backtop


Print 183 comment(s) - last by INeedCache.. on Aug 24 at 11:21 PM


"For them to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!"  (Source: michaelbay.com)
"I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark, When he made Pearl Harbor."

Yesterday, Paramount and DreamWorks made an announcement that shook the tech community -- just when everyone was getting used to the idea that Blu-ray was gaining considerable traction in the high definition format war. The two companies decided to reverse their support for both HD DVD and Blu-ray in exchange for exclusive support for the former.

The news sparked quite a stir from both sides of the aisle. Supporters of the HD DVD standard declared that the move meant that the war is still on. Blu-ray supporters on the other hand saw the move as nothing more than a multi-million dollar payoff for Paramount and DreamWorks.

One high-profile member of the film community decided to make his feeling known about the decision to go HD DVD only. Michael Bay -- known for action blockbusters like "Bad Boys" and "The Rock" as well as critical disappointments like "Pearl Harbor" and "The Island" -- expressed outrage after hearing that "Transformers" would become an HD DVD exclusive title upon its release for high definition players.

"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 on his official site.

“Transformers” has racked up nearly $303 million USD in ticket sales in the U.S. alone since its July release. The release of the DVD and HD DVD versions of the movie this fall are sure to bring in considerable dollars to Paramount.

The question remains, however, if Bay has enough clout to reverse Paramount's decision on an HD DVD exclusive HD release for "Transformers" or risk Bay bolting altogether for "Transformers 2."

Updated 8/21/2007:
Thanks to Dane for letting us know that Michael Bay has cooled off a bit following his earlier statement. Bay made the following post this evening on his official site:
Last night at dinner I was having dinner with three blu-ray owners, they were pissed about no Transformers Blu-ray and I drank the kool aid hook line and sinker. So at 1:30 in the morning I posted - nothing good ever comes out of early am posts mind you - I over reacted. I heard where Paramount is coming from and the future of HD and players that will be close to the $200 mark which is the magic number. I like what I heard.

As a director, I'm all about people seeing films in the best quality possible, and I saw and heard firsthand people upset about a corporate decision.

So today I saw 300 on HD, it rocks!

So I think I might be back on to do Transformers 2!

Michael Bay



Comments     Threshold


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

the island
By siberus on 8/21/2007 9:00:18 AM , Rating: 5
I kind of liked the island. *blushes*




RE: the island
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/21/2007 9:03:56 AM , Rating: 3
Even Scarlett Johansson couldn't save that flick... ;-)


RE: the island
By Spivonious on 8/21/2007 9:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
But she sure made it more entertaining :P


RE: the island
By togaman5000 on 8/22/2007 7:16:04 AM , Rating: 2
i fully agree with ya there buddy!


RE: the island
By retrospooty on 8/21/2007 9:36:50 AM , Rating: 4
"Even Scarlett Johansson couldn't save that flick... ;-)"

But her tight white jumpsuit did :D


RE: the island
By deeznuts on 8/21/2007 12:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well. That means I must finally watch my copy then shoot white jumpsuit don't have to tell me twice.


RE: the island
By leidegre on 8/22/2007 3:21:47 AM , Rating: 2
I thought The Island was great (didn't think Pearl Harbor was bad either). And obviously Scarlett makes anything worth watching better. She just so damn pretty.

I do think however, that it's a matter of opinion more than anything else, because if you don't like the type of movies Michael Bay directs you’re not going to like any of the movies he's been involved with. I am a big fan, and love nothing more than to see big explosions and mutli-million action.

Also, if Bay won't return for Transformers 2, I'm going to cry, because I loved the first one, and I'm going to love the second and third, just because (but only if Michael is there to direct).

My point is this, why do you expect a movie to contain depth and story from a directory whom primarily makes action? It's like, buying vanilla instead of chocolate even though you prefer chocolate.


RE: the island
By Pitbull0669 on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By Moishe on 8/21/2007 9:44:19 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
No Transformers 2 for me," exclaimed Bay on his official site.

I bet if they ask him in 3 years to do another Transformers movie and promise another fat paycheck he'll do it without a second thought.

I agree with the concept of not limiting the market for the movie, but I also don't think he cares at all about which format wins. He just wants it to sell well (and who can blame him).


RE: the island
By tallguywithglasseson on 8/21/2007 10:26:06 AM , Rating: 5
"No Transformers 2 for me"

Please please please please please let him keep his word on that.

Give someone else a shot at a Transformers movie.

I've gotta say though, unfortunately it's a virtual lock that he's going to go back on that statement.


RE: the island
By erikejw on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 10:42:08 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
He probably gets percentage of what how the movie sells.
I'm no mathematician but do the math, 2/3 of 1% is not a reason to publicly disagree against the company that hired you. DVD's are still where the sales are at, he will make most of the money off of that. I think he just knows that transformers is a movie made for HD, just like 300, and the BD people will truly miss out on a great release. Either that or hes just trying to be the good guy like Steven Spielberg, then again, he may think he is Steven Spielburg, has anyone told him hes not yet?


RE: the island
By cyclingco on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By Shadowmaster625 on 8/21/2007 2:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
most will buy the dvd anyway


RE: the island
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 2:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
either way I'm right...

Yawn, i really doubt mr Bay is doing this out of the goodness of his heart so that people will appreciate his movies. People appreciate movies because they are good, not because they are available on a certain format, or because a certain director says so.

As for you whole money theory, it does not make sense either, HD-DVD/BD is not DVD, there was an immidiate step up in technology no matter what your system is from VHS to DVD. HighDef movies require an HDTV as you probably know, and with maybe 15% of the market having hdtvs, no highdef movie is going to make the impact the matrix did when the DVD was first introduced.
quote:
and then you're talking millions more for bay
How do you figure, being very nice if you believe transformers will sell 30 million copies whether it be HD-DVD/BD or DVD, with only 1% of those copies being of the high def format, that leaves you with 300,000 high def movies sold. So lets do some math, 300k x 25$ per movie = 7.5 million.

Now how much of that do you think goes to the director? Even if he were to receive 10% (and thats being very generous, as i have no idea what the real number would be) he would only receive 750,000 dollars. Now lets take off 1/3 because he would already be receiving HD-DVD sales as its an exclusive, which leave you with 500k over what he would have got if it was just an HD-DVD release.
So to think Mr Bay made all of this fuss over 500k is ridiculous, he obviously has interior motives in mind, whether it to pretend he is Spielberg, or if he just wants the publicity, either way it has nothing to do with either of your reasons.

Of course all of these numbers are really pure B.S, I just wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt so i inflated all the numbers to benefit what you are saying.. sorry it just does not fit.

so..
either way, your wrong...


RE: the island
By The Sword 88 on 8/22/2007 9:06:59 AM , Rating: 2
I'd be pissed about 500K. I dont make that in 10 years


RE: the island
By bldckstark on 8/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By JonnyDough on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By Oregonian2 on 8/21/2007 3:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
Not hardly. HD + BluRay probably total 0.1% of the total sales. Big deal. Now if they were to drop VHS copies, THAT might be significant!

Keep in mind the vast majority of sales (recorded version sales, which doesn't include TV Network or cable network or theater ticket sales) will be plain-DVD. BluRay (or HD) will be a tiny percentage of total sales, so saying that they're losing 66% of sales isn't anywhere near the truth. They lose 66% of a microspec subset of total sales, and even then probably not the full percentage because folk will go out and buy an HD player along with an HD copy of the movie -- HD players are cheap (although I'm waiting for 'em to get under $100 first, maybe next spring).


RE: the island
By npoe1 on 8/21/2007 7:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
I don’t think that someone is going to buy the movie because it is going to be BD or HD-DVD. If someone has a BD player, he is just going to buy the DVD version; instead of not buying anything just because is not HD.


RE: the island
By Farfignewton on 8/21/2007 8:44:41 PM , Rating: 1
Can't speak for every blu-ray owner, obviously, but Paramount can stick their DVDs in N.B.E.1's chest right next to the allspark. I might buy an old action flick on DVD for $5 at Wal-Mart or whatever, but not a new release.


RE: the island
By erikejw on 8/22/2007 5:32:10 PM , Rating: 3
Seems as I was right.
150M$ and I play VHS for the rest of my life, promise.


RE: the island
By Praze on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: the island
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 12:17:01 PM , Rating: 4
I have no idea how movie studios work, but does not paramount now own the rights to transformers the movie? I dont see how being the director, gives him ownership of the movie. I really doubt he will be able to go to another studio with an idea/movie thats not his. He only directed it after all, its not like he wrote the screenplay, which even then i doubt would give him any rights to the movie.


RE: the island
By elegault on 8/21/2007 1:24:51 PM , Rating: 3
Paramount owns the movie rights and hires director(s) to film it. There are much better directors than Bay, I don't think Paramount will care.

DVD's where the money's at. Bay's just making a scene.


RE: the island
By cjb110 on 8/22/2007 8:32:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but Paramount would care, Bay's a known bankable director. He has a substantial fan base, and therefore will bring in an almost guarnteed amount of cash.


RE: the island
By therealnickdanger on 8/21/2007 9:25:15 AM , Rating: 3
The Island was a good flick, I'm sorry, but it was. I didn't watch it until just two months ago and the only excuse I had was that I was being a film snob and avoided it because of Bay's style. Then after a great deal of consideration, I realized that I really don't care about exceptional cinematography. I watch movies to be entertained, for some escapism, not for enlightenment.

That being said, he should shut it. I'm not saying he's wrong, but it's not his place to say. The studio has the right to do what they will and make the best choice for their share-holders. Also, they could easily get another director just as qualified to do a sequel to Transformers. You know how many directors would leap at the chance to follow up a blockbuster like that?


RE: the island
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2007 9:32:22 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, it was a pretty good movie to watch on HBO on my couch. But i wouldnt have paid to see it in a theater or buy it on DVD. Perhaps thats what they are referring to as being a dissapointment.


RE: the island
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2007 9:38:03 AM , Rating: 3
They tried for Ingmar Bergman, but he had other commitments at the time.


RE: the island
By omnicronx on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By spindoc on 8/21/2007 12:53:07 PM , Rating: 1
Isn't the writer to blame for that?


RE: the island
By gyranthir on 8/21/2007 9:41:07 AM , Rating: 2
So why shouldn't he have his say as to what formats he would like to see his movies in?

Spielberg and a couple of others at Dreamworks/Paramount have had theirs.


RE: the island
By jacarte8 on 8/21/2007 9:51:45 AM , Rating: 5
Obviously... Because Michael Bay is no Steven Spielberg...


RE: the island
By Moishe on 8/21/2007 9:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
I thought it was entertaining, and that is precisely why I watched it. I'm no snob.

The Island is not a great movie, but there is a huge difference between "average" and "sucks". Just watch "Solaris" to see a movie that "sucks".


RE: the island
By aos007 on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 12:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
Hes not just showing his opinion, hes boycotting a second movie, if they choose to make one. Hes not just expressing his 'private opinion', he is trying to dictate how the movie studio does business. Well if he was in any other sector he would be packing his bags as we speak.


RE: the island
By theapparition on 8/22/2007 7:56:06 AM , Rating: 2
Studio's and directors do NOT have an employee-employer relationship. It's a contract relationship. You try working a contract, finishing, and then publicly de-grading the company that hired you. See if they contract you again.

He has every right to say what he wants. He also must accept responsibility if the studio doesn't like his opinion and decides to go in a different direction.


RE: the island
By Martimus on 8/21/2007 9:37:51 AM , Rating: 2
I never saw The Island, but I liked Pearl Harbor; which was the other bomb he meantioned.

The Island looked interesting though, so I may go out and rent it.


RE: the island
By Desslok on 8/21/2007 10:02:20 AM , Rating: 5
How could anyone like Bay's Pearl Harbor? It was so full of historical errors it was clear that Bay just wanted to make a movie where stuff blew up and use the 40's as a time frame.

That love story was so inane I can't believe someone thought it was a good idea to film.

/rant


RE: the island
By cyclingco on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: the island
By Desslok on 8/22/2007 9:38:44 AM , Rating: 1
I am sorry my post made you so angry. "Less stupid", wow your momma and daddy are really proud of you!


RE: the island
By Martimus on 8/21/2007 3:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't remember the movie very well, but I remember that it was somewhat entertaining. It had enough plot twists to keep me interested, but I couldn't care less about any historical inaccuracies, honestly. I remember one of the brothers crashed, and the other brother married his girlfriend or something, but I really don't remember much of the movie.


RE: the island
By arazok on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By PAPutzback on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: the island
By StevoLincolnite on 8/21/2007 10:47:21 AM , Rating: 1
Homo? So what is he is, He shouldn't be given crap for it.

I also enjoyed the Special effects in Pearl Harbor.


RE: the island
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 11:00:58 AM , Rating: 4
Stop it guys, Ben Affleck is so dreamy!


RE: the island
By tdawg on 8/21/2007 12:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, he is a Homosapien, just like you!


RE: the island
By BillyBatson on 8/21/2007 10:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
ummmmmmmm??? I am very critical of movies but I loved The Island. It wasn't the best movie in the world but it was very entertaining and I know a lot of people who like the movie.


RE: the island
By gigahertz20 on 8/21/2007 10:18:44 AM , Rating: 3
What was wrong with "The Island?" I enjoyed it, it wasn't super awesome but it was a decent movie.


RE: the island
By ryedizzel on 8/21/2007 12:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
I am also very critical of movies and I enjoyed The Island. Granted I am not an avid book reader so I don't know how much justice it did for the real story. But then again we all know movies are never as good as the books.


RE: the island
By Crowbar77 on 8/21/2007 1:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the island was good to. Not the greatest story, but it was entertaining.


RE: the island
By FastLaneTX on 8/21/2007 3:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
Ditto; I liked it enough to buy it. The directing wasn't so good, but the plot was thought-provoking (if simplistic) and it had good eye candy for both guys and gals. That's what I like in a movie. Who cares what the critics think?


RE: the island
By Silver2k7 on 8/21/2007 1:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
I loved the Island !!
And yes I own Pearl Harbour on dvd :)

Transformers was very good too.. you got to remember its a kids movie based on toys. I didn't have very high expectations but I did like it alot!


RE: the island
By plonk420 on 8/21/2007 2:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
i liked The Island, too...

i was pretty pissed, tho, after hearing this announcement. i guess i know how HD DVD owners feel about Disney (and other studio) exclusivity... and it sucks!


RE: the island
By The Jedi on 8/21/2007 8:38:06 PM , Rating: 2
If anybody's seen (or started and bailed on) George Lucas' first movie, THX 1138, watching The Island is sort of like getting that wasted hour and so many minutes back. Personally I loved The Island, and it's worth watching in HD.


RE: the island
By Samus on 8/22/2007 2:48:09 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, the movie wasn't 'great' but the story was fantastic. Everyone I've recommended the island too has liked it. The story is original (albeit based on a book) but it's definately a movie you see and think about for a long time. That's what makes a movie good!

On another note, I didn't like transformers, the script was fundementally flawed, especially in regards to location. For example, why did they go into the city at the end just to put millions of civilians at risk. It didn't make any sense, there was no reason?

I don't think much of Michael Bay anyway. Having a Grandpa who was in WWII as a paratrooper fighting the Japanese, and being told more war stories than you could imagine as a kid, I thought the lack of explaining Japan's motives in Pearl Harbor was an oversight that ruined the movies integrity.


RE: the island
By Miggle on 8/24/2007 7:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm with you. It was one of those movies back in (2005?) that made me jump off my seat.


Totally agree.
By RMSe17 on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally agree.
By Homerboy on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally agree.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/21/2007 10:01:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why should we be forced to pay for second grade technology? If we are united, their decision will be reversed.

I believe the term you were looking for was "Second Rate" and that is FUD. HD DVD is in the same technology branch as Blu-Ray. One just has higher capacity per layer with the caveat that it's also more expensive to produce and print.

The choice to go HD DVD saves them money in the short term and the long term for the company producing the movies.


RE: Totally agree.
By michal1980 on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Totally agree.
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2007 9:43:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
(by that argument we should never have faster cpu's, or more cores. Why go quad core when dual is cheaper. like the quad core wont be cheaper 6 months from now).


No one should buy a dual core cpu right now for $100 because for only $300, you can get a quad core that the average user will never notice the difference! woohoo!

Nonesense analogy. You pretty much just contridict yourself. New technology is great - but facts are facts - and the consumers are COST CONCIOUS. They buy based on price:performance, and affordability. If HD & BD are 99% the same, but one is hundreds of dollars cheaper, why should the consumer pay several hundred dollars more for a BD player - when they will be watching the SAME EXACT MOVIE?

When it comes to PC usage, the argument is different. But people buying these to watch movies dont care about its storage.


RE: Totally agree.
By michal1980 on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Totally agree.
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2007 10:04:56 AM , Rating: 4
So everyone should over pay for BD right now, because it will be cheaper two years from now?


RE: Totally agree.
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2007 10:05:48 AM , Rating: 2
So everyone should over pay for BD right now, because it will be cheaper two years from now? With BD, your stuck at 50gb no matter what. You dont think in two years that they'll be able to put 100, 200, 300 gb on a disc? Its non stop evolution.


RE: Totally agree.
By omnicronx on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally agree.
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 3:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
damn the truth hurts!


RE: Totally agree.
By michal1980 on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally agree.
By P4blo on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally agree.
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 12:32:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
HD-DVD actually has BETTER picture quality due to it's codec. Oh and unlike BD it has picture in picture features (GREAT for commentary tracks) and doesn't cost a bomb for the player.
No... no it doesnt. Except in the beginning when some movies were encoded in Mpeg2, any dual release movie now is encoded with the same VC1 codec, at the same bitrate. Some high defs like NIN:Beside you in Time actually have a higher bitrate for the BD version. Although its debatable if it even makes a difference at that point.

I'm an HD-DVD fan not a BD fan either, i just want people to know the real facts, not all the b.s pr rumors that float around the net. They are both essentially the same in my books, i just dont like the sound of sony having any market to themselves, thats not good for anyone except sony.


RE: Totally agree.
By P4blo on 8/22/2007 11:44:27 AM , Rating: 2
Fine, thanks for clearing that up but the main point I wanted to make was why should he get upset about companies joining the HD-DVD camp exclusively when some have already done it for BD! It's double standards (if you pardon the pun :). That's why I think he should wind his neck back in.


RE: Totally agree.
By Dharl on 8/21/2007 10:06:38 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. There are only two things that seperate these technologies, other than storage capacity. #1 The cost of production. #2 The programmed capabilities of the disk for movie extras IE: Java.

When I first heard of Blu-Ray and the fact that it was going to be 50GB on disk, technically two disks together. That is when I decided to support it and only it. When you think of computers... everyone wants a larger capacity. Hard drives at 1TB now, RAID for even more space, Thumb drives slowly increasing in storage space, CD -> DVD -> DL DVD etc.

Heck I'd love to have a burner and a few of these disks to back up a large portion of my media. Not that it would prevent my backups to an external hard drive, but it would certainly be nice to have an alternate means of storage.

As far as movie production on these disks goes... I could care less about extra features. I just want to see the movie in as high quality as possible on my HDTV! The only exception to this rule are movies that have stood the test of time. Star Wars, Jaws, etc... Movies that people have seen thousands of times and never tire of them. These movies and others I'd like to see some documentary, commentary, and special features on.


RE: Totally agree.
By PAPutzback on 8/21/2007 10:44:32 AM , Rating: 1
Everyone wants large capacity? I bet the majority of pcs out there use less than 40 gig even though OEMs are pushing larger drives. I'd say 1 out of 10 users use a pc for large scale media storage. The other 9 use it to play warcraft or just get on the internet to check their myspace account or look at pictures of the grandkids. If Windows and IE wasn't so bloated these people would still be fine with a P3 and dial up.


RE: Totally agree.
By Dharl on 8/21/2007 11:30:18 AM , Rating: 2
Currently my system uses a 40GB harddrive. Heck my overall computer specs are over 8 years old. It holds everything I need it to. Programs for editing photos, webpages, documents, etc. The only game I have stored on it right now is FFXI. Other than that I use it for media. I have an external drive for storage of all my extra media or whatever I'm not watching/playing at that time. It would be nice though to have some means other than multiple DL DVD's to store extra periodic backups of my computer's media.

Overall you are correct in computer usage, but things are changing.

quote:
or look at pictures of the grandkids.


The majority of people you are referring to are people of an older generation. The generations that are growing up now and have used computers all their lives will use it constantly. Not only that, but more and more are using it to store all kinds of media. Games, movies, music, etc

For years people doubted storage needs for both business and consumers. A floppy disk use to be "too much". Companies like Google are always needing more storage, and it's starting to become neccessary with consumers.


RE: Totally agree.
By Silver2k7 on 8/21/2007 2:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
"Currently my system uses a 40GB harddrive. Heck my overall computer specs are over 8 years old. It holds everything I need it to."

Ok fine your good with an 8 year old computer that does not mean that everybody else is.. ive added about 40 Gb to my photo folder in the last 4 months, and im shooting jpeg, would I shoot raw or jpeg + raw then the storage would have got to 132 of 172 Gb.

For people doing video editing its probably worse =)

Then try to install a fairly recent game like Everquest II, thats 10 Gb right there.. but it will probably not run on your computer if its 8 years old.


RE: Totally agree.
By Silver2k7 on 8/21/2007 2:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
Also 600 CD's on computer in FLAC format will take about 300 Gb.. so your 40 Gb is not very useful.

Using a 10 MP digital camera I could never live with only 40 Gb.. only the Windows Vista folder takes 10 Gb.. so then only 30 Gb to the rest of the apps and saved files.. no thank you very much ill pass =)


RE: Totally agree.
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2007 12:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Windows and IE wasn't so bloated these people would still be fine with a P3 and dial up.


Really? So you could download a 500MB file faster with dial up if it weren't for Windows and IE? Or encode video faster on a P3 if it weren't for Windows? Or run Warcraft faster?

I have a dual 1.1GHz P3 system with 1.25GB of SDRAM running XP. It has a hard time even running some flash content on web pages. It can't playback HD video trailers either. And forget about trying to encode a TV episode ripped off a DVD in a reasonable amount of time.

Windows has nothing to do with it.

I'll agree that most people don't even use what they have though.


RE: Totally agree.
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 1:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have a dual 1.1GHz P3 system with 1.25GB of SDRAM running XP. It has a hard time even running some flash content on web pages. It can't playback HD video trailers either. And forget about trying to encode a TV episode ripped off a DVD in a reasonable amount of time.


Even my barton2500 struggles at some of the things you named. DVD's take a while to encode no matter how good your computer is, especially if you do 2pass VBR. Back in the day i used to rip music videos for a group, and a 4 minute video took 30 minutes too encode into regular mpeg, and that seemed normal to me, so compared to now, sure those things take a while, but its nothing a 1.1ghz cpu cant handle ;).

And with HD content no matter what computer you have, unless your videocard supports hardware decoding, or its offloaded it the gpu (nvidia) your cpu has to do all the work. My 2500 and my 3200 struggle when watching HD content, i can not be touching anything else or the video skips.


RE: Totally agree.
By piroroadkill on 8/22/2007 5:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
If you can care less about extra features, why don't you? That clearly means you do care


RE: Totally agree.
By spindoc on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally agree.
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 1:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
What are you 15 trying to lose your virginity? the point of DT is not about how much you 'score'. He made a comment which makes fun of both sides which is why he was downrated, but in reality is hes right, they are the same except for the difference of space, which i think is irrelevant in the movie world anyways, as video does not require that amount of extra space, and i have no need for an extra set of lossless audio codecs (LPCM+TrueHD(if added) standard for sony, should be TrueHD like HD-DVD)


RE: Totally agree.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/21/2007 2:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's not always what you say, but how you say it.


RE: Totally agree.
By spindoc on 8/22/2007 1:01:59 PM , Rating: 1
No, I'm 16 and I just climbed down off your mom so I guess that answers your question.

STFU and stop defending your girlfriend.


RE: Totally agree.
By Griswold on 8/21/2007 9:40:35 AM , Rating: 1
Get over it, kid.


RE: Totally agree.
By DingieM on 8/21/2007 10:09:58 AM , Rating: 2
Existence of HD-DVD is really important, because without it prices of Blu-Ray players would remain sky-high except for the PS3. They would eventually drop in price but much much slower than it is happening this year.

Technology wise they are almost identical (Blu-Ray 50GB version), i.e. for a 3-hour HD movie they BOTH have PLENTY of storage and have the EXACTLY same quality of video AND audio, because all will fit nicely on the disk.
Eventually, if all the space would be used than Blu-Ray has advantage over HD-DVD having 9 hours of HD material and HD-DVD "only" 8.
Interactive elements of HD-DVD are more advanced/efficient.

Blu-Ray is not the ideal solution for video because the technology provided by HD-DVD is clearly enough with still some headroom left. Also is a giant step-up from the DVD.
And then Blu-Ray is unnecessarily expensive.

Actually, I think Blu-Ray is ONLY useful for backups when they bring the 200+ GB discs on the market. Such amounts of storage is utterly inefficient for only watching video.

So, in the end, there is absolutely NO reason to have Blu-Ray as the winner for consumer electronics, because the storage space requirements are not high enough.
However Blu-Ray is useful for the industry with backups etc.

HD-DVD is very good technoloy and far from second grade. In that respect Blu-Ray in its current form is even third grade technology.
If you ask me, both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are not on the forefront of technology. I call holographic storage REAL technology not some fanboy reclamation of Blu-Ray being 1st grade technology only because $ony says so.


RE: Totally agree.
By michal1980 on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Totally agree.
By Shadowmaster625 on 8/21/2007 2:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Existence of HD-DVD is really important, because without it prices of Blu-Ray players would remain sky-high except for the PS3.


That is not true. With just one format, you'd have plenty of competition to drive down prices. And with only one format, you'd have more people buying the product because there isn't so much confusion and obfuscation that makes buyers hesitate. Don't just blindly believe in axioms such as "competition leads to lower prices." It is not true all the time. There should be one format, and that format should be hd dvd, because it is cheaper. Sony is just too stupid to win anyway.


RE: Totally agree.
By FITCamaro on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally agree.
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 2:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo, i think BD discs have a no scratch protective layering on them though, does HD-DVD have the same? I know this was one of the reasons DVD playback is not in the spec, so i wonder if HD-DVD has this feature, being able to have dual format discs and all.


RE: Totally agree.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/21/2007 2:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. Infact the HD DVD spec required a better no scratch protection during the initial design phase. This is relatively moot now as most manufacturers are using the same scratch protection on both lines (Makes Logistics easier I would imagine). The only real difference right now is maximum storage space per layer 15/25 and the cost that goes with it. Now, HD DVD wins the cookie in the manufacturing race because the assembly lines to make DVD's are 95% ready, just need to add a small change in the middle of the assembly line and it makes HD DVD's instead of regular DVD's, this makes bulk manufacturing of the HD DVD media cheaper. Blu Ray has more differences which attributes it to the higher density per layer, but that raises the raw cost of producing the media for printing.

That is the only real difference at this point.


RE: Totally agree.
By theapparition on 8/22/2007 8:22:32 AM , Rating: 1
FIT Camaro raises good points.

When I first heard of Blu-ray, I was right on the bandwagon, thinking it was better. After all, 50>30Gb, right? Then I saw some of the things that the BD camp was doing and it really changed my mind. Lack of Mandatory managed copy was a big one. This feature alone was why Intel and Microsoft support HD-DVD, to support the VIIV initiative (pretty much failed, but you get the point).

Keep in mind, I'm not partial to either format. I have both players, and close to 100 disks (combined HD-DVD and Blu-ray) now. I just want to be able to put a movie in and watch it. Blu-ray, with it's more DRM infested system, may potentially make it more difficult in the future. And that I don't like at all.


bad movies
By whickywhickyjim on 8/21/2007 9:15:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure how much credibility you have when it's mentioned that your finer works are trivial action movies like "Bad Boys" and "The Rock."




RE: bad movies
By Flunk on 8/21/2007 9:26:17 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, I liked the Rock!

But seriously, Transformers probably would have been a better movie if they had picked a director who focuses more on story and characters than blowing things up.


RE: bad movies
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2007 9:37:43 AM , Rating: 3
I don't know about you, but in a movie involving conflict between giant, fighting robots, I expect things to blow up. I'd hardly say the movie focused on blowing things up either. I thought the movie was excellent. Not just because of the combination of giant, fighting robots, awesome vehicles, and a hot chick either. The story was also excellent.


RE: bad movies
By Spivonious on 8/21/2007 10:31:56 AM , Rating: 1
I would rate this to a 6 if I could.


RE: bad movies
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2007 11:01:35 AM , Rating: 2
Heh glad some people have common sense. A Transformers movie that doesn't have lots of explosions would be like a movie with Paris Hilton in it as the main character not sucking.

The two just go together.

Giant fighting robots with some bent of destroying the human race = lots of explosions

Paris Hilton as an actor = lots of sucking. Both in her acting ability and her methods of getting into the movie.


RE: bad movies
By gsellis on 8/21/2007 1:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
I never saw Paris' first movie. I was under the impression that is was more noted for its use of infrared...


RE: bad movies
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 1:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
someone jacks off to thumbnails ;)
Go torrent the full version, she does it from every angle and camera style you can think of (not only infrared) you can think of hahah. Its too bad she looks like a fox wearing bad makeup.


RE: bad movies
By FITCamaro on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: bad movies
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 2:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
who says i spank it to porn? thats inhumane!, why do you think i come here so often.

Oh ya blog.. OOOOOH ya..


RE: bad movies
By tdawg on 8/21/2007 11:03:18 AM , Rating: 2
I thought Transformers was entertaining, too. In fact, I was surprised I liked it so much, as I wasn't really that excited to see it, but a couple of friends called and I wasn't doing anything else, so....

The only thing that brought the movie to it's knees was Optimus Prime's monologues (painfully patriotic, trying to justify current events), a couple of groan and eye roll moments. Take these out and it would have been a lot stronger.


RE: bad movies
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/21/2007 12:11:51 PM , Rating: 3
Optimus has always had those style of lines though, watch the original cartoons and the CGI ones, hes in character.


RE: bad movies
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/21/2007 9:30:21 AM , Rating: 4
Trivial?

Bad Boys and The Rock are arguably two of the greatest "buddy" action flicks of the 90s.

Martin Lawrence + Will Smith, Sean Connery + Nick Cage

That's gold Jerry, GOLD! :P

"FROM NOW ON, THAT'S HOW YOU DRIVE!"


RE: bad movies
By Griswold on 8/21/2007 9:39:40 AM , Rating: 1
The Rock isnt exactly a typical buddy movie like Bad Boys or the Lethal Weapon series. Still great action cinema, though.


RE: bad movies
By therealnickdanger on 8/21/2007 10:31:54 AM , Rating: 3
"Your best? Losers are always whining about their best. Winners go home and f*ck the prom queen."


RE: bad movies
By PAPutzback on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: bad movies
By Griswold on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: bad movies
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2007 9:33:33 AM , Rating: 1
While I thought Bad Boys was good, The Rock was an excellent movie. It was very well done.

While you might not have cared for either, that doesn't mean they were bad movies.


"No Transformers 2 for me"
By Alpha4 on 8/21/2007 9:24:52 AM , Rating: 2
You mean we might actually get to see more than 5 minutes of actual Transformer action in the sequel?




RE: "No Transformers 2 for me"
By Spivonious on 8/21/2007 9:32:38 AM , Rating: 5
Dude, the last 30 minutes of Transformers was non-stop robot action.

It was the most fun I've had at a movie in a very long time.


RE: "No Transformers 2 for me"
By Anh Huynh on 8/21/2007 11:27:35 AM , Rating: 3
I've never been turned on by so much robot-on-robot action before. Although the part where Barricade and Bumblebee were battling at the beginning of the movie...that was nearly orgasmic, it was just missing a Dodge Charger to make it better.


By therealnickdanger on 8/22/2007 12:04:19 AM , Rating: 2
I saw it four times... yes, I may qualify as a nerd, I don't care. The first time I saw it, I honestly was disappointed because I felt there wasn't enough screen time with the 'bots, and what little there was contained too much "shaky-cam" crap. After seeing it again, however, I was able to anticipate when characters were on screen and gave me much more time to enjoy their presence.

I'll always accept more, but it was sufficient. I could have done with less of Jar-Jar-Soundwave, however.


By theapparition on 8/22/2007 8:30:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it was just missing a Dodge Charger to make it better.

Gotta love Camaro vs. Mustang. Charger doesn't rank. Put a Challenger in there........maybe. But camaro/mustang is the biggest rivalry of car owners in the last 40years.

Other than the fact that it was a 2hour long GM commercial, I thought it was OK. Pretty slow in areas, and what was with the wacco agent guy. Too over the top.

As for you getting excited over a movie with no skin, well, that what's therapy is for.


RE: "No Transformers 2 for me"
By SirLucius on 8/22/2007 12:33:47 AM , Rating: 2
I too was upset by the usual Bay shaky-cam action scenes, as well as the the fact that it felt like a long time before any real action occurred. But after reading how obnoxiously long it took to render just 1 frame of some of the action scenes I fully understand why. The CGi in Transformers was another world to itself, and it actually dictated what could and couldn't be done why maintaining a certain level of quality.


RE: "No Transformers 2 for me"
By SirLucius on 8/22/2007 12:34:57 AM , Rating: 2
Ugh, "why" should read "while" in the last line. I need some caffeine.


Mr. Bay
By Griswold on 8/21/2007 9:42:25 AM , Rating: 1
No Transformers 2 with him, huh? Well, Michael Bay is the type of director you can replace any day of the week. There are queues of people like him lining up in front of the studios. Did he forget where he came from?

With said, yes, Transformer 2 will be filmed without him - but it will be filmed.




RE: Mr. Bay
By MajorPaver on 8/21/2007 9:52:42 AM , Rating: 4
Indeed I HOPE IT IS a new director.

If I can get a Transformers movie that isn't full of lame cliched one liners, pointless, breath-wasting actors, recycled shots of the same 5 Michael Bay camera "tricks" and explosions and that doesn't have a nonsensical "plot"...and oh, gives the freakin' robots some actual important screen time...they might have a movie that is enjoyable to watch.


RE: Mr. Bay
By Moishe on 8/21/2007 9:59:17 AM , Rating: 2
and it will be better off without him.


RE: Mr. Bay
By gsellis on 8/21/2007 1:23:51 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, that is not true. IMDB has him as producer and director. The producer hires the director and also usually signs the contracts with production and distribution. Say if he says no Transformers 2, it could be true. He also may have signed a contract that says if there is one, Dreamworks has it. So, this could mean no Transformers 2 with any studio.

Which looking at his current project list, might be a good thing. He may have peaked. He is remaking Birds and doing a Friday the 13th sequel. That is a yuck for me.


RE: Mr. Bay
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 3:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
IMDB has him as producer and director.

IMDB also lists 4 other people as executive producers, along with 5-6 producers. Spielberg was the named producer in the TV commercials and in the movie credits. Bay will have no say when it comes down to it so i don't know why you think he has any say over production and distribution, chances are its just a title so that he could make more money, i really doubt the decision making is up to him.

Kenny Bates .... co-producer
Michael Bay .... executive producer
Matthew J. Birch.... supervising producer
Ian Bryce .... producer
Allegra Clegg .... co-producer
Matthew Cohan .... associate producer
Tom DeSanto .... producer
Lorenzo di Bonaventura producer
Brian Goldner .... executive producer
Don Murphy .... producer
Steven Spielberg.... executive producer
Mark Vahradian .... executive producer


RE: Mr. Bay
By Griswold on 8/22/2007 3:15:53 AM , Rating: 2
The producer usually doesnt own the movie rights. Wasnt Spielberg also one of the producers? Nah, he doesnt have the last word on this, thats the studio, which owns the rights.

Its all a moot point anyway, already crawled back (see update). I bet the truth is, some studio boss called him and either gave him a verbal kick in the ass or waved with a suitcase full of money. It's always the same story...


RE: Mr. Bay
By mdogs444 on 8/22/2007 8:29:31 AM , Rating: 2
No one waved a suitcase of money in his face. But yeah, he probably did get an earful from the people who just paid him millions for to make Transformers. And rightfully so.

Now he can put his tongue back in his mouth, close his trap...and "dont let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya" on your way out.


Two sides of the coin
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2007 9:09:11 AM , Rating: 2
Although in a way, I agree with Bay, that he would want the film marketed in both formats - increase sales, increase audience - I also agree with Production companies as well. It is their right to choose a format and stick with it - but whatever they choose, there will always be people mad that it didnt go their way. Perhaps its the cheaper production costs of one over the other, or perhaps they know something we dont - like how their movies have been selling in one format or the other. Who knows. You cannot go out and cry that MS got to them, because that would be the same as Blockbuster and whoever else that Sony got to. I for one like HD because of the low price pointof players, but havent opened my wallet to buy any high definition dvd products yet - HD or BD.

But in another argument, Bay should just shut up. Hes made some great movies, and hes made some crap movies. Hes already grossed over $300 million in ticket sales, not to mention what else he will gross in HD sales - as well as BD if he forces his hand. But this is typical hollywood greed - more money, more money, more money. To threaten not to make the next movie, is like an athlete who signed a contract threatening to hold out because now he doesnt like the contract. You know, how about these production companies and stuff paying these guys for their crappy movies that didnt sell so well? This is why i hate celebrities and their drama.




RE: Two sides of the coin
By SandmanWN on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Two sides of the coin
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2007 10:10:19 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The only thing that matters here is the guy that played a large part in making this movie cant even buy his own dvd to play in his house. Its a crying shame.


Yeah thats it, i bet he plans on using his PS3 to play it. No, he probably doesnt have the most expensive dual format player right? Ding!

quote:
And then here you are pointing the finger at Bay and all his money when the entire reason for this discussion is two giant movie studio corporations signing an exclusive deal, for guess what, MONEY!!! Being a little two faced aren't you?


Im pointing finger at him because #1, he was paid to do a job - make the movie. The studios are there for what? To pay him and market the movie. Let them do their jobs. He is nothing more than a whining celebrity with too much bloody money and thinks he can buy his way. I hope they reject his cry - not becuase i like HD or BD - but because they cannot let these people overtake the studios....much like athletes are overtaking the owners and the game of baseball/football/basketball/etc.


RE: Two sides of the coin
By SandmanWN on 8/21/2007 10:14:19 AM , Rating: 1
Im not sure but I think you are doing much more crying/whining over this situation than anyone else.

The guy wants to watch his own damn movie on bluray. Whats your deal???


RE: Two sides of the coin
By nekobawt on 8/21/2007 11:46:06 AM , Rating: 2
Nooo, the guy wants consumers to watch his damn movie on bluray. Or HD-DVD. Freedom of choice, man.

The ah-teest wants the most possible exposure. Understandable.


WAAAAA WAAAAAAAAA
By Yeah Yeah on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: WAAAAA WAAAAAAAAA
By Dharl on 8/21/2007 10:34:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah... nice mindset you have. Not that my comments will help ilk of your nature, but here goes.

Paramount wants to make more money. Easiest way to do this is to support cheaper production solutions. DVD & HD-DVD are those two. Profits will increase especially since HD-DVD will remain just as high priced as Blu-Ray.

Michael Bay wants to make more money. Easiest way to do this is to support every format a movie can be produced on. Unfortunately for him the company that owns the rights to his movie has supported only 2 of the 3 available formats. Michael Bay just received a nice price cut.

Now let's cut your work pay and see how much you whine? Taking bets for how long it takes you to turn emo on your own blogs.


RE: WAAAAA WAAAAAAAAA
By SandmanWN on 8/21/2007 10:41:32 AM , Rating: 1
Nice points but... Bay cant make more money unless Paramount makes more money. The only way this can be accomplished is sell both formats, otherwise there is a leftover market of bluray supporters that wont purchase your movie. Seems rather foolish to me.


RE: WAAAAA WAAAAAAAAA
By Aerius on 8/21/2007 7:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh.. HD DVD camp pays Paramount a lot of money to go exclusive, they pocket that. Since Bay likely has a royalty contract, he doesn't get any of that. Thus, Paramount makes money, Bay does not, see why that would make someone upset?


RE: WAAAAA WAAAAAAAAA
By SandmanWN on 8/22/2007 12:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
I do believe that is the point I am trying to make. Unless they sell bluray there isn't a possibility of Bay receiving additional funds.


Doesn't matter
By marvdmartian on 8/21/2007 11:11:30 AM , Rating: 1
It doesn't matter, does it? Really??

Let's face it.....in 5-10 years, they'll come out with something new, that will hold 3x as much data at 1/2 the cost of blu-ray or hd-dvd, and then it'll be a moot point as to which is better......and this whole format war will be as stupid as the VHS-Betamax format war was.

I mean, honestly.......how long have we had dual format dvd drives because the - format and the + format are virtually the same, and the only advantage of one over the other might be which one plays on your dvd player better.

I say screw 'em both.....I'm waiting for the next format after blu-ray and hd-dvd, before I start replacing my dvd collection. Until then, it's just a waste of time. The only people buying those formats are the clowns that have to have the newest, shiniest toys, or the other clowns that have themselves convinced that they can notice the miniscule difference in quality over dvd. Bah, humbug to all those people!!




RE: Doesn't matter
By Zandros on 8/21/2007 3:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, because a decision of which companies that will get a significand amount of money over that time period doesn't matter att all... Just a question, you don't own any stock, do you?


RE: Doesn't matter
By marvdmartian on 8/22/2007 9:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
So, obviously, reading comprehension and spelling weren't your strong points in school, right?

I said it didn't matter, as in it didn't matter to the consumers. Do you really CARE which company gets more money from their overpriced technology over the next 5 years? I don't, since it seems to make no difference as to who will put out the next great innovation, does it? Take Sony.....they've had so much money that you'd swear they were printing it themselves. Now take a look at what they've come out with over the past 5 years......not much at all, imho. But Nintendo, who's been sorta "under the radar" for the past few years, comes out with the Wii, which blows both the Sony & Microsoft gaming systems out of the water.

So, pretty much, your point is moot......unless you have a lot of stock in one of those companies? Otherwise, you might as well have asked if I'd had bacon for breakfast, for all the sense that your question made!


RE: Doesn't matter
By Zandros on 8/24/2007 11:46:46 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, I'm quite sorry for the horrible spelling, I must have been drunk, which I, by coincidence, am not at school. And I believe, if not me, at least my teachers would disagree with you.

Anyway, consumers. What says any one person who is a consumer isn't also an owner in any of the companies he is buying his goods from, indeed it would be stupid not to be. (Cooperatives are perhaps a better model for this behaviour, but not everything can be perfect.) All those money Sone apparantly have, a part of that could have been yours. Why not choose to take an active part in this economic model we live in?

Incidentally, I do not own any stock in these companies, but that is mostly because of a lack of available funds.


By kusala on 8/21/2007 10:17:11 PM , Rating: 4
Where is the update to the story. He recanted his early AM post saying it was a mistake.

OOOPS!!!!!!!!

quote:
Last night at dinner I was having dinner with three blu-ray owners, they were pissed about no Transformers Blu-ray and I drank the kool aid hook line and sinker. So at 1:30 in the morning I posted - nothing good ever comes out of early am posts mind you - I over reacted. I heard where Paramount is coming from and the future of HD and players that will be close to the $200 mark which is the magic number. I like what I heard.

As a director, I'm all about people seeing films in the best quality possible, and I saw and heard firsthand people upset about a corporate decision.

So today I saw 300 on HD, it rocks!

So I think I might be back on to do Transformers 2!

Michael Bay


http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forums/viewtopic.ph...




By Moishe on 8/22/2007 8:29:35 AM , Rating: 2
I really like how he put the update... It sounds like he was with a few fanbois who only told him one side of the story. When he thought about it and saw for himself that HD-DVD is just as good as BR, he had to recant.

It also probably helped when the president of Paramount called and told him to get with the program "and like it" :)

Really though, at the core of the technology HD-DVD and BR are the same thing. They both hold HD content. It's just a matter of time before we will be done with this stupid format war and all this will be forgotten. It won't hurt the sales of a truly good movie.


No... you suck Michael Bay
By AquariusX on 8/21/2007 4:36:10 PM , Rating: 2
Let's see...

The Hitcher... sucked
Texas Chainsaw, the Beginning... sucked
Texas Chainsaw Massacres... sucked
The Island... sucked
Pearl Harbor... really sucked

The only thing that I really enjoyed from this guy is Bad Boys and Transformers. So if he quits on Transformers 2, I can only imagine how much better its going to be...




RE: No... you suck Michael Bay
By Silver2k7 on 8/23/2007 3:39:45 AM , Rating: 2
The Island - very good
Perl Harbor - very good, (perhaps not historically, what do I know I enjoyed the flick)
The Rock - very good movie.
Bad Boys was good, Bad Boys II not so good.
Transformers - really took cgi to a new level.. great stuff =)

Texas Chainsaw, newer saw it but would not pe surprised if its sucked =)


More BD/HD BS...
By eyebeeemmpawn on 8/21/2007 10:38:53 AM , Rating: 3
From Bay's quote in the article, it sounds as though most of the BD/HD drones who posted above missed the point. It states pretty clearly that Bay thought that the studio using both formats was a "progressive" stance. It sounds like, IMHO, that Bay is simply being critical of the Studio buying into the format war BS.

We've all been hearing about certain entities being "persuaded" to go one way or the other. If I were a movie studio executive, I would support both until one side made me an offer I couldn't refuse. <personal speculation> Paramount and Dreamworks weren't being progressive in their support of both formats, they were just waiting for a fatter check. </personal speculation>

commence "Not Worth Reading" clicks :)




By AstroCreep on 8/21/2007 10:44:06 AM , Rating: 3
"Job has all his children killed, and Michael Bay gets to keep making movies. There isn't a God."
-Kyle Broflovski




Let Him Bolt...
By cubdukat on 8/21/2007 11:13:33 AM , Rating: 2
I say screw him. So he had a hit with "Transformers"--he's still a talentless hack without Bruckheimer behind him, and even that's not a guarantee. He's like James Cameron, except without the skills--a no-talent hack that pisses off people so bad that only a few people will still work with him.

Besides, "Transformers" is his only film that won't be on Blu-Ray. Everything else belongs to studios that are either format-neutral or Blu-Ray only.

BTW, speaking of higher quality, has he even seen the job Disney did on Pearl Harbor? The DVD looked better!




RE: Let Him Bolt...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/21/2007 12:59:35 PM , Rating: 1
I agree. Besides, Disney's animated movies look no different upscaled than they do in High Def, animation doesnt benefit from pure HD the way live action films do.


Measuring the Qualtiy & Success of movies
By odessit740 on 8/21/2007 10:53:42 AM , Rating: 1
I have a question for the readers here and one that I believe that many may agree with.

How many readers here would agree that the way movies are rated as successes and failures as it is currently is a flawed system in measuring the true value and more importantly quality of movies. If a movie doesn't make big bucks $$$, then it is discarded as a failure. Many movies are not mainstream with regards to the audiences that they bring in but have powerful themes dealing with humanity, morality, and people's everyday life. It is true though that good, and great, works of cinematography often gather momentum by word of mouth. 'Word of mouth' is a powerful tool to reach wider audiences and people. But is not true how very often, if not all the time, you hear or read in the media that such 'n such a movie was great but you know deep down that it was mediocore at best, that box office numbers sometimes help to count sheep and not put a grade on the movie itself?

Now for the record, I do enjoy movies where shit gets blown up, fights break out, and guns are wielded recklessly. Of all I would say horror movies, not Hitchcock because his works are classic masterpieces, but the stuff of the last 20 years or so are absolutely not my cup of tea. But if people enjoy them then it's their business.

Anyways...
I guess for me asking these questions is a reaffirmation of my beliefs and ideas. Typically 'you' readers here are not just sheep. 'We' are here to be on forefront of technological events and discoveries as they are revealed. We know how the world is run, whatever we believe in, and although our interpretations may be different at the very least we observe, analyze, and conclude rationally. And only sometimes are we sheep.

What do you guys and gals think? Baaaaah!




By SandmanWN on 8/21/2007 11:41:38 AM , Rating: 1
I believe there is a difference between a movie being released for the "Big Screen" and a movie that is intended for a set audience. The failure comes into play when studios incorrectly guess that a particular movie is purportedly going to be a "Big Screen" hit when in fact it is the latter.

If you put a lot of money and resources into a movie believing it is going to be a blockbuster and it does nothing then in essence it is a failure even though it might be the type of movie that does quite well in other venues.


He saved my day!
By Ihmemies on 8/21/2007 9:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
No Transformers 2?

Best news since Uwe Boll stopped getting more money.




a child?!
By BillyBatson on 8/21/2007 10:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
is it just me or does bay sound like an unintelligent child in his update? How is he so easily swayed one way and then the other. He also doesn't actually state why he was upset and why he is no longer upset. Just mentions cheaper players and the movie 300? Wtf did someone take control of his blog and post the update for him????




hmmm
By medavid16 on 8/21/2007 11:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like some people reached in their pockets (again) and paid off Mr. Bay.

I have no problem , I simply just won't buy HD-DVD because I already have a PS3. It won't matter if an HD-DVD player is $500 or $200, if people already have a PS3 / Blu-Ray, they won't pay $200 just to play HD-DVD. I know I won't, and the people around me.

All this does is segregate the consumers, and people who stand by their already-purchased machines won't give up, which I'm sure HD-DVD people feel the same and won't go out and buy a Blu-Ray player... unless they go out and buy a PS3 as well.

Do what you will, enjoying movies on Blu-Ray and DVD is good enough. I don't need HD-DVD.




he is right
By otispunkmeyer on 8/22/2007 6:40:29 AM , Rating: 2
BR peeps are being denied what will be a poster child movie for HD. big freaking CGI robots in HD with explosions is just screaming to be let out in 1080p and uncompressed audio. it'll be magical

though i wont call bay an artist, lol, like any other arty farty person they want everyone to see their work, even if most of it is bollocks.

so he's not being allowed to let everyone see his movie by buying it on the format they chose and we the consumers are being basically pushed into buying both BD and HDDVD players just to see the movies we want when we want.




Per the Update
By Homerboy on 8/22/2007 8:55:09 AM , Rating: 2
Koo-koo!




late night kool-aid
By Screwballl on 8/22/2007 9:24:21 AM , Rating: 2
nothing like a good stiff drink to set you in the mood... for learning that a pubic comment by a public figure will get published somewhere....

personally I have not gone HD yet until the format wars cool off... still a regular DVD user until the format war cools (and prices come down)... although I am trying to get my uncles laser disc player and collection for nostalgic purposes




deep pockets
By omnicronx on 8/22/2007 9:32:30 AM , Rating: 2
Damn MS must have deep pockets, he re neg'd in less than 24 hours, i would have given him at least a few days.




Makes me wonder
By encryptkeeper on 8/22/2007 10:05:33 AM , Rating: 2
The HD war definitely has had it's ups and downs, and especially this with what happened this week it looks like it's long from over. With a huge percentage of people still running DVDs and perfectly happy with them I'm starting to think that neither HD DVD or BR are EVER going to be considered the dominant home movie format. Even if a majority of consumers buy HD players (no matter what format) they'll still be able to play their standard DVDs on them. You couldn't do that with VHS, and that's a huge part of why DVDs sold so well. I don't envision many people switching their old DVDs to new HD versions because the only real advantage (moviewise) is a better picture, which with most people they wouldn't know from a hole in the wall.




Sadly Disappointed
By rupaniii on 8/22/2007 8:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
I enjoyed the movie.
I hope Sony releases the Transformers Animated movie in Blu Ray. I enjoyed the Live Action CG movie, and would have bought it on BluRay. It has sooo much graphics, I'd buy it for the looks. Now, I would have to buy the DVD version. I am not going to do that. Now, I am not buying either version! Maybe i'll rent it so they don't make a dime and I see it anyway, on lowly DVD. In a few years, either I'll have to switch to HDDVD or it will come out on BluRay after Paramount/Dreamworks get their tookess' handed to them.




By Zensen on 8/23/2007 8:55:26 AM , Rating: 2
If he doesnt do Transformers 2... as for this format wars. Someone make these things cheap!!!!!!!!
blank hd-dvd/blu-ray and burners and players are still really expensive and not worth investing in esp when one like myself doesnt have a HD Television... yet.

If i can get a pretty cool movie like total recall for 9 dollars (AUD) then im pretty happy with that!

It's not like many people are going to miss out on the movie on the DVD format.




I wonder?
By INeedCache on 8/24/2007 11:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
I have not read whether or not there will be a betamax version of Transformers. If not, I'm outraged.




M$ indeed
By probedb on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: M$ indeed
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2007 9:37:29 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah thats it. They are obviously to blame. THey just paid everyone off! lol.

But Sony didn't pay off the other studios, or blockbuster? Its the same thing.

If no one paid off anyone, they studios would go with the cheapest route to product a high definition movie on high definition media. All specifications aside (storage, computer usage - both of which have no difference in the movie industry right now), you really think ALL the movie studios are ready to dump all their money into a possible 2nd coming of the BetaMax fiasco? Everyone knows that Sony did awesome on the Beta - as far as picture quality is concerned over the VHS. The fact is simple - studios want to target a media format which is easiest obtained by the consumer. Whoever has the most affordable player has the best chance of reaching out to expand its consumer base.


RE: M$ indeed
By SandmanWN on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: M$ indeed
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2007 10:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
There ya go. Conspiracy Theory at its best. But hey, you must be an insider trading with all that knowledge you have.


RE: M$ indeed
By SandmanWN on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: M$ indeed
By SandmanWN on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: M$ indeed
By DingieM on 8/21/2007 11:12:58 AM , Rating: 1
Please come from under that rock.

$ony is one of those firms that has most to gain from store promo deals. I don't have hard evidence but I bet you $ony did just that.

The ONLY reason to defeat a better price/quality ratio product (HD-DVD is clearly better on that front), is to "force" retailers selling your own product. Let the customers know only Blu-Ray is the next HD format by promoting that format and keeping HD-DVD in the dark corner from being spotted by ignorant consumers. Especially in the USA, the abundance of ignorant consumers are much higher than other parts of the globe.
For an educated buyer that surfs the internet for technological explanations, reviews, prices and market developments, Blu-Ray isn't that "good" afterall.

And besides that, the sales numbers are somewhat clouded, statistics highly open for multiple ways of interpretation, misuse by the aggressive Blu-Ray association and last but not least, misuse and bragging about by the stinking arrogant and scared $ony.


RE: M$ indeed
By SandmanWN on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: M$ indeed
By Timeless on 8/21/2007 1:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
If Blu-ray isn't that good, then America isn't the only ones being "ignorant." Last I heard, Japan was overwhelmingly Blu-ray and Australia was leaning towards Blu-ray.


RE: M$ indeed
By omnicronx on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: M$ indeed
By Timeless on 8/21/2007 7:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
If you didn't know, both Sony and Toshiba are Japanese companies. So that point just went out the window. And the point about the Aussies...they buy things. Lots of things. That why companies even know that Australia exists. ;)


RE: M$ indeed
By SandmanWN on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: M$ indeed
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2007 9:41:44 AM , Rating: 1
I'd love to see this "news" that Microsoft paid them off.

I love it that anytime anything positive happens in which Microsoft has any hand in, it must be because Microsoft paid someone off. Maybe they went with HD-DVD because its the cheaper of the two formats. Both in players and production costs for movies. No, it must be because Microsoft paid them off.


RE: M$ indeed
By DigitalFreak on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: M$ indeed
By Griswold on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: M$ indeed
By therealnickdanger on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: M$ indeed
RE: M$ indeed
By doctat on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: M$ indeed
By Oregonian2 on 8/21/2007 3:35:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
so microsoft paid off paramount (who owns dreamworks anyway, given how the DW execs ran it into the ground a while back), and extends this little format war for another few years.


If true, should anyone be upset? I don't recall anybody being upset when Sony paid off Target to sell BluRay players exclusively through the holidays.


RE: M$ indeed
By michal1980 on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: M$ indeed
By mindless1 on 8/21/2007 8:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
Did you look for anyone who was upset or just wait for them to come to you?


RE: M$ indeed
By Oregonian2 on 8/21/2007 9:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
Complainers "here" usually show up without me having to look. Now, there were explainers, but I don't recall anybody getting bent out of shape about it. When buyouts happen it just gets discounted because it was just just that, a buyout. Else it'd be like getting bent out of shape because Sony's Studio doesn't support HD.


RE: M$ indeed
By mindless1 on 8/22/2007 6:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe here, but remember we are generally those who seek to tackle, resolve a problem while those less technically inclined in the general population tend to be more likely to just complain instead.


YES!
By Supersonic3474 on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: YES!
By Visual on 8/22/07, Rating: 0
"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki