James Cameron and Michael Bay on 3D & Digital Filmmaking

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

IrishJedi

Super Freak
***
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
27,880
Reaction score
29
Location
Atlanta, GA
I find myself in complete agreement with Michael Bay and not Cameron on this. That makes me feel kinda dirty. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing Bay directing a big action film with a solid script someday:


baycameron-568x378.jpg


This evening Michael Bay and James Cameron took the stage at the Paramount Theater (on the Paramount studio lot) to talk about 3D movies, mainly as a promotional event for Transformers: Dark of the Moon. We were shown some footage and the new trailer (I don’t do reviews of footage presentations anymore, but let me say that if the whole movie is anything like the first five minutes, which we were shown, it’s a flat-footed, horribly expositional and tedious production), and Bay and Cameron talked a lot about the state of the 3D art.

We weren’t allowed to bring recording devices (this event is exclusive to Hollywood Reporter. Whatevz), so I took some notes but was unable to really keep up with the great conversation. What was interesting is that Bay sat on stage as a not full convert; a couple of years ago he called 3D a gimmick at ShoWest, and while he shot the new Transformers in 3D, he isn’t afraid to talk about what a pain in the ass the process could be.

The most interesting anecdote he told was about how his first day shooting in 3D, shooting footage for an opening sequence on the Moon, was amazing. He was getting incredible shots and loved how the 3D worked for him. “It was great to sculpt with space,” he said. He went to bed a believer. But in the morning he awoke to the news that the hard drive on which the shots were stored had been corrupted, and they lost everything.

Bay remains a film purist; he says that digital doesn’t look right to him. He shot many of the close-ups and character stuff in Transformers: Dark of the Moon on film, post-converting it; his estimate is that about 20% of the movie is post-converted (20% is completely digital creations and 60% is digital native 3D). Cameron, however, has been all about digital since he finished Titanic (he made the statement that he hadn’t shot on film since 1997, but if you look at his filmography that isn’t the most impressive claim).

What was interesting to me was the difference in perspective between the two men. Cameron, the evangelist of 3D, shot his lauded 3D movie on incredibly controlled conditions, and most of Avatar is digitally created anyway. Bay, on the other hand, shot his film in the real world. He remains a director who prefers to augment reality with CGI whenever possible. For Bay the 3D rigs were clunky, and not quite tough enough to meet his needs as a run and gun director who shoots fast and (sometimes literally) dirty. “You need to make [the rigs] more robust,” Bay snipped at Cameron.

Bay estimates that shooting 3D added 30 million to the budget of Transformers: Dark of the Moon, which Cameron waved away, saying a movie like this will definitely make that much extra money with the 3D bump. You have to assume he’s right. Still, Bay isn’t fully sold on the expense and effort required; while he feels that 3D was the proper way to make this movie, he says that it’s only right for certain films. Cameron, however, said he thinks every movie could benefit in some way from 3D.

The men did eventually touch on what has long bothered me about 3D – the fact that it’s sort of utopian. It’s hard to get a good 2D theatrical experience, let alone the more demanding 3D experience. “It’s the Wild West out there,” Bay said in reference to theatrical presentation of 3D.

“Brightness is the biggest problem” facing 3D theatrical exhibition, Cameron agreed. There are projectors that can show 3D movies at brightness levels that make them look terrific, he claimed, but theater owners don’t use them right. “They turn the bulbs down,” he said. “They think that they’re saving money, but they’re hurting business.”

It’s ironic – at the beginning of the presentation Cameron said that 3D was bringing people back to theaters (a statement that I find disingenuous at best), and in the end he blamed theater owners for making the experience poor.

https://www.badassdigest.com/2011/0...s-is-the-biggest-problem-facing-theatrical-3d
 
don't like either of these guys. Cameron has made some great movies, but l think he is cocky. l don't like him.

l don't agree with him when he says it's hard to get a good 2D theatrical experience, what the hell are they talking about. 3D causes more problems for people in theaters then 2D.

l also disagree that every movie can benefit from 3D. in my opinion only a small amount of movies can benefit from 3D.

l bet if this dumb 3D craze finally ended tommorow and no one wanted 3D any more Cameron would kill himself.
 
I'm not a big fan of Bay's filmography, but I applaud him for being skeptical of all this digital mumbo-jumbo and being more a film purist.
 
Though I'll pick a James Cameron movie to watch 100 times out of 100 over a Bay movie, I find myself more on Bay's side on the issue of supplementing traditional film with CG.

3-D is a lame gimmick that I can do without.
 
I think 3D is great for "take you to another world" and animated movies. But there can be a real beauty in 2D photographic composition that I don't like the idea of losing in films across the board.

It should always be a case by case, movie by movie basis. I'm not for a wholesale industry wide conversion.
 
I think 3D is great for "take you to another world" and animated movies. But there can be a real beauty in 2D photographic composition that I don't like the idea of losing in films across the board.

It should always be a case by case, movie by movie basis. I'm not for a wholesale industry wide conversion.

I feel the same about physical film vs digital.
 
I feel the same about physical film vs digital.

I want to agree with you on that but I think theaters have been muddying up the presentation too much for me to have a definitive opinion yet. I'm talking about theaters that have switched to all digital screens and project movies shot on film, and old theaters that do the reverse for digital movies (like most of them when AOTC and ROTS were first released.)

I don't think anyone loses if the industry can always keep a "case by case" approach though. The only wholesale change that I do think would probably benefit everyone across the board might be Peter Jackson's current push for cameras to start shooting at 48 fps.
 
My reservations with all-digital filmmaking go way beyond just presentation. It's the creative, artistic and technical aspect of the craft that's also at a crossroads. I'm still one of those who feels FILM is just much more intimate and organic than digital. I love the process of working with a physical, chemical medium. Even beyond movies. I'm a photographer on the side. And while I have jumped into the digital SLR world there are many times when I believe actual film stock could not be substituted for.

Also, film still offers more picture definition than digital HD.

Right now, the main advantage of digital over chemical is that it's simply cheaper and logistically easier. That's why Lucas has a hard-on for it. It saves him a ton of cash and effort. But if anyone thinks the 1080p HD masters of AOTC & ROTS have more picture definition than an actual film print they are kidding themselves.
 
____ OFF AND DIE.

Bay = awesome.

Exactly what I would expect some who's not yet old enough to legally drink to say. ;)

Bay has technical skills for sure. But the truth is he has yet to prove he has the artistic merit to put forth a solid film with a thorough narrative structure or put characters on screen that seem more authentic than those in video game cut scenes.

Bay can shoot the ____ out of a movie. No doubt. Not a bad editor, either. But he's still far from a good filmmaker. He needs to show prowess beyond just the technical.
 
Hate on Bay all you want, but the man IS a genius. If you've ever listen to his commentaries, this stuff he states is pretty much key for anyone who either has an intrest for doing film, or just curious how the whole process works.

He talks about how hard it was being a first time director...all the quibbles on the set, the arguments between actors. He doesnt sugar coat it....he states it up front. I like that.

Yes, his movies are action packed stupid ____....but he knows it, and he expects you to know it. He doesnt set out to make an amazing film which will sweep the oscars, and ends up with something like Transformers or Bad Boys.

He makes Bad Boys, and Transformers...he doesnt make something and realize it's bad later, like Brett Ratner, and McG.

That's why I fail to understand the hate.

Only movies of Bay's that sucked was Pearl Harbor and ROTF. And I still enjoy ROTF at certain points.
 
Does he have technical prowess and a unique vision and style? Yes. That alone makes him much better than Sommers or Ratner. Is he a "Genius"? Um... NO. That title is reserved for those who can deliver films that are true classics in every sense, not just with visual flair.

Sure, he's made some decent to above-average popcorn flicks. But name one Michael Bay film that you can tell me with a straight face is GREAT or anywhere approaching a masterpiece. Genius? Come on.
 
I've heard Bay's commentaries. He doesn't think his films are good and then bad later because he never realizes they're bad in the first place. And I absolutely believe he made Pearl Harbor thinking it was Saving Private Ryan/Titanic Oscar bait.

I honestly think teenagers trumpeting him as a genius are really all he's looking for. I don't see him ever evolving as a real filmmaker.
 
Does he have technical prowess and a unique vision and style? Yes. That alone makes him much better than Sommers or Ratner. Is he a "Genius"? Um... NO. That title is reserved for those who can deliver films that are true classics in every sense, not just with visual flair.

Sure, he's made some decent to above-average popcorn flicks. But name one Michael Bay film that you can tell me with a straight face is GREAT or anywhere approaching a masterpiece. Genius? Come on.

What is a genius filmmaker? Is it the ability to create sweeping stories, characters...all that? Or is it the ability to do things that's never been done in movies?

Both.

He's a genius. But not in the same way you'd call Kubrick or Spielberg a genius.

And I will stand by this to the end.
 
I've heard Bay's commentaries. He doesn't think his films are good and then bad later because he never realizes they're bad in the first place. And I absolutely believe he made Pearl Harbor thinking it was Saving Private Ryan/Titanic Oscar bait.

I honestly think teenagers trumpeting him as a genius are really all he's looking for. I don't see him ever evolving as a real filmmaker.

Because...he knows what he's doing. Transformers is amazing. It's the perfect summer event film.

Pearl Harbor sucks. He tried doing that kind of flick, and he failed. He's still allowed to like it. For whatever reason.
 
A genius filmmaker is capable of delivering classic, lasting films that are both popular and critically lauded (for good reason) and even a masterpiece every now and then. Bay has yet to come close.

And TRANSFORMERS may be a fun, dumb Summer popcorn flick. But even it had several fundamental issues that prevent it from transcending above such a low mark and among the classics.
 
Agree, and disagree. I said he was a genius, but not in the same sense as other filmakers such as Kubrick, Spielberg, Nolan (yesss...)

How about this...he's a action genius director. :lol Or Explosion genius.

He's the best in the biz when it comes to delivering the explosions.
 
My reservations with all-digital filmmaking go way beyond just presentation. It's the creative, artistic and technical aspect of the craft that's also at a crossroads. I'm still one of those who feels FILM is just much more intimate and organic than digital. I love the process of working with a physical, chemical medium. Even beyond movies.

Definitely a valid point. I hear you. Same with books and e-readers and iPads, high maintenance grass and astroturf.

Right now, the main advantage of digital over chemical is that it's simply cheaper and logistically easier.

Yeah but I think its important to keep in mind that almost no film production has infinite resources. In a perfect world every movie will be shot on film, have real full scale sets and buildings, etc. Its all part of the great compromise and deciding which corners can be cut to the greatest benefit of any given production.

Of course if any movies ever had blank check budgets it was the SW PT so its ironic that Lucas of all people felt the need to push the new medium.
 
Back
Top