J.J. Abrams on 'Star Trek' sequel 3D: 'I didn't want to do it'
Director admits to initial skepticism on post-converting the sci-fi follow-up
J.J. Abrams participates in a panel discussion on his new Fox series "Alcatraz" at the Television Critic's Association Winter Press Tour in Pasadena, CA earlier today.
Are you a fan of Star Trek?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
"I did not fight for the 3D...it was something the studio wanted to do."
So said J.J. Abrams today on Paramount's decision to post-convert his upcoming "Star Trek" sequel to 3D, a move the writer/director admitted he was very skeptical of initially. "I didn't want to do it," he continued, speaking during a TCA Winter Press Tour panel discussion regarding the new Fox series "Alcatraz", which he's executive-producing.
Nevertheless, Abrams gained a new appreciation for the process when he saw the results of a post-conversion done on a good portion of the first "Star Trek" movie, which he noted "looked really good".
“That was the thing which made me think it would be okay," he said, claiming that he was opposed to actually filming the sequel in 3D because it would've forced him to use digital cameras, as opposed to the celluloid-shot first movie.
"I wanted it to match the look of the first and shoot it anamorphically," said Abrams. "Then I saw the first movie converted; it was actually really cool. So I was okay with [converting the film to 3-D], as long as I could shoot it the way I wanted to.”
The untitled "Star Trek" sequel begins shooting this Thursday. The film is slated for release on May 17, 2013.
So what do you think of Paramount's decision to post-convert the "Star Trek" sequel to 3D? If you were initially opposed, has Abrams' upbeat reassessment at all changed your mind? Sound off in the comments!
Related Events
-
movies
News From Our Partners
-
Hulu.com: Is The Office the Definitive TV Show of the '00s?
Craziest 'Simpsons' Couch Gag Yet?
Denied By PBS?
-
Total Recall: Star Trek Movies
Parental Guidance: Star Trek Into Darkness
In Pictures: The Stars of Star Trek Into Darkness
-
Cannes Film Festival: Cannes 2013, Day One: Sofia Coppola offers the first misfire of the festival
Hear This: A song with a long title succinctly encapsulates ’90s power-pop
Watch This: Laura Palmer lives—however briefly—in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me
-
'Star Trek Into Darkness': The Reviews Are In!
Emma Watson In 'The Bling Ring': The Early Reviews Are In!
'Star Trek' And Klingon: Learn The Language Of The Aliens!
-
Weekend Movies: 'Star Trek Into Darkness,' 'Black Rock,' and More
Bruce Willis Set for 'Expiration': Actor Will Play Hitman in Next Movie
Emma Watson Says She is in No Rush 'To Be Seen as a Woman'
-
One Direction Announce Where We Are Stadium Tour for 2014
Miley Cyrus Wants Everyone to Know She's Still Engaged by Posting This New Pic
Most Anticipated Album Release for June 2013 – Readers Poll
-
State of Decay, TMNT Release Dates Leaked by Gamestop
Watch 'The Hangover 3′ Stars Zach Galifianakis and Ken Jeong Perform Stand-Up Together in 1998
'Pacific Rim' Trailer: When Man and Machine Become One
-
The Telefile - Modern Family: The Best Lines of the Night
The Telefile - Fall TV 2013: What's On When
The Telefile - TNT & TBS Upfront 2013: Reaping What Other Networks Sowed
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupScott
January 9, 2012 at 12:18AM EST Reply to CommentSounds to me like "I don't want it in 3D, but I have to, so I'm gonna walk the company line and say it's cool, and that'll keep them off my backs."
doucett3@uwm.edu So true...well said!
January 9, 2012 at 1:30AM ESTDanny
January 9, 2012 at 12:44AM EST Reply to CommentI'll think I'll save a few bucks and see this one in 2D. (I enjoyed Clash of the Titans and Green Lantern more than most, probably because I saw those in 2D too.) But when Scorcese or Wenders or Herzog for example enthuse about why they just had to make certain films in 3D I'm happy to pay the extra bucks to see those films in 3D.
odessasteps
January 9, 2012 at 12:46AM EST Reply to CommentAs long as studios release a 2D and a 3D version, the creators can do whatever they want.
J.M. Holloway
January 9, 2012 at 1:23AM EST Reply to CommentDon't like the 3D. Watched the last Trek movie he did and I couldn't sleep for hours. Great movie, just too much blu-ray.
janice9
January 9, 2012 at 1:31AM EST Reply to CommentDon't like 3D. Watched the blu-ray of Star Trek and it messed up my sleeping for the night.
duh
January 9, 2012 at 5:41AM EST Reply to CommentThanks for the insight, JM "Janice9" Holloway. There was just too much blu-ray in that movie. The rays were much too blu. If not for the bluishness of them rays, we could all get some sleep.
xactomundo No need to be snarky, Duh... The bluray IS cranked up in Abrams' Trek, in fact it aggravated my sleep apnea. Likewise the lensflares triggered my GERD...
January 9, 2012 at 10:48AM ESTPatHines
January 9, 2012 at 11:13AM EST Reply to CommentIt's the same, movie after movie, director after director. "I was skeptical, but then they showed me the latest cutting edge post conversion blah blah blah." Fast forward a year, the movie comes out, looks like shit, process repeats.
alexd
January 9, 2012 at 12:30PM EST Reply to CommentIf the film is not conceived/planned in 3D, and in the best situations shot in 3D by the director there is NO point in seeing it in 3D. It's like watching a movie shot in Black and white colorized. If the director doesn't want to think about that part of the storytelling, don't force it on them, and don't encourage the practice by the studios by buying those worthless tickets. On the other hand if a movie is conceived and shot in 3D, you're missing out by watching a 2D version... you're watching a color movie in Black and white.
Keith
January 9, 2012 at 2:39PM EST Reply to CommentIll go see it in 2D - 3D movies are just a cash grab (having to "rent" glasses for an extra $3). I hate watching a movie where I need to put glasses on overtop of my glasses!