Michael Bay Pleads for Brightness in 3-D TF3 Exhibitions

[AndyDursin]

Have to say I think the cat is out of the bag on this one. This note from Michael Bay seems to indicate it as well.

3-D has killed Hollywood this summer to a degree and Bay can thank his studio brethren for over-exposing, over-indulging, over-inflating ticket prices.

Bay has a point about brightness and 3-D exhibitions -- and his movie will undoubtedly reap in scores of dollars regardless, but I think 3-D is well on the way down no matter how much this movie makes.

Here's his letter to projectionists (most of whom are going to chuck it in the garbage I'd imagine)...

[AndyDursin]

The two reasons Bay is concerned btw:

1. Paramount is strong-arming theater chains into showing the movie in 3-D. Like THOR, if you want to see it in 2-D, you're going to have a hard time. (There's a good article on this at Deadline, noting CAPTAIN AMERICA will be the same): http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/paramou ... d-demands/ )

2. Obviously the grosses for 3-D are way down, so he's also gone on record saying things like this -- don't you love how he name-drops Spielberg and Cameron all the time? lol.

Thank You Note From Michael Bay
06/26/2011

I just want to take the opportunity to thank all the fans around the world for letting me have fun with the Transformers franchise. It has been a wonderful opportunity to have worked with about 4000 crew members around the world. These artists are some of the very best in the entire film business. I’m honored to have had you work along side me. We had an amazing time.

‘Dark of the Moon’ has some of the most technically challenging sequences ever shot. And shot in 3D. I must urge you to find the very best theatre and see this movie in that format. 3D was a forethought, not an afterthought in this movie. I’m glad Jim Cameron and Steven Spielberg really convinced me to shoot in this new technology. We used and invented many new techniques to make the 3D sharper, brighter and more color contrast. I think theatre owners heard their audience that they need to respect the specs of the projectors and not dim the bulbs to save money.

Many theaters are presenting it in the brand new 7.1 sound, which is awesome. This is the most complex, intricate sound track that me and my Academy Awarding winning sound team have done. They really out did themselves to make this a big picture experience. Hopefully you will have as much fun watching this movie as we all had making it.

Thanks,
Michael Bay

[Eric W.]

Excellent.

They're trying strong arming tactics which will surely backfire on them. Tells me all I need to know about the actual product when you have to force the issue.

Another expensive, stupid decision by Paramount. What a shock.

[Eric W.]

Already starting to see some pretty brutal reviews show up, like this one:

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Trans ... Moon.shtml

Not like there's any surprise here or anything.

[AndyDursin]

Are the reviews better than the last one? I guess...but that's also faint, damning praise.

BTW, is Hollywood ever going to learn that Shia LeBouf isn't the reason anyone goes to see his movies -- that he keeps getting cast in pre-built franchises and that's why people go? That guy has absolutely ZERO charisma.

[Edmund Kattak]

More fuel for the fire:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... test=faces


Are 3D Movies Dying a Slow Death?

By Hollie McKay

Published July 05, 2011

Michael Bay’s highly-anticipated “Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon” earned an estimated $97.4 million domestically over the holiday weekend, besting "Pirates: Prince of Tides" for the year's top opening to date.

That's the good news. Here's the bad news.

The numbers for "T3" are down from 2009’s “Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen” which opened with a $109 million weekend.

Even worse, 2009's "T2" was not released in 3D.

Sixty percent of the "T3" weekend gross came from 3D theaters, and while that may seem like a good number, the fact that the movie opened less well than 'T2," which did not command any premium 3D ticket prices, marks a worrying trend in Hollywood.

It seems that 3D success stories are becoming a rarity in Hollywood, as more and more audience members have been opting to see the films sans glasses. Only 45 percent of the “Kung Fu Panda 2” box office was from 3D; 38 percent of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” installment came from 3D; 45 percent of “Green Lantern” earnings stemmed from 3D screenings; and 40 percent of the box office from “Cars 2” came from 3D viewings.

Those mark a significant drop from the last couple of year's big 3D releases. James Cameron’s 2009 hit “Avatar” accounted for 80 percent of its theater earnings in 3D. Last year more than 60 percent of audiences watched “Shrek Ever After” in 3D, and “How to Train Your Dragon” earned 57 percent of its box office revenue from 3D.

“Hollywood has always tended to ‘jump’ on any technological bandwagon and 3D, while having a long history, is the latest trend. The suits in Hollywood think that audiences only want to see something 3D which is totally wrong,” Rob Weiner, film librarian at Texas Tech University, told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column. “The 3D honeymoon with the American public is over.”

First of all, 3D tickets are expensive, so taking the whole family to a 2D viewing saves a wad of cash. For example, at the popular AMC Theater in Century City in Los Angeles, a regular adult ticket after 3.55pm costs $13.50, $4 is added to all 3D tickets, and it costs $6 more for the intense IMAX 3D experience.

Then there’s the issue of quality. Many 3D films are failing to live up to the “premium quality” marketing promise. To save their own pennies, numerous cinemas have theater projectionists have been dimming the bulbs, and consequently 3D films have been coming across as darker and not as sharp. This has been such a cause for concern that is inspired Bay to write to projectionists ahead of the “Transformers” release last week, begging them to fire up those bulbs.

“To help counter the recent trend of audiences being underwhelmed by ‘dark dingy’ looking 3D, we have invented various post production processes never before used to enhance sharpness, improve contrast, and render more vibrant colors,” Bay wrote. “Projectionists are of ultimate importance because your expertise defines the audience’s experience. Let’s make the audience believe again.”

And the in-your-face, explosive nature of 3D can make you sick. Literally. “People are having headaches in the theater,” Weiner continued. “So many movies are made in 3D now, people are tired of it and so many are just not that impressive."

Another problem is that when a film that has been shot in 2D is converted to the 3D format in post-production, you lose color quality, the images get blurry, dark, and generally out of focus – irritating moviegoers.

So is 3D in big trouble?

Yasser Hamed, a senior 3D animator at Disney, said it's a matter of producing good 3D and winning back the audience with its "wow factor."

“3D failed once before in the 1950s because directors considered it more of a gimmick. If used correctly however, 3D has the potential to spark a new era in quality film making,” he said. “People no longer go to the movies just for a story, they go for the experience. But directors need to ensure they are not making the same past mistakes to secure the long-term future of 3D.”

AMC Director of Public Relations, Ryan Noonan, said despite the string of disappointments, 3D is the wave of the future.

“3D is about choice and it’s an option our guests have when they come to our theaters. We believe 3D has a bright future as undoubtedly evolving technology will only work in its favor,” he said. “Our goal is to provide the best possible movie-going experience and an important part of that goal is offering choices that meet the needs of as many guests as possible. We are proud to offer many options like IMAX, our Dine-In Theatres, our proprietary large-format experience ETX, in addition to 2D and 3D. There will always be a place for 3D at AMC, but it will never be the only option.”

3D mastermind James Cameron also thinks the format is hear to stay.

“When color came out, was it overkill? It’s just the way things are. Everything is in color now. It’s not in black and white. Everything will eventually be in 3D,” he recently told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column. “It has to be good 3D of course. Right now, I think people need to distinguish as a public between good 3D and bad 3D. You don’t just pay that premium 3D price if you don’t think you are going to have that premium 3D experience.”

[AndyDursin]

Ed, it's all coming to an end, thankfully. I can see them using 3-D every once in a while for certain movies but this notion of using 3-D two-three times a month for any major studio release is o-v-e-r.

I said from the very beginning 3-D was nothing but a gimmick and they were going to over-do it, causing audiences to bristle at the ticket prices and lose interest...and that's exactly what happened!

I don't blame theaters so much as the movie studios which as I linked above strong-armed many of the chains into using 3-D.

When I went to see THOR at my local National Amusements theater (which I believe is owned by Paramount?), there were literally NO 2-D showings of the movie on any of the 4 screens it was on. Even the woman who sold me the ticket apologized and said it wasn't right!

I'm prepared to eat the ticket cost myself when CAPTAIN AMERICA comes out in a few weeks (since it seems what happened on THOR will happen again), but 3-D does nothing for me. It darkens the screen, it adds nothing dramatically to what's going on. I'd rather watch these films on my nice vivid HDTV without 3-D when they come out on Blu-Ray.

What's more, back in the '80s 3-D movies were made to be IN 3-D. They had certain (silly) effects that at least made good use of the process. In 90% of these films, 3-D is nothing but a post-production process that adds depth of field and that's it. There's no actual utilization of the format, it's just a cash-grab.

Shame on them, but it's so predictable, anyone could have seen it coming. 3-D failed in the '50s and '80s, and history is repeating itself again -- and at least before you DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY EXTRA to watch it in 3-D!!

Beyond that, I can see why theater chains are nervous, and are trying things like 3-D plus "dining at the movies" to try and make a larger "experience" out of going to the theater in an effort to keep crowds coming in. Attendance has been down in general over the last few years, but IMO that almost has less to do with HDTVs than the sheer fact that Hollywood is producing so much garbage. And besides, I'll pass on dropping a $50 "dinner at the movies" experience -- I tried it once at the Showcase in Patriot Place (Foxboro Ma) and it wasn't bad for one time, but I'd never do it again...I'd rather eat out at a quality restaurant!

[Eric W.]

Good. I hope it does die.

[Paul MacLean]

“People no longer go to the movies just for a story, they go for the experience.

But they really go for the story and characters. 3-D seemed "cool" at first (as do all novelties when first unveiled) but it appears the novelty is fortunately wearing off.

I just hope I can find a cinema showing Harry Potter in 2-D!