The Energon Pub

News Credits: 198 · by **DevastaTTor** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:21 am

After some recent internet speculation that Transformers 3 is not being shot in 3D which included rumors on the forum of Michael Bay's own site ShootfortheEdit.com, Bay has posted the following heated responsed:

"Who is this moron posting about what I'm shooting with??? People have no idea how hard we have worked to bring 3D filming into live action shooting. We have invented rigs and systems to place 3d cameras like no other live action movie has done before. The proof will be noticed on the final product.

Michael"

To check out the original post, click the link below:

http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/sh ... viewfull=1

A previous post from site admin Nelson that showed one of the Sony 3D cameras being used while shooting the movie was also added in response to the thread.

Transformers 3 is scheduled to be released July 1, 2011.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:26 am

Didn't he say that months ago?

News Credits: 198 · by **DevastaTTor** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:29 am

Burn wrote:Didn't he say that months ago?

I thought so, but apparently some people refuse to listen. Hopefully this will end any speculation.

News Credits: 6 · by **City Commander** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:11 am

What's that? TF3 not in 3D?

The people must be informed!

News Credits: 1 · by **Solrac333** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:55 am

God I hate 3D.
:-x

News Credits: 15 · by **Ravage XK** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:09 am

I also do not like 3D. All I want is a nice clean, digital image. A decent 2D image on a screen thats in focus and with the sound correctly adjusted. 3D can take a hike.

News Credits: 1 · by **Cheetron** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:22 am

As one of the people who physically cannot watch movies in 3D, this doesn't make me want to go watch it anymore. I am guessing (probably true) that it'll be in 2D too. I sure hope so. Being partially colorblind with glasses sucks.

by **Kingpun** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:53 am

I really hope that it isn't glaringly noticeable that it was meant for 3D when you watch it in 2D. Because you have to think of home media too. But Bay's got a better eye than anyone else in Hollywood (except for continuity), so I'm hoping that he can keep both formats in mind when he is shooting the movie. Obviously they're looking at standard monitors while shooting, so I don't think it will be a problem.

News Credits: 24 · by **Albershide** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:07 am

Ha ha ha!

I like Bay's reactions. This is the second time he uses the word "moron" in the past week. It appears that he writes on his forum only when is pissed. It's good that he writes at all.

News Credits: 2 · by **First-Aid** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:14 am

Damn! That camera has more cords on it than my live performance keyboard rig! And that's saying something...

At least he is shooting it in traditional 3D and not doing that horrible conversion that's ruining movies everywhere (to be fair, some movies were already ruined...<cough> <cough> <Pirhana> <cough>).

by **Joker'sRequiem** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:33 am

First-Aid wrote:At least he is shooting it in traditional 3D and not doing that horrible conversion that's ruining movies everywhere (to be fair, some movies were already ruined...<cough> <cough> <Pirhana> <cough>).

You beat me to it. I sat through The Last Airbender and left not only pissed at how horrible the movie was, but pissed that I paid $10 for a 3D film that had absolutely no 3D effects. Thankfully Bay is following Cameron's lead and insistence that the only way to make it really work is to film it in 3D.

I do hope that 1) there is a 2D alternative so if I want to see it more than once I don't have to see it in 3D every time ad 2) the 3D isn't the obvious, gimmicky 3D that's only there to make you think Optimus is going to punch you in the face.

News Credits: 2 · by **First-Aid** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:55 am

There will be 2D versions as only certain theaters are equipped for the new digital 3D that Cameron used.

On "The Last Airbender", what's amazing is that- despite M. Knight Shame-a-lot's recent and repeated failures, studios are still willing to put his movies on the big screen. That movie cost like $150 million to make, and it grossed something just under $100 million worldwide. Not quite "Pluto Nash" but DAMN that's a huge waste of cash.

News Credits: 198 · by **DevastaTTor** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:37 pm

First-Aid wrote:There will be 2D versions as only certain theaters are equipped for the new digital 3D that Cameron used.

On "The Last Airbender", what's amazing is that- despite M. Knight Shame-a-lot's recent and repeated failures, studios are still willing to put his movies on the big screen. That movie cost like $150 million to make, and it grossed something just under $100 million worldwide. Not quite "Pluto Nash" but DAMN that's a huge waste of cash.

Actually it's up to 253.4 million worldwide so it's made money, but it still looks like a rancid turd of a movie to me.

News Credits: 1 · by **Maxima** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:38 pm

DevastaTTor wrote:After some recent internet speculation that Transformers 3 is not being shot in 3D which included rumors on the forum of Michael Bay's own site ShootfortheEdit.com, Bay has posted the following heated responsed:

"Who is this moron posting about what I'm shooting with??? People have no idea how hard we have worked to bring 3D filming into live action shooting. We have invented rigs and systems to place 3d cameras like no other live action movie has done before. The proof will be noticed on the final product.

Michael"

LMAO! Well, Mr. Bay knows exactly how to dispell the rumors, doesn't he? LOL

~Lady B

News Credits: 2 · by **Decepticon Spike** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:03 pm

omega666 wrote:God I hate 3D.

I hate wearing those glasses. Plus I can enjoy a 2D movie just as much.

by **Pyrostrata** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:20 pm

We all know, from past experience, that Michael Bay is a consummate liar and not one word that exits his lips is at all credible.

Even if any of it holds a kernel of truth, it hardly matters....3D is rather useless anyways..not worth the extra few dollars to put on greasy glasses and watch MAYBE 2-3 minutes of 3D footage in a two hour movie. If I had any interest whatsoever in seeing it, I'd be doing so the old fashioned 2D way...and, for the record, I am not interested in seeing it at all.