backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 254 comment(s) - last by tcsenter.. on Jan 3 at 11:48 PM

"Transformers" director expresses conspiracy theory against Microsoft

Michael Bay has always been a big Hollywood director, but following his smash hit Transformers, Bay himself transformed into a high-definition controversy mogul.

Responding to a question posted on Michael Bay’s official web forums asking once again why Transformers was released only on HD DVD and not Blu-ray Disc, Bay expressed his believe that Microsoft is behind a scheme to sabotage both high-definition disc formats. Mind you, Microsoft is one of the pioneers and largest backers of HD DVD.

“What you don't understand is corporate politics. Microsoft wants both formats to fail so they can be heroes and make the world move to digital downloads,” wrote Bay. “That is the dirty secret no one is talking about.”

Paramount, the studio behind Transformers, and DreamWorks signed an exclusive HD DVD agreement on August 20, thus ending support for Blu-ray Disc for those two companies. According to numerous reports, the deal to secure the allegiance of Paramount and DreamWorks was in the neighbourhood of $150 million, which the Hollywood director takes issue with.

“That is why Microsoft is handing out $100 million dollar checks to studios just embrace the HD DVD and not the leading, and superior Blu Ray,” continued Bay. “They want confusion in the market until they perfect the digital downloads. Time will tell and you will see the truth.”

Similar sentiments against Microsoft were expressed over a month ago at a Blu-ray Festival by 20th Century Fox’s president Mike Dunn. Microsoft’s Kevin Collins, director in the Microsoft Consumer Media Technology Group, later retorted, “The [Blu-ray] camp’s claims about Microsoft’s desire to have a format war are baseless. Microsoft has over 100 people working on HD DVD interactivity and we believe that HD DVD is the next-generation optical format.”

Bay’s recent comments are just the latest in a long string of criticisms from the flashy director. At the time of Paramount and DreamWorks’ announcement, Bay threw a virtual fit over the decision that would see his Transformers film released only on one high-definition format.

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For them to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks! They were progressive by having two formats. No Transformers 2 for me," exclaimed Bay in August. Amusingly, Bay later backpedalled on his blog to a different tune, praising HD DVD’s affordable hardware pricing and said that he might indeed be back to direct Transformers 2.

The director then reignited the controversy in October when he said, “As a director, my critical eye is that Blu-ray is where my money is. Consumers are smart, and they are going to wait it out.”

Upon the release of Transformers on HD DVD, the film immediately broke home video release records on October 16. Transformers on HD DVD became the fastest selling high-definition release in history, with 100,000 copies sold on the first day.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Michael Bay
By SeeManRun on 12/5/2007 4:50:21 PM , Rating: 4
Isn't Michael Bay the leader of the Film Actors Guild? He seems like he would be the leader for the Film Actors Guild, as he personifies everything involved in being a member of the Film Actors Guild!




RE: Michael Bay
By ninjit on 12/5/2007 5:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
Is there a reason you felt compelled to repeat the words "Film Actors Guild" 3 times in such a short span


RE: Michael Bay
By T4RTER S4UCE on 12/5/2007 5:28:49 PM , Rating: 1
Film Actors Guild
F.A.G.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By porkpie on 12/6/2007 9:18:50 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
it's ok to throw out a word that means "humans so unimportant we can burn them alive"
Wow you've certainly been brainwashed by the politically correct machine. He said a word, he didn't burn anyone at the stake. He didn't even imply he wanted to. He merely (very vaguely) insinuated that he finds homosexuality in some way distasteful. And you want to crucify him for that?

Believe it or not, free speech matters. Protecting unpopular speech is most important of all.


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By porkpie on 12/6/2007 12:26:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
a group of people that have had countless injustices done to them
Let's name some other groups that have had "countless injustices" done to them:

Women
Blacks
Chinese
Japanese
Irish
Italians
Poles
Jews
Hispanics
Slavs
Atheists
Christians
Mormons
Muslims
etc, etc, etc, etc.

In other words-- pretty much the whole damn country. And he wasn't standing up for anyone's rights, he was questioning the OP's right to consider certain actions distasteful. I don't have any moral problems with homosexuality itself, but I certainly respect other people's right to regard it so.

quote:
I take it you throw around the N word because it's unpopular right?
Wow talk about prejudice and jumping to conclusions. I'm intelligent enough to realize its just a word. Actions are what count, not words. If you think you're really accomplishing anything good by maintaining some prissy list of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" words, you're fooling yourself.


RE: Michael Bay
By tcsenter on 12/7/2007 3:12:36 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Let's name some other groups that have had "countless injustices" done to them:
And furthermore, let's look at some of these injustices:

Blacks - oppressed because of skin pigmentation, which can't realistically be modified or concealed to avoid oppression and discrimination

Women - oppressed because of reproductive anatomy and biology, which can't realistically be modified or concealed to escape oppression and discrimination

Homos - oppressed because of BEHAVIOR, which is as easy to modify or conceal as one's preference for particular undergarments

History is replete with homos who reached pinnacles of social, professional, and economic status, provided they exercised a little discretion about their paraphilias, just like heterosexuals had to.

Everyone else throughout history had to exercise a little discretion about their paraphilias and deviant practices if they wanted to avoid ridicule, ostracism, and discrimination. I don't know what makes homos so f-cking special.


RE: Michael Bay
By LogicallyGenius on 12/9/2007 9:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
Shutup offTopic mongers

The real reason is : PS3 has BluRay


SHUTUP OFFTOPIKERS
By LogicallyGenius on 12/9/2007 9:29:29 AM , Rating: 2
Shutup offTopic mongers

The real reason is : PS3 has BluRay


RE: Michael Bay
By littlebitstrouds on 12/11/2007 4:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone else throughout history had to exercise a little discretion about their paraphilias and deviant practices if they wanted to avoid ridicule, ostracism, and discrimination. I don't know what makes homos so f-cking special.


Except whatever the norm is right? Strait, white males desiring other white, disrespected women in their commercials. Good thing any other culture has to "sell out" to be accepted. You in just one post showed exactly what's wrong with democracy, and America. Plato called it the worst choice but the only one that will work. It like any other kind of government: they put faith in the one thing that asses like you don't allow: a strong common sense and good nature. Again, what an ass.


RE: Michael Bay
By tcsenter on 1/3/2008 11:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
But certainly no more of an ass than someone who would attempt to equate the 'oppression' of socially unacceptable behavior in which one freely elects to participate with oppression based along anatomical features that are completely beyond one's control and impossible (or extremely difficult) to conceal.

I'm not singling out homosexuals, as should have been perfectly clear when I included heterosexuals with various paraphilias and deviant sexual behaviors as being among those who had to and still do have to exercise a little discretion if they wanted to avoid ridicule, ostracism, and discrimination.

However, you don't see a heterosexual BDSM lobby trying to get cultural diversity programs in elementary schools to promote tolerance and acceptance of the BDSM lifestyle and sub-culture, nor lobbying for such "constitutional rights" as prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage for injuries or health problems resulting from BDSM practices (e.g. I have a constitutional right to stick whatever I want up my rear and have as much unprotected anal sex with multiple strangers as I want, and you have to pay for the medical and health consequences).

As an identifiable group, LGBT are the only game in town who is working politically to gain protected class status for a freaking paraphilia and its attendent sub-culture and lifestyle. Well, pedophiles and pederasts do have a small lobby in some countries, but have had little influence in the West after most (but not all) of the LGBT community decided in the 1970s to distance itself from the pedophilia and pederasty movement, with whom they shared inextricable ties until that point, purely as a self-serving (though effective) public relations strategy.

My point was that - unlike real oppressed groups such as blacks and women - history is replete with homos who rose to pinnacles of society in every category of measure, provided that they exercised a little discretion about their sexual predilections (just like heterosexuals had to), a luxury that was not available to blacks and women who wanted to avoid or escape worse oppression and discrimination.

How many actors or writers or public servants or whatever profession you care to name from the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s have we learned were homos (posthumously or otherwise)? And yet they died rich, or famous, even beloved, and with blown-out sphincters nonetheless. i.e. exercising a little discretion about their deviant paraphilias didn't prevent them from engaging in it.

Take Rock Hudson, for crying out loud. We would never have known that Rock Hudson was a homo, except that he died of complications resulting from a blown-out sphincter that made it extremely difficult NOT to come out. There are surely thousands upon thousands more who achieved notable successes personally or professionally that we may never know about.

Do you know of any blacks or women who reached any noteworthy successes, all the while they were concealing the fact they were black or female? Nope.

Thus there could be no sane comparison between the plight of homos and any of the aforementioned groups who suffered REAL oppression. There are only contrasts, mostly glaring ones.

As for what's wrong with America, I'm sure homosexuals enjoy much more acceptance in progressive countries like China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia, and other cultural melting pots. America is not a culturally diverse and tolerant society? Puh-leeze!


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By porkpie on 12/6/2007 1:20:32 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Defending the right to express hate is the most important of all?
Defending the right to express unpopular ideas is the most important of all. No one needs to defend "popular" ideas. It's minority positions that need defense.

quote:
Try making smart remarks using words like the N word
The "N" word? Do you mean Netherlands? Narcotic? Nancy? It's amazing someone in this day and age is prissy enough to dance around a string of characters.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Bay
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 2:51:41 PM , Rating: 4
> "Sorry but free speech wasn't designed as a way to defend idiots who want to run around calling people a fag."

For what do *you* think free speech was designed?

The OP was right. The more unsavory the majority finds an idea, the more violently we should protect the right to express it. Otherwise "free speech" becomes a meaningless facade.


RE: Michael Bay
By SavagePotato on 12/6/07, Rating: -1