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

By HitFix Staff Sunday, Jan 8, 2012 11:10 PM

J.J. Abrams on 'Star Trek' sequel 3D: 'I didn't want to do it'

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.

Credit: AP Photo/Danny Moloshok

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!

Next Article - George Clooney will take on the Nazis in WWII film 'The Monuments Men'
Previous Article - Tim Burton and Robert Downey Jr. eyeing live-action Pinocchio movie

Scott

Sounds 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."
January 9, 2012 at 12:18AM EST Reply to Comment
- doucett3@uwm.edu So true...well said!
  January 9, 2012 at 1:30AM EST
Danny

I'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.
January 9, 2012 at 12:44AM EST Reply to Comment
odessasteps

As long as studios release a 2D and a 3D version, the creators can do whatever they want.
January 9, 2012 at 12:46AM EST Reply to Comment
J.M. Holloway

Don'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.
January 9, 2012 at 1:23AM EST Reply to Comment
janice9

Don't like 3D. Watched the blu-ray of Star Trek and it messed up my sleeping for the night.
January 9, 2012 at 1:31AM EST Reply to Comment
duh

Thanks 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.
January 9, 2012 at 5:41AM EST Reply to Comment
- 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 EST
PatHines

It'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.
January 9, 2012 at 11:13AM EST Reply to Comment
alexd

If 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.

January 9, 2012 at 12:30PM EST Reply to Comment
Keith

Ill 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!
January 9, 2012 at 2:39PM EST Reply to Comment

HitFix.com

Home

Event Calendar

Movies

TV

Music

In Theaters

New to DVD

TV Listings

New Music

Videos

Photos

Blogs

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

Send to your friends

Direct link: http://tinyurl.com/74eqdfl

J.J. Abrams on 'Star Trek' sequel 3D: 'I didn't want to do it'

Comments

Scott

Sounds 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!

odessasteps

As long as studios release a 2D and a 3D version, the creators can do whatever they want.

J.M. Holloway

Don'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

Don't like 3D. Watched the blu-ray of Star Trek and it messed up my sleeping for the night.

duh

Thanks 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...

PatHines

It'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.

Keith

Ill 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!

News From Our Partners

Recent Activity on Facebook

Most Popular on Facebook

About HitFix

Advertise on HitFix

Subscribe to HitFix

Popular Topics

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

Are you a fan of Star Trek?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

Sign up to receive alerts

Send to your friends

Direct link: http://tinyurl.com/74eqdfl

J.J. Abrams on 'Star Trek' sequel 3D: 'I didn't want to do it'

Share this Article on ...

Direct link: http://tinyurl.com/74eqdfl

J.J. Abrams on 'Star Trek' sequel 3D: 'I didn't want to do it'

Related Events

Comments

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Scott Sounds 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!

odessasteps As long as studios release a 2D and a 3D version, the creators can do whatever they want.

J.M. Holloway Don'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 Don't like 3D. Watched the blu-ray of Star Trek and it messed up my sleeping for the night.

duh Thanks 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...

PatHines It'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.

Keith Ill 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!

News From Our Partners

Recent Activity on Facebook

Most Popular on Facebook

About HitFix

Advertise on HitFix

Subscribe to HitFix

Popular Topics

Scott

Sounds 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."

odessasteps

As long as studios release a 2D and a 3D version, the creators can do whatever they want.

J.M. Holloway

Don'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

Don't like 3D. Watched the blu-ray of Star Trek and it messed up my sleeping for the night.

duh

Thanks 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.

PatHines

It'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.

Keith

Ill 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!