Would not be surprised if it bombs.
The chicks will go to see Shia LeDouche, but no Megan Fox won't bring in the guys.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
Watch your step ;)
I love Michael Bay :)
-Angel
Bayformers already has giant robots and explosions. They'll find another up-and-coming T&A superstar to replace Megan Fox.
Therefore:
1) Robots
2) Explosions
3) Hottness
...and Bayformers 3 wins again!
Want to book yourself or a guest on THE VFP Show? PM me!
It wont bomb, Transformers 2 was a truly terrible movie and it was HUGELY successful.
skyjedi2005 said:
...Shia LeDouche...
Are you sure that's his name? Is your source on this reliable?
LeDouche,lol.
Want to book yourself or a guest on THE VFP Show? PM me!
Shia LeButtFuck
...And the only way I'll ever watch #3, is if the female star does the whole thing naked.
...and I still haven't watched the 2nd one.
Star Wars Episode XXX: Erica Strikes Back
If you want Nice, go to France
Gemma arterton will replace megan fox. So they say..
-Angel
While I'm sure Megan Fox was a decent money draw in the first two, I don't think she's necessarily what made them successful. In fact, didn't the movies make HER successful? Anyway, never underestimate adolescent males' desire to see CGI robot cars beat the shit out of each other. They're pretty stupid movies, but they'll continue to do well, with or without her.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
I'll see it because reviewing those movies is so much fun!
The second one is a classic case of sequelitis. It is EXACTLY the first movie, but with two of everything. Literally. Two MacGuffins, two Big Bads, two racist stereotypes, two huge battles, two hot women, two gay dogs, EVERYTHING.
I can't imagine how derivative and terrible the third movie will be.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
I'm excited for three gay dogs - a landmark in cinema no doubt.
Yes, the third movie will have three of everything, unless Bay is adding exponentially. Four gay dogs?
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
TRANSFORMERS: EXPONENTED!!!
Even if a hot chick had some effect on the Box Office, which I doubt, it is not as if Megan Fox couldnt be replaced with one of 11,000 other hot chicks who look good sweaty.
io9.com said:
It looks like, when faced with a decision between an actress, an actress-model, and a model, Michael Bay chose... the model. (Surprise!) Victoria's Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley has apparently landed the lead role. Her character's name is still unknown, and there's some thought that the part will be a lot smaller than Megan Fox's would have been - something maybe backed up by her complete lack of acting experience.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
skyjedi2005 said:
The chicks will go to see Shia LeDouche, but no Megan Fox won't bring in the guys.
Sad that story isn't part of the equation. Sign of the times, I suppose.
And for the record, Sky, that's not a slam on Bay. It's a slam on the state of cinema these days. CGI, pretty colors, shaky-cam, slow-mo action come first - acting, depth, & story come second - if at all.
The short-attention-span generation won't sit still for actual emotion. The scene stops moving or people start having conversations longer than quotable sound bites - and they have to occupy themselves by texting someone.
*shaking fist*
Darn kids!
(j/k Anchor, I just don't get a chance to tease my elders on this board very often)
Anchorhead said:
skyjedi2005 said:
The chicks will go to see Shia LeDouche, but no Megan Fox won't bring in the guys.
Sad that story isn't part of the equation. Sign of the times, I suppose.
And for the record, Sky, that's not a slam on Bay. It's a slam on the state of cinema these days. CGI, pretty colors, shaky-cam, slow-mo action come first - acting, depth, & story come second - if at all.
The short-attention-span generation won't sit still for actual emotion. The scene stops moving or people start having conversations longer than quotable sound bites - and they have to occupy themselves by texting someone.
I have to disagree. There are plenty of great films with substance coming out every year. I don't think Bayformers is representative of modern film as a whole at all...
Octorox said:
Anchorhead said:
Sad that story isn't part of the equation. Sign of the times, I suppose.
And for the record, Sky, that's not a slam on Bay. It's a slam on the state of cinema these days. CGI, pretty colors, shaky-cam, slow-mo action come first - acting, depth, & story come second - if at all.
The short-attention-span generation won't sit still for actual emotion. The scene stops moving or people start having conversations longer than quotable sound bites - and they have to occupy themselves by texting someone.
I have to disagree. There are plenty of great films with substance coming out every year. I don't think Bayformers is representative of modern film as a whole at all...
Hmmm... intestesting point. Go see my exciting new thread on ARE AUDIENCES PICKING DUMBER MOVIES!
TV's Frink said:
*shaking fist*
Darn kids!
(j/k Anchor, I just don't get a chance to tease my elders on this board very often)
You'll see. When you're my age - it'll all make sense.
;-)
Octorox said:
I have to disagree. There are plenty of great films with substance coming out every year. I don't think Bayformers is representative of modern film as a whole at all...
I think it very much represents the disposable film mentality of the last decade or so. Film as product, as opposed to film as art.
No doubt there are plenty of great films being made, but the eye candy CGI-fests are the mega-earners. Complete with their sequels being planned into the story before shooting. Quick consumption at the theaters and start on the Extended DVD version at the same time (with scenes shot specifically for the DVD "special Edition" marketing push).
Label me a cynic who remembers when it was story first - box office classic second.
Megan will be quickly & easily replaced with a new script-reader who (as someone here so eloquently put it) - looks good sweating.
In the interest of disclosure; I've never seen anything she's done, so I don't know anything about her acting ability.
I don't think she was too bad in Transformers 1. Not great, but not bad. But man, seeing her in that Jonah Hex trailer is downright torture!
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
I'm thinking of responding in a way that indicates apathy toward her acting ability on the one hand and enthusiastic approval of her attractiveness on the other.
If anyone cares to see this sort of response, please say so; I'll be back around 6:00 CST.
Want to book yourself or a guest on THE VFP Show? PM me!
Nope, I'm good. ^_~
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
Anchorhead said:
I think it very much represents the disposable film mentality of the last decade or so. Film as product, as opposed to film as art.
No doubt there are plenty of great films being made, but the eye candy CGI-fests are the mega-earners. Complete with their sequels being planned into the story before shooting. Quick consumption at the theaters and start on the Extended DVD version at the same time (with scenes shot specifically for the DVD "special Edition" marketing push).
Label me a cynic who remembers when it was story first - box office classic second.
Yeah, but the same year that gave us "Star Wars" also gave us the trend-capitalizing "Saturday Night Fever" the sequal to a sequal "Airport '77"" and tenth in the increasingly ridiculous and formulaic James Bond series. Were any of those 'art'?