Star Trek 2 will shoot in 2D

3D conversion will happen in post-production

J.J. Abrams has revealed that his upcoming Star Trek sequel will not shoot in 3D but will instead favour the post-production treatment. However, before alarm bells start ringing, Abrams is quick to reassure fans that the 3D element will not be a rush job…

“We’re shooting on film, 2D, and then we’ll do a good high-end conversion like the Harry Potter movie,” Abrams told MTV. “Luckily, with our release date now we have the months needed to do it right because if you rush it, it never looks good.”

Indeed it doesn’t, although more encouraging is Abrams newfound interest in using IMAX cameras for part of the shoot.

“We were talking about [shooting in IMAX] and I would love to do it,” revealed Abrams. “IMAX is my favourite format. I’m a huge fan.”

However, those fantasising about seeing William Shatner on a screen the size of a building (we know you’re out there) will be disappointed, as a studio insider has confirmed that no members of the original cast will be making cameos.

Star Trek 2 will be released in the UK on 17 May 2013. Let’s hope we get a catchier title sooner rather than later.

What do you think about post-production 3D? Does it ever live up to expectations? Tell us, below.


    • badger86

      Dec 21st 2011, 13:55

      Ball's to that, I'll stick with 2d. I didn't see potter in 3d, but heard it wasn't that great (the conversion not the film) so the 'high standard' of potter doesn't really fill me with confidence.

      Alert a moderator

    • SussexUK

      Dec 21st 2011, 14:26

      Totally agree. 3D is a rip off. Out of 2hr live action move you might get 5 minutes tops of some 3D effects that don't add anything to the movie. Its just a money making exercise and with Star Wars and Titanic both getting the 3D overhaul and re-re-re released at the cinema, DVD, Bluray its a joke. Clash of the Titans was awful in 3D... ok awful in general but the 3D made it worse. The blood and guts in Final Destination 5 3D looked really rubbish and fake unlike a decent 2D horror movie. I think a Pixar or Disney movie in 3D is fine because it does make it look at lot better BUT now we're screwing the hard up families who have to fork out maybe another £10 for a family of 4. Apparently, according to Cineworld, we're not paying for the film to be made in 3D we're paying for the "experience" of seeing it in 3D. In these tough economic times the film companies should take any extra costs of producing a 3D film on the chin and not pass that cost onto their customers.

      Alert a moderator

    • bramkdz

      Dec 21st 2011, 22:51

      Indeed. 3D is a horribly irritating scam.

      Alert a moderator

    • ilikescifi

      Dec 22nd 2011, 12:24

      I really like 3d but only if it's filmed in 3d. I think the conversions can be really good, but if a filmmaker cannot see the shots in 3d at the time of shooting how will he know how effective the 3d shot is? maybe they will have 'subtle' 3d for the interior dialogue shots and use the deep field 3d for space scenes and stuff. SussexUK is right in that only 5 mins or so of 3d films look ace because the filmmakers use it as a gimmick. what a waste of great technology

      Alert a moderator

    • MikeyRix

      Dec 22nd 2011, 12:27

      First "no 3D", then "3D", and now "post-con 3D"??? Thanks but no thanks, JJ.

      Alert a moderator

    • trist808

      Dec 23rd 2011, 9:24

      @SussexUK : On the majority of film releases in 3D, cinema chains do offer a 2D option. The recent glutch of kids films for instance: Hugo, Happy Feet Two & Puss In Boots were all released in both formats, so customers do have a choice. No one is forcing you or them to go and watch 3D, no one's putting a gun to your head and making you pay the money ... or if they are, you need to rethink which cinema you should be attending (lol). As badger86 states, he/she saw Harry Potter in 2D ... didn't bother with the 3D and didn't feel he/she had to, badger86 choose the 2D option as his/her preference. Occasionally, there is the odd title or two that is soley 3D, the only one I can think of right now is Priest, terrible film and terrible 3D conversion and not many people went to see it anyway. I personally enjoy films in 3D, especially the ones shot in that format, but I 100% agree that certain films, such as Clash Of The Titans, which was a post production conversion job and a shoddy one at that adn the aforementioned Priest, are a rip-off and a waste of time. I feel they hurt the format and some film companies jumped on the band wagon after Avatar's success to try and reap the rewards. All it did was damage the public's perception of what 3D can offer. So, I totally understand how people feel their money is ill-spent on such things, but 3D is here to stay now, cinema chains have spent millions converting their screens and switching from 35mm to digital to offer this new (albeit actually old) format. When it works, it's glorious, when it doesn't it's a big fat disappointment. LIke I said though, there will 9 times out of 10 always be 2D versions available and rightly so.

      Alert a moderator

Most Popular