Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon [** SPOILERS FROM POST 823 ONWARD **]

Overheal

whats really puzzling about that is why does a guy with that kind of time on his hands even own a pack of durex?

Galvasean

Overheal wrote: »

whats really puzzling about that is why does a guy with that kind of time on his hands even own a pack of durex?

Well, you gotta do something with 'em when the expiration date comes about.

krudler

Galvasean wrote: »

Id replace that word with epic. I love that shot. Oh and helicopters flying past the sun.

or offices/interrogation rooms/drug factories with massive fans slowly spinning with a gigantic beam of light coming from behind them, I want to live in the Bayverse for a while, everything looks so cool :pac:

sprinkles

Galvasean wrote: »

Id replace that word with epic. I love that shot. Oh and helicopters flying past the sun.

Oh don't get me wrong, it's a great shot but it's overused in Bad Boys, Bad Boys 2, Armageddon, Transformers, TROTF and more than likely TDOTM..

Paramount are releasing an ultra bright version of the film, supposely it's twice as bright as a normal 3D print.

According to Michael Bay
The prints "have been mastered and color graded for the extra brightness. 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.”[/QUOTE]

Standard brightness for a 2D digital cinema system is 14 foot-lamberts, measured off the screen. About 75%-90% of the light is lost in 3D, so the informal standard for 3D systems is 3.5 FL, measured through the glasses. That’s the light level for which 3D pics are color graded. The special DCPs for “Transformers 3″ have been graded for 6 FL, almost twice the brightness of the usual 3D standard. By comparison, the dual-projector Imax Digital system averages only 5.5 FL for 3D.

Galvasean

And all it took was several years of people complaining about 3D glasses making films too dark.

Soby

matchthis wrote: »

Trying to book tickets for Liffey valley using a laser card with maestro,but not working. Does anyone know of a way to book using laser? The iPhone app has laser as an option, but doesn't let you pick your seats like online???

Ya mind me asking what error (if any) its giving you ?

On a seperate note going to see the premier in Savoy on Tuesday night .Cant wait

Oafley Jones

Galvasean wrote: »

And all it took was several years of people complaining about 3D glasses making films too dark.

Isn't this an issue with the theatre owners cheapening out on bulbs rather than the print?

Sad Professor

Ultra bright prints, lol. Sounds like PR rubbish to me. Cinemas aren't going to spend more money on bulbs just because Michael Bay tells them to. Paramount must really see the writing on the wall for 3D that they are coming out with this crap.

NunianVonFuch

Sad Professor wrote: »

Ultra bright prints, lol. Sounds like PR rubbish to me. Cinemas aren't going to spend more money on bulbs just because Michael Bay tells them to. Paramount must really see the writing on the wall for 3D that they are coming out with this crap.

It sounds like the end result would be an increase in the brightness and contrast to give the dark scenes more clarity. There won't be any brighter bulbs involved, nor did they claim there would be.

TBH it sounds like something I thought they would have been doing from the beginning since obviously the glasses dim the screen's output, but better late than never.

Sad Professor

NunianVonFuch wrote: »

It sounds like the end result would be an increase in the brightness and contrast to give the dark scenes more clarity. There won't be any brighter bulbs involved, nor did they claim there would be.

no, they specifically did ask theatres to turn up the brightness and burn out their bulbs quicker. It's in this article

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/business/media/22transformers.html?_r=4

They've only come out with this brighter print business this week because they know most theatres aren't going to comply.

NunianVonFuch

Sad Professor wrote: »

no, they specifically did ask theatres to turn up the brightness and burn out their bulbs quicker. It's in this article

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/business/media/22transformers.html?_r=4

They've only come out with this brighter print business this week because they know most theatres aren't going to comply.

He shouldn't have bothered asking them that was never going to happen! At least he went with a brighter print which if it works or helps a little will be nowt but a good thing if the complaints about the dark scenes in Pirates 4 are anything to go by.

blaa85

The review is up at Total Film: http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/transformers-3?ns_campaign=reviews&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=totalfilm&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

blaa85

blaa85 wrote: »

The review is up at Total Film: http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/transformers-3?ns_campaign=reviews&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=totalfilm&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

Total Film, about as trust worthy as Empire. The second it makes close to a billion dollars or Bay, Spielberg, etc offers them an exclusive interview/guest editor they'll take a second look at the film and give it an extra star or two. Likewise if it's critically derided or a bomb they'll retort with a 1 or two star review.

johnny_ultimate

Three stars from Total Film?

That's like zero stars from a reputable source! A quick glance at their attempts at criticism suggest it won't be for me. Worse than part one? Avoid!

_Kaiser_

Deleted User wrote: »

Total Film, about as trust worthy as Empire. The second it makes close to a billion dollars or Bay, Spielberg, etc offers them an exclusive interview/guest editor they'll take a second look at the film and give it an extra star or two. Likewise if it's critically derided or a bomb they'll retort with a 1 or two star review.

Some interesting things mentioned though all the same.... spoilering in case people are deliberately not reading previews/reviews - quote tags don't seem to work inside a spoiler though?

Yes, it’s punishingly long – the longest so far, in fact – and comes saddled with some excruciating attempts at comedy (the most painful involving The Hangover’s Ken Jeong as a LaBeouf-accosting conspiracy theorist)

Oh dear... I thought they were moving AWAY from the godawful attempts at "comedy"?? And longer than Fallen?? Sounds like a LOT of filler!

while the devastation wreaked by snake-bot Soundwave makes it the most bad-ass Decepticon since Blackout

Er.. wasn't Soundwave a satellite in the last one? I thought this worm rises from the moon in the trailer? Continuity error already?

Now for the bad news. British model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is awful – awful! – as LaBeouf’s new love interest, sucking the life out of every scene she appears in like some pneumatic Dyson sexbot.

Well that more-or-less confirms the general opinion here then and the still shots of her earlier in the thread would seem to say it all.

Leonard Nimoy, meanwhile, gets to recycle his “needs of the many” speech from Wrath Of Khan in his role as the reawakened superbot Sentinel Prime. Now that was a sequel...

Can't argue with that last one.


OK it's only one review but not exactly inspiring me to go see it - especially as the "totally awesome 3D man" gimmick doesn't work on me... damn my bad eye! - think I'll just wait for the 2D 1080p version

BlitzKrieg

I think they mistitled shockwave as soundwave. so its an error on the reviewer not the film

had alot of spoilers recently sent to me via facebook from a reliable friend who keeps prodding me due to me insisting rotf is the worse film ever made.

I wont post any of them. But regardless if alot of it is true, then my original complaints (rehashing the same plot devices again and over emphasize on us military) remain intact. Though the ending he spoiled is a strange one I admit and am curious to how it will be recieved.

Galvasean

So Total Film say Dark of the Moon improves on Revenge of the Fallen, but give DOTM 3 stars when they gave RotF 4?

D'Agger

Galvasean wrote: »

So Total Film say Dark of the Moon improves on Revenge of the Fallen, but give DOTM 3 stars when they gave RotF 4?

Somobody gave ROTF 4 stars?? :eek:

Was it out of 20 or something?!

Galvasean

PaulieC wrote: »

Was it out of 20 or something?!

As Darko pointed out all you have to do to get a good review from Total Film, Empire etc. is offer them a free souvenir mug. Empire gave Attack of the Clones 5 stars for crying out loud!

faceman

Laugh Out Loud moment in the review:

Total Film wrote:

Now for the bad news. British model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is awful – awful! – as LaBeouf’s new love interest, sucking the life out of every scene she appears in like some pneumatic Dyson sexbot.

Introduced with a leering pan up her Victoria’s Secret pins, she achieves the unlikely feat of making Megan Fox look like a proper actress, particularly at moments where she is required to be in peril.

Huntington-Whiteley is so terrible, in fact, she makes her co-stars bad too. LaBeouf, for one, has rarely looked so sweatily desperate than in scenes where he is obliged to simulate ardour. But then his own performance isn’t much to write home about either, pitched as it is at such a heightened level of consternation you fear he might pass out at any minute.

krudler

Its not a suprise shes meant to be terrible in it, probably why she doesnt have a single line of dialogue in the trailers,Bay used to cast women who could at least somewhat act, now anyone hot who's posed in their underpantaloons has a shot at being in a blockbuster.

The more about it I read the more it seems it will suck, yet I'll still go see it, cos the 5 year old in me likes watching sh1t blow up. sigh.

Ironman76

Galvasean wrote: »

Dark of the Moon improves on Revenge of the Fallen

Jaysus like that would be hard . .. .

ROTF, still the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. I still want my 8 quid back.. .

krudler

Ironman76 wrote: »

Jaysus like that would be hard . .. .

ROTF, still the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. I still want my 8 quid back.. .

Its up there alright, one of the worst blockbusters ever. It makes NO sense for most of it, the shifting geography is hilarious, its an hour too long, massive plot holes, stupid comedy, unnecessary characters. Its Hollywood excess at its worst.

"So we have this shard that brings long deactivated robots to life, so we have to find an old one to tell us to find some even older ones to bring optimus back to life, depsite the face this shard thing seems to create life all on its own, why are we in Egypt again?"

jaykhunter

Transformers 3 is out tomorrow. If you hated the first two iterations, don't be a hypocrite by directly funding Transformers 4. Speak with your wallet!

Beefy78

And if you do go, despite knowing who the Director is and having sat through the first two then you only have yourself to blame.

Personally I adored the first two and can't bloody wait.

Mitch Connor

Have my ticket booked for Wednesday - going to watch it in IMAX - so want to get there early and get nice and close to the screen, utter immersion!

JKGT

Won tickets to the premier screening in the savoy tomorrow anybody been to a premier before I'm not sure what to expect..??? Looking forward to the film anyways!!

This is bound to get you pumped up for nearly 3 hours of BAYHEM!

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

This is bound to get you pumped up for nearly 3 hours of BAYHEM!

Gah; ok, I admit it. Somewhere in this thread I believe I made an announcement that I was going to ignore this movie, pretend it didn't exist, I'm too good for Michael Bay blahblah blah-whatever.

But.

But!

Just watching that video, it's like some automatic, primordial switch in my gender was flicked and I found myself declaring "Yes, I do want explosions. I do want people looking up". I suspect the basic physics of testosterone-based gravity is going to find me drifting towards the cinema in the next week or two & part of me will love the 2 hours of Bayhem.

I'm so weak