'Transformers 3' Casting, Rumors, Pics till release
- Thread starter jefferiestubes8
- Start date
Not me. 
I think it's a shame that this 3D craze is changing the ways movies are shot. Instead of focusing on a story, the director is focusing on how much crap can be thrown at the camera in order to make you flinch.
Of course, Transformers is a poor choice for this criticism; it's not like it would have been worthy of much acclaim even in 2D.
Of course, Transformers is a poor choice for this criticism; it's not like it would have been worthy of much acclaim even in 2D.
As much of a fad as I think 3D is, I admit I'm intrigued by this.
DonnyBaker
Lieutenant
Why do people think 3-d is a fad? Its the future of TV and Movies. All the people that cry that they dont want their favorite new movies shot in 3-d can still watch them in boring 2-d...
We'll see.
3D's been around for decades now. It was a fad then, and I don't see that changing to any great degree. What makes this so different?
I can do without the silly glasses and the reddish/blue tint, thank you very much.
Besides, I don't exactly have ten grand to blow on a new 3D TV and Blu-Ray player anyway right now. So the whole thing is moot, for me at least.
I can do without the silly glasses and the reddish/blue tint, thank you very much.
If it's 3-d like Avatar, then that shouldn't really be a problem.
J
Jetfire
Guest
Whatever...these movies sucked...unless Transformers 3 is a reboot and like the G1 cartoon with a different cast...it is gonna suck.
There's no red/blue tint. 3D has come a long way. I actually haven't seen Avatar, but I took my kids to see "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs." The 3D was great, the glasses are clear so there's no tint, just normal colors.
3D doesn't have to be only be a gimmick, any more than color film is a gimmick. I'm sure there were people decades ago complaining that color film wasn't about the story, it was just about the then-novelty of showing as many pretty colors as possible.
3D could add another dimension to a story, especially SF and fantasy stories, pulling you into a fictional world in a way that wasn't ever possible before. Sure, it's going to be a big gimmick in movies like "Transformers," but there could be other uses. I don't know if live action and 3D are going to be a good match in the end, but CGI animated films go well with 3D tech.
3D doesn't have to be only be a gimmick, any more than color film is a gimmick. I'm sure there were people decades ago complaining that color film wasn't about the story, it was just about the then-novelty of showing as many pretty colors as possible.
3D could add another dimension to a story, especially SF and fantasy stories, pulling you into a fictional world in a way that wasn't ever possible before. Sure, it's going to be a big gimmick in movies like "Transformers," but there could be other uses. I don't know if live action and 3D are going to be a good match in the end, but CGI animated films go well with 3D tech.
J
Jetfire
Guest
I don't mind Megan Fox..Shia LaBeouf sucks, The Transformers aren't really given character unless it is some racial stereo type...Michael Bay doesn't understand what this(Transformers) is about and ROTF is a glorified music video for Green Day & Linkin Park.
Transformers 3 in 3D will suck.
Transformers 3 in 3D will suck.
eh i kind of think 3D is gimmicky and overrated.
I don't think the problem is with 3D it's self as opposed to the way Hollywood LOVES to retread things once they see an audience enjoys it or is willing to pay to see it. Once "Avatar" was successful you began to read a whole slew of upcoming films and studios saying oh let's do this project in 3D now and this is what is known as a fad. Something that becomes popular or that is perceived to be popular for a few months and then dies down again to be replaced by something else newer and kewler!
As for Transformers 3 it's self...I am not so sure how much of an interest level I have with it after the FARCE that was Transformers 2. I loved the first Transformers but the sequel was just ugh. If anyone has had a chance to read the original Transformers 2 treatment (it's available online or just PM me with your email address and I'll send you a copy) that was a better film than the one we actually got. Especially the beginning where Starscream declares himself King of Cybertron! Homage to TF The Movie.
As for Transformers 3 it's self...I am not so sure how much of an interest level I have with it after the FARCE that was Transformers 2. I loved the first Transformers but the sequel was just ugh. If anyone has had a chance to read the original Transformers 2 treatment (it's available online or just PM me with your email address and I'll send you a copy) that was a better film than the one we actually got. Especially the beginning where Starscream declares himself King of Cybertron! Homage to TF The Movie.
J
Jetfire
Guest
^
I think the problem with the MB Transformers films is lack of character with the actual Transformers.
I thought 2 was worse than 1 as far as story, but 2 looked better...which was to be expected.
I think the problem with the MB Transformers films is lack of character with the actual Transformers.
I thought 2 was worse than 1 as far as story, but 2 looked better...which was to be expected.
I think it's funny when people give Megan Fox a pass but harp on Shia LaBeouf. It's merely 'cause she's hot, and nothing else. Fact is, Shia is a really talented actor who's just been given fuck all to work with. But he sells the existence of those machines, which is not an easy acting job.
Don't get me wrong, though, those movies are some of the worst major studio films to come out in decades. It's just that Shia is the best thing about them.
Don't get me wrong, though, those movies are some of the worst major studio films to come out in decades. It's just that Shia is the best thing about them.
Shia I think is one of the best things about the two Transformers movies, Megan is hot and that's about it. I think Transformers The War For Cybertron should have the type of film we got for the first TF movie.
3-D and rendering CGI
The CGI work done for Transformers2 only in 2-D was extremely complicated and time consuming. Doing that in 3-D would really increase the rendering time and costs as it's not just the 'IMAX sequences' that would require additional rendering but every scene that has any CGI in it at all.
If the producers feels there is enough of a R.O.I. they will require it be delivered for a 3-D not (just a) IMAX release. There are many more cinemas that will be 3-D equipped in 2012 than today.
The CGI work done for Transformers2 only in 2-D was extremely complicated and time consuming. Doing that in 3-D would really increase the rendering time and costs as it's not just the 'IMAX sequences' that would require additional rendering but every scene that has any CGI in it at all.
SOURCE
SOURCE
If the producers feels there is enough of a R.O.I. they will require it be delivered for a 3-D not (just a) IMAX release. There are many more cinemas that will be 3-D equipped in 2012 than today.
3-D digital projection would mean more ticket sales at a higher cost than a traditional 2-D cinema and more tickets sold than an IMAX release.
Last edited:
No, that's not what it is at all, it's not 1983. They're not talking about shit flying out at the screen at you, they're talking about the differences in depth of field perspectives, lighting, and a lot of other things you have to take into account when shooting a modern 3D movie like Avatar. Cameron has talked at length about the differences between shooting Avatar and his past movies.
i actually liked ROTF. granted, it wasn't brilliant, but it was better than some of the shit Hollywood churns out.
