Transformers isn't even shiny. It's an orgy of twisted, dirty metal.

“The consumer has had a reaction to bad 3-D and subtle 3-D,” said Rob Moore, Paramount’s vice chairman. “They’re tired of sitting in a theater thinking, ‘Wait, is this movie in 3-D or not?’ Well, with ‘Transformers’ people are going to leave saying, ‘You absolutely must see this in 3-D.’ ”

I don't know how good TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON is; I see it on Monday, in 3D. I'm cautiously looking forward to it. My main issue is with the 3D and how it will be displayed in the theater. Most press screenings the theater has the best possible presentation and even then the screen can run dark - my GREEN LANTERN screening was fairly murky, while my KUNG FU PANDA 2 screening was practically perfect. But Michael Bay and Paramount Studios have been making the rounds to theater owners and chains, urging them to make sure they present their film at the highest possible bright levels, according to the New York Times.

Bay is an ardent defender of 3D, which is funny considering his stance on it more than a year or so ago. But James Cameron (of course) convinced him of the quality of the technology, and now Bay's a convert. My issue is that with Bay's style of filmmaking, 3D could be especially blurry. Looking at his catalog, there's not a shaky-cam shot or flash edit that Bay didn't love, and my one hope with the new film is that because of the technology Bay's calmed down a bit with the seizure-cam and actually shot something coherent. So far, the trailers have me happy in that aspect. I admired that one tracking shot in particular in the trailer as Bumblebee catches Sam falling from a building - no shaking apparent in that and it looked amazing.

But I like the idea that Paramount and Bay care enough about their film's presentation that they are approaching theaters directly on how to project their film. If the audience is going to pay that extra coin they should get the best experience possible. I'm not against charging more for 3D if the theaters make the viewing experience worthwhile. I hope the managers take notice and take a little pride in their work - otherwise 3D may be dead before it really gets started. Numbers aren't looking good for this summer's 3D box office and it's obvious that Bay wants TRANSFORMERS to turn that trend around. We'll see next week.

Nordling, out.

For "Transformers: Dark of the Moon," Paramount and Michael Bay have gone beyond simply asking exhibs to turn their lamps up to proper brightness. Par is taking the unprecedented step of releasing a special digital print aimed at delivering almost twice the brightness of standard 3D projection -- even more than the dual-projector Imax Digital theaters.

By releasing the enhanced digital prints, which have been mastered and color graded for the extra brightness, Par is pushing the 3D envelope even further than James Cameron and Fox did on "We want the best presentation possible," helmer Bay said in an email to Variety. "We have created a special version with extra sharpening, color and contrast. It is a superior look in the format. The brighter the image, the brain processes in a different way (sic) and the result sharpens and makes it more vibrant.

"We did many studies on the formats for presentation and I found this to be the best result."

The special brighter digital prints will go to about 2,000 theaters, all using the RealD 3D system. Remaining screens, including all RealD competitors, will run at standard brightness.

eh it's the same shit essentially.

I'm really expecting a lot of Transformers 3D in any case. If it doesn't wow me, then 3D will strictly be something I just see for the gimmick that it is (i.e. Pirhanna 3DD).

Piranha 3DD is the only upcoming I'm definitely seeing in 3D. The first one was sooo much fun and 3D was totally goofy and worth it.

Cars 2's run featured the 3D illusion at 2,508 locations (including 120 IMAX venues), and that accounted for close to 40 percent of the gross. The 3D share was even less than what Kung Fu Panda 2, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and Green Lantern posted in their unenthusiastic 3D debuts. For perspective, Toy Story 3's 3D share was 60 percent (with 2,463 3D venues), while Up's was 52 percent (with only 1,534 3D venues)

Lol. Looks like new all-time low.

Transformers 3D is the key.

2d and Imax 3d sales are ok but real d sales are very poor about 40 percent of potter advance sales {nm}

3D Movies: Dull. Dreadful. Doomed.

Roll the closing credits, the 3D movie fad is done.

The demise of 3D will be gleefully embraced by parents weary of donning Elvis Costello glasses and paying a premium for the right to sit through the latest beaten-to-death action hero movie or Shrek sequel. Even an industry notorious for cost-overruns and sham accounting will be forced to take its losses on the former Next Big Thing. By this time next year, Hollywood will have to surrender simple economic fact -- not all the 3D and CGI in the world can save a bad movie from itself.

Given the lengthy production cycle of films, 3D's death throes are likely to be more extended than Ali MacGraw's demise in Love Story. What's worse, being a Hollywood exec, like love itself, means never having to say you're sorry to film goers or anyone else. Regardless, the knowledge that 3D isn't worth the investment for the industry will make your popcorn taste just a little bit better from here on.

For those of us who recall the atrocious 1981 3D offering "Comin' At Ya," a film so desperate that it actually contained a scene in which the audience was treated to a threat of a villian's bowel movement come at them, 3D's demise will seem familiar. Move over "Jaws 3D," and make room for "The Green Lantern."

This wave of 3D took flight with the wildly successful "Avatar," the highest grossing movie in history. Though to some (OK, me) Avatar was primarily a CGI endeavor that made watching the movie akin to watching someone else play a video game, the film's enormous box-office success coupled with the fact that the majority of its box-office revenue came from 3D showings was bound to lead to imitators. The surprise was just how big an investment Hollywood has made in 3D.

Despite a tight economy, studios such as DreamWorks (DWA), and more "pure 3D plays" such as recently public RealD (RLD), have dumped billions into producing 3D movies and retrofitting existing theaters with the digital equipment required to project 3D. These firm's return on investment was going to come from the incremental revenue increases not just from higher numbers of viewers but higher box-office receipts from hiking ticket prices for the 3D experience.

As a movie lover with an MBA, the foreshadowing of the death of techno-flix is as delightful as it is predictable. I don't just hope 3D dies, I know it will. Here's why:

The economics don't make sense.

3D films cost anywhere from 40% to 75% more, depending on where you get your estimate. The cost will certainly go down as technology develops, but as it stands filmmakers need to make up this cost in expanded audience size and revenue per ticket. In other words, studios need more people to see a movie in 3D than 2D.

Ironically, the first 3D films to hit theaters, the ones where the cost of production for 3D vs. 2D was at its worst, paid off. Avatar, the highest grossing film ever, got over 70% of its box office from 3D in its opening weekend. This summer, that number has dropped to under 50% opting for 3D on would-be blockbusters such as "Kung Fu Panda 2" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Please, God, Make It Stop" (fine, not its real name, but you get the idea).
Percentage of box-office falling below 50% for 3D vs. 2D is even worse than it seems given the surcharge for X-ray specs. Depending on the premium at theaters, roughly two-thirds of viewers are opting out of 3D by choice. This isn't a function of the weak economy. It's a function of taste.

3D movies are objectively worse than 2D.

Yes, I said objectively. One-half of my college double major was Film Studios. Granted, I sort of backed into the degree as a function of simply enjoying film classes over, say, Physics. Regardless, my degree makes my cinematic opinions fact. 3D movies stink.

Supporting my view is the fact that 3D movies require different cuts, transitions, movements and framing for background characters and, of course, the obligatory scenes in which objects are thrown at the audience. None of this actually improves a movie.

The glasses are horrendous.

It's been 60 years since 3D came on the scene, and we're still wearing those absurd glasses. One size does not fit all when it comes to spectacles. Not even two sizes fit all. Little kids have more cheeks than nose, causing the glasses to fall off their faces for the duration of the film. Grownups have more nose than cheek, not to mention the spectacles that often accompany age. The combination means daddy spends the movie adjusting his kids glasses and then emerges from the theater with red welts from the pinch of his own specs.

Theater chains just finished renovations designed to make their seats more spacious and better-cushioned. Being forced to jam glasses on my face rather minimizes the amount of comfort improvement, no?

We've seen this movie in the 50's and 80's, and it always ends with the death of the 3D fad. This installment is ending in tears for companies and investors. The stock prices of DreamWorks, RealD and Imax (IMAX) are all down in the neighborhood of more than 20% since the start of the summer movie season.

The one upside of this is an unintended consequence. Just last night, my 5-year old announced that the "neatest thing" about seeing "Toy Story 3" on DVD at a friend's house was "not having to wear those glasses." My love for him at that moment allows me to give this column an optimistic close that would make Pixar proud: Hating 3D movies is a family bonding experience!

I think within the next 5-10 years we will see somebody try to make movie in some type of virtual reality and that will revolutionize the industry.

No. Movies are a passive, non-interactive activity, everything is directed by the filmmakers (down to camera angles) to get a certain reaction out of the audience. Movies have their place and that won't change for a long time. Virtual reality will be the domain of videogames but not in 5-10 years, maybe in like 30.