October promises to be a great month for “Saturday Night Live.” Scarlett Johansson’s hubbie Ryan Reynolds is hosting the first week with the ubiquitous Lady Gaga as the musical guest. After that, Drew Barrymore and Gerard Butler are alternating lead duties, with Regina Spektor and Shakira performing their new singles. A very nice start to the new season of “SNL.”

Oh, wait. That’s right. The 34th season’s premiere is the last Saturday of September. And its host isn’t some respectable starlet like “Mamma Mia’s” Amanda Seyfried. No, the host of the new season’s first episode of SNL is Seyfried’s “Jennifer’s Body” co-star, Megan Fox. A collective cheer from the readers of Maxim is in order.

For those who have lived (not begrudgingly so) under a rock for the past year or so, Megan Fox is an actress—that word being used lightly, of course. She made her start in bit parts on sitcoms and then opposite Lindsay Lohan in “Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen.” Fox saw huge success, however, when she played  car-washing mechanical genius Mikaela Banes in the “Transformers” movie and its sequel. She was soon voted one of the top 20 hottest women in the world (2007, 2008, and in 2009 she broke the top five) by Maxim, voted the sexiest female alive by FHM and frequently compared to Angelina Jolie.

Angelina? Yes, media hounds have gone so far as to compare Fox to Ms. Jolie. Dark hair and tattoos aside, there is absolutely no resemblance between the two. Although Jolie’s Oscar-winning role in “Girl, Interrupted” wasn’t the best Best Supporting Actress performance of that year (and her 2008 nomination for “Changeling” was a joke), she is a proven actress who can deliver some stunning performances. Fox, on the other hand, is flat performance-wise and makes whatever emotion she’s going for—whether melancholy or joyous—look as if she’s deciding which outfit to wear or what to order off a menu.

OK. Fox is hot. You can’t deny that. She oozes sex each and every time she’s on a screen anywhere. And in today’s society, that’s really all that’s needed. Fox knows that. Google “megan fox red carpet” (with Safesearch on, for your own good) and count the number of inches of leg that are visible. She’s a sucker for a low décolletage and a high slit. With her, the thin line between sexy and scandalous blurs constantly. Sadly, instead of trying to tread classier waters, she usually opts for the second choice, hoping her image as a sexpot will be further heightened. Even sadder is how obvious it is that the Tennessee native is not much more than L’Oreal and mascara—no talent to speak of, not an iota of sense, and an image that’s only perpetuated by how good her makeup is that day and how pouty her lips are. She’s slimy, and she’s the reason the television is not worthy of being turned on anymore. People like her give children the thought that they can enter “the biz” if they show enough skin or if they act promiscuously. At least in the old days, stars like Marilyn Monroe used their sexuality to empower females and told their stories to promote Hollywood Cinderella tales. Now, it’s so easy for trashy actresses like Megan Fox to wash up on the streets of New York or Los Angeles and be on the cover of Rolling Stone (whose last issue has Fox as the feature story).

There will be many more magazine covers, many more movies, many more guys going ga-ga. But will Megan Fox be remembered as a star of substance?  Hell no. Possibly the playmate of the decade. Possibly. Barring that, the masses can just hope for a day when skank-dom isn’t applauded and when actual talent is appreciated again. Until then, everyone can just tune in to “SNL” this Saturday and mute the sound.