I’m going to be honest, faithful readers. I’m a little sad today. It’s probably a combination of being sick and sleeping too much mixed with the cold weather and the impending shopping duties of Christmas. Bottom line, though: I need a pick-me-up.
And wouldn’t you know, it just so happens, that I happened to run across a little news piece that legitimately pissed me off. See, sometimes the gods really do smile on us.
You see, Michael Bay hates 3D. He’s let us know this for literally years. He laughed when people asked if he would do (the abysmal) Transformers 2 in 3D. When asked about 3D, Michael Bay called himself “old school” and said “I think it might be a gimmick.”
Questions about whether Trasformers 3 might be shot in 3D were met with a resolute “No.” The reason? “The way I shoot is too aggressive for 3D cameras.”
Cool. Good for you Michael Bay. You understand that your fast-cutting, out-of-control, whip-pan filled style would make people vomit in 3D. You realize that there is no home for you in the carefully crafted worlds of directors like Zemeckis and Cameron. Nice.
Except…well, you’re kind of full of shit, aren’t you? Because, as everyone in the free world knows at this point, Trasformers 3 is being shot in 3D. So…um…did Bay change his shooting or editing style? Why the change in opinion about 3D? And has the movie, as some have recently suggested, run into bigass problems with its 3D?
I’ll just let the man answer for himself, shall I?
Wow, I read these morons on the internet who think they are in the know. “We have have problems with our 3D????” Really? Come into my edit room and I will show you beautiful 3D. There has never been a live action show that has pushed the boundaries of 3D like Transformers 3. We shot the entire movie with 3D cameras. I actually loved shooting in 3D. I will give full details of my process and why I liked 3D in the next week right before the Transformers announcement piece comes out on Tron and Narnia.
I guess he doesn’t think it’s a gimmick anymore. Instead of thinking that his “aggressive” style isn’t suited to 3D, now he believes he is “pushing boundaries.” And he loved shooting in 3D!
Now, it is feasible that a director could simply change his mind about a technology and adapt his style to utilize that technology. I am the first to concede this possibility. But if you are going to do an about face on the nature and value of 3D, why not let people know why? Is it no longer a gimmick just because Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time, or did you actually see some artistic merit in recent 3D films? How did you cope with the new demands of 3D cinema?
Our answer from Michael? Just wait for the announcement trailer, attached to Tron Legacy and Narnia! Serious questioning about previous quotes and the director’s viability in a new medium are met with insults and a not-too-veiled commercial.
What bugs me about this isn’t the whole “3D” vs. “2D” argument. It’s the fact that this illustrates the core problem with Michael Bay and his movies. They are both products. They’re created to make money, and they will say and do whatever it takes to make money and sell themselves at every available opportunity.
Which is fine. Directors like Roger Corman made no bones about their movies being product produced almost solely for monetary benefit. There are plenty of working directors who love making movies and love making money.
But Michael Bay still pretends to believe he’s an artist. He still stands on stages and calls things “gimmicky” while reversing his decision six months later (when he realizes he can make money), and then proceeds to proclaim himself the master of the same technology he previously admitted was unsuited to his style.
What a tool.
Okay. I feel better now. Until next time…