'King Of Kong' Director Seth Gordon Ready To … 
Rob Cohen And Voltage Team On 'Bullet Run,' … 
River Road Nabs Life Rights To Beach Boy … 
Look Out: Advertisers Will Cancel Upfront … 
HBO Teams With John Krasinski & Aaron … 
Julia Ormond In Talks To Play Superman's Mom 
Sofia Vergara Cancels 'The Paperboy' 
Showtime Takes On 1970s Record Industry With … 
Fox Sets Fall Premiere Dates: 'X Factor' To … 
Evolution's Mark Burg Cashes Out Oren … 
EMMYS: 'Mad Men's Matt Weiner 
EMMYS: 'Boardwalk Empire' Terence Winter 
EMMYS: 'Walking Dead's Frank Darabont 
EMMYS: 'Good Wife's Michelle-Robert King 
EMMYS: 'Justified's Graham Yost 
Paramount Making Too Many 3D Demands? 
Hammond: 'Toy Story' Jumps Back Into … 
Warren Beatty Playing Howard Hughes, Great … 
What's Hulu Worth Without Programming? 
Ron Howard, David Koepp Team Up For 'Spy Vs. … 
Jamie Foxx Looming Large In 'Django … 
Just how pushy is Paramount with theater owners on Transformers 3? Well, The New York Times has this interesting detail today: that Michael Bay last week called the chief executives of major theater chains to implore them to show Transformers: Dark Of The Moon in a way that burns out projector bulbs more quickly but makes 3D look brighter and sharper. That's because there's been a continuing problem that "the darkness of 3D is starting to impact movie satisfaction," media analyst Rich Greenfield tells me. "This was a key problem with Pirates 3D, with both Green Lantern and Harry Potter starting off with darker imagery and then layering on 3D glasses that darken the images further."
Last week was also when Paramount told theaters they have to play the pic in 3D next Tuesday night for the early screenings to spread buzz or they can't play the film at all. I hear the company line has been “Michael Bay is insisting on the Digital presentation”. Or is this really all about numbers and Paramount's screwing Disney and Warner Bros on their 3D dates? Case in point. Paramount won’t even accept the 35mm Technicolor 3D release prints if theaters have the Digital in house. And the studio is telling theaters it's a four-week minimum in their Digital theater. This strategy succeeds in keeping Pixar's Cars 2 out of some digital runs, which will cut back the grosses while forcing Warner Bros' Harry Potter And The Deathly Hollows Part 2 out of 3D dates as well.
"And watch, miraculously on July 22nd, Paramount will open those screens up to get Captain America opened on as many 3D screens as they can," a source tells me. "Instead of working together on the 3D situation where the public is seemingly growing apathetic, Paramount takes the 'every man for himself' attitude. Real smart. That’s why exhibitors are going to take every opportunity to dump all over them when they can. Watch what happens in November. In a four-week span you have seven films from different studios all jockeying for 3D. Paramount’s line will be 'Katzenberg [Puss N Boots] & Scorsese [Hugo Cabret] are insisting on Digital theaters' and the other five will be beating their brains out to get whatever dates they can. Should be fun to watch."
Asked for comment, Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore would say only this about his studio's 3D strategy: "The best thing for 3D was Avatar giving people a spectacular 3D experience. The goodwill towards 3D lasted just over a year. Transformers 3 can give 3D the shot in the arm. That's what would be great for 3D and the industry." However, Greenfield points out that, despite Warner Bros marketing muscle, 2D ticket sales have been outpacing 3D ticket sales for the upcoming Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 2 based on the live “top sellers” data on the Pulse section of Fandango’s iPad app. Tickets went on sale recently and its 2D tickets are in the top 5, but not its 3D tickets.
Click Here for Deadline Email News Alerts - Subscribe Today!
Loading ...
The problem is no one knows how far down the 3D curve will go as a result of bad films. bad conversion, bad projection, high costs, etc.
In a sense this was like Iraq…badly planned, badly executed, badly mismanaged, far too costly, questionable results…with no exit strategy.
Less death and maiming, though.
While I agree that bad conversions, bad movies, etc. haven’t helped, those aren’t the reasons 3D is waning.
It’s a novelty that has worn off. Plain and simple.
Won’t be long until movies are again exhibited/filmed only in 2D. 3D will again go into hibernation for 30 years or so.
Strange talk from a man who stood before an industry covention and said he would never do a 3D film because it didn’t add anything.
The action sequences in Transformers 2 was dark and blurred due to the machines, which all looked the same. In 3D, it’s going to get darker still. Almost like a pirated cam print. Enough said.
1- Bay calling the theaters to make sure his movie looks bright and good- FANTASTIC!
2- As audiences keep on proving, 3D is a choice, and they’re only paying the premium for certain products. Pirates and Green Lantern are not essential 3D experiences, Transformers is moreso.
3- I’m seeing Potter in 2D… like I saw the other 7 films.
4- Paramount being “everyman for himself.” Get over it, this is Hollywood. Everyone will be fine.
…Billy Friedkin used to call the theaters himself during EXORCIST runs to make sure both the volume was set to the right level, and that the projectionists weren’t trying to cut electricity costs by dimming the bulb (since the film was dark)
-RnsW
Is Bay or the studio also informing theatre owners that only 1/3 of the film was actually shot in 3D? Just askin’…
I hated how dark Pirates 4 was at the Grove. It sucked!
Transformers Dark of the Moon was actually shot in 3D. Not just a third of it.
I’m no MB fan, but I like the notion that he (i.e. his producers/executive assistant/production executives) worked the phones to actual theater operators (i.e. Executives of national theater chains) to ensure that the film is to be seen in the manner it was intended. I have long been saying I will not see this film… but I may be inclined to sneak into a screening out of curiosity.
Apparently Megan Fox was right after all, he does seem to think he’s Hitler.
>Apparently Megan Fox was right after all, he does seem to think he’s Hitler
Holy cow, just imagine if Megan Fox had worked for Stanley Kubrick!
And, according to legend, didn’t Kubrick often call the managers of individual theaters directly and insist they use projector masks and such that he approved of?
Is there a chance that Transformers 3 will be, say, as good as even a bad Kubrick movie?
Kubrick never made a bad movie.
Well I’m glad somebody is smacking sense into exhibitors over dim bulbs. This was a problem even before 3D. Holding on to a DLP bulb longer than it’s median lifespan (which is when it starts to dim) could potentially save a theater about 50 cents to a dollar an hour of projection time. We’re talking a penny or two per ticket, soda, and bag of popcorn. The fact that so many are willing to ruin the experience over this pittance is sad.
Paramount and Michael Bay are asking the theater chains to give audiences their money’s worth. Dark and murky 3D comes from theater owners being cheap and running their projectors at the minimum number of lamberts.
And everyone knows the 3D in Harry Potter is post converted bullshit.
If there is a shot in the arm to be had from Transformers 3D it will be from a syringe filled with cyanide.
Don’t most theaters burn their bulbs at a lower brightness to supposedly lengthen the life of the bulb? I thought that was proved as bunk. So why would showing this movie at the proper brightness levels be a big issue?
While the demands for the time frames that Transformers keeps the 3D screens are silly, demanding that the theaters show the movie in the best presentation possible is something that should be commended. If only they could figure out a way to get that without coming off like bullies.
I’m sooooooo over 3D. I won’t pay for it again.
Ditto!
Maybe if Cameron does another 200 million dollar film on Pandora, but that’s about it.
I think it’s just another way to gouge the consumer with unneeded fees. Like Comcast (or Xfinity now!) tacking on an “account management fee”.
Manage my a$$!
3D… is a huge disappointment. It does nothing to make bad films better, the glasses are annoying, it costs too much, the public isn’t clamoring for it… why push it? As so often… follow the money.
Of course Harry Potter is selling more in 2d. It’s post-converted and most fans were unhappy about it.
time to pull the plug on 3D already.
I saw Kung Fu Panda 2 in 3D at AMC Burbank and it was bright, crisp and looked great. (Really good use of 3D too.) Green Lantern in 3D at Arclight was dim. (Not even commenting on the movie but the projection.) It’s hard to justify the extra bucks for a sub par experience.
That said, there’s nothing wrong with filmmakers demanding better projection quality for their movies. But the problem with 3D isn’t just projection. It’s Hollywood’s problem for looking right past the main issue…3D alone isn’t enough. It’s how you use it that counts.
3D is a dead man walking. Get rid of it.
In America when you’re up S*** creek without a paddle, not the rest of the world where Pirates 4 just entered the 10 grossing of all time.
I thought I would never say this but HOORAY FOR MICHAEL BAY! You go girl!
I’ve been predicting Transformers 3 will open below expectations and I’m holding to that here. The second movie was so bad it’s going to drag down this one — because I’ll tell you something: the shots look exactly the same as the other movies! This 3D thing is just more bad press spin…
I had this experience with Tron – was so dark that it was easier to watch the movie blurry but without the glasses so I could see the features
Why do people continue to lie about how much of Transformers 3 was shot in 3D? Bay shot 2/3 of the movie in 3D, the rest was converted in post or entirely CGI. End of Story.
Wait a minute. Didn’t WB and Disney have dibs on these screens before Paramount set the release date for TF3? They did announce “Harry Potter 8″ and “Cars 2″ for 3D before then.
Usually when a studio books a movie for a specific date for 3D and IMAX, they would have a contract locking them in for a set amount of screens. And any movie that came out before that would have to relinquish those screens by the time their competitors’ releases come out.
Or am I confusing it with IMAX?
One dim bulb deserves another, I guess.
Bay would have better luck doing what Cameron did for Avatar, do a separate, brighter color timing for the 3D version to counteract the dimmer image (which is mostly caused by the 3D glasses).
Studios need to be better partners with exhibition in lots of ways (it’s a crime there is little to no margin for GOOD exhibitors from the movies themselves) but exhibitors are absolutely killing business right now. They don’t pay for or adequately train professional/quality projectionists nor have systems in place to ensure quality control (by design or apathy). They leave policing auditoriums to toothless policy trailers and play fire and forget as soon as the house lights go down.
The business NEEDS to get people to shut off their damn PDA’s and phones when they go into a theatre. You aren’t a spy or a surgeon waiting for an organ to be delivered and if you are you shouldn’t be at a movie. If your offspring can’t survive 2 hours without you consulting a webcam you should stay at home or if you NEED to check in you NEED to leave the theatre. The absurd amount of talking and texting and phoning is completely out of control for what is supposed to be a public performance space. If people can’t be civil policies can train them to be. Paying through the nose for an experience that has no quality control is absurd and when it goes bad, regardless of the quality of the movie, it amounts to theft. Spending $100 to take 4 people to a poorly projected movie sitting with dozens of people yakking nonsensically and shining mini flashlights throughout?
So exhibitors are cutting corners to shortchange moviegoers? No! Tell me it ain’t so!
This story is as old as the hills. screens with holes in them, out of focus projection, scratched analog prints. If the filmmakers don’t keep an eye on these guys they’ll let entropy happen, and just going digital doesn’t solve things. You still have to keep on their asses (to keep on the asses of the minimum wage idiots doing the projection).
You’re absolutely right. I’ve been a projectionist for 7 years now and on the opening weekend of Rango a roller came loose and scratched the hell out of the entire print. Black lines covered the screen. We should have gotten a new print, but the owner refused and for the next 5 weeks we kept showing the scratched print.
Bad presentation for theatre owners is perfectly acceptable if it saves a few bucks.
Bay demanding ‘leibensraum’ for his 3D movie ……. Very interesting!
Good for Michael Bay! In the 1950s era of roadshow pictures and must-see epics, projection standards were strictly enforced.
For only a bit more money and effort, the theatrical cinema experience can be greatly improved. Now is the time, again — 3D or no 3D.
(Psst — the quality of in-home cinema is getting better, and better, and better.)
ENOUGH of 3D!!!
It’s a cheap gimmick that should only be reserved for the lamest of films that needs some kind of hook to lure in audiences. That’s how the fad started in the ’50s with those kitschy horror flicks.
Spend the money instead on making better movies with top writers, actors and directors.
No one is clamoring for 3D…ask any moviegoer, and they really couldn’t care less. If a movie is good, it will stand on its own merit.
Give it up James Cameron! Stop behaving like a 3D mafia boss pushing the technology down the throats of everyone in town because of your financial interests. Michael Bay was originally against the technology, and I wish he would’ve stuck to his guns.
Hollywood is losing $$$$$$$ left and right over the 3D frenzy – just let it go and get back to making interesting movies. Trust me, audiences don’t give a s**t about 3D. But if you think you’ll pry extra bucks out of people’s pockets for the experience, you’re already losing big time. Need I recite the failures so far this year??
Wow there are some ill-informed posts here. To whomever said that only one third of the movie was shot in 3D – get your facts right. It was closer to 70%. The portion that was shot in 2D and post converted were the tightly framed shots, close-ups, etc.
Even Avatar employed the same method – it was absolutely not 100% natively shot 3D. The difference between these productions and say, Clash Of The Titans, is they take time and careful preparation with the percentage that needs to be converted.
For the idiot who complained about the action being difficult to view in 2D, let alone 3D – Bay has openly admit to his almost frenetic visual style, then gone on to say that it has been toned down for this film because that style simply doesn’t work with 3D.
Whether or not the film ends up being any good is anyone’s guess until it is released… but you can absolutely not fault the man in those departments.
Now they need to upgrade their projector software to 48fps display. That’s great if they increase the brightness, because it makes the picture look better. These theaters are being cheap and turning their bulbs down to save money on them. See, if the hardware is set properly for 3D, and the footage is shot properly, it can look fantastic. Unfortunately, the reason it’s so unpopular right now is because not only do theaters not display it properly, but filmmakers don’t utilize it properly, and don’t film it properly, and the studios force it on their films improperly.
Speaking as someone from Australia and not in the thick of the huge media spin of Hollywood, I have been to see a few 3D films in the past couple of years, and as many comments have said, it depends on the movie and the use of 3D as to whether it’s worth it or not. I watched Avatar and Tron Legacy in 3D, and they were brilliant. I watched Thor and Clash of the Titans in 3D, and they were very poor. The 3D element is only good if used properly (either as completely immersive environments like Avatar, or as things jumping out at you all the time ala Journey to the Centre of the Earth 3D). If Michael Bay has used the 3D element properly, then this should be a brilliant movie to watch. I personally am going to see it in 3D.
Also, I never had dimness issues when watching Tron Legacy in 3D, unlike one other poster here. I assume it’s because maybe over here in Aus, the cinema owners aren’t all tightwads like they are over there in the US and run their projectors at the correct brightness for the movie.
Why is this so laudable? Stanley Kubrick regularly checked out theaters to make sure that they were precisely showing his movies. He also checked newspaper print ads to ensure they were the right size! Some filmmakers need to spend more attention to their exhibition, instead of dumping the movies in the theaters and going off on vacation.
>Stanley Kubrick regularly checked out theaters to make sure that they were precisely showing his movies. He also checked newspaper print ads to ensure they were the right size!
Well, now, just imagine if Megan Fox had worked for Stanley Kubrick!
Yes. Imagine it:
“Open the pod bay doors, Mikaela.”
“Dave, do you think I’m too thin? Dave?”
The biggest problem is that the dramatic increase in price for watching 3D. I can’t afford to pay another 50 percent of a ticket price for every 3D movie — please theaters lower the price for matinees at least. they are the ones who have ruined 3D.
It costs significantly more to book a film in 3D than 2D. If you think it’s the theatres reaping the money from 3D, ask yourself this: Why would the studios demand more money for 3D if the theatre was getting all that extra money? When I was a projectionist, we had movies sell 3:1 in 2D over 3D, yet we would keep the 3D because of the studio. Also, Disney often sends checkers to the theatres to check for proper aspect ratio and and brightness. Disney also sends the projectionists directly letters telling exactly how they want them projected and reward projectionists with nice movie shirts for doing so. This Paramount ploy is nothing new. Most of these chain execs. know nothing of projection and the cheap labor they have running projectors won’t know how to play them properly or won’t care to, let alone the word even getting to the projectionists to begin with. When I told a manager once a film was in scope instead of flat on a digital film, he said it was digital and didn’t even know the difference between the two. Many theatres crop movies to the point of embarrassment. And yes, theatres run lamps to the point of them being toast. Those theatres should be outed and not allowed to book films…
Personally, I think that 3D is pretty much dead as a doornail. Nikki has reported time and time again that 2D is outgrossing 3D for the most part and the onslaught of these summer and holiday titles won’t change that. People are going to flock to 2D because it’s less expensive in this bad economy. Paramont is taking a risk by doing this monopoly on the 3D market. Is it wise? Probably not given the fact that 2D sells more than 3D these days. This is a big risk to take. Paramont might get a case of buyers remorse if this gamble fails.
My take on 3D, as a theatre manager. They say it’s for ‘The Experience’ right? Studios should make no more than 3 movies a year in 3D, and make them good movies with GOOD 3D. No post conversion, no barely 3D crap. Make 3D something that people can be anxious for, not something they can go see almost every movie in. It may be too late, it seems like everyone hates 3D. Personally, I would rather watch 2D, and it sucks on my end, when the studios and such push 3D and expect me to push 3D when I’m not that fond of it myself.
As far as the darker images in 3D, the lens is covered with a dark screen that enables the effect, as well as the glasses which make it even darker, it can be a brand new bulb, it’s still going to be darker than 2D. Kung Fu Panda 3D was brighter, because it’s a brighter animated movie. GL, Transformers..both dark movies, they’re going to be darker 3D’s.
The only way 3D is going to stick around, IMO, is if they cut the # down from 50 – 60 per year to 5 – 10, make them good examples of the technology, and cut the prices. An extra $1 – $2 would be plenty. It’s really annoying when people complain to me like I have anything to do with it about why 3D is so much more expensive.
3D isn’t terrible, BAD 3D is terrible.
Incidentally, George Lucas told exhibitors they couldn’t even HAVE the prequels unless they purchased the appropriate DLP system and they were what? 30,000 a piece?
Those who think Paramount wants to give you the experience you deserve…well you deserve to be ripped off, you are dumb.
3D tickets cost much more so Paramount will make MUCH more. As simple as that.
And MB is calling theatres so he can say “I had the highest grossing film in 2011, I’m the best director ever”
The problem is digital projection. I can see PIXELATED EDGES on the frackin’ images!!! It totally pulls me out of the movie.
Why is digital projection supposed to be so much better that the studios are even insisting on it?
Because it is much better. The image is more stable, brighter, and has a great defintion. It also doesn’t age over 2 weeks and ensures constant quality of projection. If you see pixels in a digital screening, complain, this isn’t normal at all.
Also, because it costs less to distribute the movie. No print costs, ability to play with trailering better before the movie starts (coming soon) etc.
I would rather mow my lawn than see a 3D movie, even if it was a movie was about me mowing my lawn.
100% agreed. Dim bulbs were a problem before 3D, and theaters back then admitted to running them dim to save $$$.
Couple things.
Only 1 camera out of seven was 3-d the rest was conversion. I’m curious to see how that goes together.
3-d inherently needs to be edited slower than 2-d in order to let your eyes adjust to varying IO’s.
Bay probably was only interested in the theatres useing bulbs that were not old. To keep costs down theatres often use bulbs that should have been replaced months before.
Imagine bulbs on a scale from 7-1, seven being brightest, many theatres operate bulbs around 4 or 3. That is usually fine for 2-d, but with overlaid images not so good.
3D can be good or it can be bad. Avatar was great! I saw it in IMAX 3D twice. Thor? Not so much. I’ll be seeing Captain America in 2D, thank you very much! But all of the Harry Potter films that I’ve seen in IMAX 3D have been very good. (The idiots in the audience were actually trying to grab the objects in front of them! Hilarious!) Even though it is post-conversion 3D, I’m still looking forward to seeing a full HP movie in IMAX 3D, instead of just portions of it. (Transformers better not bump HP out of IMAX in my area or I’ll be pissed!)
Whether a studio can do good 3D or not doesnt matter that much, people don’t really care. It took a long time for us to find a theater to see Thor in 2D because we just dont like 3D, and we’re far from the only ones.
3D is a zombie that won’t go down. Jim Cameron resurrected the format, and now it’s a plague in movie theaters. It’s a fun diversion for a special event, nothing more.
If Cameron had only not gotten the bends and gone mad on that one dive, we’d be a lot more sane now.
I’ve got no problem with urging theaters to turn up the damn bulbs. Increasing quality control would go a long way to bringing back people to theaters. Hell, the Alamo Drafthouse prides themselves on turning up their bulbs when its necessary. That’s nothing but a good thing.
Paramount being a bully? Not cool.
I hate 3d more than life itself but even I think this article went too far out of its way to make Bay look like a villain for requesting that the theaters project his movie in an acceptable manner. The article says hes demanding theaters “show Transformers: Dark Of The Moon in a way that burns out projector bulbs more quickly” which is a twisted way of saying hes simply asking them to do the right thing. The theaters show movies in a darkened state to save money, they’re the bad guys. Its the words “burns out projector bulbs more quickly” that bothers me. It should read something like Bay asks theaters to not nickel and dime the theater experience to death.
Desparation. The history of 3 D is full of promises, unmet. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Wonder if anyone in charge, anywhere, knows, or knew, why 3 D in the 50s went belly up. You can only throw so many spears at the audience and then they yawn. It is not the new big thing, it is a gimmick, one whoses novelty has worn thin. And all those 3 D projects greenlighted better look good in flat screen. Same with TV makers.