www.ditl.org

From an October interview but doesn't seem to have been mentioned.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/10/08/jj-abra ... eyer-more/

Question: Any chance of you shooting the next Star Trek film in 3-D?

JJ Abrams: It is funny. Paramount talked to me about doing the first one in 3-D and, having it only be my second film, I was petrified just at the addition-I thought it would be another dimension of pain-in-the-ass. I thought I would be like, "oh my god, I just want to make a decent 2-D movie." I was so worried that, instead of being a decent 2-D movie, it would have been a bad 3-D one. So I'm open to looking at it because now I feel a little bit more comfortable and, if I, in fact, direct the sequel to our Star Trek film, 3-D could be really fun, so I'm open to it. What I've seen of Avatar makes me want to do it, because it's so crazy-cool looking.

Who are we to argue? I saw XI at an IMAX cinema and thought it was amazing. Doing it in 3D could only enhance the experience.

Why not, everything else seems to be done in 3D right now. CGI heavy movies have an advantage as big portions of them are in a format that already is easily converted to 3D presentation. I'm honestly still not sold on 3D movies. It's a nice gimmick but I don't see the big benefit to everyday movie viewing.

I'm not big on 3D. It always takes me one step further from getting into the movie, because its distracting. It reminds me constantly "Hey, this is a movie!". Maybe on an IMAX screen it wouldn't be as bad, but for a regular screen, 2D is better for me.

I don't know, I think he was right, they should first concentrate on making a good 2d movie. Other than space combat I also really don't see the point of making it 3d.

I just think 3d works best for the average sommer blockbuster mindless action flick and altough some might argue XI was exactly that I am not sure I'd like it for future star treks.

I'm not a big fan of 3-D movies, personaly. Just concentrate on making a good movie and not on filling it up with gimmicks.

There's also the little issue of people not being able to watch 3D at home. So if the movie isn't solid no amount of gimmicy 3D will save it.

Theres also an issue that, when I went to see "Christmas Carol" in 3D with my cousin's in Southend, my cousin Beth couldn't see it properly. She has a rather serious lazy eye, or some other form of visual ailment, which prevented her from seeing it. To her it looked like a 2D film, with a faint outline tracing round the left hand side of everything.

I have that issue with a simple astigmatism. It's not recommended for diabetics to use contact lenses, so I'm stuck with specs... which make the use of additional 3-D devices problematic.

In any event, I also agree that 3-D films have had a tendency to focus on being 3-D rather than being good movies.

Mikey wrote:I have that issue with a simple astigmatism. It's not recommended for diabetics to use contact lenses, so I'm stuck with specs... which make the use of additional 3-D devices problematic.

In any event, I also agree that 3-D films have had a tendency to focus on being 3-D rather than being good movies.

3-D makes me sick to my stomach. Don't know why.

I can see it, but my astigmatism is incredibly weak. I think "A Christmas carol" was a very good film. But thats the only 3D film i've ever seen.

Definitely go with 2-D. I can't see the 3-D either. Just make it as good a film as XI or better and I'll be happy.

stitch626 wrote:

Mikey wrote:I have that issue with a simple astigmatism. It's not recommended for diabetics to use contact lenses, so I'm stuck with specs... which make the use of additional 3-D devices problematic.

In any event, I also agree that 3-D films have had a tendency to focus on being 3-D rather than being good movies.

3-D makes me sick to my stomach. Don't know why.

Because it's not truly 3D. There are a lot of 2D elements and some are made 3D. Your brain doesn't like it. Some people can deal with it some can't. It's another reason I think the 3D thing is a fad at best.

I can see it being done well...

Most 3D movies that I've seen are the real corny....make something up plot so we can throw something at the audience...and then something "shoots" out at you and you can tell it's fake...that sucks

Avatar did it really well, the entire setting was what was really 3D and it brought me into the movie even more....my friend who I went with put it rather well, "It's subtle and takes it from a movie you watch to an experience your in, almost like a dream."

The latter would be very cool for Star Trek.

That was one of the things I liked best about Avatar. Not once in the whole movie did anybody throw anything out of the screen! Not a single "Hey look! It's 3-D!!!!" moment.