Buscemi's Pros and Cons (September Predictions)

It's pretty easy to tell that she won't have a thriving acting career: SHE CAN'T ACT!

And most of those names that you mentioned really are bigger successes as actors than as tabloid fodder, though you are right on Mickey Rourke and Robert Downey Jr. I wasn't thinking of them since they have cleaned up their acts and gotten good roles again.

i don't think "star" is exactly a scientific term, so you guys are basically just quibbling over a subjective definition..

tabloid fodder or not, people know who she is.. her presence in a movie WILL increase ticket sales (because of her looks, of course)..

btw, google has 26,000,000 search results for "brad pitt" and 32,000,000 for "megan fox".. that probably just means more people want to see her naked--but that in itself is something

Well, if we say 32,000,000 want to see her naked, and that desire will be satisfied in this movie, and a ticket costs $10 on average, then I guess this movie is gonna turn out bigger than Iron Man....

But then in this day and age people want things for free, so take in illegal internet downloads and I suppose we'll get a gross of close to $9m. Hey Boussh was right all along.

But usually Google stats are grossly overinflated. It's usually a few search results with a bunch of zeros added on.

This just in: Paris Hilton has 50,200,000 "search results". That is a good 18,000,000 more than Megan Fox. But no one ever takes her seriously (for good reason).

Buscemi wrote:This just in: Paris Hilton has 50,200,000 "search results". That is a good 18,000,000 more than Megan Fox. But no one ever takes her seriously (for good reason).

who takes movie stars "seriously"? i sure don't.. if anything, i'd put FAR less stock in the opinions of celebrities than ANY normal person living in the real world

NSpan wrote:

Buscemi wrote:This just in: Paris Hilton has 50,200,000 "search results". That is a good 18,000,000 more than Megan Fox. But no one ever takes her seriously (for good reason).

who takes movie stars "seriously"? i sure don't.. if anything, i'd put FAR less stock in the opinions of celebrities than ANY random regular person

Which is why NSpan takes my word as truth.

What I meant to say is that you should take Google stock seriously. Paris Hilton has 50,000,000 searches but no one wants to see hear in the lead of a film. And Megan Fox is another "actress" of the Paris Hilton variety (using others and exploiting yourself for attention). People simply won't care either way.

silversurfer19 wrote:Which is why NSpan takes my word as truth.

over Tom Cruise? sure!

Buscemi wrote:What I meant to say is that you should take Google stock seriously. Paris Hilton has 50,000,000 searches but no one wants to see hear in the lead of a film. And Megan Fox is another "actress" of the Paris Hilton variety (using others and exploiting yourself for attention). People simply won't care either way.

as sad as it is to say, Paris Hilton is a well-known celebrity. depending on your definition of "star," i'd say she qualifies. i think the term is usually more a gauge of a person's fame--rather than providing connotations of quality (positive OR negative)..

NSpan wrote:

silversurfer19 wrote:Which is why NSpan takes my word as truth.

over Tom Cruise? sure!

Hurrah! I have a first addition to my cult.


And despite what you say Boussh, and despite what we all know, I think the general public do see Megan Fox as first and foremost an actress. That is her profession. Paris Hilton is a celebrity. I do think there is a difference. Not much but it is a difference. And for that reason she probably has a little more credibility.

Yeah, this is subjective, so it really makes no sense to go back and forth anymore.

Spoiler:

You've won NOTHING! Good day, sir!