Fandango - Star Trek: Beyond Movie Tickets

JJ Abrams: Star Trek Sequel Still Being Written + Paramount Wants It In 3-D

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. 

 

[poll=629]

 

For more from Abrams on Fringe, Super 8 and more, see full interviews at collider.com and nymag.com


 

Sort by:   newest | oldest
January 14, 2011 7:21 pm

First!(after the reboot)

Welcome back Tony!

About the 3d, We need to see multilayered nebulas, asteroid fields, solar flares (not lens flares) and a bizarre alien forest, not unlike “Avatar”.

No more Earth like “M class” planets please!

bobbob
January 14, 2011 7:22 pm

yes – more 3d – first?

Commander/Captain/Ambassador Spock
January 14, 2011 7:25 pm

I still feel that 3D is too much of a gimmick and is not really necessary for film. Now this is not to say that it will never be really really useful and good in movies, but I just don’t see it being all that great at the moment.

Then again, it is one step closer to the holodeck.

Here’s hoping J.J. directs!!!!

The First Son of Krypton
January 14, 2011 7:27 pm

I still hate 3D, it dosent add anything to the films ambience.

Gigastazio
January 14, 2011 7:28 pm

Agreed – if you’re going to do 3D, make it worth my while. Give me deep, beautiful landscapes and space scenery to feast my eyes on. Well-crafted eye candy.

Stay away from planned action shots and that blow-em-up-in-yer-face and oh-there’s-that-giant-flying-chunk-of-thing-that’s-gonna-make-me-duck schlock that makes 3D the bad cliche that it is.

Hat Rick
January 14, 2011 7:29 pm

3D could work.

4 8 15 16 23 42
January 14, 2011 7:30 pm

3D isn’t any better now than in the 80s, no matter what anyone says. I regret having seen Avatar on screen in 3D. Eventually, I’ll watch it again in 2D, and be able to focus on the story better.

Points to Abrams for referencing Fellini….

January 14, 2011 7:32 pm

EFF no to 3D! It’s an over-priced and over-used gimmick.

JKP
January 14, 2011 7:35 pm

3D films are too dark. Stick to 2D please, JJ.

MJ
January 14, 2011 7:40 pm

I can just see it now — lens flares in 3D — argh!!!

Sprout
January 14, 2011 7:40 pm

“Avatar” was made to be blown away by the 3D, if you want to focus on the story, just watch “FernGully: The Last Rainforest.”

Trek in 3D. Why not? Warp would be pretty cool.

4 8 15 16 23 42
January 14, 2011 7:42 pm

Abrams, baby, what kind of message does it send if you don’t direct? It’s like a vote of no confidence. I understand if you want to see the script first, but you’re practically in charge… make sure it is worthy of your directing it!

And, to you writers — Kurtzman, Lindelof, Orci — please, please, please make the story deeper than Star Trek XI. Believe me, I enjoyed the movie as much as any of the fans (or at least any of them over 25), with its fast pacing and high degree of action. I acknowledge that Star Trek XI wasn’t without some depth to it. But now, it’s time to take a page from some of the best, most thought-provoking TOS episodes, and bend our minds!

Dee
January 14, 2011 7:42 pm

First it doesn’t matter to me if the film is in 2D or 3D … I want to see a great sequel to Star Trek!

And JJAbrams will direct the movie or not …? hmmm … one wonders if he decides not to direct the film … is because the script is bad? … either way is what everyone will think, is not it?

I suspect that JJAbrams will be the director! … LOL! I HOPE …

MJ
January 14, 2011 7:45 pm

As long as it is fully shot in 3D, I am fine with it. But no way would I support a 3d conversion.

Ryrun
January 14, 2011 7:47 pm

The production and style of the first film was so unique and great. I really feel like doing the next film will take away from the style and look making it corny. 3D wouldn’t help the story telling element necessary to make a great Trek film. Leave it out make another great story based film and not some gimmicky “oh look the rocks are falling right in front of my face” – There is a place for 3D and it gets better every year but leave it to the films that need it as a story telling device and let Trek be great because of why it has always been great the story and the relationships and life lessons.

keachick
January 14, 2011 7:48 pm

I don’t want Star Trek to be in 3D, unless he is able to give us scenes as described by #5 Gigastazio. Otherwise, just give a good movie that is well paced, character driven with a good story and lots of fun, love and beauty. Some of the world’s finest movies were actually 2D movies…;)!!

Welcome back, Anthony. My guess was wrong or was it? I said you would be back Monday morning 17 January. Are you here for the long haul? I’m sure you’ve seen what’s been going on with one of the threads. Be gentle now with that batleth, if you must use it…:)

Dac
January 14, 2011 7:48 pm

For films which take place in a “dream” world, 3D is OK. Namely Pandora and The Grid in Avatar and Tron. However, JJ spent a LOT of time in the first film using real locations and such to make the film/ship feel “real”. While I wasnt a big fan of the brewery Engine room, It did add a realness that I feel shooting in 3D will take away.

Skip 3D. Shoot an alien planet sequence in HDR Video. Be a first for a film to do so – THAT would be otherworldy, look fantastic and put it in a history book.

Dac
January 14, 2011 7:51 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlcLW2nrHaM

Imagine an alien planet action sequence shot like that. It would be the most alien thing seen in a big budget movie for a while, and could start a bullet time like trend.

4 8 15 16 23 42
January 14, 2011 7:51 pm

@10 — a comment that perfectly illustrates modern viewers’ complete inability to appreciate substance over style. James Cameron is quite skillful at blending story with action, and Avatar is no exception.

I don’t watch Jerry Bruckheimer flicks, for example, and I don’t care if they are 3D. Just don’t cheapen good drama with immature technology.

When I was 10, I went to see Jaws 3-D. It was complete dreck, obviously. Even at 10, I could tell that (1) the story was inane, (2) the 3D was a complete gimmick, and crucially, (3) no amount of 3D could save that film-abortion. I’m serious when I say that 3D 2010 is not technologically improved over 3D 1983.

4 8 15 16 23 42
January 14, 2011 7:54 pm

^ Oh, sorry, Avatar is from 2009… same point about the 3D, though

January 14, 2011 7:54 pm

I wanna watch “Requiem for Methuselah” in 3d!

That One Guy
January 14, 2011 8:01 pm

If the story is good, I’m glad. If they do it RIGHT in 3D, I’m on board. I would never support a 3D conversion though.

3D is here to stay, I feel. Get used to it.

Spectre-7
January 14, 2011 8:06 pm

I don’t care as long as I can buy a non-3D blu ray

I totally agree with # 17!

Tyrone Alfonso
January 14, 2011 8:06 pm

3D has it’s place in the world but this isn’t it. I have always preferred the sharp image quality and color to the novelty of 3D.

I rarely see a movie in 3D only. I always end up going back and watching it again later in 2D and it’s always better. (including Tron and Avatar)

Although having the choice is nice, I say don’t waste the effort, most people are learning 3D isn’t worth the higher price.

keachick
January 14, 2011 8:06 pm

JJ Abrams is being a fool. He does have some idea of the storyline. The writers are part of his production company, Bad Robot.

Abrams – Yay or Nay? Stop the teasing. It is pathetic. This indecision etc can’t be good for the morale of the cast and crew either.

If the answer is no, then they need to find another director who is as good, if not better.

Surely, the Star Trek sequel should already be in the pre-production phase, but it isn’t. Come on, you guys. Focus. Start “rattling those dags”.

Tyrone Alfonso
January 14, 2011 8:11 pm

…also, I’m imagining what ST11 would have been like in 3D and it’s not appealing. Fast camera movements and cuts would have people poking their eyes out in the opening scene alone

Karen Brown
January 14, 2011 8:11 pm

I hope they resist using 3D. Too gimmicky, and I don’t think it’d fit this kind of movie.

Hugh Hoyland
January 14, 2011 8:17 pm

I think Star Trek 2.0 3D would rock, I really think that its the wave of the future, like it or lump it. Yes the technology isnt quite up to snuff yet, but the industry (T.V. and Motion) seem to determined to perfect it.

And I hope JJ decides to direct it, I think the guys will come up with a script that will get him excited.

RB
January 14, 2011 8:22 pm

I see a lot fewer movies nowadays since there’s a 3D “tax” on so many of them. I also have real trouble with 3D and it hurts my eyes. Unfortunately, my theaters never offer a 2D alternative, so when I want to see 2D, I have no choice. I have learned to hate 3D and wait for the 2D blu-ray more and more often.

I also think there’s starting to be diminishing returns to 3D. the recent spate of 3D movies really hasn’t blown away the box office in any meaningful way, and I think this coming summer will be the true test, with movies like “Thor” and “Captain America”. Will there me a 3D effect on the box office? I sure hope the numbers for those films are much lower than Iron Man so studios will reconsider 3D and instead make good stories.

davidfuchs
January 14, 2011 8:22 pm

3D is and always will be gimmicky. Until they create a system that doesn’t use glasses, thus not distracting me from the movie by the fact that I have to run around with thick frames that don’t cover my entire vision, it’s well nigh useless. From a cinematography standpoint, it forces filmmakers to compromise on exposure and what they can shoot on. To top it off, the tickets cost $2-4 more.

3D has and continues to be an abomination for serious films.

daniel
January 14, 2011 8:23 pm

I would have thought that if you want to do 3D, the script writers would have been notified in advance. I don’t see how it helps the story, so I voted no. The last 3D movie I saw (Tron Legacy) didn’t need the 3D.

Patrice
January 14, 2011 8:27 pm

NOooooooooooo !

Stick to 2D Please ! There is an absolute NO need for 3D … NO Need at all.

I’m thinking of putting together a Coalition of Cinephiles Against the Third Dimension … CCATD …. Anybody wanna join ?

Phil
January 14, 2011 8:27 pm

No 3D. A million times, no!!! No NO NO!!

Reign1701A
January 14, 2011 8:28 pm

The great thing about 3D movies is that you can ALSO watch it in 2D. Why not give us an option? I vote yes for 3D.

Odkin
January 14, 2011 8:35 pm

Definitely no Abrams if Paramount wants the movie in 3-D. He doesn’t like it and his shaky, glare-y, frantic style is not suited to it.

3-D works best in movies with lots of long “beauty shots” where the mind can take in the panorama. Minds and eyes do not adjust well to hyper-kinetic action scenes.

Funny thing is, Trek works best when it is more steadily paced and mature like a\n adult movie. Trek doesn’t work as an arcade game movie.

Craiger
January 14, 2011 8:40 pm

Welcome back Anthony.

Red Dead Ryan
January 14, 2011 8:40 pm

I say maybe. It obviously depends on the script and whether or not the technology is at a point where it allows J.J to shoot the sequel in a similar manner to the first film.

John
January 14, 2011 8:42 pm

Please stick with shooting this on 35mm film.

Craiger
January 14, 2011 8:48 pm

I missed my daily Trek news.

Xai
January 14, 2011 9:00 pm

NO, NO, NO 3D!

4D will be accepted.

combatkarl
January 14, 2011 9:10 pm

Screw 3-D. I’d be happy with a new engine room minus beer vats.

Red Dead Ryan
January 14, 2011 9:14 pm

41

“Screw 3-D. I’d be happy with a new engine room minus beer vats.”

Agreed!

Khan was Framed!
January 14, 2011 9:16 pm

if it’s like Avatar quality, fully immersive 3d that makes me feel like I’m standing on the bridge, then yes please do it in 3D.

But if it’s that post production, pop into 3D after the fact crap like “Alice in Wonderland” then please don’t bother.

Ricky
January 14, 2011 9:31 pm

I was not impressed with Avatar in 3-D. As a matter of fact I wasn’t impressed with Avatar at all. I think the movie would suffer because JJ Abrams style is more in your face type of action. If any one can pull it off though it would be him.
I agree I hated the engine room.
I do want to see Shatner in this film though.

weyoun_9
January 14, 2011 9:39 pm

Dude(s). Seriously. Until I can get 3-D in the theatre without wearing something on my face, I’m not into it. It’s worthless. Avatar was a mess. The 3-D was worthless and it adds nothing to the experience whatsoever. (Not that I have an opinion, really.)

Can we let it go already and focus on making good films?

Harry Ballz
January 14, 2011 9:47 pm

3D = HUGE MISTAKE!

Jim Nightshade
January 14, 2011 10:05 pm

always the avatar 3d bashing-i loved the movie n the 3d–imax 3d was good for tron legacy- i thought it added to the experience–not sure if trek would be good in 3d–it could be if done right—

Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire
January 14, 2011 10:05 pm

I think that 3d would not be a good fit for Trek. Trek does not need it. Some Movies can have 3d and be good and some not so good. Trek Is Great on it’s own and does not nee it. Would I see it in 3d. yes. But would rather have it in 2d with a fantastic story and F.X

jorDe'
January 14, 2011 10:13 pm

I saw all kinds of 3-D at the CES in Las Vegas. 3-D is a joke. You must be directly in front of the screen and wear glasses. It appears to be just another gimmick.

Cygnus-X1
January 14, 2011 10:23 pm

Well, it appears that Abrams has tied his opinion of the script to his decision to direct it. So if he’s not the director, it means that he had problems with the script.

Abrams is of course not an absolute barometer for quality in movies, but if you like JJ’s taste in general, then his decision of whether to direct this movie might be a good indication to you as to how much you’re going to like the forthcoming movie.

And I hope they don’t get lured into doing it in 3D.

Because that would be G-I-M-M-I-C-K-Y.

wpDiscuz