Am I The Only One Who Feels Bad for Megan Fox?

[Konchadunga]

Obligatory statement: No; she's not a very good actress.

However, based on all I've read, she doesn't sound like a bad person, and I'm pretty put-off by those who attack her as the embodiment of everything that is wrong with Michael Bay.

I get that Megan Fox's main contribution to the Transformers films was sex appeal, but is that her fault? She didn't ask to be born attractive, she didn't ask to be named the most attractive woman in the world, and she didn't write her part in the Transformers movies. Based on her public appearances, it seems like she's rather uncomfortable with being oggled by so many.

Furthermore, I don't know about you, but I found her a shell of a lot more interesting and admirable in those movies than I did Shia Lebeuf's character. McKaila Banes was there for sex appeal, but she was still a strong, liberated female character who could fix cars, and then, in the second movie, she rescued the same spineless boyfriend who dumped her and got with a new girl almost instantly. In fact, I enjoyed that more than some of the stuff with the robots--I shouldn't have, but the unfortunate reality was that her scenes just made more sense.

Off camera, Fox also had the guts to call out Michael Bay for his bloated egotism, and also wondered if his movies were bad for her image. (Apparently so.) For that, he fired her, and I remember reading people saying things like "Hooray, Megan Fox is gone" rather than "Damn; that Michael Bay is a vindictive jerk." I hope nobody ever was under the impression that Bay fired her in order to please naysayers; I never saw DOTM, but apparently, it didn't really fix much.

My conclusion is that Fox is an independent woman, not half-dumb, and badly misblamed for low movie quality. She's not a good actress, but that isn't a point against her when it seems like acting probably isn't what she really wants to do; she's just become most well-known as an actress who sells tickets, and so it's an easy paycheck. I'm not saying her being in a movie is any incentive for me to see it, but after hearing it's produced by Michael Bay, hearing him say the Turtles are aliens, and seeing that leaked script, it isn't at all a deterrent, either.

[madyankees]

I personally think she's not that half bad.
And she's waaaay better that whoever that girl was in TF3.

[Leo656]

She's rich.

So yes, you are literally the only one who feels sorry for her.

[FlogginMcMurryZombiePizza]

I liked her in Jennifer's Body.

And while you make some decent points...
We dont know how she really is outside of movies. But that's fine, she can be the sweetest person ever.
And despite what she said about Bay that got her fired from the TF franchise, he hired her back for this movie.

I never found her as attractive as many others seem to, she's about average to me.

And I dont go out of my way to watch or not watch her movies. Honestly I thought the TF first movie was weak in general. And aside from Jennifer's Body, I haven't really seen her in much else. How To Loose Friends And Alienate People? She played her part there and it was fine.

my problem just rests on the fact that Bay is directing and Fox is about the last choice I would have for April.
BUT, hey, she could be great... who knows. But she's still being directed by Bay so we may not get much more out of her than what he wanted from her in TF.

[Jester]

:( I now feel sorry for the poor, attractive, rich woman.

Sorry, I've always loathed the "It's so hard being pretty." clap trap. Oh, please.

[Leo656]

"It's so hard being pretty, that I spend what most people spend on a year's worth of rent on procedures to make me MORE pretty!" :lol:

Nah whatever I'm sure she's a terrific human being. I wish her no harm, nor would I kick her out of bed for eating crackers. She just ain't worth the attention she gets. And nobody on Earth deserves the money these people get paid.

[Captain PunchYouHard]

Let me th---no.

Megan Fox wasn't terrible in the Transformers movies because her part was written badly. She was terrible because she's a terrible actress. Compare, for example, Natalie Portman in the SW prequels. All three movies, including Portman's role, were cringeworthy. Yet she gave the best performance she could and actually elevated the films somewhat.

If Megan Fox were really bothered by being famous and attractive, or by the prospect of helping to ruin movies, she'd stop acting and posing for cheesecake. It's not like she'd be in the poorhouse if she stopped now, or even three years ago.

[Leo656]

You're nuts, most of Eps. II & III were awesome. MOST of it.

[Captain PunchYouHard]

You're nuts, most of Eps. II & III were awesome. MOST of it.

Yeah, if they'd been Disney movies.

[Leo656]

I always felt Star Wars was a fairy tale and not science fiction, so I thought it was fine.

I know, it's not a popular opinion. I live with it. I saw Speed Racer three times in theaters. I have a deep, sincere appreciation for the under-appreciated.

I will also neck-stab anyone who implies Speed Racer was anything less than Amazing On Every Migraine-Inducing Level. Just so we're all clear. Best. Wachowski Movie. EVER.

[Jester]

Yeah, if they'd been Disney movies.Well, technically....

[Leo656]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AQ5UQXqDMJY/S6-_djVOX3I/AAAAAAAAAAc/sCEAlRIHDAM/s1600/a.winner.is.you.490.jpg

WHOOOOOO!!!! TWO IN ONE NIGHT! 8)

[Captain PunchYouHard]

Well, technically....

I have to admit I laughed when that happened, because the prequels made it pretty obvious that it's what Lucas was gunning for all along (well, since the prequels anyway).

[Powder]

I suppose it would be far more fair to make fuss at those who chose to cast her, rather than the girl herself, sure.

[FlogginMcMurryZombiePizza]

I always felt Star Wars was a fairy tale and not science fiction, so I thought it was fine.

I know, it's not a popular opinion. I live with it. I saw Speed Racer three times in theaters. I have a deep, sincere appreciation for the under-appreciated.

I will also neck-stab anyone who implies Speed Racer was anything less than Amazing On Every Migraine-Inducing Level. Just so we're all clear. Best. Wachowski Movie. EVER.

I agree, it's more "fantasy" than "science fiction".
I think Lucas is on record, somewhere, saying he wrote it as a fantasy story anyway. It defiantly fits "Fantasy" better than "science fiction".
And I love Speed Racer. I saw it in IMAX too. And I own the BluRay. And some rare 2 disc DVD version with slip cover. And the soundtrack score. And the single. Love that movie for what it is even when I get pissed at Sprittle and Chim Chim.

[Leo656]

True story: Saw the movie, next day got the Mach 5 "M" tattoo, then saw it again. That's the only "cartoon movie" in history that actually got the entire f*cking point of turning a cartoon into a movie, and was just as balls-out total nonsense insane as the cartoon show on every single level. They f*cking nailed it, it could not have been any better. John f*cking Goodman, I mean COME ON, man! Also, "Co-Starring Susan Sarandon and Her MILF Rack!" Inspector Detector? Snake F*cking Oiler? The GRX? Who else EVER put so much fan-service into any movie adaptation, ever? Yes, it was loud, over-the-top, unbelievable, and dumb, and that was the entire point, and I'm so glad it exists. Every time I watch it, I love it a little more. That desert race with the Mach 5, where Speed finally has his stupid ascot... (sigh). Just amazing.

Of course, 90% of Earth missed the point and expected something serious and NOT dumb or silly. Crazy people; Speed Racer isn't supposed to be serious. THEY HAVE A MONKEY, AND NOBODY EVER TALKS ABOUT IT! IT'S JUST THERE! LOGIC DOESN'T EXIST HERE!!!

[Jester]

Wait...Speed Racer could have totally had the tag line "From the Producers/Directors of The Matrix Trilogy"?

[Leo656]

Yes. Although, comparing "Speed Racer" to "The Matrix" is an insult to Speed Racer.

One movie is a joyful romp through a futuristic world where the impossible is mundane and you quickly learn to expect the unexpected, where a world of wonder is brought to life through the magic of CGI the levels of which had never been seen before, and ultimate good triumphs over ultimate evil through hard work, faith, and teamwork.

The other movie is some ol' pretentious bullsh*t.

[Refractive Reflections]

:( I now feel sorry for the poor, attractive, rich woman.

Sorry, I've always loathed the "It's so hard being pretty." clap trap. Oh, please.

It sounds like Jester has been watching/listening too much of this music video :lol::lol::

__HeE6NWmDE

I suppose it would be far more fair to make fuss at those who chose to cast her, rather than the girl herself, sure.
I would agree with Powder here.
...And the only reason why they cast her is because us (the public) assumingly wants her in the movies since the films she was associated with were so profitable. If people were just that adamant about her not being in movies, they wouldn't be seeing the movies she's involved with.

But I don't have anything against Megan Fox per say, most movies she's involved with are not profoundly deep or poignant (besides would the public really want to watch it anyways if it was?), and the public has already come to expect it. If the director, producers, and executives associated with the film, truly wanted a film that was "Oscar-worthy" rather than a huge blockbuster cash cow, they would have casted a different actress altogether.

For all we know, she may be very intelligent and a sweetheart in her private life, but decides to accept these sexy roles just to make it into Hollywood and establish herself in it. Yes, she may not have the best acting, but in the ruthlessly competitive market of the entertainment industry, why not use one's good looks to their advantage? Besides... it's not like these young actors/actresses can retain their good looks forever, on top of the public's attention-deficit disorder taste in entertainment.

[pingclang]

I've got this whole weird philosophy that if you're gonna be cast in a movie, it should be because you're a good actor/actress, not because you're pretty. I have no pity for the image she was given since she had to know she was trying out for the role of the sexy 17 year old we shouldn't be looking at who isn't 17 in Transformers and sort of type-cast herself by returning for Transformers 2 and then signing on for Jennifer`s Body.

[CyberCubed]

You feel sorry for a "no-talent" actress who only gets gigs based on her looks and boobs? What?

If Megan Fox wasn't an actress I wouldn't have a problem with her. She's an example of everything that is wrong with Hollywood. Even Mila Kunis is a better actress than her.

[Toby Barrett]

Please go play in traffic CyberCubed.

[CyberCubed]

Megan Fox jumps on a trampoline and gets paid $2-3 million to make a movie. I'm not sure how that is, "talent."

There are truly talented actors/actress out there who have to deal with these nobodies stealing their roles. Just look at Kristen Stewart, she's one of the highest paid female actress in Hollywood right now and she can't act worth a crap.

[ObiWanFan4life]

Megan Fox jumps on a trampoline and gets paid $2-3 million to make a movie. I'm not sure how that is, "talent."

There are truly talented actors/actress out there who have to deal with these nobodies stealing their roles. Just look at Kristen Stewart, she's one of the highest paid female actress in Hollywood right now and she can't act worth a crap.

I suggest you watch her in David Fincher' s Panic Room

[Toby Barrett]

Cubed, if you hate everything so much, why not go out and get a real life and enjoy your time?

[Leo656]

You guys need to relax.

There are truly talented actors/actress out there...

Really? Name seven. :lol:

[Bob]

Cubed, if you hate everything so much, why not go out and get a real life and enjoy your time?

How can he? He's obviously been locked in the basement since birth. I mean, how else can anyone come across so naive, dumb, ignorant and bigoted in just one sentence? It’s quite an amazing feat, actually.

[Shark_Blade]

Yeah some people were hard on her but I'm sure she's a strong girl. She'll pull through, I have faith in her. :)

I like her. From several interviews she seems nice. She even draw comics too! I have respect for fellow drawers! Just look at her!
ng8c7aFiW0Y




LOL @ banana scare
4F1JSXYFBQE

[Raphael232]

she is a OK actress, what hurts her is that her roles are all about her looks and it takes away from her acting.

[CyberCubed]

Do people really care about Megan Fox? I get that she "looks hot" but as an actress she's dull.

[Toby Barrett]

You're dull.

[NinjaPug]

It comes with the territory when you get into this line of work. Unfortunately idiotic message board posters that hate you for no reason become a part of the job when you are in bigger movies. I don't feel bad for her because she is compensated very well for what she does. Plus she doesn't care what message board posters think of her.

[Cure]

Yeah, it's messed up and quite sad when people focus their anger and attention on her or anyone else in the spotlight instead of people who actually do things that are, you know, wrong.

[Metalwolf]

You feel sorry for a "no-talent" actress who only gets gigs based on her looks and boobs? What?

If Megan Fox wasn't an actress I wouldn't have a problem with her. She's an example of everything that is wrong with Hollywood. Even Mila Kunis is a better actress than her.Well, I have to agree with Cubed. Nobody held a gun to her head and forced her into the role. When you get into Hollywood, you get set up for all sorts of public scrutiny and eventually all your faults will be brought into view.

The reason why I don't like her is that she went and slept with Shia during the filming of Transformers (while she 'took a break' from her then boyfriend Brian) and that she didn't hesitate to call Bay Hitler over him being a chore to work with (and Mr. Bay is Jewish.) And not even the movie crew liked her.

I don't feel sorry for her. If she's matured and has become a better person then I might give her a second chance. But if she is the same and just likes to whine and cry and have 'first world' problems then I don't feel any sympathy over what trouble she makes for herself.

[CyberCubed]

Didn't she also complain that she has a hard life? And yet she's a millionaire with a husband and a kid.

[hitmonkey]

I don't feel bad for her, because it's not really anything to feel bad over. You're a celebrity, people are going to talk bad about you on the internet. There isn't a violin small enough for that.

That being said, I do get annoyed with all the anti-Megan Fox stuff I read online. I get that she's a mediocre actress, but people talk about her as if her inclusion in a film takes it from Scorsese territory into mindless schlock. Newsflash - any movie that casts her was already aiming low.

[T-U-R-T-L-E POWA!]

I don't really feel bad for her and also I can't take any movie seriously that casts her. I mostly like old movies anyway so there aren't any modern actresses that are gonna cause me to drive to the theater just to watch them act.

[Metalwolf]

Didn't she also complain that she has a hard life? And yet she's a millionaire with a husband and a kid.Well, if that's a 'hard' life then most of us must be living in third world conditions by that standard.

If her life is so hard, she should quit acting, give her millions to charity, and get her tubes tied so she can't have another kid. Otherwise this "Woe as me" lowing she does just sounds like an empty whine, a grab for sympathy but yet without ever wanting to truly give up her 'hard' conditions.

Like I said, first world issues. :trolleye:

[Coola Yagami]

Millionaires can have hard lives too. We just don't see it cause we're too busy being poor and hating the rich just cuz they're rich. It's a little their fault but its easy for anyone to lose their heads when they hit it big.

If I ever win the lotto or something I wanna keep it simple. Yeah. Get myself a nice house and own it, but I don't want to deal with the hassle and stress of up keeping a mansion, 3 cars and all that other crap. I don't need all that noise.

Anyways I do sympathize with miss fox. And as for the movie...
It's ninja turtles. It's gonna blow since day one. No one seems to know how to make a good tmnt movie on screen. So why put our hopes up. We knew it was gonna blow. Just look at the crappy cgi movie they made. Don't blame Megan. It was gonna tank no matter what.

[Luckyday]

Frankly, I feel sorry that she is stuck with Michael Bay

[Metalwolf]

Millionaires can have hard lives too. How do millionaires have hard lives? They don't have to wonder where their next meal comes from, they can afford better health care, they can afford to eat better (not talking about caviar, but simply healthier wholesome foods) and they can move to wherever they want.

If they ever have 'hard lives' it often self imposed and because they can't tell moocher hopefuls 'No' firmly enough, not anything intrinsic to being a millionaire itself. Plus they aren't forced to have that much money, they step into it and stay in it willingly. That's why I kind of cringe about Meggy's complaining, to me it comes off as heavily pretentious, especially when many Americans are struggling just to pay the bills.

[Xav]

Off camera, Fox also had the guts to call out Michael Bay for his bloated egotism, and also wondered if his movies were bad for her image. (Apparently so.) For that, he fired her, and I remember reading people saying things like "Hooray, Megan Fox is gone" rather than "Damn; that Michael Bay is a vindictive jerk." I hope nobody ever was under the impression that Bay fired her in order to please naysayers; I never saw DOTM, but apparently, it didn't really fix much.Bay fired Fox because Spielberg made him.

my problem just rests on the fact that Bay is directing and Fox is about the last choice I would have for April.
BUT, hey, she could be great... who knows. But she's still being directed by Bay so we may not get much more out of her than what he wanted from her in TF.Bay is not directing he's one of the producers. Jonathan Liebesman is directing.

[Leo656]

I don't "hate" the rich, per se. Hating the rich, like hating the old, is a questionable prejudice, because if all goes well for you, you BECOME them, one day.

But I do agree that people who can choose to live where they want, f*ck who they want, eat as well as they want, are not generally able to be punished by any known laws no matter what they do, don't have to raise or even see their own annoying children, and spend literally all of their time playing make-believe, having a mid-life crisis, and/or doing insane amounts of expensive drugs... those people literally have nothing to complain about, ever. And the things they DO complain about makes them look like the absolute shallowest c*nts on Earth.

[Jester]

Bay fired Fox because Spielberg made him.

Really...and he kept Shia. I swear the LaBeouf family has some dirt on Spielberg or something....

[CyberCubed]

Wow, people are feeling sorry for rich people now? People who make millions just putting in a few hours of work each week?

People who have 10 bedroom mansions and their own swimming pool and tennis courts? People who never have to worry about going broke or putting food on the table?

Good god. How the hell can anyone feel sorry for millionaires? The ones who screw up their success like Linsday Lohan or Britney Spears deserve to be mocked and ridiculed. They ****ed themselves up.

[The Stryker]

Good god. How the hell can anyone feel sorry for millionaires? The ones who screw up their success like Linsday Lohan or Britney Spears deserve to be mocked and ridiculed. They ****ed themselves up.

People with emotional issues DESERVE to be mocked and ridiculed?

That's some serious sh*t you're laying down there.

[Shark_Blade]

Millionaires are people too. There are good and bad millionaires, just like there are good and bad normal/standard or poor people.

So you only judge people based on their money? How shallow can you get? :roll:

[Cure]

Wow, people are feeling sorry for rich people now? People who make millions just putting in a few hours of work each week?

People who have 10 bedroom mansions and their own swimming pool and tennis courts? People who never have to worry about going broke or putting food on the table?

Good god. How the hell can anyone feel sorry for millionaires? The ones who screw up their success like Linsday Lohan or Britney Spears deserve to be mocked and ridiculed. They ****ed themselves up.

Because they're human f*cking beings. Wow.

What a gross thread. The jealousy and malice is pitiful.

[CyberCubed]

Nobody cares about Lindsay Lohan. She's public ridicule.

The scary thing is she's only 27 years old yet she looks like she's 40. Way to kill your youth with drugs and whatever else.

[Jester]

How would it feel if some one said:
"Nobody cares about Cybercubed. He's public ridicule." (Nice grammar, BTW)


Oh...wait...we do. Never mind.

[CyberCubed]

Famous people who ruined their own lives with drugs and/or whatever don't deserve any sympathy. They brought it all upon themselves.

[The Stryker]

Nobody cares about Lindsay Lohan. She's public ridicule.

The scary thing is she's only 27 years old yet she looks like she's 40. Way to kill your youth with drugs and whatever else.

A drug and alcohol ADDICTION. Are you seriously saying it's ok to say awful things about a person riddled with emotional problems just because they have more money than you?

That's disgusting man, you cannot be serious.

[Jester]

So what's your opinion on broke/"normal" people who ruin their lives with drugs? Didn't they do it to themselves too? Why are they any more sympathetic?

[CyberCubed]

She's been in and out of rehab for a while. She's had help on top of that and still blew it. Now she's try to do porn to revive her career.

[Jester]

Addiction is hard to kick. Again, "normal" people are also in and out of rehab for addiction...they just aren't on TMZ.

[The Stryker]

She's been in and out of rehab for a while. She's had help on top of that and still blew it. Now she's try to do porn to revive her career.

It's called an addiction. Lump-head. It's not a magical on-off switch for people.

[Leo656]

Well, actually, you only get an addiction by being an idiot in the first place, so no, I don't particularly feel sorry for people with "addiction problems", because it's a sign of weakness, ignorance, and self-importance. I'm the only person in my entire family, many of whom are dead, who doesn't have an "addiction problem", partly because I've spent my entire life watching people kill themselves slowly.

You know why it makes no sense to feel sorry for these people ("Addicts")? Because literally from birth, you are told "Drugs, alcohol, etc. are bad for you." Many people see it first-hand, as I did, growing up in houses full of addicts, having to deal with the fall-out, often physical, from one too many drinks or a few too many lines. And I've watched people who grew up with abusive addicts as parents, often people IN my family, grow up and use THEIR abuse as an excuse to become addicts as adults, claiming the abuse they suffered as kids from their alcoholic/drug addicted parents, messed them up SO badly, they have NO CHOICE as adults but to get drunk, pop pills, and scream at and hit THEIR OWN kids! F*cking brilliant!

It's a lie. It's a crutch. It's selfish behavior. It's above all A CHOICE. You KNOW the consequences of your actions, often having seen them first-hand. Cigarettes give you cancer. Too much alcohol destroys your insides and makes you into a huge asshole. Drugs destroy your body and your mind, eventually turning you into a liar, a thief, and in the case of just about anyone who has ever killed someone on the street, sometimes they even make you a murderer. And these things ONLY happen to you, IF you choose to ignore the practical advice that is drilled into your head from the time you are a young child. Why do people disregard all common sense and choose to poison themselves with cigarettes, alcohol and narcotics? "YOLO, BABY!!!" :roll:

I've watched people I liked and respected turn into monsters because they figured, "What's the harm if it makes me feel good?" I've had to bury people, like my mother, who decided "I'm careful, so nothing bad can happen to me." And I spent my entire childhood listening to people enable her right into the goddamn grave, saying that as an adult she had the right to do whatever she wanted, even lie and steal and avoid paying bills, and ultimately DIE and abandon her children, because "Addiction is a disease". Bullsh*t. I sat there in those insipid AA and NA meetings, listening to the lies those people tell about how it's NEVER your fault; you're broken, you're diseased, you need "help", you need Jesus... it's never, "You need a slap in the face and to take some f*cking responsibility for your actions, because you're f*cking up your life and the life of everyone around you."

I'm not a saint. I drink when I feel like, which is rare, because I'm what's called a RESPONSIBLE ADULT. I don't decide to do things that are going to hurt people, make me act like an a**hole (Lord knows I don't need the help), make me feel sick, make me spend money I don't have, or anything really that flies in the face of common sense. And I don't think I'm special, I just think I pay attention. My cousin was abused as a kid by her drunken Mom, used that as an excuse to drink and do drugs as a teen/adult, now gets drunk and abuses HER kids, the oldest of which now as a teen is doing drugs and alcohol, too, to "cope". It's not "a disease", it's a CYCLE, one borne of stupidity and poor choices, and it makes me sick to my stomach, just like it did the day we buried my mother, and her sister was too f*cked up on heroin to even go, and later that day everyone went in the bedroom to get high to "mourn" someone who had just died of a f*cking overdose.

F*ck every single one of those people. Compassion for people who go out of their way to hurt themselves and others only enables them. I've earned every bit of me being a judgmental prick. The world would be a much better place if we established that actions have consequences, instead of perpetuating this myth of "addiction", which removes all blame from the "addict" and puts it all on everyone else, for "making their life so hard that just can't cope." This myth of addiction is more than anything what is crippling our development as a species.

My compassion went in the ground with my parents. Anyone who puts a needle in their arm or a line up their nose should be shot in the head like a circus animal for being willingly a moron. F*ck 'em.

[The Stryker]

Well that's just peachy for you. I've gone through the same garbage and I've chosen not to look down on people with serious problems.

Maybe I'm just one of those crazies! I don't know!

[Leo656]

It's been established that we're two very different people.

Bad behavior is bad behavior, and should be punished and not enabled or celebrated. Feel free to disagree if you want, but I see no logic in it. Some people DESERVE to be looked down on. Not every human life intrinsically has the same value as everyone else. Lots of people squander it.

I've always believed that trying earnestly to live an honest and moral life does make one person better than a person who doesn't give a sh*t.

[The Stryker]

Ridiculing and hating other people because they f*cked up in their life. Real honest and moral living.

I understand where you're coming from but I've seen too many people struggle, fail and succeed in those situations to take the ridiculous stand of "You did the thing. You are no longer worth anything and I look down on you."

[Leo656]

Ridiculing and hating other people because they f*cked up in their life. Real honest and moral living.

I understand where you're coming from but I've seen too many people struggle, fail and succeed in those situations to take the ridiculous stand of "You did the thing. You are no longer worth anything and I look down on you."

Lots of people f*ck up their lives, for various reasons. Doing so with certain things like drugs, alcohol, gambling... that is a person CHOOSING to f*ck up their life, because there are absolutely NO good outcomes for people in those situations, yet they act like they were pushed. It's just another way to avoid responsibility.

To clarify, like anyone else, obviously, I still know lots of people in all areas of my life who abuse drugs and alcohol. And I do enjoy them individually and always hope that they start practicing common sense, yet seemingly am continually disappointed by them and do my best not to be around them when they screw up yet again. We all know where we stand; I do my best not to harass them, and they keep their bullsh*t far away from me. And in between, we get along fine. But more often than not, they end up dead or in jail, and that really doesn't speak much positive for people who accept that lifestyle.

I'm a very hard person. I'm hard on myself, and I'm hard on others. I don't like liars. I don't like thieves. I don't like abusers. As such, I don't like anything that contributes to a person BEING any or all of those things. People who choose addiction do so under the lie they tell themselves that their addiction "makes life easier", when in fact all it does is make it worse for everyone. Every person knows this in their heart. Which is why I cannot find it in mine to accept why so many people think they will be the ONE person who comes out the other side just fine. It's insane.

Some people believe deeply in the idea of redemption. And that's a fine and wonderful thing. But all things being equal, if we accept that people can be redeemed, we must also accept that they can fall so low as to no longer be of equal measure to other human beings. That's what I believe, that when you choose to hurt yourself and those around you, that you lose worth as a human being. I don't deny that it's possible to go back the other way... I've just personally never witnessed it. Most people who fall just keep falling, no matter who tries to help them, because they very often refuse to admit they've done anything wrong.

I know this particular point of view is pretty rigid and too hard for most people to accept, and that's fine, I guess. Frankly, I'm just not very accepting of "mistakes", especially ones that only have a set number of predetermined outcomes, the main one being death and the second one being poor. I completely can't understand it. And it absolutely can't be genetic, because if addiction was genetic then I would be a substance abuser, since almost everyone in my family is. That more than anything makes me feel it's not a "disease" as much as just poor, selfish choices.

I'm thankful every day I was able to escape my family's cycle, and it really bothers me that nobody else I share blood with has the "strength" to do the same. Instead they pass it on to their kids. It's like watching people get murdered in slow-motion.

[CyberCubed]

of people f*ck up their lives, for various reasons. Doing so with certain things like drugs, alcohol, gambling... that is a person CHOOSING to f*ck up their life, because there are absolutely NO good outcomes for people in those situations, yet they act like they were pushed. It's just another way to avoid responsibility.

To clarify, like anyone else, obviously, I still know lots of people in all areas of my life who abuse drugs and alcohol. And I do enjoy them individually and always hope that they start practicing common sense, yet seemingly am continually disappointed by them and do my best not to be around them when they screw up yet again. We all know where we stand; I do my best not to harass them, and they keep their bullsh*t far away from me. And in between, we get along fine. But more often than not, they end up dead or in jail, and that really doesn't speak much positive for people who accept that lifestyle.

I'm a very hard person. I'm hard on myself, and I'm hard on others. I don't like liars. I don't like thieves. I don't like abusers. As such, I don't like anything that contributes to a person BEING any or all of those things. People who choose addiction do so under the lie they tell themselves that their addiction "makes life easier", when in fact all it does is make it worse for everyone. Every person knows this in their heart. Which is why I cannot find it in mine to accept why so many people think they will be the ONE person who comes out the other side just fine. It's insane.

I know this particular point of view is pretty rigid and too hard for most people to accept, and that's fine, I guess. Frankly, I'm just not very accepting of "mistakes", especially ones that only have a set number of predetermined outcomes, the main one being death and the second one being poor. I completely can't understand it. And it absolutely can't be genetic, because if addiction was genetic then I would be a substance abuser, since almost everyone in my family is. That more than anything makes me feel it's not a "disease" as much as just poor, selfish choices.

I'm thankful every day I was able to escape my family's cycle, and it really bothers me that nobody else I share blood with has the "strength" to do the same. Instead they pass it on to their kids. It's like watching people get murdered in slow-motion.

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif

[Leo656]

...Is that Martin Mull...?

[CyberCubed]

Its from Citizen Kane.

[Leo656]

I know, just trying to lighten the mood. :P

[Cure]

Can't really lighten the mood when you used this thread (and plenty others, actually) as a personal soap box to look down on others.

[CyberCubed]

I agree with this matter. People can choose not to drink (I don't), or do drugs, etc. There are ways to help yourself as well as your family to keep you on the right track.

I've never done drugs or smoked in my life, and I only drink very rarely. At least I know I'll never die from drugs/drinking/lung cancer.

Of course anyone could be killed simply by walking across the street and being hit by a car tomorrow, but that's just being ****ed in every way possible.

[Jester]

I've never done drugs or smoked in my life, and I only drink very rarely. At least I know I'll never die from drugs/drinking/lung cancer.
Lung cancer isn't exclusive to smokers, you know.

[Leo656]

Can't really lighten the mood when you used this thread (and plenty others, actually) as a personal soap box to look down on others.

There's absolutely nothing admirable about people with drug and alcohol problems, and even if you feel sorry for them you're still "looking down on them", sooo... I'm not sure I get the problem? Right is right, smug or not.

So I'm a narcissist. If that's the worst thing anyone can say about me, Awesome.

Jester: No, lung cancer or any cancer absolutely is not exclusive to certain behaviors. BUT I feel that if certain behaviors are proven to highly increase risk factors, those behaviors should be avoided. Emphysema is common in my heavy-smoking family, thus I've never smoked cigarettes; I may well get it someday anyway, but at least I'll be at peace knowing it wasn't ALL my fault. Some things just happen, sadly. That said, one of the most absurd and infuriating moments of my life was a few months ago, when my aunt was rushed to the hospital with a collapsed lung brought on by years of post-diagnosis smoking. After visiting her, seeing her all hooked up to tubes and machines, her two kids and my sister made the completely rational decision to chain-smoke in the parking lot to "relieve the stress." I feel like pushing yourself into it is just crazy; you literally stand face-to-face with the end results of your behavior, and continue to engage. It's such a shame. Especially when so many people take care of themselves and get sick anyway.

[Cure]

So I'm a narcissist. If that's the worst thing anyone can say about me, Awesome.

Hahaha, no, plenty more than that.

[Leo656]

I'd love to see your make-believe list of my character flaws that only exist in your mind, but this probably isn't the place.

[shuriken]

SOOOO Megan Fox huh? This has turned into something that should be in the general discussions don't you think? Nothing really to do with TMNT.
But no i don't feel bad for Fox, I'm sure she'd fine. I feel worse for Lohan tho, she's been on a downward spiral and looks pretty tore up for being 27.
And why are people attacking Leo? Sure he got a bit preachy but hey people tend to do that when they believe in what they say.

[Konchadunga]

What's weird about Leo's argument is it's fueled by rage that his mother abused drugs into the grave, and yet his solution to this is to shoot everybody who's on the path to that. Seems extremely ironic to me. I also believe he has no business declaring everyone can beat an addiction of their own willpower, yet has never had to live with an addiction to prove this; all he seems capable of feeling is contempt for drug addicts; no empathy. Nor is his vilification of clinics warranted, given that they tried to close clinics in the Reagan era, and the only effect was drug addicts spilling out into the streets with their crap. Finally, the sort of scare tactics we use against drugs in our schools are contributing to the problem; not helping prevent it. Teens fall into the trend of reverse psychologhy; they also fall out of it eventually, but in the meantime, a better solution would probably just be not to tell them dangerous drugs exist.

Back on the subject of how millionaires can be pitied, I, for one, pity Peter Laird, and far more than Megan Fox. I feel bad for Megan because she gets hate I think is unwarranted, but Laird got rich off of a job that, by all accounts, ate up most of his free time and pestered him constantly with contrary ideas, and the worst thing is that many people still aren't even aware of how bad it was; they probably think creating TMNT would grant one the most awesome life ever.

[Davetello]

Please go play in traffic CyberCubed.

To be fair, he has a point.

Not to single out Megan Fox, but the entertainment business is full of people who rely on their image to compensate for a lack of talent. This is true in movies, TV, music and even sport. In the latter for example, someone like David Beckham, while talented, shouldn't really be more famous than myriad superior footballers. Then there's 'celebrities' who don't actually have any talent at all e.g. reality TV stars, the British monarchy, Justin Bieber etc.

The whole western concept of 'celebrity culture' really does irritate at times. It's most certainly not exclusive to Fox though, and I'm still hoping she can do April some justice.

[Davetello]

I don't "hate" the rich, per se. Hating the rich, like hating the old, is a questionable prejudice, because if all goes well for you, you BECOME them, one day.

But I do agree that people who can choose to live where they want, f*ck who they want, eat as well as they want, are not generally able to be punished by any known laws no matter what they do, don't have to raise or even see their own annoying children, and spend literally all of their time playing make-believe, having a mid-life crisis, and/or doing insane amounts of expensive drugs... those people literally have nothing to complain about, ever. And the things they DO complain about makes them look like the absolute shallowest c*nts on Earth.

Your second paragraph is why I hate the British monarchy - in fact it sums them up perfectly. They've had everything handed to them through birth and earned nothing, yet they have the audacity to complain about 'media intrusion'. The same media who makes them as popular as they are through unbalanced sycophantic coverage which is transmitted to the gullible masses. It's funny how the 'intrusion' doesn't seem to be offensive enough to make the Queen abdicate isn't it?

But I don't want to start ranting. I just noticed that there was a debate going on here and your comment reminded me of the royals so much.

[TigerClaw]

There's a article with a new interview with Megan Fox, however its in Spanish, But the Megan Fox fan site ran it through google translate.
http://meganfox86.tumblr.com/post/58233738558/august-2013-megan-fox-interview-family-is-definitely

Here's the TMNT part of it.
Asked About TMNT

“It was great to Ninja Turtles. I liked playing a girl who is making his way and wants to become a good journalist. Was fun, never done anything like this,” he said Megan.
I know the translation is bad.

[Metalwolf]

Your second paragraph is why I hate the British monarchy - in fact it sums them up perfectly. They've had everything handed to them through birth and earned nothing, yet they have the audacity to complain about 'media intrusion'. The same media who makes them as popular as they are through unbalanced sycophantic coverage which is transmitted to the gullible masses. It's funny how the 'intrusion' doesn't seem to be offensive enough to make the Queen abdicate isn't it?

But I don't want to start ranting. I just noticed that there was a debate going on here and your comment reminded me of the royals so much.Well, there's a lot of people that feel the same way you do about the British Monarchy, as they seem to be of little more function then a tank full of goldfish- pretty to look at, but also kind of useless. :P

.

Anyway, Megan Fox, if she feels so put down into difficulty by her present life in Hollywood, is welcome to walk away after her contracts expire. Nobody is forcing her to stay. I know she likes the accolades and recognition, but if it's that bad, then she can leave.

[Davetello]

Well, there's a lot of people that feel the same way you do about the British Monarchy, as they seem to be of little more function then a tank full of goldfish- pretty to look at, but also kind of useless. :P

.

Anyway, Megan Fox, if she feels so put down into difficulty by her present life in Hollywood, is welcome to walk away after her contracts expire. Nobody is forcing her to stay. I know she likes the accolades and recognition, but if it's that bad, then she can leave.

They really are pointless parasites. For an egalitarian like myself it's a disgrace that we don't have the right to freely elect our head of state. 'Democracy' :lol:yeah, right.

The thing is that the financial 'arguments' for keeping them (tourism etc) have been completely debunked too. Even if said arguments were legit, I'd still be against them simply because hereditary privilege is despicable in the 21st century. Lords, ladies, knights, princes, kings - it's like an episode of Game of Thrones!

I do not wish to deviate from the topic of the thread however, so I will stop going off on tangents and cease ranting now.

[Jester]

You know...watching all those Maury Povich knock-offs while off on weekdays, I can see where Leo is coming from...sort of.

But if one of my family members was struggling with this stuff, I'd try to help, and if they refused the help, then I'd probably write them off. Not before.

[Leo656]

I've never understood the Royals. I totally wish them no ill will... but what do they DO, anymore, really? WHY do we still care? It's not like we have media reporting daily, every second, on every detail of the lives of Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush, and they are literally EXACTLY as important, to anything, as the British Royal Family. The Kennedys, same thing. Forget the entire fact their entire legacy and family fortune was born out of organized crime, that's ancient history, what's baffling is that they're so BELOVED, to this day, despite only one of them (John) doing anything REALLY important, his brother (Bobby) being sort of but still rather less important, and another one (Teddy) becoming a beloved public servant despite being 110% for killing someone in a drunk driving accident. JFK had probably the hottest wife in Presidential history, but aside from that and being a clan of alcoholic serial adulterers, I simply don't get the continued fascination, to this day, with anything attached to the Kennedy name even a little bit, even if ol' Jack did avert the Cuban Missile Crisis. Everybody gets ONE, man...

But yeah, I really don't understand the "Cult Of Celebrity" at all. I've been around lots of famous people, and they all burp and tell racist jokes when they're drunk like everyone else does. They just happen to be prettier while doing it.

Off-Topic reply to earlier-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wanna thank everyone for being mostly civil about it. I know it was off-topic, and I know I come off insanely judgmental about this stuff, but you have to understand the absolutely INSANE amount of dead people I know, or consider that for a VERY long period of my life, literally EVERY person I knew except me and my wife was a drug addict. Everyone in my family, everyone at my job, everyone I hung out with... I have seen a mind-f*cking amount of absolute bullsh*t, and at times, yeah, it really has me hating all of humanity, because people are supposed to be BETTER than that. Yes, it comes from a position of rage. Literally every bad thing that EVER happened to me in my entire life (which is somewhere between 21 and "none of your F'n business" years old) was because of someone's habit. What can I say? I'm out of patience with it, and just want people to behave.

Also, I'm not exactly railing against people who smoke a little pot, because frankly, I've never honestly seen anyone's life get completely ass-f*cked from that. It's still kind of stupid, but really it's different because it seems like the worst, in that case, is spending money you probably can't afford to spend on something with zero actual value, which is irresponsible. But cigs, booze, coke, pills, heroin, etc. is all absolutely proven to at least turn the user into an assh*le, and at worst, ruin their entire life. So I think there is a wide gap between marijuana and everything else; feel free to call that hypocritical, I can see where it can be viewed that way.

And as far as shooting anyone, I thought that was easily identified as hyperbolic. Obviously, we shouldn't do that, but the thing is, these people are killing themselves, and while they do it, everyone they know is suffering, too, which is even worse. Watching a 60-year old man with a ridiculously bad heart smoke crack, for example, literally days after having major surgery, will make a person like myself go insane. That guy was my Dad, who gave not a sh*t about anything but "having fun", and that's why he's dead. I asked him once point blank if he cared about dying, and got the stock "we all go sometime" response of anyone in denial. So I simply stated that a gun would be quicker. That's how I feel about these people who are so hell-bent on having their vice that literally nothing matters at all. Obviously, though, I don't literally wish death on people. Usually.

I don't think any of it has to do with education, just common sense. I also feel that acceptance is part of the problem, because the user feels they've done nothing wrong, and plying them with empathy or letting them know "it's no big deal" enables them. My empathy is for the friends and family members, not the user. I feel that until the user is confronted with the absolute fact that what they're doing is unacceptable, there can be no true rehabilitation. That's why many people don't "get sober", they "get discreet", like a guy I worked with who quit smoking weed because it showed up on his random drug tests, so he started doing coke because it would pass through his system quicker. To him that was "solving the problem"; he willingly gave himself an addiction to one drug so as to not get busted for another, when a sane person would just stop entirely. Seriously, the biggest problem many of these types have is simply They Like Being High, and nobody ever actually FORCES them to deal with the consequences or take responsibility for their lives.


Jester, believe me man, I've tried, and still do, to help people in my family. I've given up, mostly, because when talking it out, crying it out, begging, and eventually arguing about it fall short, you just have to walk away. When people feel they "need" something, there's no shaking them. It can be anything, not just drugs. My one sister, for example, lost almost all her teeth from excessive smoking and soda rot by her twenties, and still drinks at least a 12-pack of Pepsi a day and smokes a pack and a half. Lots of us have tried to talk to her, even her kids, and it's always "I don't give a sh*t, I NEED IT!" and becomes her screaming at everyone to mind their business. I hate it; she sounds like she's getting emphysema already and she's not even 40. When her kids try to talk to her, she says it "relieves stress from dealing with them", which is horrible. My cousin screams at her kids when she gets drunk and blames her drinking on them (a common theme among alcoholics with kids, if you weren't lucky enough to grow up with that). I cannot accept the people they are right now, because they for their own reasons choose to look down on me (mostly because I'm not independently wealthy; they're not either, but when you're rock-bottom you try and drag others down with you) when I'm not the one hurting anyone else, and they are, willingly and willfully. So while I love them, I can't be around them until they get better. If and when they do, and stop blaming their bad choices on others (especially their damn KIDS), I'll always be there for them.

My father and I reconciled right before he died, too; in our last talk, he admitted I'd always been right about everything and he was proud of me for never straying from my convictions. It just felt like such a cheat, because we could have had more Good years together instead of horrible ones, if only he realized sooner what was right in front of him. His mother lived to 96, so if he hadn't blown his entire adult life he'd be around for a long time yet. It's so nonsensical. His other kids didn't forgive him at all or go to his funeral, which I find sad, because he never did ANY of the bad things he did to me, to them, not at all. It's funny how the most-judgmental one was able to forgive, but the other, older, "more mature" people couldn't. :ohwell:

I'm gonna just try and leave it at that. People can judge me if they want but I appreciate those who at least try to *understand* why I'm so angry about this stuff. This week was also the anniversary of my Mom's OD when I was 14, so yeah...

But thanks to those who do "get it", and I hope my experiences haven't ever been yours.

[Refractive Reflections]

^^ It's genuine, open, and heartfelt posts like the one above Leo656, is one of the reasons why I respect your opinion. The post hits a resonating theme I'm sure others can relate to, with a particular family member or friend that they tried to help (maybe not as extreme as drug/alcohol/tobacco abuse, but for sure a direction in life that was destructive) and the immense frustration that accompanies it, but somehow just couldn't despite all best efforts. The post cuts through all the pretentious posting and sarcasm.

[Wildcat]

Leo656: Last Obviously, though, I don't literally wish death on people. Usually Usually...O_O

lol

Seriously though I can understand being against drugs or abusive behavior. I think marijuana is really cliche. Even when jokes are made on TV and audiences cheer and the 420 thing is just stupid imo. I myself have NEVER done ANY drugs and don't want too.

As for Megan Fox, I dont think she deserves all the hate she gets but I don't feel bad exactly. People say they don't like the image or rep they're given but tend feed it...like shes posed for MAXIM and other magazines. Thats a little hypocritical.

[Luckyday]

I'm starting to accept the idea that she is April. I once saw screen cap picture of her jumping on a trampoline so maybe they're purposely playing the angle of Hot April. Maybe she is a character who tired of being a pretty face and wants to be taken seriously thus giving her a solid reason in risking her life to expose the foot clan.

[Leo656]

Realistically, they could'a done worse. Could'a done better, but still. I was really mad for like 5 minutes and then I got over it. Lots of stuff they've announced since then has been worse than her.

At this point, I'm actually thinking she may be one of the brighter points of the film.

[IMJ]

Let me th---no.

Megan Fox wasn't terrible in the Transformers movies because her part was written badly. She was terrible because she's a terrible actress. Compare, for example, Natalie Portman in the SW prequels. All three movies, including Portman's role, were cringeworthy. Yet she gave the best performance she could and actually elevated the films somewhat.

If Megan Fox were really bothered by being famous and attractive, or by the prospect of helping to ruin movies, she'd stop acting and posing for cheesecake. It's not like she'd be in the poorhouse if she stopped now, or even three years ago.


Can you give us some specific examples of moments in Transformers where Megan Fox's acting detracted from the movie, or was otherwise unconvincing that she was her character?

[CyberCubed]

Natalie Portman is a talented actress though, unlike Megan Fox. I'd honestly rather Natalie Portman play April.

The character she's playing in the Thor movies is almost the same type of character anyway.

[Candy Kappa]

Feel sorry for Megan Fox, Why?

She is one of the most untalented people in the acting business rivaled only by a handful few. Yet, she gets big budget jobs riding only on her looks and cheesecake capability.




I've never done drugs or smoked in my life, and I only drink very rarely. At least I know I'll never die from drugs/drinking/lung cancer.

You're a goddamn idiot if you think lung cancer only happens to smokers

[chrisdude]

http://i.imgur.com/L5vz5wz.gif
If everyone thought she sucked in Transformers, and she still got a big gig like this, shouldn't we feel happy for her, now?

[Jo Dawn]

I didn't mind Jennifer's Body, for what it was supposed to be. Bad.

However, I don't think she's a very good actress. *shrugs*

I have nothing against her personally, of course. I don't know her, and that would be silly.

But... I don't care if you're the nicest person in the world; that doesn't make you a good actor/actress. Nor should it be the reason you ARE the actor chosen for the job. In my mind, if you're not a good actor and won't add to the movie in a positive way, I don't want you in it.

[Davetello]

I've never understood the Royals. I totally wish them no ill will... but what do they DO, anymore, really? WHY do we still care? It's not like we have media reporting daily, every second, on every detail of the lives of Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush, and they are literally EXACTLY as important, to anything, as the British Royal Family. The Kennedys, same thing. Forget the entire fact their entire legacy and family fortune was born out of organized crime, that's ancient history, what's baffling is that they're so BELOVED, to this day, despite only one of them (John) doing anything REALLY important, his brother (Bobby) being sort of but still rather less important, and another one (Teddy) becoming a beloved public servant despite being 110% for killing someone in a drunk driving accident. JFK had probably the hottest wife in Presidential history, but aside from that and being a clan of alcoholic serial adulterers, I simply don't get the continued fascination, to this day, with anything attached to the Kennedy name even a little bit, even if ol' Jack did avert the Cuban Missile Crisis. Everybody gets ONE, man...

But yeah, I really don't understand the "Cult Of Celebrity" at all. I've been around lots of famous people, and they all burp and tell racist jokes when they're drunk like everyone else does. They just happen to be prettier while doing it.



Yes, you make great points. Obviously the American presidential families are like 'royalty' too, but at leats they've been elected somewhere along the line i.e. it is somewhat democractic, if a bit shady. The royals are where they are because their ancestors were bigger murderers than mine...

Many royalists are silly and believe that republicans dislike the royals through envy - it isn't that. Republicans generally lean left - we are egalitarians. We believe everyone is born equal, so the royals are the ultimate affront to our philosophy and political views. They are very, very hard to stomach.

Look at the fuss over this new baby prince. I made a hypothetical (if somewhat extreme) point when he was born last month...what if he grows up to be a wife beater or a murderer, but one of the many unknown babies born that day grows up to develop the cure for cancer (saving many royalists' descendents, by the way)? Wouldn't that demonstrate in the most profound fashion what a joke this 'monarchy' nonsense truly is?

Life should be about merit - what you're worth should be about what you do and how you treat people, not what vagina you exited. Sadly, many people in Western society are sheep who are easily controlled by a bit of celebrity and media indoctrination, so we have to put up with this garbage.

And as much as I moan about 'celebrities', at least they are famous for a reason, unlike the royals.

[Captain PunchYouHard]

Can you give us some specific examples of moments in Transformers where Megan Fox's acting detracted from the movie, or was otherwise unconvincing that she was her character?

No, I do not remember specific details of a spectacularly terrible movie I saw three years ago. I'm certainly not about to watch it again.

I will say, however, that every time she attempts the "smoldering temptress" thing in any movie, she comes across like a child beauty pageant contestant.

[FrostXxBitex]

I don't hate Megan Fox, I really don't mind her. But no matter how much yellow you put her in, she will never be April O'Neil.

[CyberCubed]

Megan Fox should have done a nude scene years ago.

[Leo656]

I agree with everything Davetello and CyberCubed said in their most recent posts.

[Coola Yagami]

TMNT isn't Shakespeare. And April doesn't need some Oscar winner to play her. As long as she plays the reporter out to get a story no matter what, that's all we need.

It's not like the movie is gonna have any super serious drama tear-jerking 'really makes you think' moments anyway. Or even if it does, those scenes will go to the Turtles, Splinter and maybe Sachs. But not April.

So who really cares? Megan's fine. As for her being hot.... classic April is considered one of the hottest cartoon characters of most people's childhood, so why shouldn't a hot looking young woman play her?

[sgtfbomb]

Great acting isn't limited to "tear jerker" moments or purely serious films. It can even be applied to action films. The simple fact alone that this isn't meant to be serious doesn't excuse it from having piss poor acting nor does it mean you shouldn't approach the film with any kind of standards. "But it's supposed to be dumb" has always been such a daft excuse for having zero standards.

Fox is an OK actress at best. She's there for looks, obviously, but that doesn't mean her lousy acting is beyond criticism. Yes, this even applies to Ninja Turtle movies.

[MogwaiNinja89]

There's absolutely nothing admirable about people with drug and alcohol problems, and even if you feel sorry for them you're still "looking down on them", sooo... I'm not sure I get the problem? Right is right, smug or not.



Who is saying they are admirable? Nobody said this. I agree that they make the choice to put themselves through this. But that does not mean they should be shunned and ignored. It's about finding a way to try and help them that doesn't enable them.

[MogwaiNinja89]

I don't hate Megan Fox, I really don't mind her. But no matter how much yellow you put her in, she will never be April O'Neil.

Why do people have this delusion that April is this shining example of a female figure in modern fiction? What, you look up "All Time Great Fictional Female Characters" and you'll find April O-Freakin-Neil next to Scarlett O'Hara and Ripley or something? No. She's a two dimensional character at best that is either there to get into trouble or provide a little tough sass once in a while. That's it.

[Powder]

Read a comic once in a while, guy.

[MogwaiNinja89]

Read a comic once in a while, guy.

Same applies to the comics, guy.

[Davetello]

I agree with everything Davetello and CyberCubed said in their most recent posts.

Thanks.

In response to the other theme of the thread (addiction), I disagree with you partially. I think people with addictions need to be treated with more care, although there should be a middle ground between showing them compassion and them accepting responsibility for their own actions. I'm saying this from personal experience (I've never smoked or did drugs and have very rarely drank, but I have had family members who've had problems in those terms and I tend to try and see things from their perspective). However, I can definitely see your point and why the 'softly softly' approach would anger you. You've put your views across articulately. Ultimately, though, I feel you're being a bit too harsh.

[Davetello]

Why do people have this delusion that April is this shining example of a female figure in modern fiction? What, you look up "All Time Great Fictional Female Characters" and you'll find April O-Freakin-Neil next to Scarlett O'Hara and Ripley or something? No. She's a two dimensional character at best that is either there to get into trouble or provide a little tough sass once in a while. That's it.

If everyone had this attitude though then franchises would never improve or realise their potential. There would be no ambition if people (authors, film directors etc) thought "well ultimately this is shite compared to Shakespeare so why even bother trying to give it some depth or meaning?"

[sgtfbomb]

If everyone had this attitude though then franchises would never improve or realise their potential. There would be no ambition if people (authors, film directors etc) thought "well ultimately this is shite compared to Shakespeare so why even bother trying to give it some depth or meaning?"

You're asking people to have standards, where clearly a bunch have none. :D

[Davetello]

You're asking people to have standards, where clearly a bunch have none. :D

It just seems defeatist to me, and a bit of a cop-out. Yes, April won't ever be the most ground-breaking female character in fiction. But she's still a good character and she isn't one-dimensional. Why not try and do her justice by having her depicted well in the movie? Why not aspire to cast the best person in the role?

I will never be as good as a footballer as Lionel Messi, but does that mean I should stop playing or trying to become as good as I can be simply because I can't ever be anywhere near the best? Of course not.

There's still merit in something being good or respectable - not everything has to be world-class, especially when a fanbase like ours will find more pleasure in the turtles than non-fans seeing the film would.

[MogwaiNinja89]

It just seems defeatist to me, and a bit of a cop-out. Yes, April won't ever be the most ground-breaking female character in fiction. But she's still a good character and she isn't one-dimensional. Why not try and do her justice by having her depicted well in the movie? Why not aspire to cast the best person in the role?

I will never be as good as a footballer as Lionel Messi, but does that mean I should stop playing or trying to become as good as I can be simply because I can't ever be anywhere near the best? Of course not.

There's still merit in something being good or respectable - not everything has to be world-class, especially when a fanbase like ours will find more pleasure in the turtles than non-fans seeing the film would.

How do you know she isn't well written in this new film? How do you know Fox will totally suck? You don't.

[Sabacooza]

I personally don't hate Megan Fox. She's easy on the eyes and that's all she amounts to at the moment. She could choose to further her acting skills by maybe taking acting classes but it seems she's perfectly content on getting by with just her good looks. At some point she'll have to ask herself what she's going to do when her looks start to go south due to age or continuous facelifts and botox. When that's gone, she'll have nothing. So no, I don't hate her personally but I also don't feel sorry for her either.

[Davetello]

How do you know she isn't well written in this new film? How do you know Fox will totally suck? You don't.

I'm not sure why some people on here create straw man arguments at times.

At no point did I say Fox would suck or that April would be poorly written, did I? I haven't said that. I'm simply jumping in on the 'debate' you guys were having. Essentially, this argument has nothing to do with Fox per se - I'm addressing the more general and subtle implication of yours that if someone can't be a ground-breaking, Shakespearean level character then there's no point in trying to do them justice as they'll never go down in the annals of history anyway. We could have this discussion on any cartoon or movie which will never reach the levels of all-time great literature or fiction.

I'm not judging Fox here, I'm judging April. The other guy's the one who's jumping the gun on Fox's performance; I'm simply involving myself in the wider debate of why we should aspire to cast the best person in that role. Whether that person is Fox or not remains to be seen, and I will reserve judgement and give the lass a chance. I'm just saying that we should always strive for our personal best even if it will never be the overall best.

Essentially you're saying that they could drag anyone in off the street to play April as she's a one-dimensional character anyway. I disagree and think we should have some pride and standards, as turtle fans. We will see whether Fox is an acceptable choice or not, but it's not like any inexperienced airhead could play April, as you're sort of implying.

By the way, from previous work, I don't rate Fox as an actress. But, as I say above, she deserves a chance as she's been cast now. It still makes more sense than casting someone with no acting experience whatsoever.

You're also contradicting yourself: you're saying that April is a one-dimensional, unadventurous character, yet now you've changed tack and said she might be well written and Fox might do a good job. If April's as boring a character as you're insinuating (and she isn't, by the way) how on earth could she ever be well-written and how could any actress make a good job out of that sort of character? You just need good, respectable characters (which April is) .They don't have to be ground-breaking.

"Why do people have this delusion that April is this shining example of a female figure in modern fiction? What, you look up "All Time Great Fictional Female Characters" and you'll find April O-Freakin-Neil next to Scarlett O'Hara and Ripley or something? No. She's a two dimensional character at best that is either there to get into trouble or provide a little tough sass once in a while. That's it."

That implies that April is a troglodyte and that any dumb, pretty girl could play her. You clearly don't have much respect for her or her depth of character, but I vehemently disagree. In fact, approaching important characters with this sort of lack of respect is what leads to ****** films in the first place.

[MogwaiNinja89]

I'm not sure why some people on here create straw man arguments at times.

At no point did I say Fox would suck or that April would be poorly written, did I? I haven't said that. I'm simply jumping in on the 'debate' you guys were having. Essentially, this argument has nothing to do with Fox per se - I'm addressing the more general and subtle implication of yours that if someone can't be a ground-breaking, Shakespearean level character then there's no point in trying to do them justice as they'll never go down in the annals of history anyway. We could have this discussion on any cartoon or movie which will never reach the levels of all-time great literature or fiction.

I'm not judging Fox here, I'm judging April. The other guy's the one who's jumping the gun on Fox's performance; I'm simply involving myself in the wider debate of why we should aspire to cast the best person in that role. Whether that person is Fox or not remains to be seen, and I will reserve judgement and give the lass a chance. I'm just saying that we should always strive for our personal best even if it will never be the overall best.

Essentially you're saying that they could drag anyone in off the street to play April as she's a one-dimensional character anyway. I disagree and think we should have some pride and standards, as turtle fans. We will see whether Fox is an acceptable choice or not, but it's not like any inexperienced airhead could play April, as you're sort of implying.

By the way, from previous work, I don't rate Fox as an actress. But, as I say above, she deserves a chance as she's been cast now. It still makes more sense than casting someone with no acting experience whatsoever.

You're also contradicting yourself: you're saying that April is a one-dimensional, unadventurous character, yet now you've changed tack and said she might be well written and Fox might do a good job. If April's as boring a character as you're insinuating (and she isn't, by the way) how on earth could she ever be well-written and how could any actress make a good job out of that sort of character? You just need good, respectable characters (which April is) .They don't have to be ground-breaking.

"Why do people have this delusion that April is this shining example of a female figure in modern fiction? What, you look up "All Time Great Fictional Female Characters" and you'll find April O-Freakin-Neil next to Scarlett O'Hara and Ripley or something? No. She's a two dimensional character at best that is either there to get into trouble or provide a little tough sass once in a while. That's it."

That implies that April is a troglodyte and that any dumb, pretty girl could play her. You clearly don't have much respect for her or her depth of character, but I vehemently disagree. In fact, approaching important characters with this sort of lack of respect is what leads to ****** films in the first place.


I'm in no way contradicting myself. For someone so upset about people putting words in their mouth you sure as hell went a long way to put words in mine. I said she was two-dimensional, not boring. A two dimensional character can be written well and entertaining. Indiana Jones is a two dimensional character, but he is one of the most iconic film characters ever made. It's all about how much of a personality she has and how well the actress can pull it off. She can be thin as paper but an actress can make her entertaining and spunky. Take the cartoon Aprils. I don't really care all that much for 80s April. she's decent, passable, is given some funny lines here and there but more often then not she's just there to get herself into trouble. That's it.
The 2k3 April isn't much more fleshed out, but there is more personality and character to her.
The Nick April is on her way to being the most fleshed out version so far on screen. She has the dogged spunk of the 80s April, the kind-heartedness of the 2k3 April and mixed with her being a teenager here she is the most fleshed out so far.

[sgtfbomb]

She can be thin as paper but an actress can make her entertaining and spunky.

Which is precisely why some of us are cynical about Megan Fox's casting.

[MogwaiNinja89]

Which is precisely why some of us are cynical about Megan Fox's casting.

Which is why I say it's not out of her range.