Michael Bay Comments on 3D in Movies

A USA Today article asks the question "Can 3-D technology save the moviemaking business?" and one of the people they reached for comment was Transformers: Dark of the Moon director Michael Bay. Bay has been a vocal opponent to using 3D until he decided to try it out himself and use the latest gen digital cameras to film TF3 in 3D. Having said that it doesn't mean he is completely sold on the tech or at least how the studios are trying to take advantage of it. The full article is here, the Bay related snippets are below.

"The short answer is we did too much with technology that wasn't ready for prime time," says director Michael Bay, whose Transformers: Dark of the Moon was shot digitally, in 3-D and on traditional 35mm film.

"Studios are turning everything they can into 3-D without considering whether it should be done at all," he says. "We're already wearing the experience out. Look, there are simply some movies that shouldn't be shot in 3-D," he says. "It doesn't add anything."

But when it does, Bay is a 3-D booster. No stranger to eight-figure film budgets, Bay says that studios need to make the financial commitment to 3-D instead of doing clean-up work. "It's different, shooting in 3-D," Bay says. "You need more cameras. You need different sets. It needs to be a forethought. Right now, studios are treating it as an afterthought."

Directors also need convincing, Bay says. Several months before Avatar was released, Bay says, Cameron invited Bay to the Avatar set. Shot primarily with computer-generated backdrops, the set consisted of bare walls, green screens and rows of computers.

"I first thought, 'This is a fad. And a pain in the ass,' " Bay says. Then he began shooting the third Transformers film in 3-D, with a reported budget north of $200 million. "It isn't cheap, but it shouldn't be," Bay says. "What I love is you really can create new worlds. But you have to commit to it. Fans are right to be more skeptical of it now."

I agree with Bay on this one across the board. If the studios are not willing the commit the time, resources and cost to create quality 3D films, then the film should not be in 3D. Rush conversion process, poor use of the tech or basically slapping the "3D" label and having a few things thrown at the screen is pretty much a guarantee that this will become a fad (again). Right now, with all the films coming out in 3D and most of them clearly not benefitting from the tech in any meaningful way, the only thing the studios are succeeding at is making audiences think they wasted their money. At that point the diminishing returns of "fool me once..." starts kicking in and guarantees a drop in ticket sales. (via TFW2005)