It does figure that if anyone were going to attempt this, it would be Michael Bay, as his movies seem to be calculated to make as much money as possible. I've watched Armageddon four times. Not because I liked it, but because I find it fascinating that practically every single scene is either a big "what's going to happen?" action scene, or some sort of "kids playing in front of a billboard of JFK" Americana crap. I mean, once they start pouring that on near the end, it's hard not to laugh.
But do we really want to be able to choose how we watch a movie in this way? With allowing multiple angles throughout, the visual composition has near infinite possibilities, which seems to go against part of what makes a movie a movie. I'm sure at the very least there will be some very annoyed cinematographers and editors.
Tho' I doubt the story is true (at least for the whole move).
To me, multi-angles would be used best as a more "behind the scenes" sort of thing. Use it to show the scene in question being shot, or without the effects (like Ghostbusters), or maybe if there were two versions of a scene and they liked both, or what have you. But in isolated controlled conditions. To allow an entire movie to have this seems to just spit in the face of what many consider to be the art of moviemaking. At the very least it shows the filmmaker doesn't have much in the way of a vision as to how his/her movie is composed.
Oh, and yeah, I suppose that after so many viewings, I sort of like Armageddon. It's a guilty pleasure.
