you can probably get to it by googling "Entertainment Weekly"), but above is a link to the blog and subsequent discussion I had over at Trekunited.com/forum with the blog's author, Terrilyn, who is an even bigger equality hawk than I am. Her blog also contains a direct link to Fox's "audition" washing a Ferrari, and, you will note, that Terrilyn has read Fox's interview no less than 3 times and is not sure whether she abhors or admires Ms Fox, or both. It's interesting thought provoking stuff in which we question whther a system which expects women to bare their breasts for money-spinning parts is something that needs to end.
On another note, you mention a movie about a "farmer's wife" and, here's the thing, big movies like Cold Mountain that attract genuine A-list talent in which two women await the return of a soldier in a mountain farm - is probably precisely that in a nutshell. In fact, one of the biggest problems with the remake/blockbuster/comic-book mindset to Hollywodd at this moment is the lack of thoughtful movies for great actresses to show their ability in. There's not enough diversity in the product being fed to the public that Hollywood perceives to be composed of young men.
On the point of honesty: I think you may well be right in thinking that Ms Fox is really getting off big time in watch she's doing, but maybe lacks the guts to be honest about it because she's so aware of how a lot of women view Hollywood and its systematic exploitation of cookie-cutter hot women. In reality, men are apt to use the old double-standard to scorm such women while they enjoy having a good look. I don't buy the idea that she's being honest, and resorting to the "don't hate me because I'm beautiful" argument against her fellow women really shows how little she has thought this through.
I also make a point and a distinction between actresses like Jolie and some of those such as Glenn Close and Meryl Streep who enjoy long careers because their looks are different enough to have got them the intersting roles in which they could display their talent. Fox is beautiful but she's not distinctive like a Jolie or a Witherspoon, and definitely not in the league of a Knightly.
I think it shows exactly how far removed Ms Fox is from her own understanding of her own sex because, in point of fact, if she were honest enough to say that she gets off on what she does, I for one would have way more respect for her because she's standing up to be counted and not dissembling because she actually worries about the way in which the public percieve her ~ and you only have to read the comments written about that audition to know what I'm talking about here. You know, if she enjoys doing that then why not simply say that rather than whinge about a system or about the unfairness of other women holding her in contempt for bowing to a system that's little better than sexual slavery.
There are women who enjoy glamour modelling, appearing in porn movies, or being prostitues (although not, I would think, on street corners) and some get paid well enough to persue other interests they would not have had access to otherwise. I don't have a bad word to say about these women because they are the ones doing the exploiting, and all power to them. In other words they are owning their choices, and they enjoy being sexually demonstrative, and not being forced into regarding their sexual attributes as a "commodity" for money or power to have their pick of better jobs ike Ms Fox is claiming she is forced to do.
#55
Posted 22 August 2009 - 04:53 AM
A good point!! And again, this isn't really about hotness (i think we're all agreed that our comic book heroes shouldn't look like bank clerks), it's about intent. A really well crafted CGI movie with some A-list talent to do the voices (this always seems to work well for Pixar) would broaden the appeal of this character. I'm like FHC, I don't know this character well.
Even better, make it in 3D. I've read that 3D is making a comeback big stylee and a lot of Odeon cinemas are tooling up for a raft of 3D movies coming out. I''m a sucker for 3D movies, and I can't wait for James Cameron's new sci-fi offering!
#56
Posted 22 August 2009 - 06:14 AM
**To the members**
Please keep this thread on topic about the Fathom movie. Any further political discussion will simply be deleted.
#57
Posted 26 August 2009 - 03:46 PM
http://entertainment...man-260809.html
ANI): Megan Fox is set to take up the role of Catwoman in the next Batman flick, it has emerged. Also, actors Christian Bale and Michael Caine will reprise their characters from "The Dark Knight'.
Buzz up!The shooting of the film, which will be directed by Christopher Nolan, may start next year. However, the film is not expected to be release until in 2011, reports the Sun. Fox will take up the mantle from Halley Berry who starred in Catwoman in 2004.
#58
Posted 26 August 2009 - 04:01 PM
#59
Posted 26 August 2009 - 08:04 PM
#60
Posted 29 August 2009 - 06:56 AM
And Julie Newmar was an absolute goddess. I don't think anybody could really better her ~ much like nobody is ever going to better Heath Ledger in the role of The Joker.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users