Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D!

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010 9:52PM CDT

Category: Movie Related News
Posted by: Blurrz Views: 34,232

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

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 shit 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!

Credit(s): Deadline.com

News Search

Got Transformers News? Let us know here!

Most Recent Transformers News

RUMOUR: Transformers Earthspark to be Cancelled / Replaced by New Transformers Animated Show

Posted 17 hours ago

Transformers Earthspark Season 2 Trailer Confirms Hashtag's New Form

Posted 21 hours ago

Repacks Confirmed for Studio Series ROTB Wheeljack, WFC Sideswipe, BB Megatron, 86 Swoop and More

Posted 22 hours ago

Original Cutscenes from Transformers Reactivate Leaked Revealing the Enemies to be Nanobot Swarms

Posted 5 days ago

Click here to post your comment about this news story!

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1057485)
Posted by Mkall on March 23rd, 2010 @ 10:23pm CDT

One word.

GOOD

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1057486)
Posted by Supreme Convoy on March 23rd, 2010 @ 10:23pm CDT

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.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1057487)
Posted by Solrac333 on March 23rd, 2010 @ 10:26pm CDT

GOOOOOOOOD!
:APPLAUSE:

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1057490)
Posted by Blackstreak on March 23rd, 2010 @ 10:33pm CDT

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.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1057501)
Posted by Scatterlung on March 23rd, 2010 @ 11:14pm CDT

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.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1057516)
Posted by Schlitzy on March 24th, 2010 @ 12:31am CDT

please, no 3D!!

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1057528)
Posted by Alex Jones on March 24th, 2010 @ 1:25am CDT

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.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1057530)
Posted by Lastjustice on March 24th, 2010 @ 1:41am CDT

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.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1057532)
Posted by alldarker on March 24th, 2010 @ 1:56am CDT

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).

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1057544)
Posted by Chaoslock on March 24th, 2010 @ 3:00am CDT

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".

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1057572)
Posted by Swiftknife24 on March 24th, 2010 @ 5:02am CDT

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:

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1057576)
Posted by vectorA3 on March 24th, 2010 @ 5:20am CDT

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.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1057590)
Posted by Dragonslayer on March 24th, 2010 @ 6:20am CDT

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

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1057894)
Posted by Prime Riblet on March 25th, 2010 @ 2:24am CDT

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.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1057929)
Posted by SlyTF1 on March 25th, 2010 @ 6:47am CDT

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 shit!?". 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.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1058371)
Posted by ang3l3s on March 26th, 2010 @ 12:51pm CDT

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.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1058782)
Posted by Joshua Vallse on March 27th, 2010 @ 6:58pm CDT

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

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1058850)
Posted by Lastjustice on March 28th, 2010 @ 2:45am CDT

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.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1059108)
Posted by gigazarak on March 29th, 2010 @ 3:43am CDT

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?

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1059112)
Posted by vectorA3 on March 29th, 2010 @ 4:03am CDT

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

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1059117)
Posted by Joshua Vallse on March 29th, 2010 @ 5:05am CDT

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

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1059619)
Posted by vectorA3 on March 30th, 2010 @ 7:36am CDT

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.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1060726)
Posted by Joshua Vallse on April 2nd, 2010 @ 1:36am CDT

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

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1060771)
Posted by gigazarak on April 2nd, 2010 @ 5:51am CDT

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 :-?

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1060803)
Posted by vectorA3 on April 2nd, 2010 @ 7:17am CDT

i was wrong on the ROTF release date -- was actually June 24th or 26th, 2009. So they made their July 4th deadline.
I don't agree with this, but you have a point that the studio decided to go ahead and make the film even with an incomplete script, so they wouldn't have to halt b/c of the strike. There was no need to have 3 blockbusters out that summer anyway --boils down to pure greed on the part of Paramount. This pisses me off b/c so many other franchises have been done correctly (and some poorly); and they didn't take the time & care to make TF2 the best it could possibly be by waiting to shoot with a better script. Such an insult to fans, esp. older fans.
No 3D for TF3!!!

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1060955)
Posted by gigazarak on April 2nd, 2010 @ 3:24pm CDT

vectorA3 wrote: Such an insult to fans, esp. older fans.
No 3D for TF3!!!

Well said! :APPLAUSE:

But it proves that they don't give a stuff about fans, esp. older fans, they only care about people who will fork out ca$h to see the movie, and the merch, and the food related merch and then, more merch, and more movies etc... if you happen to be one of those people AND an older fan, well then maybe you're opinion counts for something, but not much! Only in so far as if it means you wont buy the stuff. Thats why stuff like a mass-shifting tape deck and gun can go by the way-side, the point can be made with a bizzare mangled tank, and a strange satellite, and TADAA! Look we are placating fans by using the same name! No REALLY!

You're right, it IS greed, which is commerce, so we aren't getting away from that, but what I think most disgruntled fans are more worried about, and this is my opinion now, is the sheer laziness and lies that forms the basis for justifying lame outcomes like bizzare mangled tanks, strange satellites, flames on Optimus, non-transforming transformers etc etc. /rant

But on-topic now... Bay seems concerned about what 3D will do to his movie, because it will eat into his profits, not because he want's to remain true to his art form, which is still valid, but it really comes down to "Someone will ruin my movie in a process that I have no control of and it'll cost me/the movie lots of money", pretty petulant stuff if you ask me, but then this is a business that rates success in the form of a large return on investment.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1061111)
Posted by vectorA3 on April 3rd, 2010 @ 4:13am CDT

u said it even better than me. The flames on Optimus don't bother me really, and I understand that they can't port EVERYTHING over from 80's G1 into today b/c this is 25 yrs. later, but they could at least try harder. Some of this stuff, they've taken the easy way out on, and H has given Paramount & Bay too much leeway. But H is trying to get a foothold in Hollywood and has to make some compromises I guess --to our dismay. I wouldn't b^&$#$ half as much if it were a different director doing things and messing them up. Bay is good at what he does, but his complacent attitude when countering fan arguments pisses me off. Listen to the fans, your wallet will still be fat at the end of the day. We know what we're talkin about, we've been fans for 26+ yrs.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1061115)
Posted by gigazarak on April 3rd, 2010 @ 4:59am CDT

vectorA3 wrote:u said it even better than me. The flames on Optimus don't bother me really, and I understand that they can't port EVERYTHING over from 80's G1 into today b/c this is 25 yrs. later, but they could at least try harder. Some of this stuff, they've taken the easy way out on, and H has given Paramount & Bay too much leeway. But H is trying to get a foothold in Hollywood and has to make some compromises I guess --to our dismay. I wouldn't b^&$#$ half as much if it were a different director doing things and messing them up. Bay is good at what he does, but his complacent attitude when countering fan arguments pisses me off. Listen to the fans, your wallet will still be fat at the end of the day. We know what we're talkin about, we've been fans for 26+ yrs.

True, but thats just it, as far as making successful Hollywood films, as Transformers fans apparently WE DON'T know what we are talking about(no disrespect). If I'm to generalize the fandom (dangerous :shock:

), we want seemingly unfilmable, or not shocking/interesting/groin-stimulating things in our TF movies. Like mass shifting tape decks and hand held weapons, horribly nerdy references to weird characters etc... The stuff thats in the movies are all things that are meant to get people to sit up and take notice, sweaty bronzed nubile youngsters, shouting army guys with chiseled jaw-lines, even bizarre and sometimes frightening things like leg humping small robots, John Turturros ass, borderline racism and of course large loud explosions, to name but a few.

But Bay is hardly going to ruin the franchise, he's made it far more well known than it was before 2007, I can't tell you how much TF branding I see nowadays in the most unlikely of places, as I'm sure you all do now. What he HAS DONE is change it substantially. For me, I'm just completely dry on the movie designs, they just don't do it for me, and even my two kids (6 and 3 y/o) look at them strangely, even the fabs/battle bashers(!?) whatevers etc that are supposedly made for their age group, but maybe it's their discerning dads influence on them

...

So if 3D is the latest gimmick, based on all the stuff I just said, it will probably surprise the masses out there that it isn't an option by the time the 3rd movie is out, which MAY hurt Bays bottom line, who knows? Time will tell...

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1061116)
Posted by vectorA3 on April 3rd, 2010 @ 5:19am CDT

If another director made the movies & they were successful, those would've raised the public consciousness of TF definitely. I don't think bay did more than anyone else would. The off-the-wall stuff you mentioned Bay threw into ROTF - is not in the spirit of TF & did not need to be used to sell it.
All i want for TF3 is to be as good as the first film or better. 3D is too gimmicky and unnecessary at this point. Just because you CAN make something 3D doesn't mean you have to.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1061121)
Posted by gigazarak on April 3rd, 2010 @ 5:37am CDT

vectorA3 wrote:If another director made the movies & they were successful, those would've raised the public consciousness of TF definitely. I don't think bay did more than anyone else would.

I'm curious as to who would be the other director that you think could have made the TF movies? I mentioned this to my wife just now and she referred to Jean Pierre Jeunet, I'm not sure if she was messing with me or not though 8-}

But for me, it's really a struggle to think of someone else that would have made the movies, particularly given what they are now.

vectorA3 wrote: The off-the-wall stuff you mentioned Bay threw into ROTF - is not in the spirit of TF & did not need to be used to sell it.

Agreed! But I mentioned it because it made the films what they are, and are all things that non-fans can either get aroused, shocked or fascinated about, therefore getting buzz, word-of-mouth, ATTENTION, which all act to serve the promotion of the film, good or bad.

vectorA3 wrote: All i want for TF3 is to be as good as the first film or better. 3D is too gimmicky and unnecessary at this point. Just because you CAN make something 3D doesn't mean you have to.

True, but they didnt need to do many things that were done in the second movie, and yet they did anyway! So all bets are off if you ask me :-(

I just want to see Unicron! :ic$:

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1061195)
Posted by SlyTF1 on April 3rd, 2010 @ 12:00pm CDT

vectorA3 wrote:u said it even better than me. The flames on Optimus don't bother me really, and I understand that they can't port EVERYTHING over from 80's G1 into today b/c this is 25 yrs. later, but they could at least try harder. Some of this stuff, they've taken the easy way out on, and H has given Paramount & Bay too much leeway. But H is trying to get a foothold in Hollywood and has to make some compromises I guess --to our dismay. I wouldn't b^&$#$ half as much if it were a different director doing things and messing them up. Bay is good at what he does, but his complacent attitude when countering fan arguments pisses me off. Listen to the fans, your wallet will still be fat at the end of the day. We know what we're talkin about, we've been fans for 26+ yrs.

He DID listn to the fans. We wanted more TFs we got it. We wanted Starscream and Megatron to argue just like in G1, we got that, we wanted less humans, we almost got that, We wanted Prime to kick ass, we got that, We wanted a better plot and IMO we got that too!(But I really wouldnt have cared if the plot was shitty.) And I swear to crap, no kidding, some one asked for Bay to put a humping Wheelie in the movie I kid you not, I saw it on the internet when Wheelie was first announced.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1061350)
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on April 4th, 2010 @ 2:20am CDT

Im not a big lover of Bay, but im surprised hes not keen on 3D and i applaud him for not being pressured into doing it that way, purely for gimmicks. Lets get a solid story, THAT is what will define the 3rd film either way. I came on these boards ranting and raving about ROTF, but lets just cut the guy (Bay) some slack now. After a few comments that have been made in regard to 3 im feeling positive..maybe 3 will unite all factions on these boards. I hope so.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1061616)
Posted by vectorA3 on April 5th, 2010 @ 3:43am CDT

SlyTF1 wrote:
vectorA3 wrote:u said it even better than me. The flames on Optimus don't bother me really, and I understand that they can't port EVERYTHING over from 80's G1 into today b/c this is 25 yrs. later, but they could at least try harder. Some of this stuff, they've taken the easy way out on, and H has given Paramount & Bay too much leeway. But H is trying to get a foothold in Hollywood and has to make some compromises I guess --to our dismay. I wouldn't b^&$#$ half as much if it were a different director doing things and messing them up. Bay is good at what he does, but his complacent attitude when countering fan arguments pisses me off. Listen to the fans, your wallet will still be fat at the end of the day. We know what we're talkin about, we've been fans for 26+ yrs.

He DID listn to the fans. We wanted more TFs we got it. We wanted Starscream and Megatron to argue just like in G1, we got that, we wanted less humans, we almost got that, We wanted Prime to kick ass, we got that, We wanted a better plot and IMO we got that too!(But I really wouldnt have cared if the plot was shitty.) And I swear to crap, no kidding, some one asked for Bay to put a humping Wheelie in the movie I kid you not, I saw it on the internet when Wheelie was first announced.

ok, i'll give Bay that. Got those things we wanted, but we got a lot more things we didn't want!!! Aka Turturro's thong!!! For the umpteenth time that should've just been a deleted scene on the dvd/BR not in the final cut!! They could've at least made Wheelie orange. What's so hard about that?

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1061657)
Posted by SlyTF1 on April 5th, 2010 @ 8:24am CDT

vectorA3 wrote:
SlyTF1 wrote:
vectorA3 wrote:u said it even better than me. The flames on Optimus don't bother me really, and I understand that they can't port EVERYTHING over from 80's G1 into today b/c this is 25 yrs. later, but they could at least try harder. Some of this stuff, they've taken the easy way out on, and H has given Paramount & Bay too much leeway. But H is trying to get a foothold in Hollywood and has to make some compromises I guess --to our dismay. I wouldn't b^&$#$ half as much if it were a different director doing things and messing them up. Bay is good at what he does, but his complacent attitude when countering fan arguments pisses me off. Listen to the fans, your wallet will still be fat at the end of the day. We know what we're talkin about, we've been fans for 26+ yrs.

He DID listn to the fans. We wanted more TFs we got it. We wanted Starscream and Megatron to argue just like in G1, we got that, we wanted less humans, we almost got that, We wanted Prime to kick ass, we got that, We wanted a better plot and IMO we got that too!(But I really wouldnt have cared if the plot was shitty.) And I swear to crap, no kidding, some one asked for Bay to put a humping Wheelie in the movie I kid you not, I saw it on the internet when Wheelie was first announced.

ok, i'll give Bay that. Got those things we wanted, but we got a lot more things we didn't want!!! Aka Turturro's thong!!! For the umpteenth time that should've just been a deleted scene on the dvd/BR not in the final cut!! They could've at least made Wheelie orange. What's so hard about that?

Well, I cant argue with that. The good just outweighs the bad for me though. I dont even pay attention to that stuff anymore. I just ignore it and get back to the awsumness of the movie.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1061767)
Posted by gigazarak on April 5th, 2010 @ 3:47pm CDT

SlyTF1 wrote:
vectorA3 wrote:
SlyTF1 wrote:
vectorA3 wrote:u said it even better than me. The flames on Optimus don't bother me really, and I understand that they can't port EVERYTHING over from 80's G1 into today b/c this is 25 yrs. later, but they could at least try harder. Some of this stuff, they've taken the easy way out on, and H has given Paramount & Bay too much leeway. But H is trying to get a foothold in Hollywood and has to make some compromises I guess --to our dismay. I wouldn't b^&$#$ half as much if it were a different director doing things and messing them up. Bay is good at what he does, but his complacent attitude when countering fan arguments pisses me off. Listen to the fans, your wallet will still be fat at the end of the day. We know what we're talkin about, we've been fans for 26+ yrs.

He DID listn to the fans. We wanted more TFs we got it. We wanted Starscream and Megatron to argue just like in G1, we got that, we wanted less humans, we almost got that, We wanted Prime to kick ass, we got that, We wanted a better plot and IMO we got that too!(But I really wouldnt have cared if the plot was shitty.) And I swear to crap, no kidding, some one asked for Bay to put a humping Wheelie in the movie I kid you not, I saw it on the internet when Wheelie was first announced.

ok, i'll give Bay that. Got those things we wanted, but we got a lot more things we didn't want!!! Aka Turturro's thong!!! For the umpteenth time that should've just been a deleted scene on the dvd/BR not in the final cut!! They could've at least made Wheelie orange. What's so hard about that?

Well, I cant argue with that. The good just outweighs the bad for me though. I dont even pay attention to that stuff anymore. I just ignore it and get back to the awsumness of the movie.

Thats what it comes down to ultimately, but as a fan of the franchise, you can't help but feel ripped off, patronized or insulted sometimes.

The thing with Wheelie not being orange is probably some lame excuse like "orange doesn't WORK on film" probably for the same reason as red doesn't either, too 'vibrant' perhaps?... Or that it's not cool enough of a color to be in such a 'hardcore' Terminators in Disguise movie like Bays Transformers is.

And can we stop bringing up Turturros choice of underwear? I know I brought it up earlier, but the less said about it, the better... :SICK:

I hope he got paid well for that, because someone had to benefit from that scene, the viewers sure didn't!

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1061934)
Posted by vectorA3 on April 6th, 2010 @ 6:44am CDT

they can't give any lame excuse about Wheelie with Prime being red and having orange flames. This is what it's come down to, hating on TF2 so much that I'm defending Wheelie.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1062902)
Posted by Joshua Vallse on April 9th, 2010 @ 3:33am CDT

Wow....lots of typing.
I'm not really one to talk though being the average length of my posts heh.

Vector!
Ah, so the GI-Joe Hasbro theory goes out the door then, however validates the July 4th theory. In that respect, yeah I'm pretty sure the studio will slap on a layer of 3-D just to bank on the gimmick. Again, however, it lies on how much Bay can get rushed out by the scheduled release time.

The thing I'm afraid is, large awesome movie franchises have a long standing history with mucking up the final film in a trilogy. The best examples being:

Jurassic Park 3
Terminator 3
Aliens 3

And such large FX driven films. So I'm lowering my hopes for T3 in the flip side that my lowered expectations will be happily surprised. Even so, I don't know why there's a drive against the 3-D gimmick, I mean it can really do only more good then harm. and like I said, nearly every if not every 3-D film is released with a non 3-D option. Except for the case in Australia appearently. Which strikes me as odd, especially with the release of Clash of the Titans here in the states. Sure enough, this film and How to Train Your Dragon had no 3-D options. I guess things are managed differently internationally.

But moving forward, I'm pro-3D. Like I said I think it would soften the blow that I expect this third film is going to be. My whole Beowulf experience all over again, accept instead of a 3-D cgi Angelina, I'll get a 3-D Megan Fox.....how is no one else behind this ideal? How, how I say?

Is it the thumbs, cause I've been waaaaayyyyyy over the thumbs for at least a few years now.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1062906)
Posted by Prime Riblet on April 9th, 2010 @ 4:29am CDT

SEXFIGHTER wrote:Im not a big lover of Bay, but im surprised hes not keen on 3D and i applaud him for not being pressured into doing it that way, purely for gimmicks. Lets get a solid story, THAT is what will define the 3rd film either way. I came on these boards ranting and raving about ROTF, but lets just cut the guy (Bay) some slack now. After a few comments that have been made in regard to 3 im feeling positive..maybe 3 will unite all factions on these boards. I hope so.

I completely agree that 3 needs a great story. I am also impressed that Bay that Bay is so far refusing 3D-that is a very good thing. We don't need gimmicks at this point. We need a great movie with a great script.

I really just hope that TF 3 turns out great in every possible way. Unlike some other franchises, this will almost definitely be the last movie in the series......and it is doubtful the TF franchise will get any further contributions (with different directors, producers, new/better actors, new designs...etc.)in the future. We can always count on some kind of Batman movie or Superman Movie every few years, but that isn't likely with the Transformers franchise.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1062911)
Posted by gigazarak on April 9th, 2010 @ 5:13am CDT

Joshua Vallse wrote: and like I said, nearly every if not every 3-D film is released with a non 3-D option. Except for the case in Australia appearently. Which strikes me as odd, especially with the release of Clash of the Titans here in the states. Sure enough, this film and How to Train Your Dragon had no 3-D options. I guess things are managed differently internationally.

Not to hammer the point home, but merely to clarify, I will quote my own post...

gigazarak wrote: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.

So it's not a case that in Australia we only have 3D as an option, I just meant that 3D with Avatar was MORE FREQUENT as far as session times were concerned, you could still see the movies in 2D, just a lot less often. That seems to be changing though as I type this, I just checked the session times for How to Train your Dragon and Clash of the Titans...

2D - How to Train Your Dragon = Fri 9 Apr - 10:00am, 12:10pm, 2:20pm, 6:50pm
3D - How To Train Your Dragon = Fri 9 Apr - 10:00am, 12:10pm, 2:20pm, 6:50pm

Same for 3D and 2D!

2D - Clash of the Titans = Fri 9 Apr - 12:20pm, 2:40pm, 5:00pm, 7:20pm, 9:40pm
3D - Clash of the Titans = Fri 9 Apr - 2:20pm, 4:40pm, 7:00pm, 9:20pm

Less in 3D! Maybe the gimmick is slowly dying out already? Or maybe people are feeling ripped off paying extra for something that gives you a headache. :sad:

I just remember Avatar was like throughout the day as 3D, and twice in 2D, you were pushed hard into seeing it in 3D. With that as a situation, of course more people are seeing 3D films over the 2D equivalent, because there are more sessions in 3D!

But yeah you're probably right, they are probably managed differently internationally.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1062922)
Posted by vectorA3 on April 9th, 2010 @ 6:06am CDT

Prime Riblet wrote:
SEXFIGHTER wrote:Im not a big lover of Bay, but im surprised hes not keen on 3D and i applaud him for not being pressured into doing it that way, purely for gimmicks. Lets get a solid story, THAT is what will define the 3rd film either way. I came on these boards ranting and raving about ROTF, but lets just cut the guy (Bay) some slack now. After a few comments that have been made in regard to 3 im feeling positive..maybe 3 will unite all factions on these boards. I hope so.

I completely agree that 3 needs a great story. I am also impressed that Bay that Bay is so far refusing 3D-that is a very good thing. We don't need gimmicks at this point. We need a great movie with a great script.

I really just hope that TF 3 turns out great in every possible way. Unlike some other franchises, this will almost definitely be the last movie in the series......and it is doubtful the TF franchise will get any further contributions (with different directors, producers, new/better actors, new designs...etc.)in the future. We can always count on some kind of Batman movie or Superman Movie every few years, but that isn't likely with the Transformers franchise.

why would you doubt this? ROTF made over $800 mill. I think they'll reboot at some point, there's just too much $ to made. Hasbro wants to make more $ off of toys & film too. For our sake though, I hope they reboot completely and not make TF4. The studio will probably want a reboot anyway, so they don't have to pay massive sums to the actors and directors. Thus was the case with Spiderman 4, which was scrapped in favor of a reboot.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1062935)
Posted by gigazarak on April 9th, 2010 @ 6:45am CDT

vectorA3 wrote:
Prime Riblet wrote:
SEXFIGHTER wrote:Im not a big lover of Bay, but im surprised hes not keen on 3D and i applaud him for not being pressured into doing it that way, purely for gimmicks. Lets get a solid story, THAT is what will define the 3rd film either way. I came on these boards ranting and raving about ROTF, but lets just cut the guy (Bay) some slack now. After a few comments that have been made in regard to 3 im feeling positive..maybe 3 will unite all factions on these boards. I hope so.

I completely agree that 3 needs a great story. I am also impressed that Bay that Bay is so far refusing 3D-that is a very good thing. We don't need gimmicks at this point. We need a great movie with a great script.

I really just hope that TF 3 turns out great in every possible way. Unlike some other franchises, this will almost definitely be the last movie in the series......and it is doubtful the TF franchise will get any further contributions (with different directors, producers, new/better actors, new designs...etc.)in the future. We can always count on some kind of Batman movie or Superman Movie every few years, but that isn't likely with the Transformers franchise.

why would you doubt this? ROTF made over $800 mill. I think they'll reboot at some point, there's just too much $ to made. Hasbro wants to make more $ off of toys & film too. For our sake though, I hope they reboot completely and not make TF4. The studio will probably want a reboot anyway, so they don't have to pay massive sums to the actors and directors. Thus was the case with Spiderman 4, which was scrapped in favor of a reboot.

Agreed.

TF is a monster franchise, love them or hate them, the last two movies made heaps of cash. Hasbro realised that TF was popular, so started putting out marvel character tfs, starwars tfs, different toylines for different age ranges at the same time (bumper battlers, etc), same characters in different classes etc. A lot of cash has been invested in TF, because, undoubtedly, A LOT more has come back to them, I doubt TF3 will be the last Hollywood does with the idea of Transforming robots, but I'm with you vectorA3, please god not a TF4, the idea will be well and truly stale by then, bring on the inevitable reboot!

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1062952)
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on April 9th, 2010 @ 7:50am CDT

As much as i disliked Raimis last 2 Spidey films, i think to reboot so soon is frankly ridiculous, i dont want to watch parker back in high school again.. Bond took 40 years or something to reboot and by the 2nd film the old habits started to creep back in. The only time to reboot is if the franchise has lay dormant for like 10, 15 years..not 3 or 4.
Transformers has a vast and rich history of stories and characters..i wanna see these themes explored on the big screen at some point, not go back to square 1 and watch the Autobots crash to earth all over again I-)

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1062962)
Posted by vectorA3 on April 9th, 2010 @ 8:25am CDT

And i stress -- a reboot without any involvement from M. Bay whatsoever!!!!!!!!!! Please!!!!!! No producing, directing, consulting --anything!! I hate to throw him under the bus, but no Spielberg either -- he picked Bay to direct from the outset. He should've directed himself.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1062989)
Posted by SlyTF1 on April 9th, 2010 @ 9:57am CDT

vectorA3 wrote:And i stress -- a reboot without any involvement from M. Bay whatsoever!!!!!!!!!! Please!!!!!! No producing, directing, consulting --anything!! I hate to throw him under the bus, but no Spielberg either -- he picked Bay to direct from the outset. He should've directed himself.

What if TF3 is a remake of ROTF? I mean, to get the cridics off his back and what not, is that possible? This idea just poped into my mind lastnight while I was laying on my bed awake thinking about how much I love ROTF and how much other people hate it.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1063002)
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on April 9th, 2010 @ 10:43am CDT

every franchise has a turkey or 2, gettin on with doin a better job next time round makes more sense than panicking and pressing the reboot button, thats just confusing for the audience. I know Bay aint the critics choice, im one of em, but this is his chance to right a lot of wrongs with the 3rd one, hes doin it anyway, so lets see what he comes up with. I dont rate Spielberg that much to be honest....now imagine Tim Burton got hold of this franchise ha ha, that would be priceless.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1063026)
Posted by SlyTF1 on April 9th, 2010 @ 11:22am CDT

SEXFIGHTER wrote:every franchise has a turkey or 2, gettin on with doin a better job next time round makes more sense than panicking and pressing the reboot button, thats just confusing for the audience. I know Bay aint the critics choice, im one of em, but this is his chance to right a lot of wrongs with the 3rd one, hes doin it anyway, so lets see what he comes up with. I dont rate Spielberg that much to be honest....now imagine Tim Burton got hold of this franchise ha ha, that would be priceless.

You kniow what? That wouldnt be a bad idea giving TFs to him. He always makes these dark ass depressing movies. I want to see a depressing TF movie! That would complete my life! I am doing that with a stopmotion though, but compared to a real movie its shit!

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1063081)
Posted by SEXFIGHTER on April 9th, 2010 @ 2:17pm CDT

SlyTF1 wrote:
SEXFIGHTER wrote:every franchise has a turkey or 2, gettin on with doin a better job next time round makes more sense than panicking and pressing the reboot button, thats just confusing for the audience. I know Bay aint the critics choice, im one of em, but this is his chance to right a lot of wrongs with the 3rd one, hes doin it anyway, so lets see what he comes up with. I dont rate Spielberg that much to be honest....now imagine Tim Burton got hold of this franchise ha ha, that would be priceless.

You kniow what? That wouldnt be a bad idea giving TFs to him. He always makes these dark ass depressing movies. I want to see a depressing TF movie! That would complete my life! I am doing that with a stopmotion though, but compared to a real movie its shit!

...And johnny depps role would be??...it would be twisted, but cool as fook. Stop motion eh? you'll have to give us a heads up when thats ready.

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1063082)
Posted by gigazarak on April 9th, 2010 @ 2:18pm CDT

SEXFIGHTER wrote:As much as i disliked Raimis last 2 Spidey films, i think to reboot so soon is frankly ridiculous, i dont want to watch parker back in high school again.. Bond took 40 years or something to reboot and by the 2nd film the old habits started to creep back in. The only time to reboot is if the franchise has lay dormant for like 10, 15 years..not 3 or 4.

Just because it's ridiculous, doesn't mean it wont happen, just look at the 4 year time span between the Hulk and The Incredible Hulk. And even then they sort of made the two movies compliment each other. But maybe thats not considered a reboot, dunno.

SEXFIGHTER wrote:Transformers has a vast and rich history of stories and characters..i wanna see these themes explored on the big screen at some point, not go back to square 1 and watch the Autobots crash to earth all over again

And the toy line/cartoons are reinvented all the time, so it's not a stretch to do it with the movies either, it's all in how you do it...

SEXFIGHTER wrote:every franchise has a turkey or 2, gettin on with doin a better job next time round makes more sense than panicking and pressing the reboot button, thats just confusing for the audience. I know Bay aint the critics choice, im one of em, but this is his chance to right a lot of wrongs with the 3rd one, hes doin it anyway, so lets see what he comes up with. I dont rate Spielberg that much to be honest....now imagine Tim Burton got hold of this franchise ha ha, that would be priceless.

Gothformers, more than meets the emo...

vectorA3 wrote:And i stress -- a reboot without any involvement from M. Bay whatsoever!!!!!!!!!! Please!!!!!! No producing, directing, consulting --anything!! I hate to throw him under the bus, but no Spielberg either -- he picked Bay to direct from the outset. He should've directed himself.

I don't think we'd be able to tear Señor Spielbergo from producing TF movies, thats probably not going to happen, but there could be hope for no Bay, nobody hold thier breath or anything! :roll:

Re: Transformers 3 - 2-D not 3-D! (1063089)
Posted by gigazarak on April 9th, 2010 @ 2:28pm CDT

SEXFIGHTER wrote:
SlyTF1 wrote:
SEXFIGHTER wrote:every franchise has a turkey or 2, gettin on with doin a better job next time round makes more sense than panicking and pressing the reboot button, thats just confusing for the audience. I know Bay aint the critics choice, im one of em, but this is his chance to right a lot of wrongs with the 3rd one, hes doin it anyway, so lets see what he comes up with. I dont rate Spielberg that much to be honest....now imagine Tim Burton got hold of this franchise ha ha, that would be priceless.

You kniow what? That wouldnt be a bad idea giving TFs to him. He always makes these dark ass depressing movies. I want to see a depressing TF movie! That would complete my life! I am doing that with a stopmotion though, but compared to a real movie its shit!

...And johnny depps role would be??...it would be twisted, but cool as fook.

Spike, and actually call him Spike for crying out loud... What about Buster, Spikes brother from the old g1 comics? Eh, he's too old for that...

An older Sam? Like an All Hail Megatron version of the character? Kinda did that with Lennox though right? Tough military guy thing...

AH! I've got it! Johnny Depp could be... Doctor Arkeville!! Perfect! Kooky/wonky/drunk seeming bad guy!