Megan Fox the Next Cleopatra?
Megan Fox’s name has come up as being a candidate for many roles that involve both the icon of strong yet sexy women. Now her name has come up as possibly following in the footsteps of Elizabeth Taylor as being the next Cleopatra. This poses an interesting comparison between the two in portraying one of the most well known women in history, and how these two actresses stack up against each other and the legend of the woman.
1. Let’s start with age. Taylor played Cleopatra when she was 28 to 30 years old, whereas Fox, if the movie were to start filming in 2011, would be 25 years old. Cleopatra was around 21 years old when she met Caesar and 28 when she met Mark Antony, so Fox would be much closer in age than Taylor was to the younger woman, and near the right age as the older Cleopatra.
2. Hotness factor. To say that Fox is hotter tells us just how people interpret both actresses when they were in their prime. Fox exhibits a lot of sexuality in her movies, but that wasn’t the fashion back in Taylor’s day. Well, there were a couple of actresses during Taylor’s day that went that way, but not all that many. Taylor was always seen as a classy and gorgeous actress who came up through the ranks, and in her day was seen as hot herself.
3. Experience. Here there’s no contest whatsoever. Fox has been an actress longer than most people know, but until she did the movie Jennifer’s Body she was never the star of a movie. Taylor starred in her first movie at age 12 and was a true acting star by the time she took on Cleopatra. The number of movies isn’t close, although Fox has a lot of experience in television. Many would wonder whether Fox could carry a blockbuster historical movie like Cleopatra, where she’d have to act like someone who, odd to say, would have to totally be nothing like she is now. She hasn’t proven that she can play a wide range of roles, which could make her a hard sell for such a role.
4. Historical accuracy. Let’s face this fact; neither Taylor nor Fox are credible when it comes to portraying an Egyptian woman. Fox comes closer because of her Native American background, but that’s about it. Both women do emulate the beauty that Cleopatra supposedly had, and Fox has a body that matches up well with a statue of Cleopatra that was made during her lifetime.
5. Box office. What everything would finally come down to would be what kind of box office numbers producers believe could be achieved with Fox in this role. The original Cleopatra was an interesting anomaly in that when it was released in 1963, it was the highest grossing film of the year, yet lost millions of dollars because it cost almost twice as much to make than it earned back that first year. The days of that type of blockbuster are gone, but there are still huge movies that count on both the story and the people performing in it to pull in really big numbers.
Would enough people believe Fox as Cleopatra, based on movies she’s made to date, especially if she comes out in the movie being talked about now, Wonder Woman, first? Or will it take a couple of very strong actors portraying the other two main characters in such a movie to help pull her over the edge? Or does anyone still care enough about Cleopatra to go to see the movie no matter who’s in it? It’s a tough role to put an actress who’s yet to have the pedigree that proves she could make enough people care to go see a movie she’s a part of into. But it would also be the part of a lifetime. At least we know Cleopatra would look good with Fox in the role; is it enough?