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

[Davetello]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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]

Originally Posted by MogwaiNinja89

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]

Originally Posted by Davetello

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.

[Davetello]

Originally Posted by sgtfbomb

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

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]

Originally Posted by Davetello

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]

Originally Posted by MogwaiNinja89

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]

Originally Posted by Davetello

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]

Originally Posted by MogwaiNinja89

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]

Originally Posted by sgtfbomb

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.