I am not bothered about Fox getting canned from Transformers to be honest (not a fan or nonfan of hers in any way). What I have issue with is her replacement ... uggh. When I see movies like this I am looking for either a girl that can kick a$$ and hold her own or hot eye candy. I seriously doubt they can make this 100lb stick figure kick a$$ convincingly and the hottness factor of this girl is way too low to be in a blockbuster hollywood movie.

I am still going to see it as I think the movie looks very solid and a major turn from what #2 was but change in the lead female character is actually a downgrade IMHO. She may surprise me but I doubt it.

Fixed that for ya.


I never really cared for Megan Fox one way or the other. Her acting was passable for such a movie and although I'd say she's pretty she's not really the object of my desires like she has been for so many fanboys.

I'd say the same thing for this new girl too, although I have no way to judge her acting yet.

It seems to come down to the fact that Michael Bay and myself have different taste is women. I'd have hired a cute girl next door type who looks like she would actually give Shia LaBoeuf the time of day.

while not a fan of Fox. I do find her attractive but not to the point where I go nuts for her. Sounds like she's a cool gal but it's obvious why Bay chose her. Who they chose as the eye candy is irrelevent. Though...based off the clip I put up here..seems like she has more personality than Fox..that.and a Brit accent.

Based on that clip you posted (and a couple other snippets I've seen), it seems she's a worse actress than Fox. And I don't see the supposed "personality". The Brit accent is irrelevant to me.

As long as Bay doesn't try to cram too many extranous scenes (it's too much to hope for none at all) with her or too many hit-and-miss comedy beats and instead focuses on the robot and military action, I'll still enjoy it.

If anything, shes a better actress than Fox based on the clips released so far

Having a range of emoting wider than "bitchy, bitchier, and bichiest" helps too

If Spielberg really had her fired for the Hitler remark and that alone then someone should give him a good smack in the mouth. Who does he think he is? Has he developed some kind of misguided Schindler-esque 'protect the Jews' sentiment?

So does Spielberg not understand hyperbole? Cripes! If Fox does, I HOPE he does!

I couldn't care less about Megan Fox and Michael Bay is the Garbage man of film, but Spielberg should be smarter than that.

Of course, it might not be true, but if it is true, he is an idiot and his over-sensitive actions should be put in check, fast.

$37.00 for two. [Technically I paid $9 for last week's LivingSocial deal plus the additional $7 to Fandango, so I only paid $16; but whatever.]

No wonder movie attendance is down this year...

See..here's your problem, you were paying for an 'Experience'. Yep, seen this alot. Some young city slicker comes along and think he needs an 'experience' when all he needed was a movie, yeah'p see ya overpaid cause your experience wasn't even that much of one, was it?...Nope didn't think so. Oh well, live and learn I guess.

I can't believe that there's still discussion of Megan Fox and Transformers 3 after all this time.

To be fair, it wasn't as though we haven't let it go. The issue with Fox's Hitler remark prompting Spielberg to order her fired was just made public so it's new material.

At the same theater that evening:

$14.00 (Dolby Digital 3D) + $1 (Fandango) x 2 = $30.00

$10.50 (35mm) + $1 (Fandango) x 2 = $23.00

IIRC, Fandango adds an extra $1 to the surcharge when tickets go above $15.

I feel the extra $7 may be worth it for the IMAX experience; especially since it would cost $40 - $42 at the Regal IMAX theaters here in town. [And again, I only paid $16 for the whole thing thanks to LivingSocial.]

Crazy Las Vegas prices. Those prices seem more like Pre-Las Vegas Housing Crash. Then again, I try desperately to avoid anything 3-D so I don't know what degree of price gouging they are pulling.

In Los Angeles, IMAX 3D tickets range anywhere from $18 - $22 a person. Digital 3D (RealD or Dolby Digital 3D) tickets range anywhere from $12 - $18 (cough, Nokia LA Live, cough) a person. I would assume the same applies for most major cities like NYC, San Francisco, etc.

If a film is shot natively in 3D, I'm okay with paying to see it in 3D. Since I'm a Michael Bay apologist, I want to see how his experiment with 3D works. I will never pay for a post-convert 3D after how much my eyes hurt during Piranha 3D.

Look...I"m not a big Bay fan...but he's from not being talented. The man knows a lot...the problem w/ that is that his mindset is to make movies that are just entertaining to even the lowest common denominator. He's a talented guy when i comes to visual...when it comes to understanding story..there lies his weakness

I gotta disagree with the dismissal that Bay doesn't "understand" storytelling. There are countless directors who have tried to make a living peddling "lowest common denominator" movies over the years and it's clearly a lot harder than it looks to be successful at it. To date, only one Bay-directed film has been a box office disappointment (The Island); few can boast of his track record. And the reason for his consistent success has a lot to do with his sense of what an audience wants. I know every "serious" film aficionado expects everyone to aspire to be Truffaut, but there's something to be said for someone who's as good at popcorn action flicks as Bay. Think of it as a variation on the message of Sullivan's Travels.

His movies lack any substance. They are filled with one cliche after another. Visually, it's run-of-the-mill action sequences. Certainly nothing that makes me leap for joy. I personally don't even think he's that good at making these type of action movies. They always have some moronic gags and devices inserted, not to mention all the not-meant-to-be-funny gags. How about Transformer heaven? My wife and I still crack up at that. I go to see his films but mainly to bash them while we watch. Kind of like MST3000.

'The Rock' and 'Armageddon' seemed fresher at least because he did somewhat create a format, but let's not fool ourselves, they are pretty terrible.

Yes you are correct, Sadly, the audience wants his type of filmmaking. They don't want to think at all. They want to set in a theatre like a mindless zombie and be told what to like. Big 'splosions, nonsensical plots and writing that would make Ed Wood raise an eyebrow in disagreement.

Ok I like Armageddon, but at the same time totally get that it has some major flaws and I accept that MANY people don't like it.

What, exactly, is wrong with The Rock though? I'm not going to say that good action trumps all of a films flaws, but The Rock is an action movie...nothing more. It has great action scenes and at least a decent plot that stays interesting throughout the movie. What more are you looking for?

Eh, there are hardly any movies made nowadays that require audiences to think. I know why Bay gets criticized so much but he's not the only one making tons of money on big, dumb movies.

Your argument is that his stories don't have any aspiration or depth. My argument is that it's okay that the don't, that there are plenty of others whose stories do, and that there's room for this kind of vapid action film. And in his milieu, Bay is clearly a master.

(sigh) Shorthand:

1) Writers are responsible for what's in a movie's story, not the director.
2) Orci & Kurtzman wrote the film in a flurry, turning in pages at a time because the writer's strike had wiped out the majority of their allocated time.
3) It's astounding, given the logistics and its scale, that Bay was able to complete the film in time for its release.

I watched The Rock again last September for the Criterion Challenge. Could not disagree more that it's "terrible."

I think it's time we confronted this holier-than-thou meme and I don't mean for this to read as a personal attack on you, so I hope you don't read any hostility here.

I loved The Seventh Seal, Eyes Wide Shut, The Sting, Lost in Translation, Amelie and any number of serious, thoughtful, artistic and/or nuanced films. I don't need to prove I'm a thoughtful viewer, nor do I need to apologize for also having room in my taste for Bay's work. And I suspect that's true of most posters in this thread. I can admit it: I dig Bay's stuff. Doesn't make me a moron.

Well said.

Youll probably find a pretty high correlation between people who think liking Micheal Bay makes you a moron and christopher nolan fans

I think it would be disingenuous for someone like me, who has essentially become a Bay apologist, to disparage Nolan fanboys. There's room for his works to be enjoyed and appreciated, too. I find Nolan's storytelling cold and I think a lot of his rabid fans need to admit that they were really unaware of his movies until he did Batman, and that his movies aren't as groundbreaking as they make them out to be, but I've thoroughly enjoyed three of his that I've seen (both Batmans and The Prestige). Inception I found disappointing (I thought the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Frame of Mind" did it better), but I readily concede the production values were terrific. I adored Ellen Page and I loved the Bond-ian battle in the snow.

So, yeah, just as I think it's okay to dig Bay's stuff without being a moron, I think one can also enjoy Nolan's without being a rabid fanboy.

That wasn't really a dig against Nolan, so much as it was against his hilarious militia of rabid fans that make sure to comment on every article on the internet on how Nolan is the savior of cinema and everyone else sucks

Kinda reminds of Tool fans, but worse

haha yeah maybe with crappy directors like Bay, but most Directors who are worth a damn either have a hand in writing their films, have final say or at the very least have a very strong sway on the writing. Bay is the Anti-Auteur.

If Bay actually made decent Action films, that would be fine, as I feel a place exist for many kinds of film. I feel his movies are generally terrible even within the realm of Action movies.

But hey, even I get something out of them. They are hilarious! I probably will go see it. I go to Louisville to see most films (Tinseltown for general movies) so if your there and hear someone cackling, might just be me.

Personally, I despise the auteur theory. Film is a collaborative medium. The director has final approval and therefore takes responsibility for the final product, yes, but he or she can ultimately only approve or disapprove of the work of other people. What's wrong with someone "just" executing and not taking all the credit and glory for the work of everyone else on a production?