Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

"2D or not 2D?", that was the question recently posed by USA Today in regards to the current use of 3D technology in today's films. One of the people they turned to for input was Transformers DOTM director Michael Bay. While Bay did shoot Transformers DOTM digitally in both traditional 35mm and 3D, he still has reservations about it's overall use in the industry. Here are a couple of his quotes from the article:

Studios are turning everything they can into 3-D without considering whether it should be done at all," he says. "We're already wearing the experience out.

It's different, shooting in 3-D," Bay says. "You need more cameras. You need different sets. It needs to be a forethought. Right now, studios are treating it as an afterthought

To read the entire article and see what else Michael Bay had to say on the issue click here.

NO! I must have it in 3D!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, for once, I agree with Michael Bay ... weird.

I agree with Bay that the experience is being worn out. I think most studios are making 3D edits after a film has been made just to bring in more $$ since the tickets cost more. I've seen three 3D movies thus far - Polar Express, A Christmas Carol & Avatar. There is definately a difference in the scenes & cinematography visually to give a true depth-appeal, and not just make a few gimmicks 3D afterward. So I definatley see where he's coming from.

i just bought my 3d tv about a week ago. i wont lie its mostly in preparation for this movie. i have watched a few movies (Avatar, Coraline, and Resident Evil) and while i will admit there isnt a lot of content out there it truly is an awesome experience like no other. i find that sports however really showcase this tech the best though. its no wonder ESPN got right on board with this from the start. you can be skeptical and hate on 3d but i will close with this: my family and friends thought it was dumb to invest in it ($1400 dollars with 2 pair of glasses isnt that steep for a 50" tv). every single person that has seen it has left extremely impressed. and i think its funny how they bring their friends and others over to see it also. everyone i have known to see it has a completely positive experience.

cant wait to own Prime in 3D in my house!

xtsaur wrote:i just bought my 3d tv about a week ago. i wont lie its mostly in preparation for this movie. i have watched a few movies (Avatar, Coraline, and Resident Evil) and while i will admit there isnt a lot of content out there it truly is an awesome experience like no other. i find that sports however really showcase this tech the best though. its no wonder ESPN got right on board with this from the start. you can be skeptical and hate on 3d but i will close with this: my family and friends thought it was dumb to invest in it ($1400 dollars with 2 pair of glasses isnt that steep for a 50" tv). every single person that has seen it has left extremely impressed. and i think its funny how they bring their friends and others over to see it also. everyone i have known to see it has a completely positive experience.

cant wait to own Prime in 3D in my house!

I wish I had a 3D TV...

This is going too far away from my head. My old 7-year-old TV is still functional and resist to break.

He's very correct.

3D is awesome if done correctly... but it is being WAY overused today....

3D for the sake of 3D ruins most movies. Most 3D movies are 2 hours of stuff coming at the screen for no reason, and when watched without 3D they are just pointless movies. A lot of movies fall into that category, even Avatar. It might work for Transformers being it has been just action scenes with stuff happening right in front of the screen anyways, so its not going to cut into the movie, because the plot of the movie is mostly robots fighting robots. Just not everything needs 3D. There's going to be a point where the label '3D' isn't a selling point anymore, and then we will just have crappy movies about stuff flying towards you that no one cares about.

So I just want to get my facts straight. No angry replies, please.

1. I believe that making 3D movies is costier than 2D movies. Am I right?

2. I've come to understand that CGI is also costy, but if so, then why?

I repeat, no angry replies.

3D is good for some movies, but I don't want it for all of them. I'll probably see DOTM in 3D and again in 2D, but I start getting a headache if I watch 3D for too long. It's like my eyes have to struggle to focus on it.

Lord Onixprime wrote:3D for the sake of 3D ruins most movies. Most 3D movies are 2 hours of stuff coming at the screen for no reason, and when watched without 3D they are just pointless movies. A lot of movies fall into that category, even Avatar. It might work for Transformers being it has been just action scenes with stuff happening right in front of the screen anyways, so its not going to cut into the movie, because the plot of the movie is mostly robots fighting robots. Just not everything needs 3D. There's going to be a point where the label '3D' isn't a selling point anymore, and then we will just have crappy movies about stuff flying towards you that no one cares about.

That is one of the main things killed 3D in the 50s (that poor pojectists not getting the projectors lined up in perfect sync) and the same thing when they tried it again in the 80s and it will help kill it again this time around as well.

Ironhide516 wrote:I agree with Bay that the experience is being worn out. I think most studios are making 3D edits after a film has been made just to bring in more $$ since the tickets cost more. I've seen three 3D movies thus far - Polar Express, A Christmas Carol & Avatar. There is definately a difference in the scenes & cinematography visually to give a true depth-appeal, and not just make a few gimmicks 3D afterward. So I definatley see where he's coming from.

Avatar was absolutely amazing in 3D. I heard somewhere that Bay is using the same technology Cameron used in filming Avatar (which was filmed in 3D just like Resident Evil: Afterlife). If so, and he keeps it 3D, DOTM should be awesome.

Oh wait....

Michael Bay's the director.

Panic time.

What I hate about 3D is that it's changing movie making in general. Now when I watch 3D movies, it's obvious that the cinematogrophy is tailored for 3D with objects moving into the foreground and whatnot. Although saying 3D is ruining movies sounds very similar to when "talkies" were introduced. I think with the way things are going now and the tech they are forcing on the masses, 3D will be around for a few years up until the next gimmick comes along.

I agree with Bay that the experience is being worn out.

that is all true 99.9 percent of time i see new trailer before it hits theaters is in 3d enough making film in3d doesnt make it more money to go in green hornet has made 95, something in 3d darknight has pulled in alot more money & the film is not in 3d i leave this up to ba if he wants it in 3d or not but personally if it is in 3d i wont see it in 3d.

3d films are nice at thearters once they dvd they suck wearing paper 3d glasses to see film in 3d in only 3 basic colors ruin movie itself surprised captain america, or thor are not in 3d

whats funny is seeing all these 3D movies bombing lately. i mean if they make that little money WITH the higher prices, you can only imagine how poorly they truly are doing. lol

personally, i gave 3D a try with Avatar and wasn't impressed. since that's supposed THE movie to show off the tech done right or whatever...then yeah. they looked like cardboard cutouts/viewmaster images in the 80s, they look like that now. the only difference is that the "3D effect" is more consistent today.

but yeah, let people have their 3D movies and tv, i'll stick to 2D. i'm in a big city so there's always a 2D version playing so its all good.

I can agree with Bay here. I think the whole 3D thing is starting to get overused.

I'm just glad an argument hasn't broken out yet...but I won't hold my breath. There's really nothing to argue over here thank Primus.

OptiMagnus10 wrote:I can agree with Bay here. I think the whole 3D thing is starting to get overused.

I'm just glad an argument hasn't broken out yet...but I won't hold my breath. There's really nothing to argue over here thank Primus.

True, I mean come on. 3D Packaging, 3D Website, 3D Cyber Sweeps?! Enough, Even though it will be in 3D It needs to stop elaborating on such a pointless activity.

At least Bay refused to do the film in 3D until he could get his hands on the 3D Camera tech. Most films advertised as "3D" use the post processing method (The Last Airbender and Resident Evil: Afterlife come to mind) that makes the scenes meant for the 3D effects have a seemingly washed out color scheme. It's very obvious in RE: Afterlife, when one minute the colors are fine and the next they're dull and washed out looking.

I'm glad that Bay decided to stick to his guns and force the studio to fork over extra for actual 3D cameras. It looks better in the long run, and none of us want our Transformers to look like someone slopped mud on the film.

Capt.Failure wrote:At least Bay refused to do the film in 3D until he could get his hands on the 3D Camera tech. Most films advertised as "3D" use the post processing method (The Last Airbender and Resident Evil: Afterlife come to mind) that makes the scenes meant for the 3D effects have a seemingly washed out color scheme. It's very obvious in RE: Afterlife, when one minute the colors are fine and the next they're dull and washed out looking.

just wanted to mention that Resident Evil was NOT post conversion. it was real 3D with 3D cameras, they even used the fusion camera system created by cameron which the trailers boasted about.

I will never see 3D.

omega666 wrote:I will never see 3D.

That's nice.

Gyrotron wrote:

OptiMagnus10 wrote:I can agree with Bay here. I think the whole 3D thing is starting to get overused.

I'm just glad an argument hasn't broken out yet...but I won't hold my breath. There's really nothing to argue over here thank Primus.

True, I mean come on. 3D Packaging, 3D Website, 3D Cyber Sweeps?! Enough, Even though it will be in 3D It needs to stop elaborating on such a pointless activity.

In reality, it's just another fad. It'll phase itself out (hopefully). I do like that the movie will be in 3D to build upon the amazing graphics of the first two films, but it's more of a "keeping up with the Joneses" situation with most other action and CGI based films offering 3D, most notably the widely successful "Avatar".

I think sports and certain video games are best suited for 3D, but like everything else in the world, not everything has to (or rightly even should) go that route. I think I've seen two films in the new (stereoscopic?) 3D, and neither was very impressive, and as a few others had complained, it bothers my eyes and gives me a headache for feature-length stuff. So I prefer 2D by far.

Now if they made an HMD, which was stereoscopic, popular (and affordable/reasonable), that'd be awesome. It'd probably be abused and people running into each other on the streets when it was eventually integrated with phones and such...but for movies and games and stuff? a-w-e-s-o-m-e. lol Heheh.