Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

by **dinogeist** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:03 pm

Capt.Failure wrote:
deathy wrote:
Capt.Failure wrote:
deathy wrote:the failure of jonax hex's movie doesn't rest on megan fox's shoulders. as she wasn't the star,some guy was.

It speaks volumes that we can't even remember who else was in it besides her. Goes to show you how that film is a black mark on her former career.

Both megan fox & shia le beouf have done several movies that they weren't the stars nor star attraction. they were both playing SAFE ROLES. because if the movies failed,the blame went on the main star,the writters,production company,director & so forth.

Examples: shia did that indiana jones & wall street movie where he wasn't the star.

Examples: Megan fox did that jonax hex movie where she wasn't the star.

the only way these non-starring roles movies that bomb in theathres can hurt a actors/actresses career is if theirs more three of them.

Honestly even if both shia & megan fox never make anymore movies. they still have more money than they know what to do with. they've both got at least a bunch of millions sitting in a bank.

Well with the way movie stars spend money...

Most of them buy real estate,so at the very least they have a paid off house.

if your a actor/actress. then you can still make money from RESIDUES from repeats from your TV shows. from doing interviews,magazines photo shoots. doing fan conventions & if all else fails most of them do voice overs for cartoons/video games.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:18 pm

Capt.Failure wrote:We all know who Megan Fox is, what she's done, and what she thinks of people. She's sacrificed all anoniminity with her attempt at stardom, which will leave you open to direct attacks on your person when you act the way she does.

I've been called sexist, stupid, and racist on these forums, accusations based on nothing but displeasure in my opinions on matters. I've called her everything she's shown herself to be in the public eye. There is a major difference.

And here's the thing.

Just because she's in the public eye doesn't allow YOU the right on THESE FORUMS to criticise her the way you did. Self censoring your words doesn't excuse your language.

Saying she's a bad actress whose career is probably over is one thing, saying she's a "contemptable human being. A precious little b****" just isn't acceptable to me.

deathy wrote:they've both got at least a bunch of millions sitting in a bank.

You base this statement on what?

by **dinogeist** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:23 pm

Burn wrote:
Capt.Failure wrote:We all know who Megan Fox is, what she's done, and what she thinks of people. She's sacrificed all anoniminity with her attempt at stardom, which will leave you open to direct attacks on your person when you act the way she does.

I've been called sexist, stupid, and racist on these forums, accusations based on nothing but displeasure in my opinions on matters. I've called her everything she's shown herself to be in the public eye. There is a major difference.

And here's the thing.

Just because she's in the public eye doesn't allow YOU the right on THESE FORUMS to criticise her the way you did. Self censoring your words doesn't excuse your language.

Saying she's a bad actress whose career is probably over is one thing, saying she's a "contemptable human being. A precious little b****" just isn't acceptable to me.

deathy wrote:they've both got at least a bunch of millions sitting in a bank.

You base this statement on what?

Based off they made millions in acumlation from their TV sitcoms & 4+each movies they made.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:24 pm

ah right, silly me. Here I was thinking you didn't have access to their bank accounts. But clearly you do.

My bad.

by **Capt.Failure** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:22 pm

Burn wrote:
Capt.Failure wrote:We all know who Megan Fox is, what she's done, and what she thinks of people. She's sacrificed all anoniminity with her attempt at stardom, which will leave you open to direct attacks on your person when you act the way she does.

I've been called sexist, stupid, and racist on these forums, accusations based on nothing but displeasure in my opinions on matters. I've called her everything she's shown herself to be in the public eye. There is a major difference.

And here's the thing.

Just because she's in the public eye doesn't allow YOU the right on THESE FORUMS to criticise her the way you did. Self censoring your words doesn't excuse your language.

Saying she's a bad actress whose career is probably over is one thing, saying she's a "contemptable human being. A precious little b****" just isn't acceptable to me.

deathy wrote:they've both got at least a bunch of millions sitting in a bank.

You base this statement on what?

So on a board that's almost 90% criticism of the Transformers films, I can't criticize one of it's actors? While my choice of words was poor it doesn't change what kind of person she is and what I think about her. She'll have a long way to go before I show her any kind of respect or take her seriously as an actress.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:57 pm

Go back and read my post again, you'll see I never said you couldn't criticise, but rather choose your words more carefully.

by **Capt.Failure** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:04 am

Burn wrote:Go back and read my post again, you'll see I never said you couldn't criticise, but rather choose your words more carefully.

Burn wrote:Just because she's in the public eye doesn't allow YOU the right on THESE FORUMS to criticise her the way you did.

My mistake, at the time that line came off as "No criticism." Rereading it with a dose of caffine to help my brain process it helped though.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:53 am

Burn wrote:Just because she's in the public eye doesn't allow YOU the right on THESE FORUMS to criticise her the way you did. Self censoring your words doesn't excuse your language.

Saying she's a bad actress whose career is probably over is one thing, saying she's a "contemptable human being. A precious little b****" just isn't acceptable to me.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when others were saying you would take their posts out of context, but they're not wrong.

Try quoting me in full the next time you attempt to make me look bad.

by **shamone** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:53 am

Capt.Failure wrote:
shamone wrote:
Capt.Failure wrote:
Kibble wrote:Whatev. Fox may not be a great actress, but she's far from the weak link of these films... Her job is eye candy and not much else...see her replacement for proof. If you have THAT much of a problem with her, surely the problem lies deeper than her 'performance.' And honestly I don't care enough to find out what it is...so I'll just say have a nice day and leave it at that.

It's not just her acting, it's the fact that time and again she's proven herself to be a contemptable human being. A precious little b**** who was more than willing to alienate her coworkers to fall back on a career that in the end she wasn't able to sustain on her own. I mean for frak's sake she turns down an offer to join a king for dinner, airheadedly tossed Nazi-themed insults at her Jewish boss, acts like a spoiled brat on set and treats everyone like scum beneath her boots. Then she gets fired and everyone is honestly shocked?

If you ask me she had it coming. I hope that a few years from now she can reflect on what she could have had if she'd been a decent human being.

again with the hate talk.

Look if you have a problem with the warrior goddess in the movie blame mr bay who hired her twice. Otherwise you are using insulting language for someone you never met.

Oh no she turned down a king who rules over an undemocratic state which persecutes its people, and which discriminates against people who are not the way their society demands

The king of Jordan's political practices are not the subject here, so don't try to dodge around things. You should also know that I wouldn't exactly be approving of a nation that executes homosexuals as "unclean deviants."

Now when it comes to "hate talk" I believe the proper term is "calling her what she is." I have no issue with women, actresses, etc. I do have an issue with someone who has proven themself time and again to be a horrid person to those around them in the public eye. When it comes to your "Warrior Goddess" her poor acting is just the jaywalking to go with the arson and murder. Most likely Bay didn't have much of a choice when it came to hiring her back on for the sequel, or she hadn't done anything dumb enough to get fired yet. Of course fate was kind and she did, and at least one of the movies won't suffer her presence.

his politics have plenty to do with it.

Regardless of rank or status, when you support the policies he does, then i respect someone who refuses to meet them for dinner (no matter the reason why)

even if you dont respect that choice, using her refusal to meet his is not a very effective way to bash her, oh noes she wouldnt meet a guy who refuses his people democracy and believes homosexuality is deviant, what a bitch (to use your language)

by **shamone** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:55 am

Burn wrote:
Burn wrote:Just because she's in the public eye doesn't allow YOU the right on THESE FORUMS to criticise her the way you did. Self censoring your words doesn't excuse your language.

Saying she's a bad actress whose career is probably over is one thing, saying she's a "contemptable human being. A precious little b****" just isn't acceptable to me.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when others were saying you would take their posts out of context, but they're not wrong.

Try quoting me in full the next time you attempt to make me look bad.

at least you got an apology, he just ignores it when the rest of us bring it up ;-)

by **Capt.Failure** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:51 am

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when others were saying you would take their posts out of context, but they're not wrong.

Try quoting me in full the next time you attempt to make me look bad.

I quoted the part I missinterpreted. I was not misquoting you. Or didn't you read the whole "I read this part wrong" response I made?

by **Pot Bot** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:04 pm

Shia was the star in Disturbia, and i thought that was a poor film, but he made it good. Also loads of films have some form of eye candy in them and they usually have next to no acting skills.

As for her being a contemptable attitude, we dont know what she has said and in what context, or what mood she was in when she was said. Ive seen people make speech's then an hour later its on the news, put together in all kinds of ways and it makes the people look like they are saying all kinds of things. Opinions are one thing about celebs, but we dont know these people, hell im a pretty reasonable mellow person, but people who dont really know me think very different

by **shamone** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:04 pm

Capt.Failure wrote:
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when others were saying you would take their posts out of context, but they're not wrong.

Try quoting me in full the next time you attempt to make me look bad.

I quoted the part I missinterpreted. I was not misquoting you. Or didn't you read the whole "I read this part wrong" response I made?

it was the fact that you said " I can't criticize one of it's actor"

misquoting and taking it out of context is what he said you did. Which you did

by **shamone** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:07 pm

Pottermus_Prime wrote:Shia was the star in Disturbia, and i thought that was a poor film, but he made it good. Also loads of films have some form of eye candy in them and they usually have next to no acting skills.

As for her being a contemptable attitude, we dont know what she has said and in what context, or what mood she was in when she was said. Ive seen people make speech's then an hour later its on the news, put together in all kinds of ways and it makes the people look like they are saying all kinds of things. Opinions are one thing about celebs, but we dont know these people, hell im a pretty reasonable mellow person, but people who dont really know me think very different

spot on

im not christian but until you are in someone's position then should you really be throwing out nasty slander about someone you dont knwo, and who you only know through the media

by **Pot Bot** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:17 pm

shamone wrote:
Pottermus_Prime wrote:Shia was the star in Disturbia, and i thought that was a poor film, but he made it good. Also loads of films have some form of eye candy in them and they usually have next to no acting skills.

As for her being a contemptable attitude, we dont know what she has said and in what context, or what mood she was in when she was said. Ive seen people make speech's then an hour later its on the news, put together in all kinds of ways and it makes the people look like they are saying all kinds of things. Opinions are one thing about celebs, but we dont know these people, hell im a pretty reasonable mellow person, but people who dont really know me think very different

spot on

im not christian but until you are in someone's position then should you really be throwing out nasty slander about someone you dont knwo, and who you only know through the media

I think its just manners. I can disagree strongly with someone, and even find their opinion totally contemptable, but everyone is allowed their opinion, its when they dont accept others are allowed opinions the problem starts.

If you look at the start of this thread me and burn were having a differing of opinions about it, but i believe (correct me if im wrong burn

) i think we agreed to disagree. But when it comes to what is reported in the media i wont believe single word because you can say hello, and they'll manage to twist it that you've committed a bank robbery or something......its a joke!

by **shamone** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:30 pm

Pottermus_Prime wrote:
shamone wrote:
Pottermus_Prime wrote:Shia was the star in Disturbia, and i thought that was a poor film, but he made it good. Also loads of films have some form of eye candy in them and they usually have next to no acting skills.

As for her being a contemptable attitude, we dont know what she has said and in what context, or what mood she was in when she was said. Ive seen people make speech's then an hour later its on the news, put together in all kinds of ways and it makes the people look like they are saying all kinds of things. Opinions are one thing about celebs, but we dont know these people, hell im a pretty reasonable mellow person, but people who dont really know me think very different

spot on

im not christian but until you are in someone's position then should you really be throwing out nasty slander about someone you dont knwo, and who you only know through the media

I think its just manners. I can disagree strongly with someone, and even find their opinion totally contemptable, but everyone is allowed their opinion, its when they dont accept others are allowed opinions the problem starts.

If you look at the start of this thread me and burn were having a differing of opinions about it, but i believe (correct me if im wrong burn ) i think we agreed to disagree. But when it comes to what is reported in the media i wont believe single word because you can say hello, and they'll manage to twist it that you've committed a bank robbery or something......its a joke!

true

everyone has an agenda. And th reason for her getting sacked gets revealed jsut around the time the movie is released, hmmmmmmmm

by **Pot Bot** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:05 pm

It stinks of publicity to me.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:31 pm

Capt.Failure wrote:
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when others were saying you would take their posts out of context, but they're not wrong.

Try quoting me in full the next time you attempt to make me look bad.

I quoted the part I missinterpreted. I was not misquoting you. Or didn't you read the whole "I read this part wrong" response I made?

Oh I read it, but you know, when you throw in an eye rolling sarcastic smiley face, it tends to convey the attitude behind your post quite well.

by **Capt.Failure** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:04 pm

Capt.Failure wrote:
Burn wrote:Go back and read my post again, you'll see I never said you couldn't criticise, but rather choose your words more carefully.

Burn wrote:Just because she's in the public eye doesn't allow YOU the right on THESE FORUMS to criticise her the way you did.

My mistake, at the time that line came off as "No criticism." Rereading it with a dose of caffine to help my brain process it helped though.

There's what I said.

Burn wrote:Oh I read it, but you know, when you throw in an eye rolling sarcastic smiley face, it tends to convey the attitude behind your post quite well.

And there's you, accusing me of placing sarcastic smileys that don't exist. So who's misquoting who now?

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:16 pm

There's a difference between misquoting and simply making a mistake.

Yes, I was mistaken as the reason I began my discussion with you related to a couple of your posts where you did in fact use the eye rolling smiley.

Mistake on my part.

However, I do feel you only selective quoting me was taking me out of context, THAT doesn't change.

by **Capt.Failure** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:39 pm

Burn wrote:There's a difference between misquoting and simply making a mistake.

Yes, I was mistaken as the reason I began my discussion with you related to a couple of your posts where you did in fact use the eye rolling smiley.

Mistake on my part.

However, I do feel you only selective quoting me was taking me out of context, THAT doesn't change.

You feel it does. That does not mean I did. Big difference there. Now if you don't mind I'm tired of going back and forth with you over this.

News Credits: 5 · by **5150 Cruiser** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:01 pm

shamone wrote: true

everyone has an agenda. And th reason for her getting sacked gets revealed jsut around the time the movie is released, hmmmmmmmm

Pottermus_Prime wrote:It stinks of publicity to me.

I don't nessasarly believe this is a sole publicity stunt for the movie. You need to remember that not everyone keeps up with the movie news like we do. Its natural for movie related news to either pop up, or get re dug up closer to a movies release date as more and more people start paying attention to the details of said movie coming out.

by **Optimus Primevil** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:45 pm

so if megan compared michael bay to stalin/genghis khan/attila/tamerlane/vlad the impaler she'd still be in DoTM?

by **Capt.Failure** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:49 pm

Optimus Primevil wrote:so if megan compared michael bay to stalin/genghis khan/attila/tamerlane/vlad the impaler she'd still be in DoTM?

The very logic of this question astounds me.

News Credits: 668 · by **Autobot032** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:08 pm

Capt.Failure wrote:
Optimus Primevil wrote:so if megan compared michael bay to stalin/genghis khan/attila/tamerlane/vlad the impaler she'd still be in DoTM?

The very logic of this question astounds me.

Why? It's fair to ask. A lot of people are going to cite the Hitler/Jewish link, and to some extent they're right.

I still say Spielberg has that right, btw.

However, I still believe her past exploits didn't help matters much. Spielberg is not a stupid man. I know he's seen all she's done, this was just one step too far for him to take any more of her crap.