Everyone’s favorite imbecile is back! This one shows up a lot in my searches by pathetic losers who want to see her naked (which is easy enough thanks to Google and her willingness to exist in various shades of undress). So I grabbed this candid shot of the Great Philosopher on the set of her new movie with Mickey Rourke, where she plays some sort of deformed angel that lives in a cage or something.
Mickey Rourke has only the hatchet job he did on his face to blame for why he has to do movies with this genius as his leading lady. He’s got the talent and the compelling personal backstory of excess and redemption, though. His mug is the reason that he has to carry talentless, insipid, arrogant little starlets who can’t carry their own films if they had a jack and a flatbed truck.
Anyway.
Here she is. She who shall not be named.
I took the general idea of her outfit and put together something similar. The coat is not included in the budget, but I picked out one that’s a deep enough purple to work with the other pieces I picked and tacked it on, just in case you wanted something in the same vein.
Let’s take a look.
Bow Pencil Skirt in Chocolate ………. $39.50
Contoured Seam Button-Front Shirt in Deep Sand ………. $24.50
Sommer Pumps in Black ………. $22.99
Large Flower Charm Bracelet ………. $8.90
Blazer Coat in Violet - $29.99
Ugh, I hate this twit.
Anyway, I went with a skirt at Victoria’s Secret that I’ve just loved forever. You’ve probably seen it up on here before at least once. It’s brown with a cute little bow on the back, and I paired it with a subdued golden cotton button down with short sleeves.
I wanted to do the black pumps like the Great Philosopher’s, and to do that I wanted to add in some black elsewhere. The skirt doesn’t really lend itself to a belt. It’d just look dumb, with the lacing and the bow on the back. Too much going on. And I didn’t want to do a black necklace because I liked the collar of the shirt the way it was. But the shirt has short sleeves, which just begs for a bracelet or two, so I found this black and dull gold one from Windsor.
I have a feeling that this is one of those bracelets that looks better on your wrist than it does in the picture. At least, I hope that’s the case. With that in place, I added the black pumps, and then found a purple coat that was dark enough and not totally hideous, and not above the $100 mark. This blazer-coat kind of does the trick. It’s not the same as the Great Philosopher’s, which looks to be some weird wool-boucle affair, but whatever. The color is deep, there are buttons, and it hits about 2 inches above where the skirt would, so we’re good.
Ugh. I can’t believe I relented and posted about this stupid bint here. Bleh. Now I need to go read the poems of Walcott or analyze The Two Gentlemen of Verona or trace my way through Kurt Godel’s Uncle Theorem or something. I swear, just looking at her makes me feel stupider.
You should do yourself a favour sometime and actually listen to her interviews in full. You may be surprised to discover a bright, self-aware young woman with a great, dry, sarcastic sense of humour.
There is nothing easier than to ridicule Megan Fox – everything she says is taken out of context, twisted, and blown out of proportion by dumb Internet media. Most of what she says is tongue-in-cheek and actually hilarious.
I am sure it is fun to stereotype her as stupid, so I don’t want spoil it for you. But just so know, it is even more fun to give a her a chance and discover how fucking awesome she is.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
What makes you think I haven’t read and seen her full interviews? The girl is a NITWIT. Half the things she says are inane, the other half, insanely offensive.
Although, you know, the only thing easier to ridicule than Megan Fox is guys who actually think she has any kind of substance or intelligence. :)
As many as there are people who bash her, there are a lot of those who find her quite fascinating. I assumed you haven’t done the research because, from my observations, it is unusual to fall into the former group if you have.
This is more of general observation, not directed specifically at you, but it does require an open mind and a sense of humour to appreciate someone like her and unfortunately it is more than can be asked of people today. The public has become so used to the mind-numbingly boring, contrived celebrities, that they don’t know how to process someone outspoken and eccentric.
Megan explains it herself:
“My sense of humor doesn’t translate well into print – some of the things I say can be offensive or found offensive even though I don’t mean them that way. There’s pressure to change and become a bit ‘vanilla’ and safe, because it’s horrible receiving letters from people I’ve offended by saying something I thought was a joke. The obvious way to avoid that is to be completely safe in everything you say and do, but then you lose your personality and become robotic. I don’t want that. But I do want to find a happy medium, because I’m always in trouble.”
“Sometimes I say things that I think are obviously sarcastic and people take them quite literally. In America we’re still very uptight about sexuality: it’s considered scandalous for women to be sexual or speak about sex in a humorous way. For some reason it makes people very uncomfortable, possibly because our society is still very tied to archaic biblical principles that we try to force on each other and force on our children. It’s very unfortunate because men are embraced for their sexual prowess and women discouraged from it.
In Europe, women are celebrated for their sexuality and appreciated for it. There you can still be both sexy and intelligent. Go figure.”
(btw, does this read to you like an unintelligent person?)
Anyway, obviously I am not going to dissect and discuss everything she’s ever said. So let me give you couple of links to check out when you’re bored and we’ll leave it at that.
Here’s a good example of her being quirky and funny. I am religious about Tolkien but it still wouldn’t cross my mind to… :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_kBpc4Eeio
And if this is what dumb and shallow sounds like, then we have different definitions. I call it sharp and well-spoken.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS2YgadNBzo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WWEhewoB1M
Finally, since you like writing and feel so strongly about this subject, you should write an essay – Huffington Post likes to post polemics. :)
In Defense of Megan Fox: Why the “Stupid Actress” Story Needs to Go:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-lafsky/in-defense-of-megan-fox-w_b_228010.html
Cheers
That’s all well and good, but when she uses words like “bull dyke” in a derogatory fashion, or insists that she’s got a crippling phobia of newspapers despite the fact that there are tons of photoshoots with her posing with a paper, or when she says things like how she’s engaged to her BF even though she has no desire to marry him, or insists that no woman can have true female friends because our fathers all raised us wrong, or says that women only hate her because women hate all women, or that men want to hang out with her because her personality is badass (um, honey, men wanting to hang out with you has NOTHING to do with your personality and more to do with teh fact that you’re insanely GORGEOUS, albeit surgically enhanced), then, yes, I’m going to think I’m HIGHLY justified in thinking that the woman has the IQ of a stick of butter.
So you casually disregard any of the above examples where she is articulate and well-spoken, and take only the negative ones?
Your examples only prove exactly. None of those are “stupid” if you just give her a little benefit of the doubt.
“he uses words like “bull dyke” in a derogatory fashion”
She used that in reference to herself, as a self-deprecating joke. Offensive? Maybe, not for me. I don’t know what this has to do with intelligence, though.
“she’s got a crippling phobia of newspapers despite the fact that there are tons of photoshoots with her posing with a paper”
Haha, crippling phobia? :) Yeah, that’s probably how a tabloids reported it. She said on Jimmy Fallon that she doesn’t like the feel of dry, non-laminated paper so she licks her finger before turning the page. That’s all. See how ridiculously misinterpreted these things are? :)
“insists that no woman can have true female friends because our fathers all raised us wrong, or says that women only hate her because women hate all women”
What she said was that women are innately competitive which often leads to cattiness – women often put other women down. I would think it is actually kind of a cliche… Books have been written about it. Even if her statement was too generalizing, she wasn’t talking literally about “all” women but describing a common pattern.
Was this interpretation of her words such a stretch? All I did was to give her a fair benefit of the doubt. The same benefit we should give anyone when attempting to make any sort of judgement based on a two-sentence quote. Which is what you do yourself with people towards whom you don’t have negative preconceptions.
“or that men want to hang out with her because her personality is badass”
Is that an supposed to be an objective argument? Judging by, I don’t know, YouTube comments, many guys do think she is badass. The fact that you personally disagree makes her statement stupid?
One last thing. Trying to assess the intelligence of someone you don’t know is inherently risky. To do it based on a long, serious interview in a credible source is already difficult. But to judge based on what Internet media report – is insane.
Further, to be so sure of such judgement as to comment on any differing opinion “Hahahahahaha” on Twitter… is not the level of reasoning I would expect from a “reasonably prudent law student”, to put it gently.
Cheers
*Your examples only prove my point. None of those are “stupid” if you just give her a little benefit of the doubt.
Obviously, we’re coming at her interviews from very, very different perspectives. She very often does speak in generalities – words like “all” or “always” etc, are VERY OFTEN found in her interviews, so I’m not sure why we’re bringing in examples of how that’s ‘sometimes’ true or whatever.
I will admit that sometimes she’s got a point – women ARE competitive, we often do hate each other for stupid reasons, etc, etc – but she phrases most of these things in very absolute terms, which, yes, is ridiculously dumb. Her comments are without nuance, although I have to admit I’ve seen more nuance in them from your arguments; mainly, how passionately it can be argued that she’s not somehow of less than average intelligence.
As for the bull dyke comment – she was referring to herself, so that makes it cool? The fact that she’s saying something self-deprecatory makes acceptable the fact that she’s also putting down a class of people at the same time? Is that what you’re saying? Also, if that doesn’t offend you, fine, but you honestly don’t think that saying that has nothing to do with intelligence? You have to lack self-awareness to a certain extent to be able to say something like that when you KNOW it’ll be printed. I don’t know too many people (that I consider intelligent) who go around saying things like that. It’s crass, offensive (to me, and I’m sure to the people who it was about, since the GLBT community had QUITE a vocal response to that), and in bad taste, and that doesn’t make me think that the person who said it is going to be attending any Mensa meetings in the near future.
As far as her opinions go, I don’t agree with a lot of them. That’s fine; I don’t hold that against her. What I do hold against her, like I’ve said, are the offensive remarks – which, YES, are offensive no matter how you slice and dice them – and just the mindlessly inane things she says about farts and defecation. When she knows it’ll be printed. And she knows it won’t do her any favors. Things like that, combined with her offensive remarks, combined with her rambling inanities about Zac Efron and strawberries and the Lion King that make NO SENSE unless you’re high, in which case they’re kind of funny, combined with how she insists that she hates being a sex symbol and hates magazines that tout her as that, ignoring the fact that no one held a gun to her head and made her pose for teh publications that really boosted her career and helped her get where she is, combined with how she frequently insists she’s ugly and a tranny and a doppelganger for Alan Alda while also often talking about how she’s clearly not ugly (it’s the back and forth there that irritates me – pick a side! Either you’re insecure about your beauty and finding a way to deal with it, early-Angelina-Jolie-style, which is fine, or you recognize that you are a very, very beautiful girl, which is also fine, but don’t spew it out of both sides of your mouth), combined with the arrogance with which she often carries herself (I can hear you now: that’s not objective, how do you know she’s arrogant, she’s God’s gift to the world, blah blah blah), THAT is what makes me dismiss her as the nitwit she is.
Also, if you can find any nugget of substance in this quote, I’d applaud you:
“I have no question in my mind about being bisexual. But I’m also a hypocrite: I would never date a girl who is bisexual, because that means they also sleep with men, and men are so dirty that I’d never sleep with a girl who had slept with a man.”
It is ENTIRELY circular in its construction.
First, she’s a bisexual. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But then she’ll say that she’d never date another bisexual girl, which is still okay, because according to the diagram I’ve got up on my whiteboard, that leaves her with straight men and lesbians. She’s got options. Great. THEN she says her reason for that is because bisexual girls sleep with men, and men are so dirty that she cant’ handle a girl that sleeps with men. Except for the fact that Megan has had the same boyfriend since her late teens (I think).
Either this is the most BRILLIANT analysis of the complicated sexuality, sexual needs, and socio-sexual conceptions of human beings I have ever come across, something that would make Freud cry himself to sleep for not thinking of it first, or this is one confused girl.
Which one do you think is more likely?
Also, the (fairly) widely known incident in Vancouver when she yelled at a fan for telling her she looks like Angelina Jolie when it was SHE that was named as teh sexiest woman alive by FHM (a magazine she later bashed a little for promoting her sex symbol status, ignoring the fact that she did shoots with them twice, I believe) and that Angelina Jolie “was lucky to be #9″ didn’t ingratiate her to me by any means.
I can be irrational in my hatred of things (Megan Fox, garden gnomes, law school) but there is always a rational basis that I’ll eventually get to if pushed. Except for garden gnomes. I have no idea why I hate them so much. There’s no rational reason there.
God, that was an obnoxiously long post, huh? Bottom line: Anyone who can’t muster up even a modicum of self-awareness before speaking to major publications IS a nitwit, no matter how pretty she is.
If you called your own post obnoxiously long, I am terrified what you will think of mine! Hahaha, this is totally nuts. The combination of my love for debates and my love for Megan Fox is what made this so outrageously long.
By the way, you shouldn’t be surprised that I argue with such conviction, I am HARDLY the only one to have a similar opinion.
I am afraid that your opinions are so ingrained that nothing I can say can alone change your mind. I can describe my perspective all day long, but unless you notice yourself the qualities I see, it’s not gonna convince you. So before you respond to this Ridiculously Long Post, please watch these interviews to hopefully get a better grasp of I mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ROL5IA6GPo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS2YgadNBzo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_kBpc4Eeio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WWEhewoB1M
Now, for the Ridiculously Long Post.
I concede that she tends to generalize and it is not right. She should be more careful. But calling her “ridiculously dumb” for this reason is going way overboard. Words like “all” and “always” are often a matter of lively rhetoric, not necessarily a reflection of a simplistic world-view.
(Ironically, you keep calling her a dimwit which is a term so broad that it is completely meaningless – useful only to insult somebody, not to make a point in a debate.)
I put it down partly to the way magazine interviews are edited – they take an elaborate reply and pick only the juicy stuff. I know it may seem like an easy way out, but it is clear when you watch her video interviews. When you watch the interviews I posted earlier, you may notice her constantly qualify her statements with: “I obviously can’t speak for everybody, but…”, “I am not qualified to diagnose the male population [but from my point of view]…” and “it is not completely accurate, obviously it is impossible for it to be”. But it is not the kind of stuff GQ would bother to print, would they?
In those video interviews she is remarkably articulate and well-spoken. She knows exactly what she wants to say, her points are clear, sentences complex. No likes, sort ofs or you knows. Her opinions turn out to be fairly nuanced when she gets the chance to elaborate. Overall, it is a pleasure to listen to her speak, particularly compared to many young actresses.
“just the mindlessly inane things she says about farts and defecation. When she knows it’ll be printed. And she knows it won’t do her any favors.”
Yeah that was embarrassing. Look, I am not saying she’s never put her foot in her mouth. You claim it is a result of lack of self-awareness. I just have a different approach. The journalists interviewing her often emphasize how unfiltered and candid she is. She talks as freely in interviews as you do with a friend in a pub. If you look at it from this perspective, everyone says “dumb” shit, we’re just lucky enough that it doesn’t make newspaper headlines. STILL, most of the supposedly insane quotes are taken out of context and blown out of proportion by the daft “media” of the Internet age. Her phobia of paper is an example as ridiculous as it is typical.
It is actually common for artists coming from more authentic environments to speak this candidly, nobody finds it shocking when a British rock musician takes the micky (is this a proper application of your slang?:). It’s a good analogy – rock stars are rebellious, irreverent, unapologetic, sometimes offensive or not in the best of taste. Megan is the Noel Gallagher of Hollywood. However, when it comes to Hollywood where most actors don’t utter a word without consulting their publicists, many people don’t know how to process someone like that. Hollywood is so uptight and contrived that people are shocked and offended to hear from an actor something that they hear daily from their friends.
I guess you can call her attitude either irresponsible, immature and naive OR refreshing, honest, and brave. Either way, it is a deliberate choice on Megan’s part, not lack of self-awareness:
“combined with her offensive remarks, combined with her rambling inanities about Zac Efron and strawberries and the Lion King that make NO SENSE unless you’re high, in which case they’re kind of funny”
Gosh, how are they insanities? She was asked why she thinks Efron is attractive, so she said he probably takes like strawberries. She was asked which transformer she finds sexy, so she said Starscream, because of the voice of the actor who dubbed him – just like with Simba who was dubbed by Jonathan Taylor Thomas.
“combined with how she insists that she hates being a sex symbol and hates magazines that tout her as that, ignoring the fact that no one held a gun to her head and made her pose for teh publications that really boosted her career and helped her get where she is”
This one is just completely untrue. She admits she’s deliberately capitalized on her sexuality and she takes the responsibility for it. It really is ironic – her attitude towards being a sex symbol is complex and nuanced, the lack of which qualities you accused her of. But probably because of the very fact that she talks about different sides of it, you probably read the wrong quote and assumed she hates it. If you want the full picture, here are some quotes:
I think that’s more than enough. :))
“combined with how she frequently insists she’s ugly and a tranny and a doppelganger for Alan Alda while also often talking about how she’s clearly not ugly (it’s the back and forth there that irritates me – pick a side!”
Why should she? Again, you said her opinions weren’t nuanced, but you require her to have a simple view of something as complex and fundamentally fucked-up as self-image? It is normal to have contradictory thoughts about oneself. Don’t you?
By the way, “I’m clearly not ugly” was in response to the question “Do you think you’re beautiful?” (I could say something about how lack of context twists the meaning, but it would be boring) She is pretty consistent: she acknowledges she is pretty, she knows how she’s perceived and takes advantage of it. But she personally doesn’t think there’s anything special about her looks. She doesn’t have to think she’s ugly to be insecure.
“combined with the arrogance with which she often carries herself (I can hear you now: that’s not objective, how do you know she’s arrogant, she’s God’s gift to the world, blah blah blah)”
She does have a tomboyish personality. She is confident and does have a swagger to her that may sometimes come across as cockiness. This kind of quality is usually considered cool in guys, but not everyone accepts it in women.
As a matter of fact, one of my favourite things about Megan is her humility. Remarkably, the editors of Total Film were so pissed about the ongoing backslash about Megan, that they felt compelled to debunk the criticism in a blog post on their website. So I will just use that:
Here’s the whole thing: http://www.totalfilm.com/features/is-megan-fox-the-antichrist
I’ve realized spent so much effort challenging the criticism that I didn’t even say what I appreciate her for myself. Fortunately, others have described it better than I could. A fansite has collected all these quotes and copy&paste is quick. :) Let me make them my own. Sorry, I know it’s cheap. It’s a lot but it’s an interesting read.
As a Brit, you may find Simon Pegg’s take interesting:
Diablo Cody:
Karyn Kusama:
Amanda Seyfried:
Josh Brolin:
Jason Reitman:
Congratulation for getting through! :)
Oh, I forgot to comment on those:
““I have no question in my mind about being bisexual. But I’m also a hypocrite: I would never date a girl who is bisexual, because that means they also sleep with men, and men are so dirty that I’d never sleep with a girl who had slept with a man.”
It is ENTIRELY circular in its construction.”
Exactly, it makes no logical sense. That was the point of the joke. It’s call absurdist humour. You Brits should understand, Monty Python and all.
“Also, the (fairly) widely known incident in Vancouver when she yelled at a fan for telling her she looks like Angelina Jolie when it was SHE that was named as teh sexiest woman alive by FHM (a magazine she later bashed a little for promoting her sex symbol status, ignoring the fact that she did shoots with them twice, I believe) and that Angelina Jolie “was lucky to be #9″ didn’t ingratiate her to me by any means. ”
My God, please don’t tell me you take stuff like this seriously? This was an unverifiable, random rumour which originated in some celebrity gossip magazine. This sounds so stupid I just can’t believe you took it seriously. By the way, Megan expressed her admiration for Jolie on more than one occasion. Also, she never bashed FHM.
Cheers
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Huma Rashid, Solo Ensemble. Solo Ensemble said: Business Casual Superstar #137: The Great Philosopher Megan Fox. I feel stupider just looking at her. >:( http://ow.ly/1277Z [...]
jake sucks.
It’s a real shame that Megan was dropped for Transformers 3. But I wish her the best with whatever movie she does next.
My spouse and i clearly must think even more in that direction and find out what i can do about that.