Are Michael Bay and 3D the new PB&J? A promotional PDF released by Dolby for this year’s ShoWest lists Transformers 2 under 2009’s 3D features alongside well known 3D flicks like AVATAR and Tintin. Bay hasn’t updated his blog to confirm or deny the announcement. Given the fact that the man eats Epic brand cereal morning, noon and night, and has the sizable task of topping his prior $319 million grossing robot deathmatch, who else thinks it’s a no-brainer?
The sequel starts principle photography on June 2nd in Pennsylvania, but obviously the looming SAG strike, which Bay recently ripped, could temporarily forfeit the mass destruction. Not sure if the ladies were ready for Jonah Hill in 3D, so maybe that bit of ixnayed casting was divine intervention. More on T2 going 3D if and when it surfaces…
Discuss: Alright, who has something negative to say about this development? Surprise us.
via Comics2Film
May 13th, 2008 at 11:22 am
3D? Sweeeeeeeeeet.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Personally hate 3D. I won’t see ANY film in 3D, its lame and its a gimmick.
I hope he does do it in 3D so it can bomb even harder.
I would like to see a poll on how many people like 3D films.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:37 am
3D or not it’s still Transformers. 2. That being said…it’ll be bad whether it leaps out of the screen of not.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
@ 790
Your personal opinion nonwithstanding, is 3D really a gimmick? And even if it were, is it fair to give it negative connotations?
Sound, color, widescreen were all “gimmicks” used to get people into movie theaters as other medium began to compete with it. Odds are 3D and IMAX are the next stage in evolution as it becomes easier and affordable for the average consumer to replicate the picture and sound quality of the local theater in the home.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
If its done right and with Real3D it will be epic.
SpeedRacer should have been released in Real3D. Heck, maybe it eventually will.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I hate 3d its dumb. I have 1 eye well one real one fake. So me and 3d dont work well with one another .
May 13th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
i’m not sure where i stand on this. i thought they could take it to another level with the introduction of new robots + more screentime for the robots, but as much as i dread all this 3D craze, maybe this is right for this film.
i vote: undecided.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I have a permanent, uncorrectable defect in one eye. 3D will never work for me.
I guess 3D won’t ever work for blind people, either. For those who can enjoy it, huzzah to you.
I hope that some filmmakers will continue to make 2D films for people like me.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Well I don’t have a problem with movies the way they are. I don’t need shit poping out at me to have a better time.
Never have.
Not one time during Iron Man or Speed Racer did I say “where’s the 3D?”.
To say 3D is a natural part of movies like color or widescreen dosnt make sense.
What about audio. You make it sound like 3D was missing from films all along.
3D is an aspect of VR, (Virtual Reality). Hey I have no probs if you like 3D, but I think if you took a poll you would find not everyone likes it.
Hell, just give me a good story and effects.
3D has allways been a gimmick to get people to see films like “Creature from the Black Lagoon”. That type of film needed all the help it could get back then.
I hope Bay does do it in 3D then your going to see how many people don’t like it.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Are you serious? Tons of people probably have something negative to say about this. Transformers was a joke. A two hour apple, mountain dew, ford, burger king, (and toooons more) commercial.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Name me a good 3d movie…how’s that?
I would love to see it in 3d. I just bought a brand new 50 inch plasma that supports 3d video, maybe I could utilize it with the movie. But really, that’s the only reason for me wanting it to come in 3d.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I don’t know very much about 3D. When I was a kid I went to the IMAX in Vancouver and saw a 3D documentary about fish that was kinda neat, if boring.
My towns theater is a joke (old beat up, torn screen, missing seats, no heat, and sound quality that can easily be laughed at). It’s painful enough watching regular movies there, let alone anything that would require 3Dness. How do older theaters adapt to a 3D movie? Is special equipment needed or just the fancy glasses?
May 13th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Sounds like a Nation divided?
Hunter quick, this calls for a SlashFilm Poll!!!
Do you like 3D in movies , (yes or no?)
May 13th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I guess they needed a new gimmick, seeing as how much the first move sucked.
All this say’s is it’s all about the visuals and screw anything else, we’ll think of that later…
May 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
To quote the awful star of these crapfests “No no no no no no no no no no…” there is only one T2.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
someone should tell Michael Bay to stop killing franschises….
May 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Pardon my ignorance, but what does 3D mean? Like put on 3D glasses and things pop out at you like IMAX? Or like some IMAX screens are curved to make it feel like the movie is 3D because it’s all around you? Or something else?
May 13th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I dunno, 3D has enver worked for me. Im not sure if its because i wear strong prescription glasses (I mean i can wear the 3d glasses and normal glasses and it still doesnt work)… Either way Id rather see the film in nice color than some weird shades of blue/red which is all i see with those damn glasses.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
@ 790
I imagine I’m going to run around in circles with you because you’re denying the logical progression towards 3D in order to justify your preference (which is totally acceptable, and in fact I could care less about 3D myself). So one last pass at this from me and I’ll be done.
I’m not saying that 3D is something that’s naturally missing from movies. I am saying that, if you’re going to take a next step in evolution, it’s the logical one. Why was sound added? To expand on the spectacle of going to the now talking pictures. Why was color added? For additional spectacle and give the artists more to work with. Why was widescreen added? To open the scope of films, and add spectacle when people could only get a square image at home. Why was surround sound added? To add depth to the audio experience and add to the spectacle.
How have each of these been marketed as they were released? With huge exclamation points as a selling point to a new experience. “Now with sound!!!” “Now in Technicolor!!!” “Presented in Cinemascope!!!” “THX Certified, Experience the difference!!!”
Historically speaking they were all gimmicks used to bring in new audiences. None of them were necessary or naturally missing. After all, there were plenty of great silent, black and white, square framed movies. They didn’t have to include these others things except for the fact that they needed to offer something to get people into movie theaters. And, at the time, only the big spectacle movies used these sound and picture advancements. Only after a time did they become the norm.
Now, think about the last truly revolutionary “gimmick” — digital surround sound. First of all, at first it was only a selling point for big spectacle movies like Jurassic Park (don’t jump down my throat, I don’t think Transformers 2 will be as good as Jurassic Park but it is in the same spectacle, summer blockbuster, sci-fi genre). Most importantly it added depth — 3D — to the sound.
It only stands to reason that at a point where people can recreate the surround sound, widescreen, crystal clear experience at home, movie theaters and hence studios and distributors will need something new to bring in audiences.
Thus, logically speaking the next natural progression is adding 3D to the picture. And it will start with the big spectacle movies, like Transformers 2 and they’ll throw a big tag on the poster saying “Experience it in 3D!!!!” and the masses will come. And for a time, at least, people who are resistant to the idea of 3D will be accommodated by having the option of 2D screenings, like they did with Beowulf. But looking at it from a historical context, it only stands to reason there will probably come a time when most if not all movies are 3D.
-dg
PS: to quickly address your VR point, the difference is not the component but what it’s used for. 3D sound is already used in movies and VR. But in VR you use it to create a world that you can be a part of. In movies it’s used to tell a story. Same thing with 3D picture. It won’t be used to create a world in which you interact with but to tell a story in which you are a passive observer.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
@ duca
To get really good 3D you need digital projectors and polarized glasses. I imagine most people here complaining 3D doesn’t work for them (except for those with physical ailments) just have not been someplace that has good enough technology. Theme park attractions, like the Terminator show in Universal Studios are mind blowing. They, however, only need enough money to set up one really good system.
The real problem, as I see it, is that the technology is not there yet for mass distribution. This, however, is why there’s so much fighting between distributors and studios these days. They all want it but they want the other to pay for it.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
@dopiestghost
Thank you for the information. This makes me think that a blockbuster like Transfromers 2 would not go the way of the 3D, eh? They want to be on as many screens as possible and make as much money as possible so why would they pigeon hole themselves? I can understand a “3D at the IMAX” version. That would probably be freaking neato, but at the regular old cinema? Ah, ain’t gonna work for a few more years yet.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
@ dopiestghost
I think you’re right about the quality of the theater equip b/c the last 3D flick I saw didn’t work for me. Either way I’m not paying extra just so I can wear those stupid glasses.
@ 790
I agree. I don’t need shit popping out at me to enjoy a “good” movie, either.
Point being that every 3D movie I’ve seen thus far has used 3D to hide the fact that the movie, itself, sucked.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Well Dopiestghost I see what you mean but I still disagree. Here’s why….
Your comparing improvements to a visual effect.
The improvements in sound, color and picture are a natural refinements over time
To say that having a character or object come out of the screen to grab your attention is not a refinement its a gimmick.
Not to mention one that hasn’t been perfected.
I don’t hear anyone complaining about the refinements that films have undergone however not everyone digs 3D.
With 3D films you also get scripts that are tailored to having objects come alive. Its a distracton. frankly why does anyone (over 12 years old) need that?
I’m just saying (I Don’t need 3D). If you think its the next step in films I sure prey your wrong because I will not see any 3D films….. ;-)
May 13th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
The Terminator ride is in 4D.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Yes Chimaera when I hear 3D I think (crappy film they need 3D to bail them out).
Boooooooo
May 13th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I think making a movie in 3D detracts from the overall movie because the director then has to design scenes specifically for the 3D element.
I liked Transformers and I will definitely be watching the sequel regardless if its in 3D or not. honestly why even waste the money on 3D for a sequel since 90% or greater (making up numbers) of the people who see it are the people who liked the first one and I really do not think saying its in 3D is going to bring in anyone who is already not going to see it
May 13th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
@ some_dude
Amen. Except maybe kids for who 3D is still like a novelty item.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Yeah Max, 3D is putting on those red/blue paper glasses during the film and then experiencing the effect that movie is jumping out at ya.
Take the glasses off and it looks like someone spiked your doobee with mescaline
May 14th, 2008 at 6:49 am
@ 790 and some_dude
I get your point about people writing 3D stuff into a movie that has no business being in 3D just to use the technology. That leads to crappy stories and thus crappy movies.
Unfortunately it seems like my third post didn’t go up (probably because my laptop died) where I addressed this.
Ultimately 3D is just another tool for filmmakers. It’s neither “good” nor “bad.” Because you don’t like something, or, more appropriate to this case, because it hasn’t been used correctly does not mean it’s inherently “bad.” And I agree with you that, up this point, it has not been used effectively to enhance any movies. Yes, for the most part, up until now it has detracted from the experience.
But I think it’s jumping the gun to discount the tool because no one knows how to use it yet.
It’s the equivalent of being around when movies started having sound and saying “well, now they’re going to make movies just to use the sound technology and ignore the story.” In fact, I bet you for every “M” (Fritz Lang’s seminal sound movie) there were 100 horrible movies that used bad songs and sound effects for the sake of using sound.
Think about the beginning of the color era. You have a movie like “Wizard of Oz” which used it effectively in the context of the story. I can only guess how many movies seemed like a Pollock painting on crack and had no substance because they wanted an excuse to use color.
Both “M” and “Wizard of Oz” were successful in using these new technologies because they told stories that were enhanced by their use.
We’re at the beginning of the 3D era. No one knows how to effectively use 3D. Yet at some point there will be a movie where the filmmaker really understands how to use 3D effectively in order to enhance the story and not build the story around the effect.
I, for one, do not want to miss that moment because Michael Bay and “Superman Returns IMAX” used it so poorly and we threw the baby out with the bathwater.
My personal guess for the movie that does this, by the way, is James Cameron’s “Avatar.” Check out what he has to say about 3D:
“When most people think of 3-D films, they think first of the gimmick shots — objects or characters flying, floating or poking out into the audience. In fact, in a good stereo movie, these shots should be the exception rather than the rule. Watching a stereo movie is looking into an alternate reality through a window… First and foremost the film must be a good movie. It needs to be firing on all eight cylinders whether it is conceived as a 2-D or a 3-D film. As a result, a 3-D film when screened in 2-D, on a screen of any size, should still deliver. The 3-D should always be thought of as a turbocharger, an enhancer, to a work whose raison d’etre is vested in its story, its characters, its style, etc.”
Hearing him talk makes me feel like we’re a the cusp of a whole new era for the theater going experience. Exciting times!
-dg
@ duca
Studios are hoping that by 2010 there will be 3,000 digitally equipped screens nationwide. That’s about how many screens a movie like Transformers would normally open on. Hence, the increase in 3D movie announcements.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:24 am
@ 790
And to address your “refinement” argument, I have to respectfully completely disagree.
Sound was an addition to what was a silent medium. It brought a new dimension to it. Color, too, was an addition to what was by the point a mixed medium shot in black and white. Both were jarring additions that caused filmmakers to completely re-think the way they made movies.
The reason you don’t hear anyone complaining about those is because we’re living 70 years after they were introduced. By this point they’ve become the norm. However, check your film history: at the time people considered “talkies” a fad that would eventually fade away.
Put in its proper historical context, you can see the startling similarities. Seventy years from now, when they add who-knows-what new technology people will be having the same conversation you and I are having, except the person on your end will be calling 3D a refinement and arguing how no one complains about that.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Good news is in 70 years I’ll be long dead.
And VR will be the new Matrix.
Again I really hope they do Transformers in 3D. Its just what that lame franchise needs to fail.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:33 am
3D is here and will be growing tremendously over the next few years so “gimmick” it is not…Hollywood and Real-D aren’t investing multi-millions in something that won’t be around for a long time to come….
That being said, Transformers 2 should rock in 3D *ONLY IF* Bay can pull back from the action a bit and let us see what is going on during the action scenes. In Transformers 1, the camera was so close to the bots that it was a CGi blur and you couldn’t see any details which was a great disappointment to me.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I agree Dopeistghost, Camerons Avatar will be a good modern day test to see if 3D will be accepted.
I don’t think it will but time will tell….. ;-)
May 15th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Dopiestghost.
Seems after talking to some of my friends in the biz I owe you an apology……
Yes 3D is coming, friend of mine told me today that all the Animated cartoon films next year will be in 3D, some parts of “Journey to the Center of the Earth” are going to be in 3D as well.
There working on a way to create a laminate that you will be able to cover your tv screen with at home to do the same thing.
Within 5 years the glasses will be obsolete.
Just like in the Matrix, I fear eventually we will all be so locked into the visual entertainment experience that we will get lost in it. Talk about numbing the masses.
I’m not sure this is a good thing and I still hate 3D.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
For anyone who hasn’t seen a movie in Real-D 3D, the red and blue glasses are out kids, nowadays they use clear polarized glasses, it doesn’t matter if you’re blind in one eye or not. you can still see the movie in 3-D, which is why the ‘gimmic’ is coming back. The new polarized glasses dont require two eyes to trick the mind, the lenses do that for you and all of the color and picture is in full blown color and actually has a clearer digital projection picture. I saw Beowulf and ‘meet the robinson’s’ in 3D and both were visually mind-blowing. Check out, ‘Journey to the center of the earth’ coming out soon. The film may suck, but go watch a modern 3-D movie if just for the sake of trying it out. It’s unlike anything else. The entire film these days is in 3-D none of this put on the glasses when the queue comes on the screen bullshit.
Seriously check this out, might just change your mind:
http://www.reald.com/
June 26th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
http://www.reald-corporate.com/
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
um…that is ok stuff but tru to find more in depth details like if dino bots are goin 2 be there and wat not