TrekMovie is back with a quick update on the 2012 Star Trek sequel. Producer JJ Abrams has made some new comments in a couple of interviews that reveals the script is still being worked on, and Paramount wants the film to be in 3D. He also talks about his pending decision whether or not to direct the film. Details below.
Abrams gives Trek sequel update on directing, script and 3-D
JJ Abrams has done some interviews at the recent TV Critics Association press tour, promoting his Fox TV series Fringe, but he of course has also got questions about his other projects including the Star Trek film planned for June 29, 2012. Firstly Abrams tells Collider that he has not yet decided if he will direct the film which should go into production this summer, confirming TrekMovie’s previous reporting that he is waiting for the script to make the call:
I guess the idea of not wanting to choose to direct a film, for which I’ve not read a script. It’s a tough decision to make without seeing any pages. That’s not to say that I don’t have all the faith in the world in the spectacular writers. Damon Lindelof, Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman are awesome. My hope is that they’ll write the script, it will be great and we can make a fun, exciting sequel to Star Trek
Abrams also confirmed with New York Magazine’s Vulture Blog that the script is still being worked on, noting it "is being written by very smart people. I look forward to reading it."
The producer of the next Star Trek also confirmed talked to NY Mag’s Vulture Blog, telling them Paramount has asked him to consider to make the sequel in 3-D. Like with directing, Abrams said he will await the script, noting:
I have nothing against 3-D in theory. But I’ve also never run to the movies because something’s in 3-D. [As for Trek], as soon as I read the script, if it says, "Somebody pushes a weapon toward the camera in a menacing way," and we think, "That’d be better in 3-D!"… I dunno. What do you wanna see? 2-D or 3D?
Abrams also noted that his style of directing may not fit well with 3-D, saying:
I’m a big fan of whip pans, which is very hard to do in 3-D. You know, when I was in New York fifteen years ago, and I sort of had the flu, I remember turning the TV on. There were these kids in a very dark, kind of muddy movie that was on a local channel, talking about making out. Then you cut to them walking in the forest, and somebody had a paddleball, and they were doing it right to the camera. It was like this weird, experimental Fellini movie. I was like, “What the fuck is this movie?” And it was Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D — without sex, violence, or 3-D! It was genius.
That is a good point. Abrams style of shakeycam (including physically rapping on the film magazine), pans, lens flares, etc. might have to be altered when adding that extra dimension.
Two D or Three D?
It is worth noting that Paramount also wanted the 2009 Star Trek movie to be in 3-D. Abrams decided to stick with 2-D because he felt that since it was his second feature film, adding 3-D would be too much to deal with. Speaking at the Star Trek DVD release event, the director said he was "worried that, instead of being a decent 2-D movie, it would have been a bad 3-D [movie]". However, at the same event Abrams noted "if I, in fact, direct the sequel to our Star Trek film, 3-D could be really fun." This comment makes 3-D sound like a possibility, especially with so many other tentpole films coming out in 3-D, including the next Spider-man film which opens just days after the Star Trek sequel.
But it isn’t clear that even though he is open to it, that Abrams is a big fan of 3-D. Last summer at a Comic Con panel with Joss Whedon, Abrams noted he was " not totally on board" with 3-D. And Abrams latest film Super 8, opening this summer, will not be in 3-D.
What do you think? Should the next Star Trek be in 3-D? Vote in the latest poll.