I hope he doesn't make this movie in 3D. I hate it when Hollywood jumps on the bandwagon...and goes overboard with it. Not every movie needs to be shot in 3D.
It's a fad that will pass just like everything else.

 

3d?? I really don't care one way or the other. Just make the story good and more robots and less freaking humans.

 

I find it odd that every time Hollywood makes any step forward in film making people rush to call it a fad.

Talkies were called a fad because the viewer would get tired of being distracted by an actor talking. Color film just looks so fake, it will never catch on and then films will go back to just black and white. Steady cams cost too much money so directors will never use those things when they could make shots the old fashion way from a carriage on tracks. CGI just looks so fake it will never catch to replace stop motion.

Sure every new thing Hollywood tries out doesn't work, but you've got to let new technology at least have a chance to show if it will work. 3-D is still in the early phase just like all the technology we enjoy now was new at some point. Unless you wanted Transformers to be a silent black and white film made with puppets.

 

^ You've got a point there. If color films consisted of shapes with weird green colors, yeah I might be tempted to call it a fad. Done right, which we've accomplished, color films definitely add something. I guess once 3D films stop looking like layered transparencies, I might just revise my opinion on 3D.

 

I guess it's just the film buff in me that's watched every era of film making but the new stuff always looks bad. It could turn out that 3-D doesn't catch on, but I want to wait until all the bugs are worked out before giving it the thumbs up or the thumbs down.

The conversion stuff looks horrible so I want to see some films that are actually filmed in 3-D and not just converted over. Because like you say the converted films just look like a few layers of transparencies.

 

I'm gonna have t go with Bay on this one, 3D is fine but I think If its gonna effect the film then maybe its better if its left out.

having said that ROTF didn't have any 3D and that was garbage.

 

Personally I'd prefer 2D, although usually these films get both 2D and 3D versions released in cinemas so people have a choice which they want to see. But since Bay doesn't own the Transformers franchise or has bankrolled the film himself, there's nothing he can do if the studio decide they want to take the film he's made and 3D it up afterwards. Well, I suppose he could throw his toys out of the pram, but he'd probably only come back later and blame it on wine again or something.
So, good for Bay wanting to stay away from 3D until it's better for his methods, but with 3D being the big thing these days and studios seeing it make a nice chunk of bank, he might not get his final way on it.

 

3D FILMMAKING isn't a fad, it's most definitely the future (although until we can do it somehow without glasses i kind of doubt it's truly going to gain full acceptance) ~ converting movies envisioned by (and filmed as) the director in 2d then post-converting it to 3D so the studio can charge $5 more a ticket is most likely (and hopefully) a fad.

Edit: oh, yeah, didn't see your 2nd post there where you totally summed up my point  

 

I agree that 3-D technology in it's current iteration will be short lived. That's because it's only a stepping stone to achieve the impending goal of full immersion virtual reality.

 

Not just the converted films either, more often than not it was the case with Avatar as well. I was by far more impressed with the mo-cap and detail work in that film.

 

since we're discussing it and such:
3D Ticket Prices Are on the Rise, Effective This Weekend | /Film

 

I don't blame the theater owners for doing so. Most theaters only have 1-3D screen because they're ungodly expensive around 70k per, and 3 to 5 times more than that If they want to install IMAX-3D. I don't mind paying the extra money, since I only see about 1 IMAX film per year. I'm sure that's going to increase since more blockbusters are getting the IMAX treatment.

 

Yea, I'm not too crazy about my local theater charging me extra for tickets just because it's 3-D. Since they only have 5 screens if the film is a 3-D movie then 3-D is my only local choice for that film. Plus you have to turn your glasses in after the movie so it's not like I get the glasses out of paying extra.

Unless 3-D is going to add something to the film then I guess I'll have to pass on some films until they come out on DVD. Really don't feel like paying extra to see Clash of Titans so I'll have to wait to rent the film instead.

 

... I keep my 3D glasses... there's a recycling bin to put them in after the movie but I still keep them... why, I don't know.

If it's in 3D, I'll watch both versions, just to see if there are any differences between them. If not, then whatever, I'll still watch.

As for Bay's update, kudos for imputting your opinion and giving reason for being skeptical. I would rather not read about a Directer saying '3D sux, I'm not using it' and ending it there. At least, Bay's giving it a try before getting too far into Production.


jD001

 

something tells me 'dragon' hasn't seen a 3-d film since the 80s

 

One of the positive things about Bay is that sometimes he's really good at giving us folks outside of the movie industry some really cool insights into the making of films. Sort of like the Transformers special where he showed us all that went into cutting the moving bus in half.

So yea it's cool that he actually gives us some of thoughts behind why 3-D really isn't for him yet as a director and what the pit falls are into forcing a 2-D film into a 3-D film just because the suits think they can make a few more bucks.

 

personally I am a big fan of 3d but that movie will be released in both 3d and 2d versions. Its not like shooting in 3d makes anything more difficult as you still shoot as you would in 2d style the secondary stereo cam just adds a skew on on the orignal shot to get depth.

The only thing you have to watch out with on the 3d cams is the second cam possibly picking up a boom mike or a crew memeber as it is shifted only slightly in one direction.

3D other wise doesnt change the shots or how the images will look in the 2D finished product it just adds a 3D layer to it.

The only thing it does do though is boosts rendering time for CGI so there is where your additional time and cost come in. You would render the same frame twice for 3d movies.

 

If they do this.... I hope they don't cut scenes..... In ROTF, the Forest battle cut scenes are really amazing.

 

I agree that it's not as difficult as they make out. There's certainly no reason it should cost $150,000 a minute. And if you shoot with double cameras, you save the on the conversion so it shouldn't cost anywhere near as much. Bay complains about the heavy rigs, but that didn't stop him before, shooting with Imax cameras (which are huge)... and that turned out to be one of the better scenes in the movie.

But 3D is one more aspect of the process to keep track of. With every shot you have to take into consideration the point of convergence(whether the focus will appear behind or in front of the screen) and how pronounced the 3d effect should be. That means adjusting how far apart the cameras are. And if you're filming from far away with zoom lenses, it will tend to flatten the 3D.

My theory all along is that Bay doesn't want to go 3D because he is just so involved with the cinematography. It's one area he seems to put a lot of effort into. 3D would mean shooting digital, and Bay still shoots on film. I suspect he's afraid of losing control of something he's quite good at.

It also affects editing. If there's a lot of fast cutting, you can't have the point of convergence jumping back and forth. It's headache-inducing. You can imagine the effect how this might have with Bay's editing.

 

The reason he doesnt like adding these features to shooting such as I max and what not is probably and primarily that it cuts into overall revenue. He made the same amount of money as TF1 because he spent more on the film.

Then again he picks the rediculous locations that cost a boat load to transport to and setup.

He is more about what actors and locals he can get than putting a quality movie together. This way people are just looking at things instead of thinking about the plot.