At least she's slightly more attractive than Megan Fox.Davrel said:I know its a Michael Bay film...but couldn't they get somebody who can, yunno, act?
She is a lot more atractive than Megan Fox but why pay eight bucks to see her in a movie when you can just google her name and see her in her modeling, or is it more socially acceptable to just see the movie?soapyshooter said:Anyhoo...she is HAWTTTTT!
Michael bay doesn't care about someones acting skill when hiring his eye candy anyway.Tom Goldman said:her replacement will be a Victoria's Secret lingerie model with relatively little acting experience.
Disaster Button said:So they're getting a different actor to play the same character?
I hate when that happens.
Except Turturro and the voice actors, obviously.Radelaide said:They'd have to recast EVERYONE. Seriously, I've heard better acting in porn. The fact they're going for "beauty" over substance means that Michael Bay is still touched in the head and it'll still be a terrible movie.Davrel said:I know its a Michael Bay film...but couldn't they get somebody who can, yunno, act?
Because that would be logical and logic appears to bounce off Michael Bay like Milk Duds off of my sleeping room mate's forehead.phoenix352 said:i never found why all the hate for magan fox ... shes a pretty face in a summer blockbuster film . you dont put talented actors in action flicks, theres no point 80% of the film is ACTION = no or bad dialogue >.> . now replacing 1 pretty face for a whole new one for the same character ...now that is hate worthy!