oldskooltf wrote:Sky Glory of Iacon wrote:On the women thing there is something called not making women sex objects. We are not here for you to oggle but to be repected. Ya know Feminism?
Actually... Bay told Megan Fox that she looked too skinny before they started shooting the new movie. The opposite you would expect from someone trying to make women sex objects.
Still... I agree that Megan Fox is in the movie for a reason... and it's not because of her wonderful acting.
I'm not Megan Fox's number one fan (surprise!), nor am I really a hater (I do tend to look at her face more than you boys, and all I see is a very pissed off looking bimbo), but....
Bay stating an opinion about someone's weight is only partially okay. Yes, he's an 'artist' and wants to create a certain look. If he wants it cast solely by chubbies or toothpicks, that's his deal. It's his 'vision'. BUT, commenting on a woman's weight? Well, that's textbook sexism 101, my friends. I think you learn that in day one of mandatory sensitivity training. The 'look' he is going for with Megan Fox is standard and completely unoriginal skankotron. He didn't want her to be a certain way (buffer, stronger, faster, Linda Hamilton-ish, stringier) for her to *perform* but for her to stand around and *pose*. Which is all she ever does, and from what I'm seeing in the trailers, all she seems to be doing in film 2.
Did he likewise suggest to Tyrese or Josh that they could gain or lose a few pounds? So they could be eyecandy? Where's Josh DuHamel in a tight pair of boxers? Prove to me that he did and I'll retract the accusation of sexism.
However, if you're on a campaign of going against films that make women sex objects, there are tons and tons of films that are worse, in my humble opinion.
True in theory, but then, that's stupid in practice. If I only selected non-disgustingly sexist stuff to watch, that would relegate me to...gads, the LIFETIME network? Oprah? And that network is also sexist, but in a different way. It doesn't physically objectify women, but it sure does squish them into a narrow little mental box of constant victimization.
I think SkyGlory's point was more along the lines of--geez, it's a movie about ROBOTS whom everyone here loves, can we NOT have to chuck objectification in there and alienate part of the audience? (Sorry if I'm misspeaking!)
[quote]
Also, Megan Fox has every right to say "no" to wearing certain costumes or to say "no" to appearing in any film that has her in suggestive attire or positions. Perhaps you should be more upset at her instead of the movie. Just a thought. Feel free to disagree.[/quote}
Ya know, my freshman comp students give me this line all the time. About women in rap videos and their ridiculous costumes and rebarbative 'dance' moves. It's true up to a certain point. But if you want to be an actress, or video dancer, sadly, there's only one way to go about it. Notice how there aren't too many ugly women in films lately? Ask for one and after a moment the average American will state 'Cathy Bates'. True, but wow, we can only think of *one*?
Rex Ingram was a black actor back in the 1940s and '50s. He was determined NOT to play any roles he deemed racist or demeaning. As a result, his career faced a number of serious roadblocks. He probably lost a LOT of money by holding onto his principles. I respect him for his integrity, but let's face it, Megan Fox doesn't have that kind of integrity. Or brains.
Then again, if I had bajillions of men willing to empty their wallets just to *look* at me, hey, I'd cash in on that, too. Can't blame her for selling what she's got at the highest price possible.
I don't hate Bay: I love his movies. Explosions? Bring 'em on! The bigger the better! Cool camera angles? I love 'em! Giant robots punching the robo-snot out of each other? THAT'S what I'm paying to see!
I just wish he felt confident enough in his ability to do THAT that he wouldn't have to stoop to the sort of 'let's get upskirts of Megan Fox' cheap nonsense.
HK, can't we all just drool on robots together?