Buffyverse

Megan Fox as Buffy rumors

POSTED BY: Dewrastler
UPDATED: Friday, June 12, 2009 00:31
VIEWED: 18494
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:43 PM

Yes, SMG did look the part for the first season, and being a good actress certainly helped, but by her "Senior" year, it was pretty obvious she didn't belong, and Cordelia being mistaken by Wesley as a teacher... Well, at the time, in 1997, Charisma Carpenter was 27! C'mon folks!

Molly Ringwald & Co. from back in the day (16 Candles (1984), The Breakfast Club (1985), Pretty in Pink (1986) when she was 15, 16, 17 respectively) were /much/ more believable. If you haven't seen them, or haven't seen them in years, go rent them. The difference between the appearance of the cast in 16 Candles and The Breakfast Club is definite. They're teenagers, and it is obvious. Then pop in a BTVS disk and try to convince yourself that you're watching high school students. Can't do it.



----------

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:56 PM

Age or not, Megan Fox would be unbelievable to me as a slayer, even if she could act. She just looks to slender and frail, like if the wind blew just a little bit it would snap her in half. Yeah, she gets her strength from magic and such, but she should be a little athletic and tone, like SMG was.

And if you want to talk about ridiculously old actors playing high schoolers, go see Fired Up. The three leads are 32, 29, and 25 years old.

________________________________
People who don't care about anything will never understand the people who do

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dewrastler:
Age or not, Megan Fox would be unbelievable to me as a slayer, even if she could act. She just looks to slender and frail, like if the wind blew just a little bit it would snap her in half.



And SMG wasn't slender ?

Huh.





The T.Rex they call JANE!

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Dewrastler:
Age or not, Megan Fox would be unbelievable to me as a slayer, even if she could act. She just looks to slender and frail, like if the wind blew just a little bit it would snap her in half.



And SMG wasn't slender ?

Huh.





SMG is slender, but also athletic and toned.

To me, Megan Fox has more in common with a skeleton.

________________________________
People who don't care about anything will never understand the people who do

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dewrastler:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Dewrastler:
Age or not, Megan Fox would be unbelievable to me as a slayer, even if she could act. She just looks to slender and frail, like if the wind blew just a little bit it would snap her in half.



And SMG wasn't slender ?

Huh.





SMG is slender, but also athletic and toned.

To me, Megan Fox has more in common with a skeleton.



Agreed! What's clearly needed here is a young Camryn Manheim. Or perhaps an even younger Conchata Ferrell. With pads and shin-guards. With a head-to-toe covering of UnderArmor.



donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dewrastler:


SMG is slender, but also athletic and toned.

To me, Megan Fox has more in common with a skeleton.

________________________________
People who don't care about anything will never understand the people who do




I guess I'm missing something then. As I recall, SMG was real thin as Buffy, and even more so after. Sure, she was toned and athletic, but I don't see her being any more so than Megan, were she to take on the part. My point is, I suppose, is they're very similar in body type, only SMG got her tone by BEING Buffy, and all the activity that part calls for from her. Any real difference between the two VERY attractive women, is superficial, imo.



The T.Rex they call JANE!

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Megan Fox as Buffy? I dunno. She's pretty, but I have no idea whether she can even act.








Mike



She is a terrible actress. But she's a smoking hotty. She is also very dumb. she already killed her looks with unnecessary cosmetic surgery(she has lips like Angelina Jolie now, and it looks very awful). A perfect 10 can only go down with surgery.
Here she is in her glory days:





New stuff. There should be a picture of her in the dictionary under "sex"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, June 12, 2009 12:31 AM

Holy Collagen Batman.

The first picture is the definition of sex. The second? That's the definition of artificial.

I just caught up on io9 and apparently she trashed Wonderwoman as a way of saying she's not in the running for that movie. I agree, she is stupid.

Your Indian Pirate Lord,
Ash

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME