Submit News Contact Us Translate Sign in Join

Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D?

Transformers News: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D?

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010 7:56PM CST

Categories: Movie News, Rumors
Posted by: Nekoman   Views: 19,879

Topic Options: View Discussion · Sign in or Join to reply

Variety mentions in a report the third Transformers film could be made for viewing in 3-D. The article regarding films made in 3-D particularly mentions Transformers 3, and how this is being discussed behind the scenes:

Stereo Pictures Korea president Sung Young-seok told Daily Variety that his company is in talks for three additional pictures at Warner and is bidding on a number of 3D films for individual directors, including one for Michael Bay.

Bay's next project is "Transformers 3," and there have been discussions among Bay, Paramount and Industrial Light & Magic about going 3D with the pic. The big stumbling block is the extra time required to do production and visual effects in 3D, as the movie's release date is already set. Having the pic post-converted could alleviate that problem.


Meaning there's a chance you'll be seeing your favorite Transformers leap through the screen July 1st, next year. To view the entire article, click here.
Credit(s): Rodimus Prime, Variety
Search Got Transformers News? Let us know here!
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043660)
Posted by It Is Him on February 3rd, 2010 @ 7:59pm CST
The red and blue glass were better.

Discuss!
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043662)
Posted by Blurrz on February 3rd, 2010 @ 8:02pm CST
Dates are set. TF2 was nearly delayed because Bay didn't have enough time to edit. If we go 3-D, it's going to make Bay go insane with time-constraints and the amount of money required. I'm fine with the quality of explosions, bouncy tracts of land, and Bots going mano e mano in the previous two movies. No need to change the format for the 3rd Movie...
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043666)
Posted by Dagon on February 3rd, 2010 @ 8:10pm CST
Give me red and blue glasses, and no matter what I'll call TF3 the greatest movie ever.


But really, isn't it going to be difficult to shoot something like this in 3D? I don't know how they do it these days, I'm under the impression they still set up two cameras like they did with Creature from the Black Lagoon.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043678)
Posted by emeraldbeacon on February 3rd, 2010 @ 8:50pm CST
Isn't the Michael Bay ShakyCam School of Film-making bad enough without adding a THIRD dimension to the party?

(though it would be pretty sweet to watch Unicron explode in 3-D...)
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043693)
Posted by omegaprowl on February 3rd, 2010 @ 9:34pm CST
getting off topic, but who here thinks that if Bay put Primus in the third film somehow, that Morgan Freeman's voice would be great for the role?
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043698)
Posted by JazZeke on February 3rd, 2010 @ 10:04pm CST
This rumor circulated when they started filming the last movie too. I really hope they don't try this. That shaky-cam is headache-inducing enough.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043706)
Posted by Autobot032 on February 3rd, 2010 @ 10:35pm CST
-_- There is just no need for it to be in 3D. It'll give people even more reasons to complain. =\
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043711)
Posted by Night Raid on February 3rd, 2010 @ 11:16pm CST
Autobot032 wrote:-_- There is just no need for it to be in 3D. It'll give people even more reasons to complain. =\

Just like everything else related to the TF movies.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043713)
Posted by Chops13 on February 3rd, 2010 @ 11:23pm CST
all i want is a good movie he needs to make transformers that are not in 2 places at the same time like the issue with devastator in tf2...... you know the basic stuff then maybe we can talk about 3D
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043716)
Posted by Doctor McGrath on February 3rd, 2010 @ 11:30pm CST
i vote no on the 3d!
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043717)
Posted by Autobot032 on February 3rd, 2010 @ 11:32pm CST
Chops13 wrote:all i want is a good movie he needs to make transformers that are not in 2 places at the same time like the issue with devastator in tf2...... you know the basic stuff then maybe we can talk about 3D


What are you talking about? Where was Devastator in two places?
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043722)
Posted by Night Raid on February 3rd, 2010 @ 11:49pm CST
Autobot032 wrote:
Chops13 wrote:all i want is a good movie he needs to make transformers that are not in 2 places at the same time like the issue with devastator in tf2...... you know the basic stuff then maybe we can talk about 3D


What are you talking about? Where was Devastator in two places?


I believe he means one or two of the robots that made up Devastator. There seemed to be a lot of robots sharing the same alt mode in that movie. Alt modes go a long way toward determining how a robot looks. Robots sharing the same alt mode (i.e. a garbage truck or a crane) will often look very similar, leading people to get them mixed up.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043724)
Posted by Autobot032 on February 4th, 2010 @ 12:16am CST
Night Raid wrote:
Autobot032 wrote:
Chops13 wrote:all i want is a good movie he needs to make transformers that are not in 2 places at the same time like the issue with devastator in tf2...... you know the basic stuff then maybe we can talk about 3D


What are you talking about? Where was Devastator in two places?


I believe he means one or two of the robots that made up Devastator. There seemed to be a lot of robots sharing the same alt mode in that movie. Alt modes go a long way toward determining how a robot looks. Robots sharing the same alt mode (i.e. a garbage truck or a crane) will often look very similar, leading people to get them mixed up.


A very fair point, but this is one of my problems withe film's detractors.

They complain about "I can't figure out what was going on! It was a mess!" No, it wasn't. They just didn't care to pay attention, or weren't capable of it. In both cases, neither of those are Bay's fault.

I'll agree that Bay does expect a lot of his audience, and tying up all the loose threads through out the movies is one of those moments.

However, anyone with a little patience, and a little common sense can see that Devastator is a hive mind of whatever Constructicon vehicles he so chooses to incorporate into his being.

And that the other Constructicons took their Earth forms as a way of disguise. Nothing more, nothing less. Well, one thing...their Earth forms allow them access to new weapons and technology. Plus it gives them the perfect camouflage for a sneak attack.

The troops that Megatron and The Fallen sent down to Earth were untested and had no prior experience with the humans, so they never realized that the humans would be able to see through their disguises. At that point, they stopped caring about hiding their true forms, which could explain why some of the Protoforms went unchanged.

As for the toys aspect of it, Devastator appeared in vehicle and combined robot mode only, not as individuals. So Hasbro did NOT lie to us when they made the Ultimate Class sized Devastator be just that. A combined robot formed of construction vehicles, minus individual robot modes. All you have to do is watch the movie to have this make sense.

And yes, I realize the individual Constructicons did have names, whereas Dev's components did not. (in the movie, that is.)

Now, on the flip side of that in the toy world, yes, Devastator's components have names, Legends Dev has robot modes, and individual Deluxe and Voyager Class figures were made of Long Haul, Rampage, and Demolishor. But that was out of necessity to a degree. Yes, it was a somewhat dirty money making tactic, leading people to believe these figures would combine together, I get that. But it also helped make sales with the nostalgia crowd. "I remember that guy!" plus they didn't want to hear us complain about "Why doesn't that toy have a name to it?!"

No matter which way it's handled, no one's going to win, and no one's going to let anyone win. So it's a stalemate for the next however many years to come and we're either going to have to learn to deal with it, or find some other outlet.

Bay's not perfect, but he's not stupid. If folks can't make the leap and figure out common sense things, that's their fault, not his.

Hasbro's not perfect, but they're not sleaze free either. They knew that if they made them seem like they all combined or did something, we collectors and the target audience of kids would buy it all up. And it worked. If we're dumb enough to buy into their product, we have only ourselves to blame.

If people paid more attention, there wouldn't be as many problems. At that point, you still wouldn't have to like the changes made and what's been done, but because you paid attention and thereby saved yourself from making a stupid decision, you've forfeited your right to bitch.

I really don't understand how people got all confused by the film, I really don't. As for Barricade's existence (is he alive? is he dead?) I will give you that one. That one should've probably been answered, but it's pretty much conceivable that the Autobots and N.E.S.T. finally caught up with him and eliminated him. And if they haven't, he could be more cannon fodder for TF3.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043738)
Posted by Night Raid on February 4th, 2010 @ 1:55am CST
If TF3 is indeed going to be released in 3D, I hope it is also released in non-3D. Watching movies in 3D never fails to make me either get sick to my stomach or give me a huge headache.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043743)
Posted by cp.06 on February 4th, 2010 @ 2:27am CST
Autobot032 wrote:
Night Raid wrote:
Autobot032 wrote:
Chops13 wrote:all i want is a good movie he needs to make transformers that are not in 2 places at the same time like the issue with devastator in tf2...... you know the basic stuff then maybe we can talk about 3D


What are you talking about? Where was Devastator in two places?


I believe he means one or two of the robots that made up Devastator. There seemed to be a lot of robots sharing the same alt mode in that movie. Alt modes go a long way toward determining how a robot looks. Robots sharing the same alt mode (i.e. a garbage truck or a crane) will often look very similar, leading people to get them mixed up.


A very fair point, but this is one of my problems withe film's detractors.

They complain about "I can't figure out what was going on! It was a mess!" No, it wasn't. They just didn't care to pay attention, or weren't capable of it. In both cases, neither of those are Bay's fault.

I'll agree that Bay does expect a lot of his audience, and tying up all the loose threads through out the movies is one of those moments.

However, anyone with a little patience, and a little common sense can see that Devastator is a hive mind of whatever Constructicon vehicles he so chooses to incorporate into his being.

And that the other Constructicons took their Earth forms as a way of disguise. Nothing more, nothing less. Well, one thing...their Earth forms allow them access to new weapons and technology. Plus it gives them the perfect camouflage for a sneak attack.

The troops that Megatron and The Fallen sent down to Earth were untested and had no prior experience with the humans, so they never realized that the humans would be able to see through their disguises. At that point, they stopped caring about hiding their true forms, which could explain why some of the Protoforms went unchanged.

As for the toys aspect of it, Devastator appeared in vehicle and combined robot mode only, not as individuals. So Hasbro did NOT lie to us when they made the Ultimate Class sized Devastator be just that. A combined robot formed of construction vehicles, minus individual robot modes. All you have to do is watch the movie to have this make sense.

And yes, I realize the individual Constructicons did have names, whereas Dev's components did not. (in the movie, that is.)

Now, on the flip side of that in the toy world, yes, Devastator's components have names, Legends Dev has robot modes, and individual Deluxe and Voyager Class figures were made of Long Haul, Rampage, and Demolishor. But that was out of necessity to a degree. Yes, it was a somewhat dirty money making tactic, leading people to believe these figures would combine together, I get that. But it also helped make sales with the nostalgia crowd. "I remember that guy!" plus they didn't want to hear us complain about "Why doesn't that toy have a name to it?!"

No matter which way it's handled, no one's going to win, and no one's going to let anyone win. So it's a stalemate for the next however many years to come and we're either going to have to learn to deal with it, or find some other outlet.

Bay's not perfect, but he's not stupid. If folks can't make the leap and figure out common sense things, that's their fault, not his.

Hasbro's not perfect, but they're not sleaze free either. They knew that if they made them seem like they all combined or did something, we collectors and the target audience of kids would buy it all up. And it worked. If we're dumb enough to buy into their product, we have only ourselves to blame.

If people paid more attention, there wouldn't be as many problems. At that point, you still wouldn't have to like the changes made and what's been done, but because you paid attention and thereby saved yourself from making a stupid decision, you've forfeited your right to bitch.

I really don't understand how people got all confused by the film, I really don't. As for Barricade's existence (is he alive? is he dead?) I will give you that one. That one should've probably been answered, but it's pretty much conceivable that the Autobots and N.E.S.T. finally caught up with him and eliminated him. And if they haven't, he could be more cannon fodder for TF3.


No offense or anything, but it seems like you are making excuses for Bay and the writers.
Let's be honest here, TF2 was rushed. I'm just hoping they spend more time on TF3.
And 3D would be awesome. I don't know why anyone is complaining about 3D! Did you not see AVATAR?!
3D is the future. Embrace it.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043745)
Posted by Night Raid on February 4th, 2010 @ 2:49am CST
cp.06 wrote:
Autobot032 wrote:
Night Raid wrote:
Autobot032 wrote:
Chops13 wrote:all i want is a good movie he needs to make transformers that are not in 2 places at the same time like the issue with devastator in tf2...... you know the basic stuff then maybe we can talk about 3D


What are you talking about? Where was Devastator in two places?


I believe he means one or two of the robots that made up Devastator. There seemed to be a lot of robots sharing the same alt mode in that movie. Alt modes go a long way toward determining how a robot looks. Robots sharing the same alt mode (i.e. a garbage truck or a crane) will often look very similar, leading people to get them mixed up.


A very fair point, but this is one of my problems withe film's detractors.

They complain about "I can't figure out what was going on! It was a mess!" No, it wasn't. They just didn't care to pay attention, or weren't capable of it. In both cases, neither of those are Bay's fault.

I'll agree that Bay does expect a lot of his audience, and tying up all the loose threads through out the movies is one of those moments.

However, anyone with a little patience, and a little common sense can see that Devastator is a hive mind of whatever Constructicon vehicles he so chooses to incorporate into his being.

And that the other Constructicons took their Earth forms as a way of disguise. Nothing more, nothing less. Well, one thing...their Earth forms allow them access to new weapons and technology. Plus it gives them the perfect camouflage for a sneak attack.

The troops that Megatron and The Fallen sent down to Earth were untested and had no prior experience with the humans, so they never realized that the humans would be able to see through their disguises. At that point, they stopped caring about hiding their true forms, which could explain why some of the Protoforms went unchanged.

As for the toys aspect of it, Devastator appeared in vehicle and combined robot mode only, not as individuals. So Hasbro did NOT lie to us when they made the Ultimate Class sized Devastator be just that. A combined robot formed of construction vehicles, minus individual robot modes. All you have to do is watch the movie to have this make sense.

And yes, I realize the individual Constructicons did have names, whereas Dev's components did not. (in the movie, that is.)

Now, on the flip side of that in the toy world, yes, Devastator's components have names, Legends Dev has robot modes, and individual Deluxe and Voyager Class figures were made of Long Haul, Rampage, and Demolishor. But that was out of necessity to a degree. Yes, it was a somewhat dirty money making tactic, leading people to believe these figures would combine together, I get that. But it also helped make sales with the nostalgia crowd. "I remember that guy!" plus they didn't want to hear us complain about "Why doesn't that toy have a name to it?!"

No matter which way it's handled, no one's going to win, and no one's going to let anyone win. So it's a stalemate for the next however many years to come and we're either going to have to learn to deal with it, or find some other outlet.

Bay's not perfect, but he's not stupid. If folks can't make the leap and figure out common sense things, that's their fault, not his.

Hasbro's not perfect, but they're not sleaze free either. They knew that if they made them seem like they all combined or did something, we collectors and the target audience of kids would buy it all up. And it worked. If we're dumb enough to buy into their product, we have only ourselves to blame.

If people paid more attention, there wouldn't be as many problems. At that point, you still wouldn't have to like the changes made and what's been done, but because you paid attention and thereby saved yourself from making a stupid decision, you've forfeited your right to bitch.

I really don't understand how people got all confused by the film, I really don't. As for Barricade's existence (is he alive? is he dead?) I will give you that one. That one should've probably been answered, but it's pretty much conceivable that the Autobots and N.E.S.T. finally caught up with him and eliminated him. And if they haven't, he could be more cannon fodder for TF3.


No offense or anything, but it seems like you are making excuses for Bay and the writers.
Let's be honest here, TF2 was rushed. I'm just hoping they spend more time on TF3.
And 3D would be awesome. I don't know why anyone is complaining about 3D! Did you not see AVATAR?!
3D is the future. Embrace it.


Well, excuuuuse us for trying to find alternate explanations that could conceivably explain plot holes. It's like painting over a stain on the floor rather than bitching about it, at least to me.

I'd embrace 3D if it didn't make me feel like I was going to hurl or have my skull pop like a zit!
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043746)
Posted by Nightwalker on February 4th, 2010 @ 2:51am CST
It surpises me that they didn't use 3D before... Therefor I think it's a very cool idea to make TF3 3D. And I really don't understand why so many people here are whining about it... looks like some people here are just looking for something to complain about! Get over it!
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043749)
Posted by Night Raid on February 4th, 2010 @ 3:15am CST
Nightwalker wrote:It surpises me that they didn't use 3D before... Therefor I think it's a very cool idea to make TF3 3D. And I really don't understand why so many people here are whining about it... looks like some people here are just looking for something to complain about! Get over it!

Isn't having 3D give you vertigo a legitimate complaint? I'm not dissing the idea... I'm just saying that it'd be nice to have the option to see it the regular way too.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043758)
Posted by gigazarak on February 4th, 2010 @ 4:35am CST
3D is the perfect fad to throw at this already dated franchise. Now they have the perfect reason to call the movie TF3-D, just like Jaws 3-D was the third movie in that series. And maybe a tired tagline like "The third dimension is terror.". As much of a fan that I am (a lot) I just can't get excited about the third film in the series, if it doesn't go into space, show Cybertron and Unicron and damned well DO IT PROPERLY, then its going to be another dissapointment, I'll admit to be taken back by how good the first flick was, after all the negative hype the fans gave it, but the second ones rushed, long, weird and pointless nonsense just showed how stupid it all is and killed my interest in any further outing, so yeah, bring on 3D! It can't get any worse!
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043761)
Posted by gigazarak on February 4th, 2010 @ 4:39am CST
Night Raid wrote:
Nightwalker wrote:It surpises me that they didn't use 3D before... Therefor I think it's a very cool idea to make TF3 3D. And I really don't understand why so many people here are whining about it... looks like some people here are just looking for something to complain about! Get over it!

Isn't having 3D give you vertigo a legitimate complaint? I'm not dissing the idea... I'm just saying that it'd be nice to have the option to see it the regular way too.

Yeah I agree, I thought Avatar was a terrible wank, but seeing it in 2D would have been a less harrowing experience for me, but cinemas everywhere seemed to be only playing the 3D version at regular times, so you had no choice really, funny how the stats claim that 3D movies are being seen in record numbers! Moviegoers don't have much option!

*edit* well you DO have a choice, just don't see it :roll: *edit*
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043795)
Posted by Autobot032 on February 4th, 2010 @ 6:53am CST
cp.06 wrote:
Autobot032 wrote:
Night Raid wrote:
Autobot032 wrote:
Chops13 wrote:all i want is a good movie he needs to make transformers that are not in 2 places at the same time like the issue with devastator in tf2...... you know the basic stuff then maybe we can talk about 3D


What are you talking about? Where was Devastator in two places?


I believe he means one or two of the robots that made up Devastator. There seemed to be a lot of robots sharing the same alt mode in that movie. Alt modes go a long way toward determining how a robot looks. Robots sharing the same alt mode (i.e. a garbage truck or a crane) will often look very similar, leading people to get them mixed up.


A very fair point, but this is one of my problems withe film's detractors.

They complain about "I can't figure out what was going on! It was a mess!" No, it wasn't. They just didn't care to pay attention, or weren't capable of it. In both cases, neither of those are Bay's fault.

I'll agree that Bay does expect a lot of his audience, and tying up all the loose threads through out the movies is one of those moments.

However, anyone with a little patience, and a little common sense can see that Devastator is a hive mind of whatever Constructicon vehicles he so chooses to incorporate into his being.

And that the other Constructicons took their Earth forms as a way of disguise. Nothing more, nothing less. Well, one thing...their Earth forms allow them access to new weapons and technology. Plus it gives them the perfect camouflage for a sneak attack.

The troops that Megatron and The Fallen sent down to Earth were untested and had no prior experience with the humans, so they never realized that the humans would be able to see through their disguises. At that point, they stopped caring about hiding their true forms, which could explain why some of the Protoforms went unchanged.

As for the toys aspect of it, Devastator appeared in vehicle and combined robot mode only, not as individuals. So Hasbro did NOT lie to us when they made the Ultimate Class sized Devastator be just that. A combined robot formed of construction vehicles, minus individual robot modes. All you have to do is watch the movie to have this make sense.

And yes, I realize the individual Constructicons did have names, whereas Dev's components did not. (in the movie, that is.)

Now, on the flip side of that in the toy world, yes, Devastator's components have names, Legends Dev has robot modes, and individual Deluxe and Voyager Class figures were made of Long Haul, Rampage, and Demolishor. But that was out of necessity to a degree. Yes, it was a somewhat dirty money making tactic, leading people to believe these figures would combine together, I get that. But it also helped make sales with the nostalgia crowd. "I remember that guy!" plus they didn't want to hear us complain about "Why doesn't that toy have a name to it?!"

No matter which way it's handled, no one's going to win, and no one's going to let anyone win. So it's a stalemate for the next however many years to come and we're either going to have to learn to deal with it, or find some other outlet.

Bay's not perfect, but he's not stupid. If folks can't make the leap and figure out common sense things, that's their fault, not his.

Hasbro's not perfect, but they're not sleaze free either. They knew that if they made them seem like they all combined or did something, we collectors and the target audience of kids would buy it all up. And it worked. If we're dumb enough to buy into their product, we have only ourselves to blame.

If people paid more attention, there wouldn't be as many problems. At that point, you still wouldn't have to like the changes made and what's been done, but because you paid attention and thereby saved yourself from making a stupid decision, you've forfeited your right to bitch.

I really don't understand how people got all confused by the film, I really don't. As for Barricade's existence (is he alive? is he dead?) I will give you that one. That one should've probably been answered, but it's pretty much conceivable that the Autobots and N.E.S.T. finally caught up with him and eliminated him. And if they haven't, he could be more cannon fodder for TF3.


No offense or anything, but it seems like you are making excuses for Bay and the writers.
Let's be honest here, TF2 was rushed. I'm just hoping they spend more time on TF3.
And 3D would be awesome. I don't know why anyone is complaining about 3D! Did you not see AVATAR?!
3D is the future. Embrace it.


Giving Bay an excuse? Perhaps.
Definitely not the writers, however.
Bay needs more backing than he's received because he's had more crap shoveled his way, than anyone else, and he isn't the only one to blame. The writers? Hah. They're on their own. If the fandom wants to go after them, have at it.

As for the movie being rushed, let's be REALLY honest and recognize that's YOUR opinion. However, in the interest of being fair, I recognize your opinion and respect that you have it, no matter how much I disagree with it. But don't you dare state it as fact.

3D is not the future, I don't have to embrace anything. 3D is a fad that will burn out, given enough time. When people go back to 2D in HD, the next generation will say "Oh, this is the future of cinema." and learn that less is more. We've seen that kinda thing happen before, and not just in movies.

Oh and "no offense"? Your post was basically ramming an opinion down our throats. Don't do it again.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043815)
Posted by OmegaPrime98 on February 4th, 2010 @ 8:17am CST
:shock: GIVE ME TF3 IN 3D!!!!! When your watching it's gonna be like " OH HOLY MOTHER OF GOD!! MEGATRON IS GONNA PUNCH ME!!!.....oh....wait.....3D " ME WANTS IT!!!
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043850)
Posted by dragons on February 4th, 2010 @ 10:29am CST
No offense or anything, but it seems like you are making excuses for Bay and the writers.
Let's be honest here, TF2 was rushed. I'm just hoping they spend more time on TF3.
And 3D would be awesome. I don't know why anyone is complaining about 3D! Did you not see AVATAR?!
3D is the future. Embrace it.


my only complaint about it being in 3d is this at theaters they give 3d glasses the lenses are clear not differnt coded, but dvd releases they give 3d glasses one lens blue & the other red so instead of watching movie 3d movie in apporpoate colors your watching 3d movie dvd release movie shows red & blue i watchmed jaws in 3d on movie channel & instead of the am being in d which it was it showed the decaticaped arm in colors of red & blue not the apporaite colrs as it was meant to be shown without the glasses on your face thats my only complaint.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043869)
Posted by toiletries on February 4th, 2010 @ 11:10am CST
"Oh and "no offense"? Your post was basically ramming an opinion down our throats. Don't do it again."


hello kettle, you're black. :grin:
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043873)
Posted by SlyTF1 on February 4th, 2010 @ 11:16am CST
JazZeke wrote:This rumor circulated when they started filming the last movie too. I really hope they don't try this. That shaky-cam is headache-inducing enough.


I didnt notice any shaky cam in ROTF, and i have seen ROTF 1000s of times. And I like the feeling of actually being in the action! If there were giant robots chasing you and blowing shit up you wouldnt be standing still, if you would, well, I got nothin to say.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043886)
Posted by T-Macksimus on February 4th, 2010 @ 12:10pm CST
For those of you pushing for TF3 in 3D, I can understand your enthusiasm but it would be an absolutely horrid idea. TF3 will already be under the gun as far as production goes. Adding one more highly complex technical element to the mix, just for the sake of a cool gimmick would be highly irresponsible and cinematic suicide on the part of Bay and his crew. Not to mention the fact that James Cameron's equipment and technology for Avatar is not what the rest of the industry has access to. He and his crew spent years developing their own proprietary stuff for Avatar. So those of you expecting to see TF3 in anything close to the same style and quality of Avatar can forget that notion right now because it will NEVER happen. At this stage if they try to add 3D to the mix then Beowulf from a few years back will kick TF3's butt in terms of visual quality. Giant transforming robots and mind-blowing sound quality are enough. NO...NEW...GIMMICKS!

And please folks, for the love of Primus don't anyone else mention bringing Unicron in as a plot possibility. TF3 is going to have enough issues of it's own to get past without adding that absurd notion to the mix.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043892)
Posted by Swiftknife24 on February 4th, 2010 @ 12:50pm CST
Nooo! How can they?!

It's just jumping on the band-wagon, now. I was looking forward to see 'Clash of the Titans', but now it's revealed that it will be in 3-D, I'm losing interest fast!

Avatar, an over-hyped and underwhelming experience that was supposed to be made specifically for 3-D, wasn't enhanced at all by the 3-D effect (and I had to pay more for the so-called 'privilege'! I felt ripped off!)

I hope they do NOT make TF3 in 3-D, there is absolutely no point, Bay dismisses it, and it wouldn't work with Bay's directing style at all. (It's the studio that wants it, I'll bet.)
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043893)
Posted by syphonn on February 4th, 2010 @ 12:53pm CST
I dread to think what objects they would put in 3D
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043898)
Posted by HECTOR on February 4th, 2010 @ 1:12pm CST
syphonn wrote:I dread to think what objects they would put in 3D


dogs humping
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043902)
Posted by HECTOR on February 4th, 2010 @ 1:26pm CST
When 3D is done well it can be pretty fun. Although a lot of you say it gives you a headache and makes you sick. I've found that the 3D effect isn't as good and can be hard on the eyes if you're not seated closer to the middle of the theatre.

While I think a 3D version of the movie would be awesome it's not realistic. I just don't think they have the time. It would rush the whole production and probably compromise the quality of the end result. Too bad.

Also I am saddened that not all of you enjoyed Avatar as much as I did. That is sad, but before you call it underwhelming or wank (?) just remember that it's still sold out. Might be going for a third round myself! Am I right fellow Avatar fans?

Also what's wrong with Unicron as a future villian? Someone that wants to destroy the universe seems like an exciting crisis. Decepticons bullying Earth can only be done in so many ways.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043911)
Posted by Night Raid on February 4th, 2010 @ 2:02pm CST
gigazarak wrote:
Night Raid wrote:
Nightwalker wrote:It surpises me that they didn't use 3D before... Therefor I think it's a very cool idea to make TF3 3D. And I really don't understand why so many people here are whining about it... looks like some people here are just looking for something to complain about! Get over it!

Isn't having 3D give you vertigo a legitimate complaint? I'm not dissing the idea... I'm just saying that it'd be nice to have the option to see it the regular way too.

Yeah I agree, I thought Avatar was a terrible wank, but seeing it in 2D would have been a less harrowing experience for me, but cinemas everywhere seemed to be only playing the 3D version at regular times, so you had no choice really, funny how the stats claim that 3D movies are being seen in record numbers! Moviegoers don't have much option!

*edit* well you DO have a choice, just don't see it :roll: *edit*

You're saying that if I don't want to see it in 3D and probably get sick, I have to skip the movie?
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043933)
Posted by Dozertron on February 4th, 2010 @ 3:36pm CST
This is Bay's last chance to make a critically acclaimed TF movie. I just hope whatever he does works...
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043950)
Posted by YRQRM0 on February 4th, 2010 @ 4:28pm CST
I don't mind it being in 3-D, that'd be cool. 3D technology is getting really good, but I would rather them not do this. For one thing, it would rush them, which is what made ROTF a part-disaster. There's way too many things they did wrong in the last movie that they need to focus on avoiding rather than adding something else to pressure the animators, which might hurt the CGI quality, which is a necessity. I don't want any more things like the Devastator confusion, The Twins, and the overall bad-editing of the movie.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043979)
Posted by Dagon on February 4th, 2010 @ 5:58pm CST
Night Raid wrote:If TF3 is indeed going to be released in 3D, I hope it is also released in non-3D. Watching movies in 3D never fails to make me either get sick to my stomach or give me a huge headache.



I agree, and I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who gets queezy with the 3D experience. Everytime too. Thank you, for showing me I'm not alone in the 3D nausia universe.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1043983)
Posted by Dagon on February 4th, 2010 @ 6:04pm CST
Autobot032 wrote:Oh and "no offense"? Your post was basically ramming an opinion down our throats. Don't do it again.



No he wasn't. He gave his opinion. Saying that 3D is the future is hardly ramming something down anyone's anything. Talking about how we can more or less all just leave if we're not going to share a view on a Transformers movie is much more of a throat ramming procedure than saying that 3D is the wave of the future.
And what's the 'don't do it again' for? That's unnecessary. We're not mods or anything (except for the mods, that is...) and we give our opinions and ideas with the notion that others will be accepting of our giving our ideas and opinions. The very least we can do is let others do the same.

Now tell me all about how I'm disrespectful of the opinions of others becuase I disagree with yours, cause that's an opinion too.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1044192)
Posted by Loki God Of Mischief on February 5th, 2010 @ 8:01am CST
Night Raid wrote:
gigazarak wrote:
Night Raid wrote:
Nightwalker wrote:It surpises me that they didn't use 3D before... Therefor I think it's a very cool idea to make TF3 3D. And I really don't understand why so many people here are whining about it... looks like some people here are just looking for something to complain about! Get over it!

Isn't having 3D give you vertigo a legitimate complaint? I'm not dissing the idea... I'm just saying that it'd be nice to have the option to see it the regular way too.

Yeah I agree, I thought Avatar was a terrible wank, but seeing it in 2D would have been a less harrowing experience for me, but cinemas everywhere seemed to be only playing the 3D version at regular times, so you had no choice really, funny how the stats claim that 3D movies are being seen in record numbers! Moviegoers don't have much option!

*edit* well you DO have a choice, just don't see it :roll: *edit*

You're saying that if I don't want to see it in 3D and probably get sick, I have to skip the movie?


It depends on how it's shot. If it's like Coraline's 3D it's still watchable without glasses. I have the same problem with 3D movies that you do. Well that and headaches from eye strain. I normally can't get through an hour and a half movie without getting a headache or feeling nauseous from the 3D effect and motion. I dread the idea of a 2 hour plus Bay directed 3D Transformers movie. Like him or hate him one of his trademarks is his zooming and fast pace scenes. I'm expecting to have a crushing headache from that effect. I really hope the 3D effect is watchable without glasses until it hits dvd. Then it will most likely have an option to watch it normally.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1044317)
Posted by autobot-jolt on February 5th, 2010 @ 4:27pm CST
HECTOR wrote:
syphonn wrote:I dread to think what objects they would put in 3D


dogs humping


exactly. I'm sick of all this vulgarness in the Transformers movies. I swear, if Superion has balls in TF3, then I'm going to be very disapointed. Anyway, if they put TF3 in 3D, then i wouldn't neccesarily mind, but I'd perfer it non-3D. Also, here's my wants for TF3:

Barricade

Unicron

maybe primus, and if morgan freeman did him, that actually would be pretty neat. or whoever did him in Cybertron

arialbots/superion (G1 look-alikes please)

unicron (eating other planets) & cybertron

Optimus, Jolt, Ironhide, Sideswipe, the twins, Ratchet, and BB to survive/ make it to the end
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1046365)
Posted by Evil_the_Nub on February 12th, 2010 @ 12:01am CST
Autobot032 wrote:
Night Raid wrote:
Autobot032 wrote:
Chops13 wrote:all i want is a good movie he needs to make transformers that are not in 2 places at the same time like the issue with devastator in tf2...... you know the basic stuff then maybe we can talk about 3D


What are you talking about? Where was Devastator in two places?


I believe he means one or two of the robots that made up Devastator. There seemed to be a lot of robots sharing the same alt mode in that movie. Alt modes go a long way toward determining how a robot looks. Robots sharing the same alt mode (i.e. a garbage truck or a crane) will often look very similar, leading people to get them mixed up.


A very fair point, but this is one of my problems withe film's detractors.

They complain about "I can't figure out what was going on! It was a mess!" No, it wasn't. They just didn't care to pay attention, or weren't capable of it. In both cases, neither of those are Bay's fault.

I'll agree that Bay does expect a lot of his audience, and tying up all the loose threads through out the movies is one of those moments.

However, anyone with a little patience, and a little common sense can see that Devastator is a hive mind of whatever Constructicon vehicles he so chooses to incorporate into his being.

And that the other Constructicons took their Earth forms as a way of disguise. Nothing more, nothing less. Well, one thing...their Earth forms allow them access to new weapons and technology. Plus it gives them the perfect camouflage for a sneak attack.

The troops that Megatron and The Fallen sent down to Earth were untested and had no prior experience with the humans, so they never realized that the humans would be able to see through their disguises. At that point, they stopped caring about hiding their true forms, which could explain why some of the Protoforms went unchanged.

As for the toys aspect of it, Devastator appeared in vehicle and combined robot mode only, not as individuals. So Hasbro did NOT lie to us when they made the Ultimate Class sized Devastator be just that. A combined robot formed of construction vehicles, minus individual robot modes. All you have to do is watch the movie to have this make sense.

And yes, I realize the individual Constructicons did have names, whereas Dev's components did not. (in the movie, that is.)

Now, on the flip side of that in the toy world, yes, Devastator's components have names, Legends Dev has robot modes, and individual Deluxe and Voyager Class figures were made of Long Haul, Rampage, and Demolishor. But that was out of necessity to a degree. Yes, it was a somewhat dirty money making tactic, leading people to believe these figures would combine together, I get that. But it also helped make sales with the nostalgia crowd. "I remember that guy!" plus they didn't want to hear us complain about "Why doesn't that toy have a name to it?!"

No matter which way it's handled, no one's going to win, and no one's going to let anyone win. So it's a stalemate for the next however many years to come and we're either going to have to learn to deal with it, or find some other outlet.

Bay's not perfect, but he's not stupid. If folks can't make the leap and figure out common sense things, that's their fault, not his.

Hasbro's not perfect, but they're not sleaze free either. They knew that if they made them seem like they all combined or did something, we collectors and the target audience of kids would buy it all up. And it worked. If we're dumb enough to buy into their product, we have only ourselves to blame.

If people paid more attention, there wouldn't be as many problems. At that point, you still wouldn't have to like the changes made and what's been done, but because you paid attention and thereby saved yourself from making a stupid decision, you've forfeited your right to bitch.

I really don't understand how people got all confused by the film, I really don't. As for Barricade's existence (is he alive? is he dead?) I will give you that one. That one should've probably been answered, but it's pretty much conceivable that the Autobots and N.E.S.T. finally caught up with him and eliminated him. And if they haven't, he could be more cannon fodder for TF3.

I agree, all the plot holes people talk about are things they missed or minor differences in geography(which has nothing to do with the plot) that happen in all fiction.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1047385)
Posted by michellatron on February 15th, 2010 @ 12:32pm CST
Night Raid wrote:If TF3 is indeed going to be released in 3D, I hope it is also released in non-3D. Watching movies in 3D never fails to make me either get sick to my stomach or give me a huge headache.


I agree with you. Avatar in 3d was harrowing to watch. I think those full 3d movies are even worse for those of us with glasses, my eyes were dead after watching that movie.

If they wind up doing 3d, hopefully they would go with something where it wasn't 3d 100% of the time to make it tolerable.
Re: Transformers 3, Possibly in 3-D? (1048349)
Posted by sushilove on February 18th, 2010 @ 4:13am CST
just after watching Avatar in 3D I thought about the idea of Transformers 3 to be in 3D too... it makes sense. Yes, 3D may be just a come and go trend... who knows? You still can see the same movie in 2D.

if they make transformers 3D I hope it means we get to see unicron and cybertron because it will make more sense to use the 3D technology to show that rather than earth scenarios.

<sarcasm>
I'm totally seeing when they will send a military air squadron "to bring the rain" to cybertron along with some marines. Because we all know from the first two movies that we don't need no autobots to bring down the decepticons.
</ sarcasm>
Transformers Podcast: Twincast / Podcast #102 - Hidden Mickeys
Twincast / Podcast #102:
"Hidden Mickeys"
MP3 · iTunes · RSS · View · Discuss · Ask
Posted: Sunday, October 5th, 2014