Meh...
Title says it all
Spielberg flung Fox from Transformers 3
Executive producer Steven Spielberg demanded Megan Fox be sacked from the third Transformers movie after she compared director Michael Bay to Hitler. Fox exited the project last year, prompting speculation as to whether she jumped or was pushed. Despite denials by the actress, the word on the street was that she was given her …
-
-
-
Monday 20th June 2011 17:40 GMT Marvin the Martian
But how does it matter either way?
It's not like she has to repair the economy or disentagle confusing evidencei in a court of law. Heck, she doesn't even need to know lines, just remember them for 30sec or read from a cue card.
She can be my pet rock any day.
"would rather see the back of her" --- me too! But then that's how I roll.
-
-
Monday 20th June 2011 15:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Sorry, no
" an incredibly engaging and immersive 3D experience with this latest movie, one that will undoubtedly be among the most entertaining movie going experiences of the summer"
Are we talking about the same Michael Bay here? Immolation, perhaps, with lots of death-by-fire in all his explosions, but little immersion.
-
Monday 20th June 2011 15:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Desperate Paramount managers, Transformers3 is a worse product.
Desperate marketing bull from Paramount. Steven Spielberg is a professional and very kind man, he wouldn't have fired Megan Fox. Michael Bay hired, wanted and made her famous.
Paramount wants to achieve exactly what by spreading this fake scoop? Is this their best strategy trying to make people accept Rosie by telling the lie that Spielberg fired Megan Fox? What a bunch of fools, indeed.
So Paramount managers are really desperate promoting this Transformers3 now. That clearly happens because they know Transformers3 doesn't look good, it's way worse quality wise than the first two movies, the whole production is a real mess.
They better be worried because everything on this movie looks worse than the first two.
1) They fired the worldwide loved lead actress Megan Fox that they created as sex-symbol for Transformers franchise
2) So they broke characters and plot continuity and consistency, this is not a trilogy anymore, it's just like if George Lucas fired Natalie Portman when filming for Star Wars III started.
3) Rosie Huntington-Whiteley as lead actress replacement is a big fail. She is not hot, she has an hot body yes but many pornstars do as well AND her face is pretty ugly AND she can't act a little bit. Every scene with her on screen makes you gringe, her screaming in front of the camera looks like some retarded reality show instead of a Michael Bay movie. She is the worst female cast that Michael Bay ever did to date.
4) Alan Dean Foster that wrote the first two movies official novels and prequel novels was fired as well and replaced with Peter David, a cheaper worse writer. Paramount went cheap.
5) Linkin Park just remixed Iridescent for the movie instead of providing an all new exclusive single. Paramount didn't want to pay them. And Iridescent is probably their worst song to date.
6) Industrial Light & Magic CGI on Transformers3 looks bad in too many shots. Full of mistakes, wrong proportions, wrong filtering, sometimes it seems that the movie is using ancient stop-motion.. an awful thing already seen on Avatar.. and that happens because quality control went downhill
7) The useless 3D gimmick is just going to cause some major eye-strain and add nothing to the movie. It only caused ILM to deliver a worse CGI.
8) Paramount this time is paying critics and journalists to write positive reviews for the movie, something they didn't need to on the first two movies. That happens because they know they got a worse product that needs brainwashing people and a good smoke screen to not let people see all the mistakes and issues that this 3rd Transformers movie unfortunately really has.
Transformers3 doesn't deserve the good and strong word of mouth that turned the first two movies into a huge worldwide financial success despite all competitors bashing the movies on forums and paying critics to write bad reviews.
-
Monday 20th June 2011 17:39 GMT KroSha
Really?
"Transformers3 doesn't deserve the good and strong word of mouth that turned the first two movies into a huge worldwide financial success despite all competitors bashing the movies on forums and paying critics to write bad reviews."
Are we talking about the same movies? The first one was OK, but the second was a completely unwatchable, burn my eyes out and ask for a ticket refund car-crash!
"...worldwide loved lead actress Megan Fox..." Nope. She's alright, if you like that fat-lip look. She certainly can't act worth a damn and was only ever included so teens had someone to jerk off over.
Transformers (the original tv show) had a good storyline. OK, it wasn't great, but it was a kids' cartoon. I enjoyed it when I was a kid. Then some numpty let Bay make a movie, which was tolerable, and then another, which was frankly an embarrassment. Now we hear that the 3rd one is shit as well; colour me unsurprised. There's a reason that the last one got panned.
When will Hollywood learn that bigger 'splosions don't necessarily make a better film? Story and characters are what make a film great. Bayformers have had neither thus far.
-
Monday 20th June 2011 17:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Points 1-8
1. And RHW will do quite nicely out of this one, no doubt - what 'they' did before, they can do again.
2. No-one cares about the continuity apart from a few saddos like me, and the comics do a fair enough ret-conn there thank you.
3. IMHO, she 'acts' better than Fox. Time will tell - but I doubt this is the last movie RHW does (and not just Paris style ones, children!)
4. ADF wrote decent enough movie novelisations, that's about all he does though. Peter David has been writing books and comics across most of the big Sci-Fi/Fantasy franchises for years - Start Trek, Marvel Comics, etc and is well regarded by those fanbases. If he's good enough for them...
5. You either like them or you don't. I do. What I've Done was an album track / single before being tacked to TF1.
6. Avatar was pure CGI for the most - pretty if you like that sort of thing. The combination of CGI and real world footage in the TF movies is nothing short of astounding, whether you like the movies or not you've got to admit they are technically capable. There looks to be SO much more in the way of FX shots this time round, so you talk nonsense sir, based on not having see the finished article.
7. 3D does nothing to impair the CGI. I'm not huge on it, but the 2D is there if you want. And I do.
8. Pics or it didn't happen. My review may well appear on a well known movie related website before too long - I'm not getting paid, I'm just hoping to see a good blockbuster.
You are a sad Harry Potter watching troll and I have fed you and claim my fiver.
And with that, I'm clocking off!
-
-
-
-
Monday 20th June 2011 22:18 GMT atippey
To be completely fair
He did start -- or at least catalyzed -- a major world conflict which killed roughly 60 million people on all sides. Sure, Japan's eastern escapades and tensions between the Soviet Union and the West may have eventually flashed something similar in his absence, but ultimately we'll never know. Also, don't forget the Slavs, Roma, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, the mentally disabled...and of course those abysmal watercolors.
-
Monday 20th June 2011 22:22 GMT stuartnz
Deflationary revisionism
5.5 million is in the ballpark for the number of *Jews* killed in the Final Solution, but the previous poster said "Hitler may have killed 13 million *people* in concentration camps" and that's pretty near the standard estimates for the TOTAL number of victims, including Slavs, Gipsies, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.
-
Tuesday 21st June 2011 13:00 GMT dogged
@stuartnz
Speaking as an official Gyppo (no, really), best estimate is that 90,000 gypsies died in concentration camps. That would mean you're suggesting that Hitler managed to find 7.4 million other bastards to gas, vastly outnumbering Jews.
Either pre-Nazi Germany was gayer than Brighton on a sunny Sunday or Christmas must have been a pretty dismal affair.
Or you're wrong.
I know which way I'm guessing.
-
-
Tuesday 21st June 2011 16:05 GMT dogged
@AC
No, it's not better. However, as is argued far more clearly than I can manage in _The Holocaust Industry_ by Norman G. Finkelstein (c.2000) this kind of numerical inflation cheapens the memories of those who died and is used a lever by others who cynically wish to profit from the whole thing.
My granny (who was pure Romany, had a sister and both parents die in the camps and was not one for political correctness) used to spit furious invective about the Jews for continually whining about the whole thing and proclaiming themselves to be the only victims. Whether fairly or unfairly is not for me to say. All I know is, the facts are there. Making it look bigger than it was is either lazy or cynically manipulative and I won't sit back and watch it go uncorrected.
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 20th June 2011 15:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
So...
"Transformers3 doesn't deserve the good and strong word of mouth that turned the first two movies into a huge worldwide financial success despite all competitors bashing the movies on forums and paying critics to write bad reviews."
So who paid you then?
Bit long-winded for an opinion I'd say.
Also, I'm disappointed about Megan, marvellous actress that she is. Still, I'll watch it when it comes out on DVD. Almost everything about them is crap really, but I'm just a sucker for giant robots.
-
Monday 20th June 2011 17:40 GMT bobbles31
I couldn't face the second one...
I only watched the first one all the way through just so that I could say with certainly that it really was crop.
As the credits rolled you can point to each individuals name and say that he/she did a rubbish job.
Sorry to all you Transformers fans out there, the cartoon was/still is awesome. This trilogy of shit to cash in on a much loved franchise only serves as a kind of tax on stupidity.
-
-
Monday 20th June 2011 15:59 GMT Asgard
Can't say I'm surprised
To be fair, all directors are there to director, so its goes with the job title that a director will give direction to people. In her case, it was out the door. :)
But I can't say I'm surprised about Megan Fox. She has an air of being moody and full of herself in both in the characters she plays and when she is being interviewed.
I just hope her replacement is better than her, which shouldn't be too difficult to achieve. :)
-
Monday 20th June 2011 17:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
This is a joke right?
"I didn't have any problems with him and I don't think [Rosie] did either. He's demanding. He's fun, though. Look at the outcome. He's phenomenal. He's a great filmmaker."
I threw up a little in my mouth. If you'll excuse me I need to invent a selective mind wipe machine so I can permanently remove all transformer movie scenes from my unfortunate mind.
-
Monday 20th June 2011 18:04 GMT DS 1
Transformers
I started at the beginning pondering how were they going to turn this cartoon into some viable movie.
The truth is, they did a belting job. I loved both movies, although as with much sci fi, you have to be in the mood to suspect your disbelief and just take the joy ride. Assuming you do this, both movies are a blast and I hope 3 is the same.
Anyone quibbling and making oddball statements about how a transformer movie doesn't come up to snuff in historical and philosophiocal movie terms seems to miss the point, and their basis for existing.
-
Monday 20th June 2011 18:14 GMT Ralthor
Summation of Transformers
Transformers 1: In the desert with the marines and the desert worm transformer - Excellent. Rest of the movie, eyecandy
Transformers 2: Eyecandy, although the old transformer in the museum was amusing.
Transformers 3: I'll know when I watch it.
All of the above is totally subjective and should be taken with a grain of rice.
-
Monday 20th June 2011 18:14 GMT Graham Jordan
Lets face it
We'd all like to put our man fat on Megan's face. Give Bay his credit, he picked a hottie.
However I dare say hottie can and may have been made using Bay's "fit girls for dummie's" guide
1) Dress woman in next to nothing. Make sure any clothing woman has to wear is too small.
2) Regardless of location, woman has to sweat. A lot. But not under the arms.
3) Acting? What is this thing you call acting? Refer to rule 1 and 2. If criteria is met acting can be passed upon.
Still, I favour anything Megan says and does over Bay. Bay makes me violant. Why does everything have to explode?!?!?!
-
Tuesday 21st June 2011 00:31 GMT Meph
Dumb as a rock, check!
You guys are missing the point, calling the director "hitler" on a movie where the executive producer couldn't be any more jewish, is about as smart as walking into a new york police station and shouting about how awesome osama was.
No matter how good she looks, your average central heating unit has a higher IQ.
-
Tuesday 21st June 2011 00:32 GMT Sarah Davis
so now spielberg is Hitleresque!!
really, if you fire someone for having a negative opinion about an egotist, then you're going to come off looking like a little diktator - as does replacing a star who did well in previous storylines
spielberg's ego has just taken over his intelligence, so it looks like Michael Bay will have some competition when it comes to becoming the Hitler of Hollywood,... (oooh, now there's a film title)
-
Tuesday 21st June 2011 09:12 GMT Peter Murphy
Megan Fox is unimportant. Why not replace Michael Bay as well?
The problem with Transformers 2 (so I gather - I never watched it) was that there were so many explosion and mechanical effects that it left the audience exhausted and bored. Take this review, which I suspect is taking the piss not a little:
http://io9.com/5301898/michael-bay-finally-made-an-art-movie
"Since the days of Un Chien Andalou and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, filmmakers have reached beyond meaning. But with this summer's biggest, loudest movie, Michael Bay takes us all the way inside Caligari's cabinet. And once you enter, you can never emerge again. I saw this movie two days ago, and I'm still living inside it. Things are exploding wherever I look, household appliances are trying to kill me, and bizarre racial stereotypes are shouting at me.
Transformers: ROTF has mostly gotten pretty hideous reviews, but that's because people don't understand that this isn't a movie, in the conventional sense. It's an assault on the senses, a barrage of crazy imagery. Imagine that you went back in time to the late 1960s and found Terry Gilliam, fresh from doing his weird low-fi collage/animations for Monty Python. You proceeded to inject Gilliam with so many steroids his penis shrank to the size of a hair follicle, and you smushed a dozen tabs of LSD under his tongue. And then you gave him the GDP of a few sub-Saharan countries. Gilliam might have made a movie not unlike this one.
And the true genius of Transformers: ROTF is that Bay has put all of this excess of imagery and random ideas at the service of the most pandering movie genre there is: the summer movie. ROTF is like twenty summer movies, with unrelated storylines, smushed together into one crazy whole. You try in vain to understand how the pieces fit, you stare into the cracks between the narrative strands, until the cracks become chasms and the chasms become an abyss into which you stare until it looks deep into your own soul, and then you go insane. You. Do. Not. Leave. The Cabinet."
So what is the solution? It's obvious. Sack Michael Bay. There are plenty of people in Hollywood who could deliver both the same level of excitement and EXTRA competence for Transformers 3, like the Coen Brothers, or Quentin Tarantino. They'd add their own stylistic flair to the movie, and it would be stylistic flair that 14 year old boys (the target demographic) would lap up as well.
Use them. You know it makes sense.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
