Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

News Credits: 1452 · by **Blurrz** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:50 pm

A few months ago we had a report stating that Transformers 3 might just possibly be filmed in 3-D. However, Deadline.com gives us a couple reasons as to why this might not be happening, including statements from Michael Bay! Check out a snippet of the article below...

Not every filmmaker is as high on the conversion process as studios like Warner Bros seem to be.

“I shoot complicated stuff, I put real elements into action scenes and honestly, I am not sold right now on the conversion process,” says Michael Bay. Paramount and DreamWorks are pressuring him to allow Transformers 3 to be dimensional-ized after the fact, because there simply isn’t enough time to shoot with 3D camera and post the film between now and its July 1, 2011 release date. Cameron took his time on Avatar, and will do the same with the elaborate Fantastic Voyage remake he’s producing for Fox. His longtime 3D documentary collaborator, Andrew Wight, did the same when he produced the underwater thriller Sanctum. Conversions, on the other hand, are rush jobs done right before release dates.

Bay investigated shooting at least some Transformers 3 footage with 3D cameras, but found them too heavy and cumbersome for the fast pace action scenes he shoots. Bay feels the process of sending out 2D film for 3D conversion is more problematic and pricey than studios are admitting. Too often, companies selling 3D retrofitting services arrive with a sharp demo reel, but leave with a deer-in-the-headlights look when Bay gives them his own footage to convert, on a tight deadline.

“I am trying to be sold, and some companies are still working on the shots I gave them,” Bay said. “Right now, it looks like fake 3D, with layers that are very apparent. You go to the screening room, you are hoping to be thrilled, and you’re thinking, huh, this kind of sucks. People can say whatever they want about my movies, but they are technically precise, and if this isn’t going to be excellent, I don’t want to do it. And it is my choice.”

Bay uses the same top-shelf crews and visual effects teams on all his films, and he bolstered the quality of his Transformers 3 cast with Frances McDormand and John Malkovich. He objects to the idea of handing over his finished film to an unproven process--and people who haven't had time to develop a level of trust with him--with a release date bearing down on him.

Said Bay: “I’m used to having the A-team working on my films, and I’m going to hand it over to the D-team, have it shipped to India and hope for the best? This conversion process is always going to be inferior to shooting in real 3D. Studios might be willing to sacrifice the look and use the gimmick to make $3 more a ticket, but I’m not. Avatar took four years. You can’t just **** out a 3D movie. I’m saying, the jury is still out.”

Bay also disputes the $100,000 per minute conversation cost estimate. Try between $120,000 to $150,000 per minute, he said, with a top-shelf conversion of Transformers 3 costing $30 million.

In the end, Bay might have little choice but take the plunge if the film is to generate the highest possible global gross against competition like Pirates of the Caribbean, which is likely to go 3D. Fox is having the same discussions right now on The Voyage of the Dawn Treader and Gulliver’s Travels, and Warner Bros and New Line will start the debate on The Hobbit as soon as Guillermo del Toro, Peter Jackson and their co-writers turn in the script for the second installment within a month.

...and the rest can be seen here.

Seibertron.com - The Ultimate Transformers Resource!

News Credits: 402 · by **Mkall** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:23 pm

One word.

GOOD

News Credits: 34 · by **Supreme Convoy** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:23 pm

Oh, that's a shame.

I was honestly looking forward to a 3D Transformers experience. Though Bay brings up a good point, if they're shooting soon then they probably won't have enough time to make the CGI and the 3D look right.

If I want my 3D Transformers kick, I'll have to wait for the Universal Studios ride.

News Credits: 1 · by **Solrac333** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:26 pm

GOOOOOOOOD!
:APPLAUSE:

News Credits: 1 · by **Blackstreak** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:33 pm

If any of the movies listed is released in 3D I sure won't be seeing them. No reason to be putting out sequels in 3D when the prequels are in 2D. It's bad enough the movies cost $9.25 or near $10 a ticket here in Cincinnati, OH. Tack another $3 to that and I definitely won't be going. At current prices the movie will have to be one that I absolutely must see asap.

News Credits: 1 · by **Scatterlung** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:14 pm

I don't like Bay's films much... but you can't fault his attitude. If its going to be done, it best be done right. Good on him for making the choice so intelligently.

by **Schlitzy** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:31 pm

please, no 3D!!

by **Alex Jones** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:25 am

I am not sold on 3-D myself. Avatar, in my opinion, was really style over substance. And I don't want to get into the debate about Avatar but I do think it was overly hyped. If you watch the movie in 2-D you'll see it for what it is - Pochantas in Space. What I also find very odd was that the 3-D has been around for a long time and all of a sudden it is trendy gimmick. IIRC, the technology that the Avatar filmmakers were trying to promote was the emotion capture stuff.

by **Lastjustice** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:41 am

I respect Mr Bay's decision for not going on the bandwagon. Unless they decided they wanted to postpone the release of the third movie I'd rather they left it out. Lets have him focus on simply making a great film than try gimmick people into the seats.

News Credits: 7 · by **alldarker** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:56 am

As has been said before, 3D is a hype, and I seriously respect Michael Bay for not taking the easy road.
I haven't seen Avatar and aren't planning to do so either, either in 2D or 3D, but I've seen plenty of other 3D movies which definitely put style over content (and I use the word 'style' very loosely: gimmick is probably the better suited word).

News Credits: 7 · by **Chaoslock** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:00 am

I'm not really sold with todays "3D" movies, either. Avatar was good, but it was good because of the overall experience of the movie - and they just couldn't leave the too close footages out of it. Alice I saw in iMax, and while it had good parts -the card soldiers and the cat looked awesome in 3D- I sometimes saw second contour lines through the 3D glasses. Final Destination looked aweful, I think it was just what Bay calls "fake-3D".

News Credits: 4 · by **Swiftknife24** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:02 am

YES!!! Best news I've heard in weeks! :KREMZEEK:

Thank you Mr. Bay! Fight the oppression! :APPLAUSE:

Lousy_Autobot_Lover wrote:I am not sold on 3-D myself. Avatar, in my opinion, was really style over substance. And I don't want to get into the debate about Avatar but I do think it was overly hyped. If you watch the movie in 2-D you'll see it for what it is - Pochantas in Space. What I also find very odd was that the 3-D has been around for a long time and all of a sudden it is trendy gimmick. IIRC, the technology that the Avatar filmmakers were trying to promote was the emotion capture stuff.

Agreed! Even motion capture has been around for donkeys years. I felt ripped off with Avatar...and I saw that it was a behind-numbing Pochahantas even in 3-D!

Anyway, yeah, cannot wait for Transformers #3, now! :grin:

News Credits: 1 · by **vectorA3** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:20 am

without kissing his a*&, I agree with Bay. They're already fighting the clock as it is. Wouldn't look good at all if it were rushed 3D. Good choice to keep it 2D. I'll take that over gimmicky, bad 3D any day.

News Credits: 7 · by **Dragonslayer** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:20 am

Thank the Lord!! Last thing I want is to have my favorite robots popping out of the screen and giving me a headache.

by **Prime Riblet** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:24 am

I agree with Bay's decision completely. I could care less about 3-D effects. They aren't really that awesome IMO. I have been a non-fan of 3-D since Jaws 3-D. Wow, that was terrible.

News Credits: 37 · by **SlyTF1** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:47 am

Lousy_Autobot_Lover wrote:I am not sold on 3-D myself. Avatar, in my opinion, was really style over substance. And I don't want to get into the debate about Avatar but I do think it was overly hyped. If you watch the movie in 2-D you'll see it for what it is - Pochantas in Space. What I also find very odd was that the 3-D has been around for a long time and all of a sudden it is trendy gimmick. IIRC, the technology that the Avatar filmmakers were trying to promote was the emotion capture stuff.

Exactly! When I first saw it in theaters I was like, "Holy crap! This is almost as AWSUM as ROTF", then I saw it in 2-D and I was like "WTF is this ****!?". Same when I was 8 and saw the Spy Kids 3 movie (The first 3-D movie I know of) then I watch it in 2-D and Im like "What a load of ass!". I would like to see a 3-D TF movie, oh well, Ill just bring my glasses to the theater that makes everything 3-D (Not joking, I actually do have some like that) but I see where Michael Bay is coming from $1000 per minute, I wouldnt do that either, and the fact that they are heavy and he cant do all of those awesome fast clips like the ROTF Shangi scene.

by **ang3l3s** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:51 am

As jazz would say "do it in style or don't do it at all" so if bay believes that the 3d will muck up his style quality than the hand s says no, his movie...he know what he wants.

by **Joshua Vallse** » Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:58 pm

I think ultimately the studio will have the last say.

If this third film ends up being like the last, just special effects and eye candy, then I think they'll go 3D just so they can sell the gimmick. Just how marketing people are. As far a ruining the complication of his movie style, I really don't see that happening.

All the 3-Dimensional films I been to, it only enhances a film. Even Beowulf was watchable as a 3D film, that was the films gimmick. I saw it again on DVD, and it was just sad. Also the ROTF DVD release is already sporting a 3D gimmick in itself being that online live webcam game. So, sadly, I would say I'd be more interested in seeing this third film as a 3D themepark ride (Ala Terminator 3-D or Shrek 4-D) then sit down and expect a film of some type.

Also, alot of money was already blindly thrown at ROTF in ticket sales in which the studio would be able to justify the cost expenses of 3-D conversion. And finally, for Bays ranting about people in India and doing this film to give people jobs, it would actually supply more jobs for people here in Hollywood as well. I have a friend who works on 3-D film conversion...here...in LA.....not India.

So, I say bring on the third dimension. If anything, do it for the kids. :roll:

Laters,
Josh

by **Lastjustice** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:45 am

Joshua Vallse wrote:I think ultimately the studio will have the last say.

I agree they do, but Bay is currently their golden boy, they probably won't want to mess with him atm. Michael Bay like Menasor, you point him in the direction you want him to go, and get the heck out of the way hehe. Then watch the destruction from a safe distance. Telling him what to do likely is a futile process.

News Credits: 1 · by **gigazarak** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:43 am

Doesn't it mean that conversion to 3D, or even shooting it in 3D in the first place, makes the movie cost more to make, so more people need to see the movie for it to make it's money back?

News Credits: 1 · by **vectorA3** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:03 am

no 3D. There's no time. We're almost 15 months out. It'll go by in a heartbeat

by **Joshua Vallse** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:05 am

Lastjustice:

Heh, luv the menasor visual. As for Paramounts goldenboy, eh, I think right now people are putting too much hype into Bay being larger then life. Truth be told, he's really trying to break into a Producer role by remaking old Horror franchises (Friday 13th, now Nightmare in Elm Street) much as Speilberg (The real golden boy) is currently. Though I think right now Speilberg had a fall out with Paramount, and Bay being very poor with social savy, I think Paramount knowing this will be Bays final instalment of the Transformers franchise will try to milk as much out of it as possible including any gimmick they can precieve (such as the only chance they will have to release and bank on a 3-D Michael Bay Transformers film). I don't know, I think ultimately the studio will go for it.

As far as issues of the third film being in 3-D while the previous two weren't, it's not really an issue. The best example would be Toy Story 3 which will be released in 3-D whilst the previous were not. As sure sign that the next Transformers film will most likely be in 3-D is if Paramount re-releases the previous films in 3-D to gear up for the theatrical release of the 3rd film. The only way out of it I can see brings me to

VectorA3:
No time, this is valid being Bay would be able to halt any further movement in 3-D conversion if he held out the computer compositing as long as possible. This is hard though being it's ILM and no longer....gah, I'm blanking out! What FX company did he buy again..crappers, well that one which doesn't handle the larger Computer FX of the Transformers themselves. so the only thing he can really do is take his time turning footage in to be composited, even then it's a two edged sword. If Bay does do this, he risks to integrity of the film itself in which we would again get a almost movie, but he would get his way. Even so, the Production house can and does move back release dates, which I have no problem seeing them do to fully finish the 3-D conversion. The worst Bay could do is threaten to walk off, even this though is not fool proof being lots of films has moved forward regardless of directors walking off Men in Black being a prime example, and the Wolfman being another.

So all in all, i think 3D is still up in the air.
Josh

News Credits: 1 · by **vectorA3** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:36 am

He bought Digital Domain. Even if they planned it to be 3D from the start 2 yrs. or less is still not enough time. To be done right. Once 3D gets broken down into a science where it is cheaper & faster -then they'll start churning them out, but right now? No.

Whatever they do --they are NOT going to move back the release date. The studio was hellbent on getting ROTF out by 7/26/09 -even though the film was rushed & make during a strike and sufferedly horribly from that I might add. This really incenses me b/c Star Trek was pushed back (maybe even twice) from Dec. '08 to early spring and then May '09. Why didn't they take more time & fine tune TF2? Only god knows. Most likely, greed. There was no need to rush it so fast. The effects were great even though rushed, but the story should've been worked on more. I could go on, but i won't waste my breath, b/c it all boils down to greed & the f'in studio got their $. Albeit, s*&tting on the big fans in the process. (I'd like to talk to Spielberg and Brad Grey for an hour -don't i wish)
Anyway, as far as 3D, they will either do the post conversion, or do nothing & leave it 2D. I doubt Bay will start shooting with the special 3D cameras if he hasn't already. IMAX stuff, yes, but no stereoscopic 3D. I don't want in it in 3D, b/c that means another premium on the ticket price. IMAX is already enough. If I had to guess, since ROTF made so much, the studio will listen to Bay. But then again, if they get greedy --then they'll screw him and make it 3D (post converted). That is really expensive, so maybe not. I just pray TF3 is at least as good as the first and better than TF2.

by **Joshua Vallse** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:36 am

Digital Domain! Yes, thank you!!!! I was going batty thinking about this.

1-2 years isn't enough time.....to be done right. Agreed, but there's the point really. It isn't a matter of being done right as it is just doing it for the sake of a fatter cash cow. A trend I've been seeing grow with this franchise as you mentioned. And I too don't agree with it, but hence I don't mind if the film would be in 3-D post conversion, and again would even prefer it.

In a sense it justifies giving the studio money from my POV. It's more like I'm paying for a cheap ride then I am wasting money on a FX ILM Demo Reel. And come on....Megan fox, in 3-D.....on an IMAX sized screen....I'm sold. I would gladly pay the inflation rate for a 3-D Robot War/Victoria Secret commercial theme park ride.

I'ts funny being some one either in this thread or another mentioned the inflation as a justification for no 3-D... $11 or something. While here in LA thats the typical movie pricing for a regular film, some people just don't know how good they have it. Besides, all 3-D films are released with a non 3-d option. So if people don't care for a 3-D Transformers movie just because they don't care for 3-D films all together, the film will be released as a normal film as well. Avatar did it, Alice did it, so don't worry your 2-D eyes guys

As for the studio not moving the release date back, like I said if the ends justified the means, I don't think they would batt an eye of concern. Mostly the only reason they pushed ROTF was because if the script wasn't turned in by the strike deadline, the film would have been halted, which is a kill shot in terms of production. They then pushed the summer release date of July because I believe originally they were aiming for the July 4th haul. Not being able to achieve that, they pushed it back further even though reports came in the release was pushed up to catch the end of July most likely so it wouldn't compete with Hasbros other summer hopeful, GI Joe that was released Aug 7th or something. Also I believe they were both released by Paramount, so it's ideal the studio didn't want two of it's films fighting for ticket sales.

However with no GI Joe2 on the horizon (Thank God)) I don't think Paramount will be so tied down to a release date as long as they make the summer release season, which again may be late July or even early August.

But yeah, we pretty much agree on the main points, so kuddos. I'm really only advent about 3-D because I just like the gimmick. :lol:

Laters,
Josh

News Credits: 1 · by **gigazarak** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:51 am

Joshua Vallse wrote:Besides, all 3-D films are released with a non 3-d option. So if people don't care for a 3-D Transformers movie just because they don't care for 3-D films all together, the film will be released as a normal film as well. Avatar did it, Alice did it, so don't worry your 2-D eyes guys

Except, at least here (Australia) the session times for the 2D versions for Avatar were A LOT less frequent, there were more 3D sessions, so you were pushed into seeing it in 3D. Which then makes ME think, well all the hype about 3D and "EVERYONES seeing movies in 3D", and ooh "look at the uptake!" "it's the new black" etc, are all just big medias PR/Marketing/Sales teams working overtime trying to convince us all that 3D is worth something, when in actuality, it's the biggest crock since Actionmasters!

Yeah I'm not sold on 3D, did you notice :-?