Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

Michael Bay Thinks 3D “Might Be a Gimmick”

Posted on Friday, April 3rd, 2009 by Peter Sciretta

michael bay house

ShoWest is a convention for movie theater owners, so it’s no surprise that the buzz word of the con is “3D”. Movie theaters are looking to make more money, and so far 3D screens have proven to be vastly more profitable than traditional screens. Enter Michael Bay, who appeared last night to accept his Vanguard Award for Excellence. Apparently Bay doesn’t think 3D is “Awesome”.

“3D? I don’t know… I might be old school. I think it might be a gimmick,” said Bay, later adding: “I don’t know, we’ll see. I’m looking forward to [James] Cameron’s picture.”

When Bay made the comment on stage at the award reception, it drew gasps from the crowd of theater owners. Someone asked if Bay would ever consider shooting Transformers 3 using 3D cameras, and Bay explained that even if it wasn’t a gimmick or fad, 3D is too fragile for his explosive-level of filmmaking.

“The way I shoot is too aggressive for 3D cameras. It’s a time consuming thing,” said Bay. “Who knows… It might be a fad. I’m kinda old school. I’m old school because I like to shoot on film. I like anamorphic lenses, and that is old school.”

I took the opportunity at the press conference to ask Bay about the scenes he show for Revenge of the Fallen using IMAX cameras.

“It looks pretty awesome. It was much easier to shoot than stereoscopic,” Bay joked. “It’s a bitch to perfect in terms of the digital work, the amount of rendering you need to do that goes towards the detail, but I think it’s going to be awesome.”

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Comments 

Related Posts

Tags

3D, Action/Adventure, Sci-Fi, Sequels, , ,

  • hoey
    bay should bring jazz back he was the best autobot
  • IMPORTtransformersnerd
    NAH ,although he was trained in spec. ops. he was still an auto-bot and they have an evil view.
  • Dirtsandwich
    “The way I shoot is too aggressive for 3D cameras."

    Is it really? LOL. What an arrogant ass comment. Hey Bay, you might to concentrate on a solid story instead of worrying about your aggressive camera work. The story in Transformers sucks ass and the some of the dialogue was beyond retarded. And using "Battle Without Honor or Humanity" - by Tomoyasu Hotei soon after it was made popular in Kill Bill is a gimmick.

    JC is changing cinema. You are not. So many directors have 3D projects in the works now because of JC. They have all visited the Avatar set and have changed their way of movie making. This technology can only grow if you use it, welcome it and push it to its limits.

    There will be a day, sooner then you think that you will be able to go the cinema and watch a movie in 3D movie so immersive without the aid of glasses. But that day would never arrive if all directors were as close minded as you Bay. You obviously can't see the potential of this. You will though come Avatar's release.
  • Michael Bay's career is a gimmick.
  • Michael Bay's potential criticism is uninformed having seen nothing while Ridley Scott, whose work I admire more, has only praise to deliver and declared that he "has to go 3-d". Having seen Coraline this does nothing to dissuade me from embracing the potential of the third dimension.
  • Joe Newman
    "explosive-level of filmmaking" man he does say old school a lot though
  • Mark
    The D showings around here are only $1 more. The IMAX showings are $3 more.
    Either way it's worth it just because they are using a DLP projector which easily surpasses what you see from the film projectors. The picture is pristine, whether it's the first showing or the 500th.
  • Dave
    So I gather he's kind of old school?
  • i don't know, this one-two punch of Monsters vs Aliens and UP may change his mind. and i thought he had some positive things to say about "Avatar".

    TF3 would kick ass in RealD.

    i think you guys just look for Bay stories so you can use that photo. that's not a complaint, just an observation.
  • I don't think 3-D is a gimmick. Many filmmakers were reluctant to change to colour after it was introduced in 1927; there are industry figureheads who called it a fad a year after it went mainstream. There's nothing inherantly whiz-bang about 3-D; it just removes the need to infer depth from a screen, which is actually hard work - try closing one eye for a while and see how your perception of depth is affected. I watched Monsters Vs. Aliens, and I noted that it was not even apparent that it was in 3-D, because after the initial suprise that the screen has apparently vanished, you relax into the reality of the stereo space - just as familiar as real life. I think it's a progression like any other in cinema - like the introduction of colour: we see, and we see in colours; we percieve with two slightly different perspectives which are fused into one image by our brains.

    Anyway with the new fusion camera systems, you've got hand-held rigs and you can even reduce the interocularity (distance between lenses) of the stereo image down to nothing, i.e. one lens effectively. So the perception of depth becomes just another tool like depth of field, that the filmmaker can use according to his taste.

    I do wish that we didn't need to use glasses to get the effect though. But apparently there's already a couple of prototype solutions to that problem.
  • The cost will kill 3D if nothing else does. If you're taking 4 kids to the movies and you can pay $4 more per ticket for a 3D movie or see the 2D version eventually you'll end up going with the cheaper ticket. I remember when computer animation was new and a film would come out and everybody would go ape-shit because it was "the next Toy Story". Now that there is a glut of them the fact they are computer animated doesn't matter. 3D will be the same way.
  • cAP lOCK oN
    additionally, i prefer the phrase "vintage educational facility" over "old school"
  • Pelosi
    This message was brought to you by the Barack Obama Administration. We care about educational facilities, and to label them otherwise would promote fear and explot their true values.
  • cAP lOCK oN
    old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school old school YEAH WE GET IT, YOU'RE OLD SCHOOL.

    jesus he talks so new school for someone so old school. i betcha he says things are "wack" too. that scene with the rollerskating robot down the freeway was wack!
  • justinlecair
    This isn't the first time the 3-D glasses gimmick has entered movie theaters. Michael Bay is absolutely right that it is a gimmick, but just because something is gimmicky doesn't mean that it sucks. Sometimes 3-D can be a lot of fun.
  • Wow, people pointing out that Michael Bay is a gimmicky filmmaker, didn't see that one coming!

    I actually agree with the guy, I've yet to be convinced that 3D is anything other than a gimmick.
  • Meh, 3d is overrated.
  • freemachine
    My only complaint about shooting films in 3D is that directors are almost obligated to design shots where the action is "forced" at the audience. This is all good and well if you're watching in 3D, but becomes obviously contrived and annoying when you watch in 2D. For example, those spear tips in Beowulf that would fill up half of the screen (coming at you) during the fight scenes.
  • i won't believe 3D makes a big difference until I see actual proof. Nothing to this point has shown me anything so we'll see.
  • Jens
    I actually agree with Bay. I dont really see the awesomenes in 3d like other people do. High-def is enough for me.
  • Michael Bay is so 'hip' and 'in'. I love it.


    ....
  • because he shoots on film, he already stated that....
  • This message is brought to you by the phrase... "Old school"

    "Old school"
  • If you watched Coraline in 3D, you'd probably agree that 3D can be applied in a way that further expands perceivable dimension, detail and depth of field in a solely artistic way. That said, the majority of 3D films I've seen in the theaters implement 3D for the sake of wooing the masses with flying space junk or whatever - which is, as M. Bay suggests, gimmicky. 3D, like CG, should be used in moderation.
  • shadow
    Completely agree, the depth of field and detail in that film was amazing.
  • Goobity
    I couldn't agree more.
  • Attention Michael Bay: Please stop saying 'old school'.
  • Props to him for being old school. He's probably right in waiting to see Avatar before passing any final judgement. Right now we're just seeing 3D in kid's films and horror flicks. If they want it to be something that becomes mainstream it's going to need to garner mainstream success with a "normal" film. Sci fi seems to be the perfect choice for such a platform, so we'll see how Jim Cameron does.
  • they tried it already. too many people died.
  • Many lost homes and villages for Bad Boys 2.
  • yeah, that was me satirically commenting on his own abundant usage of the phrase "old school" to describe himself. try to stay with me here
  • ah alright. I couldn't tell if you were being serious or sarcastic. I'd like to ask Michael Bay himself just why he thinks he's old school. I just don't see it in his movies at all.
  • As much as people enjoy ripping on the guy he does bring up a good point.

    I still haven't fallen into this entire 3D craze (waiting for Avatar to decide whether or not this is a "gimmick" as Michael Bay would put it).

    Either way MB shouldn't be to quick to discredit 3D . I mean many of his ideas and filming techniques fall within the gimmick realm quite often.
  • joshi38
    If any big studio names were about to start talking with a little apathy towards 3D, I wouldn't have put any money on it being Bay. But he speaks the truth. Until we see if Avatar can pay off the cheques that Cameron's writing by heralding 3D as something more amazing than what we've seen so far, I see 3D as being nothing more than a fad.
  • I'm waiting for 3D without the dorky glasses and headaches. Until that happens, I guess I'm "old school"
  • MickJ Thinks Michael Bay “Might Be a Dumb Ass”
  • Palmer
    But..think of the effect his explosions would have on people if it were in 3D!
  • dopiestghost
    Yet no one still has adequetly explained why gimmicks are bad things. Or, for that matter, given a compelling argument as to why films aren't inherently gimmicks.
  • I think he considers consistent screen geography and match cutting to be gimmicks too.
  • Jack
    Ok Bay.

    Yeah ..Transformers was really "old school" it was and didn't use any "gimmicks."
  • snapmandonald
    He's exactly right. The new 3D is a fad that will fade in the next couple years. The studios are making more 3D films while the grosses are still high to blackmail theater owners into purchasing digital projectors. The studios badly want theater owners to convert and they found a tool to do it, they will speed up the process of the conversion and then you'll see in about 2-3 years the 3D films will dry up when they have the cheaper film distribution system in place.
  • i agree whole heartedly
  • This is from the same guy who thinks explosions and robots are AWESOME. Why should we listen to him?
  • Coming from the guy who is a walking gimmick?

    I laugh, I laugh loudly!
  • yes, but his gimmicks are kinda old school, which just makes them awesome. haha
  • how are they old school?
  • my thoughts exactly!
blog comments powered by Disqus

gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2010 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.