Michael Bay Won't Let 3D Die!

Directors and apparent BFFs Michael Bay and James Cameron recently discussed the fact that Bay has to keep making his films in 3D or it will "die". Is that such a bad thing? Read on for my thoughts!

3D is making one hell of a surge in movies right now-some are shot in the format, while others are converted in post just so the theater can charge you an extra $5 for a ticket when the effect looks horrible. If you've read my article here on Word's Finest about 3D in movies, you know that I said that 3D isn't all bad and it can be fun. Well guess what? In recent months I've changed my mind as every other movie coming out has "IN 3D!" tacked onto it, and I'm sick of it dammit.

You can imagine, then, that when this article from the awesome British movie magazine "Empire" popped into my RSS feed, I was already fearing the worse. As it turns out, this really is the stuff from my nightmares.

Let's get one thing straight before I go anything further. I hate Michael Bay. A lot. I really do. Whenever I tell people this, they attack me and tell me I'm just a bandwagon hater, and I do so because it's popular. Wrong! I hate Bay because his films are the most empty-headed wastes of money out there. People call me out and say they're at least entertaining...not to me. I actually feel like my intelligence is insulted watching his films. It's that bad.

In any case, I clicked on the article out of boredom, and I gotta say, it makes me sad for the future of movies. Let's start off with this hilarious quote that features a pretty unecessary name drop:

“Ridley Scott once said, ‘Michael Bay and I have always been shooting in 3D.’ What he meant by that is that I always put background, mid-ground, foreground in all my shots.” 

First of all Michael, please don't put yourself in the same league as Ridley Scott, who has made game-changing movies like Blade Runner and Alien. You've made crap like Pearl Harbor and Transformers  (yes, I maintain Transformers was crap. Get over it.)

Second of all, your backgrounds, mid-grounds, and foregrounds all consists of a combination of the following: unnecessary lens flare, hot girls in jean shorts, explosions, or CGI. Let's take a look at this still from Transformers:

The foreground is what looks like a truck and a tank, both kind of covered in ash and not the highlight of the shot. The mid-ground is a guy being flung by an explosion. And the background is said explosion. That's it. The only thing you're really drawn to here is an explosion because, well, it's a goddamn explosion. There's no depth to the shot, and it's certainly not "3D".

Now to compare, let's take a look at a shot from Ridley Scott's Blade Runner:

In the foreground of this one, we have what looks like some kind of "cyber punks" and almost a futuristic version of a religious group. In the mid-ground, Harrison Ford in mid action leaping over cars and taxi cabs, obviously mid-chase. And in the back, neon signs that look like they belong downtown in a big city. So here's the difference-this shot pulls your attention to all 3 "grounds"-you're looking just as much at the crazy punk-looking guys are you are the hero mid-chase. This is an in-depth shot.

In any case, the second part of the article mentions that James Cameron apparently talked to Bay about the 3D he's using for Transformers 3:

“Cameron was like, ‘Mike, directors like you have to do 3D or it is going to die.’ I love it when you see these things: ‘The 3D event of the year!’ You see it every movie. There was a recent movie where you go in and before it starts they put up a little plate: ‘These scenes were not shot in 3D.’ Are you kidding? I think our 3D works really well with the robots, the size, the girth, the weight of it… it’s spectacular.”

OK first of all, why does he love it when he sees "The 3D event of the year"?! At least 5 movies a year try to say that, and it gets old fast. Bay then goes on to complain about some films not having 3D for the entire feature. Guess what Mikey? Watching 3D for too long actually gives a lot of people headaches and your eyes can feel rough afterward. Sometimes only partial 3D is best. Take for example Harry Potter and The Half Blood Prince, which featured 3D only in about the first 15 minutes of the film. That was enough to, amongst other things, see Harry and Dumbledore disparate in 3D, which was pretty damn cool.

Second of all, the fact that he's really excited about 3D because it will make his CGI robots look really big and shiny seems to highlight the reason 3D can be overkill in the first place. Is having a giant goddamn robot fighting another giant goddamn robot really enough for you Mike? You have to have them fighting in a format that will ultimately give me a headache?

Just wait till he's in 3D smashing shit...mwahahaha..mwahahaha...MWAHAHAHAHAH!

The thought of it all takes me back to something someone said to me once. I was going to see Up with a friend and asked her if she wanted to see it in 3D or just regular. "Regular." She said without hesitation. "Two dimensions are enough for me when I watch a movie."

If she said that about a Pixar movie, which looks great but can be tame in terms of action, I'm sure her thoughts on the matter can really extend a Michael Bay explosion-fest.

So thank you Michael Bay, for making me realize 3D should just die and you should not in fact make sure it survives. I enjoy my movies in a additional dimension occasionally, but if you're the one who's going to being using it the most and trying to keep it alive, I fold.