"Transformers: Dark of the Moon"

[WillEagle]

I planned on seeing this in 3D but a last minute niece birthday party made it to late for me to catch the matinee time for it. So again with the wife and mom we saw a 3:50 show in 2D. And I thought it was amazing!!! I give this an easy 10 out of 10. I really enjoyed it for what is was, a popcorn movie. I thought the story was pretty good and the action scenes were amazing.  This will be a blu-ray buy for sure. There were many parts I really enjoyed and here are a few. Spoilers!!! [spoiler]I really liked how our serviceman kept showing up in the Chicago scenes to help with the decepticons. One of my favorite scenes is you have our guys up front going after the baddies and you have Autobots in the rear as backup. I just thought that was cool. Also Nimoy was cool as the voice of Sentinel but I didn't think he would turn bad. Also loved the Trek references. Of course I always love those in any movie. Another thing I liked about the movie was that the Autobots were part of a covert team. Also really enjoyed the Apollo 11 scenes on the moon. And my favorite cameo of the movie was Buzz Aldrin!! Awesome!![/spoiler]

[Rico]

Going today to see it, in good, old-fashioned 2-D.  You know I really hate calling it 2-D.  It really isn't 2-D and 3-D isn't really 3-D.  Oh, well.

[X]

Going today to see it, in good, old-fashioned 2-D.  You know I really hate calling it 2-D.  It really isn't 2-D and 3-D isn't really 3-D.  Oh, well.

I get what you're saying, but seeing a film shot in 3D in 2D is kinda of like seeing a color film in black and white for the sake of nostalgia. Also, while 3D might not be 3D, you're right calling 2D that because it really is 2D. Where as 3D is using a 2D medium to simulate 3D.

[Bryancd]

Going today to see it, in good, old-fashioned 2-D.  You know I really hate calling it 2-D.  It really isn't 2-D and 3-D isn't really 3-D.  Oh, well.

I get what you're saying, but seeing a film shot in 3D in 2D is kinda of like seeing a color film in black and white for the sake of nostalgia. Also, while 3D might not be 3D, you're right calling 2D that because it really is 2D. Where as 3D is using a 2D medium to simulate 3D.

ok...what? Now I am totally confused... ;)

[JeffM]

I just really did not like the second movie.  And I will also admit that I do not rewatch the first one as much as I thought I would.  It's not as good a movie as I thought it was when I first watched it.

It has some great moments...but lots of stuff inbetween them.

However...this one looks pretty good.  I need to get my family out to see it.   :r2d2line

[X]

Going today to see it, in good, old-fashioned 2-D.  You know I really hate calling it 2-D.  It really isn't 2-D and 3-D isn't really 3-D.  Oh, well.

I get what you're saying, but seeing a film shot in 3D in 2D is kinda of like seeing a color film in black and white for the sake of nostalgia. Also, while 3D might not be 3D, you're right calling 2D that because it really is 2D. Where as 3D is using a 2D medium to simulate 3D.

ok...what? Now I am totally confused... ;)

LOL!

[Bryancd]

So far it looks like Bay's gambit to push the 3D box office is paying off. He not only insisted on theater owners turning up the wattage on the projection bulbs but forced a theaters to show to have a higher percentage of 3D per screen, so the numbers are a bit skewed by that. But overall reaction to what I am hearing is that people really liked the 3D. Like Chris and i have always maintained, done properly and as the barriers of cost fall so that it can be more widely used in films where it's appropriate, 3D is here to stay and I for one am glad. It makes a very fun movie going experience for me.

http://www.moviesonline.ca/2011/07/transformers-3-destroys-box-office-breathes-life-3d/

[X]

So far ot looks like Bay's gambit to push the 3D box office is paying off. He not only insisted on theater owners turning up the wattage on the projection bulbs but forced a theaters to show to have a higher percentage of 3D per screen, so the numbers are a bit skewed by that. But overall reaction to what I am hearing is that people really liked the 3D. Like Chris and i have always maintained, done properly and as the barriers of cost fall so that it can be more widely used in films where it's appropriate, 3D is here to stay and I for one am glad. It makes a very fun movie going experience for me.

http://www.moviesonline.ca/2011/07/transformers-3-destroys-box-office-breathes-life-3d/

That's all I'm saying! I don't need even 50% of movies to have 3D, but if you shoot in 3D it should be enjoyed as the director envisioned. I also think that it bring in people to the seats. With the low penetration of at home 3D, most people have to go out to see the film in 3D to see it how the director wanted. 3D also can't be bootlegged. While I don't see a day in my lifetime where 2D vanishes, I do see one where there will be 3D only released that will keep the bootleggers from stealing a cut of a major box office.

I think that if it's shot for 2D or 3D, then we should enjoy it in it's native medium. That being said, I would love to see far more nature movies in 3D.

[Bryancd]

Yeah, I wouldn't think 3D releases will ever eclipse 2D, the medium doesn't add any value to a romantic comedy or drama. However for Fantasy/Sci-Fi/Action Adventure it can be a great new way to have a film experience and this proves that shot and projected properly it's very effective. Again, 3D will move from the big screen to the little screen, to gaming, et al. It's here to stay.

[Bryancd]

Going today to see it, in good, old-fashioned 2-D.  You know I really hate calling it 2-D.  It really isn't 2-D and 3-D isn't really 3-D.  Oh, well.

I get what you're saying, but seeing a film shot in 3D in 2D is kinda of like seeing a color film in black and white for the sake of nostalgia. Also, while 3D might not be 3D, you're right calling 2D that because it really is 2D. Where as 3D is using a 2D medium to simulate 3D.

ok...what? Now I am totally confused... ;)

LOL!

Actually, in all seriousness, why would a film shot in 3D not look right in 2D? Would the image be different?

[Rico]

Saw this today in "2-D" and enjoyed it a lot.  Theater was pretty full and the crowd seemed to be enjoying it too.  Definitely a more direct, a streamlined story and film than number 2 (which was kind of all over the place).  Some pretty amazing stunts and effects in this one and things not seen in the past two films.  I enjoyed the new love interest for Sam and liked that they seemed to try to give her a bit more to do than Megan Fox.  I still have always had trouble seeing any real chemistry between Shia and the girls in these movies, but I see why they put them in there.  Overall, a definite fun, summer action film and worth my $5.00 to see it in the theaters.  Fun time!

P.S.  I was glad to see Shia got to use his patented "No, no, no, no. no,......no, no,....!"  in this movie too!  :)

[X]

Going today to see it, in good, old-fashioned 2-D.  You know I really hate calling it 2-D.  It really isn't 2-D and 3-D isn't really 3-D.  Oh, well.

I get what you're saying, but seeing a film shot in 3D in 2D is kinda of like seeing a color film in black and white for the sake of nostalgia. Also, while 3D might not be 3D, you're right calling 2D that because it really is 2D. Where as 3D is using a 2D medium to simulate 3D.

ok...what? Now I am totally confused... ;)

LOL!

Actually, in all seriousness, why would a film shot in 3D not look right in 2D? Would the image be different?

I actually have an answer for that. If you watch a 3D film in 2D, there are several times were things come at the camera. In 3D it adds depth, but in 2D it can come off as a bit hokey.

[Rico]

Comes off as a bit hokey when you see it in 3D too.  :)

[jedijeff]

I saw this movie today, and really liked it. I saw it in 3D as well, and thought the 3D was fantastic. Like the others said, it was bright and I thought the visuals were very crisp. I have actually liked all the Transformers movies, but I can see where this one was better then the second one. When Transformers came out in the 80's, I was a bit old by then to get into it, so I don't have a critical eye towards it like others who grew up with it, since I was into Teenagers things at the time.
I really liked that Nimoy did one of the voices, nice throwback to the Cartoon Movie, plus the Trek references were fun.

My one complaint about the movie
[spoiler]I did not like the Nascar Autobots. It took me right out of the movie in those scenes. Every time I saw sequences, I would think to myself, There goes Juan Montoya's car, or Jimmie Johnson's car, or Dale Jr's. Seemed a little forced to me, and trying to make a connection to Nascar that I did not think was necessary. That said, I did like Patrick Dempsey in the movie, and his racing ties were much more subtle.[/spoiler]

[X]

I saw this movie today, and really liked it. I saw it in 3D as well, and thought the 3D was fantastic. Like the others said, it was bright and I thought the visuals were very crisp. I have actually liked all the Transformers movies, but I can see where this one was better then the second one. When Transformers came out in the 80's, I was a bit old by then to get into it, so I don't have a critical eye towards it like others who grew up with it, since I was into Teenagers things at the time.
I really liked that Nimoy did one of the voices, nice throwback to the Cartoon Movie, plus the Trek references were fun.

My one complaint about the movie
[spoiler]I did not like the Nascar Autobots. It took me right out of the movie in those scenes. Every time I saw sequences, I would think to myself, There goes Juan Montoya's car, or Jimmie Johnson's car, or Dale Jr's. Seemed a little forced to me, and trying to make a connection to Nascar that I did not think was necessary. That said, I did like Patrick Dempsey in the movie, and his racing ties were much more subtle.[/spoiler]

As someone not a follower of Nascar, I didn't even notice that. They were just transformers to me and the people I saw the movie with.