Simon Pegg: Star Trek Sequel ‘Maybe’ In 3-D + New Poll on 3-D Trek | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Simon Pegg: Star Trek Sequel ‘Maybe’ In 3-D + New Poll on 3-D Trek April 15, 2011

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Poll,ST09 Cast,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

One of the big questions with regards to the planned 2012 Star Trek sequel is regarding dimensions, specifically if the film will be presented in 3-D or just old fashioned 2-D. A new report from the UK has Star Trek’s new Scotty weighing in on the issue. Plus we have a new poll asking what you think about 3-D.

 

Simon Pegg on Star Trek sequel in 3-D

These days the issue of movies coming in 3-D is a hot topic. Since Avatar crushed all box office records, more and more films are making the move to the third dimension. This has brought up the suggestion that the Star Trek sequel could be in 3-D. In January producer JJ Abrams stated Paramount wanted the sequel to be in 3-D. Now Star Trek’s new Scotty Simon Pegg has weighed in on the issue. Asked by Whats Playing if he knows if the Star Trek sequel is going 3-D, Pegg stated:

"As far as I know, no” before adding, “I mean.. it depends. Maybe.”

Well that was pretty vague. Plus it isn’t clear if he has any inside info or if he is just guessing as the actor made it pretty clear during his March Paul press tour that he doesn’t really know anything about the Star Trek sequel except that he should be ready to start shooting in August or September. Pegg also weighed in on the general movement to 3-D, including discussing Steven Spielberg’s animated movie Tintin (which has Pegg voicing Inspector Thompson):

… “When something’s made to be in 3D, if it somehow part of the experience, fair enough. I’ve done 3D movies. Tintin is amazing. That is going to be in 3D and that is going to be amazing. Sometimes, it’s like if you see a movie that doesn’t necessarily lend itself to 3D, like perhaps something live action or that isn’t built for 3D, it’s more like they’re worried about it. 3D can sometimes be a vote of no-confidence.”

JJ Abrams positions on 3-D

For his part, producer JJ Abrams does not seem entirely sold on 3-D. Back in late 2009 Abrams stated Paramount wanted his first Trek in 3-D, but 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." But when it came time to direct his next film Super-8 Abrams chose to not go with 3-D and at Comic Con 2010 Abrams stated he was "not totally on board [with 3-D]." As for the Star Trek sequel,  earlier this year when Abrams confirmed
Paramount was pushing for 3-D, he said the final decision would depend on 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?

POLL: 3-D or not 3-D

Are you a Star Wars fan?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

 

Comments

1. Bugs Nixon - April 15, 2011

NO.

2. Snoorkle - April 15, 2011

Well, 3D gives me a headache. I don’t want to have a headache while trying to watch the new Star Trek movie, y’know? :(

But then again….

IT JUST MAY BE REALLY AWESOME…..with aspirin.

3. Nathan - April 15, 2011

Maybe. Probably not. Most 3D in movies these days is just irritating, but it can be done well.

I trust JJ and the crew to make the right decision, though.

4. Lore - April 15, 2011

I struggle with inner ear problems that are not unique to just me. If the movie is 3D then I just won’t be able to see it.

5. NX-03 - April 15, 2011

Hmmm, I like the novelty of seeing a single Star Trek film in 3D but, that said, when I went to see Avatar, the 3D effect to my eyes, seemed to disappear after a while.

What with this, Shatner and Khan, this movie’s really going to please/annoy the hell out of alot of people at this rate.

3D Shatner. Oh my.

6. dmduncan - April 15, 2011

No 3D. The public is disturbingly disconnected from reality as it is.

7. Harry Ballz - April 15, 2011

Now wonder the producers won’t share any secrets with Pegg……………

this guy can’t keep his yap shut!

8. Doug Skywalker - April 15, 2011

3D hasn’t been perfected yet, and if a movie’s shot traditionally, then why bother trying to force it into 3D in post?

9. Nathan - April 15, 2011

No way.

I’ve never been impressed with 3D. I’ve seen Avatar, Clash of the Titans, and Tron Legacy in 3D and have been disappointed every time. When it doesn’t work, the movie fails miserably. Even when it does work, it’s not that impressive and doesn’t add much (if anything) to the experience. It just doesn’t look natural for whatever reason. Besides, the glasses dim the screen and are way too distracting.

I’m hoping this is just a fad and we’ll get back to 2D screens soon. And I’m really hoping that Star Trek doesn’t follow the fad.

10. Christopher Roberts - April 15, 2011

The cinema I saw Star Trek 2009 at, was so badly out of focus it might as well been in 3-D.

11. SPOCKBOY - April 15, 2011

I think the only way 3D can work is if you FORGET you’re shooting a 3D movie and just shoot it normally. Then it simply adds another layer to the experience of watching it.
If you try to “cash in” on the 3D then it becomes a tiresome gimmic with a parade of gratuitous objects flying at the camera add nauseum.

:)

12. somethoughts - April 15, 2011

As long as Star Trek Next Frontiers or whatever it is called stands on its own in 2D and movie goers have a option for a excellent 3D version, then it’s win win. How can you lose when you have a 3D space drama movie on the big screen. Some people are just afraid of change, this isn’t your father’s star trek.

13. OneBuckFilms - April 15, 2011

11

I think if it is shot in 3D, it should be done in a way that does not rely on it, so it is transparent to the viewer, but keeping the 3D factor in mind when filming.

There are various technical challenges with 3D, especially if fast camera movement or practical lens effects are involved, and these would be big issues to resolve.

If the second movie utilizes a similar cinematographic style to the first, the lens flares would be extremely difficult (2 lenses mean only one eye would get the flare, with no effect on the other, and would be very jarring), and fast moving/handheld cameras would have a very different effect, potentially inviting nausea in many viewers.

JJ Abrams would have to re-invent much of his visual style for the 3D medium, leading to a visual inconsistency from the strong (if often controversial) visual style notably established in Strar Trek 2009.

14. Anthony L. - April 15, 2011

Right now…no…

Jimmy Cameron has been advocating this and says he will do it with Avatar’s 2 and 3 but Peter Jackson IS doing it right now on The Hobbit and that is shooting in a much higher frame rate (48fps). According to his set updates they have been watching the dailies and not only the the movie look a lot better and sharper but he says the people watching them in 3D aren’t having nearly as much strain as say the old 24fps movies cause.

15. avada kadavatar - April 15, 2011

HELL NO! leave §D to movies which need that tho hide the fact the have a shitty story.

16. virgin vulcan basement nerd - April 15, 2011

3D is cheesy imo.

17. John - April 15, 2011

It should be shot on film at 24 frames-per-second so that it looks like a movie and not an amped up video game. Film is timeless. Digital will show its age.

18. MvRojo - April 15, 2011

At this point, I’m more in the “I Don’t Care” camp. I won’t watch it nearly as many times as I watched Trek XI (11 times) just because the 3-D prices are somewhat outrageous. AND, I don’t buy the argument that “it’s also available in 2-D” because in my experience living in L.A., most of the newer and nicer theatres tend to only have the 3-D option, with the 2-D going to older theatres.

19. Dac - April 15, 2011

Heh, if it HAS to be 3D as long as its filmed with 3D Cameras at 48fps, why not?

Of course, I’d rather it be good old 2D. That never stopped films being great before.

20. Telford - April 15, 2011

Didn’t you guys do this poll a few weeks/months ago, and the answer from most folks was a resounding NO?

It’s still going to be a resounding NO this time too.

21. tman - April 15, 2011

I would be curious JJs opinion on frame rates (24 vs. higher) for 2D films.

22. Number 3 - April 15, 2011

NO bloody 3D, 4D or 5D.I like my Trekkin in good ol’ fashioned 2D…wit real models<HINT.Besides, hate havin ta wear those DaMN glasses over my glasses.

All my best

23. Number 3 - April 15, 2011

Now I would pay the extra $$ to see it in IMAX

24. jas_montreal - April 15, 2011

No Thank you.

End of debate.

25. Andy - April 15, 2011

Then again, could 3D be any more of a headache than 50,000 lens flares in the face?

26. Aashlee - April 15, 2011

Totally agree with Comment 11 by SPOCKBOY. Use 3-D only if it enhances the experience. Don’t shoot it with this gimmick in mind, otherwise it detracts from the story and movie-watching experience.

Most 3-D movies are also offered in 2-D versions, so I don’t see where there’s a problem with this. You either choose 3-D and pay extra for it, or you pay regular price for 2-D. Everybody gets what they want. No big deal.

27. Chief Engineer - April 15, 2011

3D is not good enough for live action. In my opinion it works perfectly with animation but on live action the images appear darker because of the glasses and to be honest it just looks like 2D images that have been layered like the old Red Viewmaster 3D Viewers with the trigger. On top of that you get directors who feel they have to throw in random shots for no reason (i.e. Golf ball putted towards camera in Avatar… shame on you Cameron).

28. sabeen sahnan - April 15, 2011

i’m not gonna argue if 3d is good or not, my frustration is the ‘SNOT Patrol’ that would like to dictate what you should watch or not, what you should like or not…for me, the bottom line is 3d isn’t a limiting factor, it’s about offering options….

Pure 3d when filmed in 3d always has the option of being displayed natively in 2d, who would have the nerve to dictate not giving you that option if you so choose?

just pure hating in my opinion…you would always have that option to watch in 2d if you so choose.

MVrojo, i don’t live in L.A. so i may have to defer to you on it but in Scottsdale, az, we get both options readily available and my in-laws are in L.A. so we visit frequently and have never ever experienced the whole 3d only option at the theaters we go to there….

I invested into a 3dtv not because i want to watch everything in 3d, but because i want the option to choose 2d or 3d. the glasses don’t bug me, and frankly after watching for a few months, the 3d effect doesnt bug me either.

every 3d post is inevitably littered with this snotty ’3d sucks’ arguement yet none of those snots ever talk about either turning off the 3d effect at home or going to a 2d showing instead at the movie theaters.

I watched the latest trek movie in IMAX and frankly found it overwhelming so left after 35 minutes. After that, i found a screen more to my liking and watched it there. I didn’t go into the IMAX theater, jump up on a soapbox and begin an ignorant rant on why no one else should be watching it on IMAX because i personally didn’t like it.

29. Areli - April 15, 2011

No 3D please. I can’t stand all of these movies being in 3D. It does nothing to enhance the experience of watching the movie, and it usually look bad.

30. D D - April 15, 2011

No! Spend the money on a suitable Engineering set. If they do 3D I won’t watch it until it comes out on DVD / Bluray, where I can then watch it on my 2D HD TV!

31. Mairee - April 15, 2011

I can’t wait for this 3D fad to be over.

That being said NOOOOOOO

If 3D touches Star Trek I will completely drop the franchise from my life . . . . . . . . .

Ok, no I won’t.

But when 3D is proven to cause seizures, cancer, and any other miscellaneous brain injuries I’ll be laughing at you all who said “YES”

32. Rick - April 15, 2011

Lens Flares in 3-D!!

33. NCC-73515 - April 15, 2011

It’s 6-D anyway (R, G, B, x, y, t) – plus sound ;)

34. MJ - April 15, 2011

I gotta be honest with you, with so many people wanting 81-year old, 300 pound William Shatner to be in the movie, and so many people wanting the movie in 2D only, one might logically come to the conclusion that the majority of ST fans that come to this web site are “old farts” who are stuck in times long since past….maybe Trek fans need the time machine from “All our Yesterdays” so that we can go back to the 60′s and 80′s and just watch the original TOS episodes and Trek when they represented the state of the art, and when the actors were at credible ages to play the crew.

just saying….

35. Alex - April 15, 2011

Shaky cam + 3D = vomit². Could be fun. From a distance…

36. Dee - lvs moon' surface - April 15, 2011

Ok! … Simon Pegg is talking… “Maybe”… LOL

But I want to hear… “Definitely”… about Star Trek… + LOL

And definitely can be in 3D … OK to me!

:-) :-)

37. Darren85 - April 15, 2011

Good old fashioned Panavision anamorphic will do just fine thanks! It was good enough for the last movie, and it’ll be good enough for the next :)

38. Phil - April 15, 2011

34. Yeah, I’d figure 3D would be a great way to experience The Shat in all his mature big boned rippling mass of manhood. Regardless, MJ, you see to be just a bit on the cranky side today…..

39. MJ - April 15, 2011

@31 “But when 3D is proven to cause seizures, cancer, and any other miscellaneous brain injuries I’ll be laughing at you all who said “YES” ”

My plan is to see it in 3D, in a movie theaters right near high-power lines, while holding my cell phone right up against the side of my head, while drinking a Diet Coke that I have added extra saccharin packets to, and near a wireless power meter.

40. rvp - April 15, 2011

@34 Ugh, I’m 26 and voted No. Stop trying to shame people for having the opinions they have. You keep pulling this sh*t and is annoying as hell.

Back to topic: I’m not against 3D technology in any way, but I think this movie is already working with a short schedule (September filming sounds very late to me) and I worry 3D production might take longer.

41. PaulB. - April 15, 2011

I’m beginning to think Abrams & co. could get away with ANYTHING in this sequel as long as (1) they redesign that godawful engineering set, (2) turn down at least a few bridge lights, and (3) don’t do it in 3D.

Of course, this makes me fear that we’ll see that same brewery set with extra in-your-face lighting in 3D… ;) (Just teasing!)

42. MJ - April 15, 2011

@40. You disagree, I get it. I have no problem with that. I’m not going to get personal about it with you though…sorry.

@38. “Don’t mince words, Bones…how do you really feel?” Yes, you are right, Phil. I will try to lighten things up a bit.

43. Phil - April 15, 2011

No to 3D for a few reasons…

In my advancing years, things moving around my peripheral vision may cause a bit of motion sickness. Vomit in the theater isn’t on my list of things to do. I’m too cheap to cough up an extra five bucks for 3D. It’s a gimmick, really not interested to see cast members throwing stuff at the audience.

I’m guessing simon dosen’t keep secrets too well now, does he?

44. Dennis Bailey - April 15, 2011

If it’s not in 3D the studio’s leaving money on the table.

It is that simple.

It’ll be better if it’s shot in 3D rather than being converted.

45. Jeyl - April 15, 2011

Hey, if it comes out to the 3DS, I won’t need glasses.

46. Phil - April 15, 2011

Don’t worry about the schedule. I still think all these questions are an elaborate ruse to throw everyone off. In reality, the script was done a year ago, the films been shot and in post production, and Simon keeps pitching misinformation to keep everyone off balance. Hell, I’d bet they could move the release up to Xmas 2011 this year if they wanted to.
Cheers….

47. rvp - April 15, 2011

@42 you already get personal when you start calling people who disagree with you “old farts” stuck in times long since past.

@41 To be honest, I really like the lighting and I hope they keep it. The bridge looked crisp and clean and the white highlights the live action.

I can do without the brewery, though.

48. SoonerDave - April 15, 2011

Hey @34, to quote Spock, “Generalizations do not make arguments.”

I’m 46 years old, I’m under 300 lbs, and I’m not an “old fart.” And I want no part of this idiotic 3D quackery. I’d much rather have an intelligent story. With rare exception in Hollywood, the two seem mutually exclusive.

How about I make a reverse generalization that everyone who wants 3D it is just some one-dimensional teenage druggie who thinks Justin Bieber’s movie rates an Oscar nod?

Ridiculous.

49. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - April 15, 2011

If they do 3D then they need to use 48 frames per second rather then 24. If it is shot entirly in #d and in 48 frames per second then Star Trek 12 would be incredable. But. Don’t shoot Trek in regular 2d and then make it a 3d. That would be very bad.

50. rvp - April 15, 2011

@46 You have no clue how much I wish you were right.

51. MJ - April 15, 2011

OK, I withdraw the term “old farts”…really meant “sentimentalists”…if that upsets you as name calling, then sheesh, I’ll try to come up with something else. Sorry if I hit a definite sore spot here — wow, the reaction is sudden and unequivocal. I apologize!

52. Tarrax - April 15, 2011

Yep, Peter Jackson knows what he’s doing. 48FPS 3D will be just fine. :)

53. Pizza - April 15, 2011

Not in front of the Klingons

54. MJ - April 15, 2011

@49 “If they do 3D then they need to use 48 frames per second rather then 24. If it is shot entirely in #d and in 48 frames per second then Star Trek 12 would be incredible.”

Exactly. The worst of all worlds would be 24FPS with post-production 3D instead of original 3D filming. 48 FPS 3D applied to the next Trek will have all these naysayers here standing up and cheering as the end credits roll — and you can take that to the bank!

55. Bucky - April 15, 2011

I voted No just because I’m 90% JJ Abrams will direct it, and I’m not against 3D at all, I’m against a certain style – shaky, handheld, fast, rapid editing, lens flare – which goes completely counter to how to properly shoot 3D. I don’t mind that style for Abrams, it simply does not work with 3D at all.

56. Lt. Bailey - April 15, 2011

Not at all… a lens flair or that shakey camera would kill us in 3D.

57. MJ - April 15, 2011

Obviously, for 3D to work on Trek, JJ would need to adjust his camera work. He is a smart and innovative guy — he wouldn’t screw up the 3D with dumb stuff that has the audience getting dizzy.

58. VOODOO - April 15, 2011

To the people who are saying no to 3D would you prefer it if they shot in black and white with no sound? In all honesty I couldn’t really care less if they shoot in in 3-D or not, but some of you guys are being a dramatic in your hatred of 3D.

Bottom line is that 3D films make more money for the studio. That said be prepared to see the next ST film in 3D…For those of you hate 3D for whatever odd reason studios usually have a 2D version of their films as well.

59. MJ - April 15, 2011

@58. “To the people who are saying no to 3D would you prefer it if they shot in black and white with no sound?”

You mean like “old…BUZZ”…never mind. LOL :-))

60. Starbase Britain - April 15, 2011

I voted yes.

Id love to see it. i cant understand the huge no vote at all.

Bring back Shatner in 3D!!

:o)

Greg UK

61. Andy Patterson - April 15, 2011

I say thee, no. And yes I’m getting ready for Thor.

62. Ryan - April 15, 2011

Last summer I went to see “Alice in Wonderland” in 3-D. Now before you all crack on me for seeing that horrible piece of garbage, I have to say that although 3-D is cool, it was too distracting after a while, and then 6 months later, I saw “Alice…” in 2-D on an HDTV, and it looked much better. I was also amazed by how much detail I missed. The movie still sucks, but at least it was more bearable in 2-D. 3-D is a novelty, and its great to see a 3-D movie once in a while. I just have yet to see a 3-D movie with an excellent script. They should just be concerned making a great movie, and if the suits want to release it in both formats, I support that, and hell, may even pay the extra couple bucks to see Star Trek in the third dimension… at least it will go where no other Star Trek has gone before. However, the key remains: make a great movie first.

63. Iva - April 15, 2011

Voted no, because no 3D is always better than half assed 3D. And given previous experience, half assed is the best we can expect.
Hobbit will be in 3D, but I can trust Peter Jackson to do the job just right.

64. MJ - April 15, 2011

Based on some of the responses we are saying here, it makes me wonder what response we would have received if the question would have been worded as:

1. Assuming the quality of the 3D experience would be even superior to the Avatar 3D experience (i.e. using the new 48 FPS 3D currently being pioneered by Peter Jackson on The Hobbit and Cameron on Avatar 2), and assuming that JJ would adopt his directing/camera shooting style to optimize the experience for Trek, would you support the movie being done in 3D? YES NO

65. Tarrax - April 15, 2011

Link for 48FPS info from Peter Jackson:

http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/48-frames-per-second/10150222861171558

66. rvp - April 15, 2011

And the LOL OLD FARTS continues. So great. Have you guys never been in other places of the internet outside of this site or interacted with online people who weren’t Trek fans? Search 3D movies + rant on google. All old farts, I bet, including the teenagers and 20 something year old freelancers.

3D has never interfered with my enjoyment of a movie, but it has never added to it either. Liking it doesn’t equal youthfulness of mind.

At the end of the day, I agree with John Carpenter: “It’s a way to separate you from a lot of bucks. It’s cool, but it’s gimmicky, I think.”

67. Phil - April 15, 2011

Silly question, as it’s been a long time since I’ve seen a 3D movie, do you still have to wear the glasses?

68. symar - April 15, 2011

Most 3D movies these days are such so they don’t have to invest in script, plot, acting, directing, or anything else that makes for a good story. They’re all about the visual effects and not much else. I would hate to see the new Trek go down that path.

69. Browncoat1984 - April 15, 2011

I’d say no. The problem is right now audiences are getting tired in 3D because 80% of all movies that come out in 3D simply tack it on as an add-on and in a bad way, then another 10% of those movies might be decent in 3D but you can watch them in 2D and not miss anything. There’s maybe 10% of 3D movies that are really great in 3D, I can think of last year’s Tron that was IMO the best 3D since Avatar. Audiences are getting wary of 3D movies and many viewers are just sick of it. It also doesn’t help that they’re a lot more expensive than regular movies.

70. MJ - April 15, 2011

@66 I agree with most of what you are saying here. The problem was that when Avatar made $2B+ dollars, nearly every action movie planned for the following couple of years was either post-processed in 3D or rushed into 3D, unlike Avatar, in which Cameron spent years perfecting it. So of course the past two years have been “junk food” years for 3D. This year, however, starting with Thor, we are going to start getting movies that were planned since inception to be in 3D, so I am expecting significantly improved quality. And next year, when The Hobbit comes out in the new 48FPS 3D format, that is going to be spectacular, and will finally fully deliver on the uneven 3D experience that has been lacking with today’s 3D releases. Rome was not built a day — this is very similar to the interim period when black and white movies were being gradually replaced by color movies.

71. Rico - April 15, 2011

Please – NO 3D!!! Has there been even an ok 3-D movie other than “Avatar?” It’s the film and story that count.

72. MJ - April 15, 2011

I do think that if Paramount is not wiling to do Trek 2012 in 48 FPS 3D with all the bells and whistles, then I would vote no here. I want it in 3D, but it needs to be the SOA kick-ass best 3D available. If not, then I would rather just have it in 2D only.

RVP, we are not as far apart as you think.

73. Tarrax - April 15, 2011

@67 Yes, but the glasses are now polarized instead of the old red/blue filter ones.

74. MJ - April 15, 2011

@71. Tron Legacy

75. rvp - April 15, 2011

@63 “Hobbit will be in 3D, but I can trust Peter Jackson to do the job just right.”

Not just because he’s a perfectionist and has a keen eye for detail but because – and this is crucial – he has a lot of time.

76. Jim - April 15, 2011

Avatar gave me a huge headache, 45 minutes in I had to remove the glasses. Not good at all without glasses.

77. EM - April 15, 2011

3D is fantastic. I think that every little or big movie should be filmed in 3D. Just like movies are overwhelmingly filmed in colour. Hey wait, Star Trek should only be filmed in a 4:3 ratio just like the original television ratio and only in the same crappy colour and sound. Any media developed post TOS shouldn’t be used!

78. KPJC - April 15, 2011

I also had a huge headache for the first hour of Avatar. I do not think this will increase my desire to run out and see the next trek if it is in 3D. Would rather wait until the non-3D is out on DVD.

79. MJ - April 15, 2011

I have noticed that since several of us here starting posting the reasons why 3D could work for Trek, that the poll numbers for Yes and Maybe have been increasing…now approaching 1/3 of the fans.

80. MJ - April 15, 2011

FYI — headaches for the 3% to 5% of people seeing Avatar are expected thing of the past with the advent of 48 FPS 3D. Also, the number of people who really got a headache from Avatar due to 3D is not fully quantifiable, since about 2% of people seeing any given movie experience a headache. But I am not doubting that 3D increased (perhaps doubled) this percentage.

81. Iva - April 15, 2011

It’s not that I don’t like the idea of 3D, quite the contrary, it’s just that I don’t see the point of making a movie in 3D if it won’t be 48 FPS.
Avatar was great mostly because it was a first, the others just got us to see all of the issues 3D has. Now that we’ve been there & done that, either make a better one or don’t go for 3D at all.

In a perfect world, I would love to have this move postponed for a few years (sue me),
until all of the issues with the last one are resolved somehow, the script is actually ready in time, jj would fix his style (which I believe I’ve read somewhere he considers his signature and doesn’t like the idea of changing), and the movie would end up being a 48 FPS 3D that doesn’t sell just because of the visuals, but because of the good story too. Bring back the soul of ST.

82. bugs nixon - April 15, 2011

If you can’t walk around it, it ain’t 3D.

3D is holodecks.

3D is Marty McFly in BTTF 2 outside the cinema showing Jaws 19.

Instead of having a physical iPad, or a plasma TV, I want a floating rectangle screen which can follow me round or stay put, displaying content, which I can bat around the room, scale up and down, split up and share with others.

83. Ian - April 15, 2011

No 3D, it sucks and it’s nothing but a gimmick and excuse to raise ticket prices.

84. Sachiel - April 15, 2011

If they do 3D for the sequel it should be made for/filmed in 3D, not done post-conversion.

85. Captain Karl - April 15, 2011

when will this 3D fad end? Please let it be soon…although with the amount of people that were suckered into buying a 3D TV, I’m sure they hope it becomes standard.

86. njdss4 - April 15, 2011

Most likely no. I doubt they’d be able to do it as well as Avatar did it, and that was the only movie where I felt like dealing with the 3D glasses was worth it. I still think 3D is a giant pain because wearing the 3D glasses over my regular glasses is ridiculous, painful, and annoying.

87. Harry Ballz - April 15, 2011

61. Andy Patterson “I say thee, no. And yes I’m getting ready for Thor”

Andy, if they bring the next Star Trek movie out in 3D, I’ll be Mighty Thor, too!

88. Phil - April 15, 2011

80. MJ – April 15, 2011

I think some people got headaches because they realized that Avatar was a reboot of Pocahantas….

89. Dom - April 15, 2011

No issues with the higher framerate. They should have gone to that years ago, especially once digital cameras came into use. Thing is, with the beautiful images and movement achievable at a higher framerate, what’s the point in doing 3D as well? At a higher framerate, the images will give the impression of greater depth anyway, rendering 3D gimmickry obsolete.

Higher frame rates are a step forward in cinema. 3D is a pointless step back!

90. Damian - April 15, 2011

I can take or leave 3-D. It’s not going to make or break things for me. The main thing is for them to decide from the get go. There is nothing worse then adding 3-D after the fact.

As MJ noted, JJ Abrams will have to rethink the camera work (shaky cam and lens flares) if he plans to direct 3-D. I guess it all depends on how important that stuff is to him. IMHO I can do with a steady cam without the constant flashing, but that’s another thread.

91. Aline - April 15, 2011

NO ! I’m SO waiting for the Star Trek sequel, but if it’s in 3D, I’m not sure to go see it in theatre. Sadly, I’ll just wait for the 2D version in DVD !

92. VZX - April 15, 2011

I could care less. Every movie that’s “3-D” is also released in a 2-D format. So, if they make Star Trek in 3-D, I’ll just pay the cheaper price and see the 2-D version. I don’t get what the big deal is.

93. Keachick - April 15, 2011

If the sequel was to be filmed in 3D, they would be doing it NOW, surely. Yet we hear nothing. Simon Pegg has not said anything. He is doing a JJ Abrams – seeming to say things while in reality actually saying squat/zero.

As yet, I have not heard of any medical investigation made into the quite severe side affects that some people experience while watching a movie in 3D. It seems that a dubious technology is being promoted to the masses without much, if any, research being done into any possible negative effects on the aural/visual centres of the brain. Quite irresponsible really. Oh well, as long as there is a buck to be made…

It is the story and characters that matter. 3D won’t make a bad story better but it could make a good story appear even better. The 2D option should be available for those who prefer it or actually need it.

94. The Riddler - April 15, 2011

Picard “Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!”

95. DC - April 15, 2011

I think if they do 3D, it should be only to ENHANCE shots and not be dependent on it. You don’t want to see the 2D version and see a shot and go, “OH!!! That was SOOOOO made with 3D in mind!” I’ve had that happen a good chunk of the time….othertimes, it’s done well. Megamind for example had shots that worked perfectly fine and seemed perfectly natural without 3D, but 3D did add something to the shot.

96. Chadwick - April 15, 2011

3D for me its a novelty. I would see the Star Trek movie in 3D but would not buy it in 3D, I don’t even have a 3D TV. Are we to assume that all television and movies will one day be made in stereoscopic when we no longer need to wear the glasses? I just don’t care for it at home, its not a must, seeing a 3D movie in theaters is like going to the amusement park. Every now and then its a fun treat. But always having 3D shoved in our face, not cool. But Hollywood…marketing…yea…they’re gonna shove it in out face.

97. Red Dead Ryan - April 15, 2011

3D is here to stay, folks. Most theatres are upgrading to 3D, and any movie released in 2D will be few and far between in a few years. Eventually, the 3D option will be the only option. Studios realize the money they can make. Some movies will be shot in 3D, others will be converted.

On the other hand, I believe people will have a choice to watch movies at home either in 3D or 2D. I don’t think 2D home entertainment is going to die anytime soon.

I think the “Star Trek” sequel will be shot with 3D in mind. Whether it’s shot in 3D, or converted post-production, I don’t know, but I have to think Paramount won’t want to miss out on extra revenue. I don’t think the decision belongs to J.J Abrams. If he doesn’t want to make the sequel 3D, then the studio will fire him and get a new director who will. I hope that doesn’t happen, as I really like J.J Abrams as a director, but you just never know with studio suits.

98. Trekwebmaster - April 15, 2011

Well, I guess the poll numbers speak for themselves.

A big “NO,” on Trek in 3-D.

To compare and contrast; but “Avatar” was an epic film with NO prior history and could making Star Trek Movie Sequel in 3-D, limit the film’s success?

Possibly, due to the fact that Star Trek has so much-more history than “Avatar.” 3-D could move the new Trek film out of some movie-goers venues, as far as, the poll numbers here show, sounds like no-go on 3-D.

I see this as a BIG TEST to see whether TPTB stick with a solid and sure formula or gamble and make a 3-D movie to appeal to “mainstream,” while leaving the opinions represented by the poll data behind.

Make your decisions carefully fellas. But here is a hint. If you do decide to film in 2 and 3-D formats, keep the 3-D version as a follow-up release to the 2-D premiere. I-MAX it and 3-D it AFTER the major run; and you can include “unique” bells and whistles to each run, to make each seem not at drawn-out. You’ll attract “Trekkers” and “mainstream” movie-goers in the droves and not piss anyone off.

Make the wrong decision and you’ll have to contend with a “Trekker” back-lash that would make even “Q” quake with fear.

Godspeed, Admiral.

99. Allenburch - April 15, 2011

I looked through the posts and did not see the answer to my personal (newb) question on this: Can a movie shot in “48 FPS 3D” still be 2D? In other words…Can we have both?

100. MJ - April 15, 2011

@99. Yes, the 48 FPS is seperate from 3D technology — it is really just running twice as many frames through the camera as 24. It will ehance 2D movies as well, but you will notice the improvements more drastically on a 3D movie.

101. MJ - April 15, 2011

@93 “As yet, I have not heard of any medical investigation made into the quite severe side affects that some people experience while watching a movie in 3D. It seems that a dubious technology is being promoted to the masses without much, if any, research being done into any possible negative effects on the aural/visual centres of the brain. Quite irresponsible really. Oh well, as long as there is a buck to be made…”

Here is my suggestion, Keachick — watch 3D movies in a movie theater right next to high-power lines, while holding your cell phone right up against the side of my head, while drinking a Diet Coke that you have added extra saccharin packets to, and while seated near a wireless power meter. :-)

102. Richard C. - April 15, 2011

I’m good either way as long as I get to see another Star Trek :)

103. Basement Blogger - April 15, 2011

I vote 3D. And it’s not because I like it. Frankly, 3D adds nothing to a film even when shot in 3D. The reason is financial. The studios make a nice profit on 3D The more money Star Trek makes the more Star Trek for all of us. Hello CBS Les Moonves. How about a bone here. 12 episode TV series of Star Trek on say, TNT. But I digress.

But what I do want to see is the film to be shot in 3D. IF RELEASED IN 3D, NO CONVERSIONS FROM 2D. SHOOT IN 3D. I still want my money back from “The Last Airbender.” Shooting in 3-D allows the director and director of photography to adjust the lighting for problem of darkness in 3D film. (Abrams says 3D is dark;; link above; LInk below article as to why 3D films are dark) Additionally, special effects can be adjusted to take full effect of the medium.

Why 3D Cinema is Dark
http://www.film.com/movies/why-is-3-d-cinema-so-dark

104. Will_H - April 15, 2011

If they made the movie to be a good 2D movie and then added 3D in to make parts look better I’d be ok with it, but once its done in the Theater 3D doesn’t really matter since most people don’t own a 3D TV. So probably 2D will be the best choice.

105. vulcannonibird - April 15, 2011

I’ve an eye-kondition so i cannot use 3-d.

So no!

106. Jim Nightshade - April 15, 2011

Yeh for 3d to be done right it has to be done with foresight and vision from the director designing it not something you tack on at the last minute…since JJ is not comfortable with 3d i doubt it would add much to the movie….now other visionaries liki cameron et al are all doing things like filming at higher frame rate it makes the hidef even more hifef helping to make the 3d better and more seamless….let them keep working on it and if a future trek film can be done well in 3d then do it….
but not as a gimmick…

good 3d–avatar, toy story–tron was good too although some got confused because some scenes were not shot in 3d to make the transition to the digital world more effective….i KINDA liked narnia 2 in 3d….that worked pretty well…but they didnt do many 3d type stunts in it it was just the movie in 3d….in general cartoons looks neater in 3d and are clearer….live action can be done but I dont think jj has time to learn 3d and film trek too ahah

107. trek - April 16, 2011

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

Every 10-12 years the 3D gimmick raises it’s ugly little head again – and fails yet again.

108. Maj - April 16, 2011

I think the concerns are valid. It “could” be done in 3D, but there is the concern of whether the story line will be affected since shooting in 3D has it’s own rules.

For a director like Abrams I think shooting in 2D works better for him. Why take the risk with something that might not work anyway? Star Trek 2009 worked brilliantly with 2D.

On the other hand there are a number of 3D films that didn’t quite do well with 3D. Say, Clash of The Titans.

So it either needs to be done properly and with the proper commitment to go all the way, so to speak — or it shouldn’t be done at all.

109. captain_neill - April 16, 2011

Best to stick with good old 2D, 3D is just a gimmick

110. lostrod - April 16, 2011

I’m not sure what the big deal is. If it’s shot in 3D it just means you have the option of watching it in 3D OR 2D. Don’t theaters generally show 3D movies in regular 2D as well?

111. Dom - April 16, 2011

The thing that annoys me with the argument that people who don’t want to/can’t watch a film in 3D should simply find a 2D screening is that the tail has been wagging the dog for a while now where 3D movies are concerned. 3D should be the ‘in selected cinemas’ option but trying to find a 3D movie (even a post-conversion one) in 2D is next to impossible now.

Truth is, most 3D movies would have done just as well had they been 2D. I simply don’t believe 3D is the reason people are going to see Tron, Avatar and so on: it’s the production design and the other publicity that pulls them in.

As it stands, I’m going to have to miss The Hobbit in cinemas, which is hugely disappointing for me, as I’d love to see it at 48fps, and if Star Trek takes the same route, I’ll be forced to miss that too. That said, if Abrams has to abandon the strong visual style set out in the first film to pander to the 3D morons, then the script had better be pretty watertight.

Sadly, I think we’re witnessing the brain death of cinema. Essentially, a bunch of directors who are getting old and are way past their prime, such as Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg, are committing a scorched earth policy by destroying cinema before they die. It’s tragic really.

112. Captain Rickover - April 16, 2011

I voted NO. ’cause D is completly useless, distracting and not worth the extra bucks.

113. MrPhil - April 16, 2011

No, no, no. Just to be clear, no.
Give it a few years when the frame rate increase has resolved all the strobing, and when they eventually sort out the brightness issue, then perhaps. And when digi projectors have gone to 4K.
Until then, it’s not for me.

114. Patrice - April 16, 2011

No, no and .. no.

3D is a gimmick. PLEASE, JJ … resist the temptation … Resistance IS NOT FUTILE.

115. Aurore - April 16, 2011

71% of people partaking in this poll voted “No” to 3D.

I guess that settles it, then.

The next Star Trek will be in 3D.

Just give me a good movie.

116. the_doctor - April 16, 2011

If they go 3D then you have to get rid of the everything that made ST09 great in a visual kind of sense. No Shaky-Cam, no more “Nice flare!” or wild camera movments, no “fluidity”.

They should only go with 3D if the next one will be more about exploring a “strange new world” and not so much about fast-paced-action.

117. PaulB. - April 16, 2011

#116 – Well, given what you just said, I kinda hope they DO make it in 3D. If that would get rid of the flares, shaky-cam, wild camera movements, etc., it would be worth it!

118. Kirk, James T. - April 16, 2011

Shoot it all in IMAX and if they feel after reading the story/script, 3D would be better than 2D then shoot it in 3D.

119. Schultz - April 16, 2011

3D is simply a joke. And for those like 113 (MrPhil) who still believe it can be improved by technological progress, better read Walter Murch’s own words on the topic here: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html Don’t listen to the 3D propaganda by James Cameron and others… they simply want to sell their technology, which will never ever fully work.

120. Fran - April 16, 2011

Please no 3D. I’m blind in one eye, and so 3D movies are unwatchable for me. I’m scared everything will be 3D soon, and I wouldn’t be able to watch movies anymore.

121. trekker 5 - April 16, 2011

NO! i think we all know from,ahem,ST TMP that all the CGI is not as good as a good story and J.J Abrams!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do u get it.

122. Miko - April 16, 2011

I’d only be happy with 3D if i get to see the Enterprise warp into my face!!! : )

123. RTC - April 16, 2011

3D is nothing more than a gimmick. It was a gimmick in the 1950s, and it’s a (slightly more technical) gimmick today. What’s important is the story. Why don’t the bigwigs get that?

124. Leatherman - April 16, 2011

I have seen every Star trek movie in the theater, but if they make the next one in 3D I will not go. 3D messes with my head. I can’t focus on it and I have to take off the glasses every few minutes. I spend a few minutes watching 3D that hurts my eyes, then I watch a few minutes without the glasses…which hurts my eyes. No thanks. Star Trek doesn’t need the gimmick. It can succeed on its own with the solid writing, good acting, and excellent special effects JJ Abrams and company gave us in his first Star Trek film.
Thank you JJ, Roberto, Alex, Damon, and everyone else involved.

I think the poll so far says it all, 71% against and counting.

125. Varda - April 16, 2011

God, NO. Since Avatar, it seems like every movie just HAS to be in 3D. It’s wearisome. Personnally, I hate 3D (and I’m 20.), even with Avatar, I liked the film way better in excellent quality 2D because the glasses HURT, they darken the screen and to me 3D just looks like a second layer that makes things blurry. Seriously, you miss all the details and you just try to get the bigger picture. And on top of that, tickets prices are already way too high.

But. As long as I can see it in 2D – which is less than likely, since ever since 3D came out, once a movie comes out in 3D, the theater I usually go to won’t play it in 2D. lame. – then why not. Although I’d still say no just on a principle basis. The “Paramount is pushing for it” just makes me cringe. You can almost read : “I don’t care about the script, story, actors, whatever just do it in 3D and brings us more moneeeeyyyy !”

Also, I don’t know if I’ll be able to wait the additional time it would take to shoot it in good 3D. Because if it IS indeed in 3D, it has to be very good 3D, or else it’s just going to take a huge slap in the face.

But seriously, WHY ?! I’m already devastated enough that P.J chose to do The Hobbit in 3D, don’t add Star Trek !! People need to go back to 2D, 3D just hurts the eyes. And it doesn’t bring anything, just ‘whoooo’ once and a while. It ruins the movie. You waste time just looking at “pretty” effects whereas you should be immersed in the movie. 3D doesn’t plunge me into a better experience or whatever, it just confuses me.

126. Varda - April 16, 2011

Plus, I LOVED JJ’s style in Star Trek XI. I don’t want it to change for some half-assed 3D thing.

127. dmduncan - April 16, 2011

Wow. Still at 72% no. That’s not just a no. That’s a hell no.

128. Aurore - April 16, 2011

Hi , Simon ( Pegg)!

129. Phil - April 16, 2011

I’m still in the “no” catagory. However there is nothing to get worked up about here, as 98% of theaters will be showing this in 2D. If this devastates you, I’d suggest you need to get out a bit more often….

130. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - April 16, 2011

ABSOLUTLY NOT!

131. Darryl - April 16, 2011

Space is dark. 3D glasses make everything darker. For all I know I could be watching a soup can flying the cosmos. Please, no 3D.

132. Red Dead Ryan - April 16, 2011

127.
……

That’s why we’re still going to get the next movie in 3D. The studios will try to justify it by saying the technology has gotten better. Most big action flicks are going that route, whether the directors want to do it or not. It’s the studios who are making these decisions, after seeing what James Cameron did with “Avatar”.

I voted “no”, but oviously my (or anybody else’s, for that matter) don’t count for sh*t.

133. Red Dead Ryan - April 16, 2011

oviously=OBVIOUSLY

DAMN TYPOS!!!

134. Aurore - April 16, 2011

“As far as I know, no…I mean.. it depends. Maybe.”

And that, ladies and gentlemen is a beautiful example of the figure of speech known as “Orcism” or “Boborcism”.

:)

135. Red Dead Ryan - April 16, 2011

Damn, that should read:

“I voted “no”, but OBVIOUSLY my VOTE (or anybody else’s, for that matter) don’t count for sh*t.”

F**KIN’ TYPOS AND ACCIDENTAL OMISSIONS!!!

136. Jack - April 16, 2011

there’ve been plenty of good movies lately not released in 3D — Source Code, Hanna. Like most of us here, I’m not a fan — it makes most movies way too dingy and unfocused (like watching through someone else’s dirty prescription sunglasses) and it makes CGI scenes look especially artificial, unconvincing and, oddly, flat. I find it really takes me out of the story and emphasizes “hey, you’re watching a movie.”

But, if the question was increasing the frame rate? hmmm.

137. Brinn Clayton - April 16, 2011

I hate 3D.

138. Basement Blogger - April 16, 2011

What would Spock say? Or Will 3D Hurt the Film?

I’ve read some of the posts and I agree with the principles of the anti-3D majority. It’s a gimmick and the film is too dark. You won’t get a true immersiive experience unless it’s a holodeck..

But let’s do this the Vulcan way, with logic. The studios make a lot of money off 3D film. That’s why a ton of the future blockbusters will be released in 3D. You do want Star Trek to make money? Don’t you? We do want want more Star Trek, don’t we? God forbid if Star Trek bombs financially, you think we’ll get another one? TV series?. If it makes a ton of money, we will get more Star Trek.

There’s another advantage. This is more of a personal opinion. Hand-held camera shots are virtually eliminated. That’s because if the camera moves too much, the audiece will get sick watching a 3D movie.. I hate it when the camera is moving too much, it induces nausea in 2D. See The Bourne Ultimatum.

Let go of the fear of 3D. There is no harm to the film if it is filmed in 3D. Look they will release it both ways. All 3D movies are released in 2D and 3D. I saw Tron: Legacy three ways. 3D, IMAX and 2D. I liked 2D the best. Better picture due to better brightness. But i digress. You will have an option; so see it in 2D if you want.

One caveat. I know Anthony hates it when we repeat ourselves. I’m sorry but I’ll keep saying this until my fingers fall off. I think everyone can agree on this principle. IF PARAMOUNT WANTS 3D, FILM STAR TREK IN 3D. NO CONVERSION FROM 2D. Why? Conversions ususally do not take into account lighting issues. Special effects have not been optimized for the 3D medium. The worst conversion I’ve seen was “The Last Airbender.”

Logic dictates that the good of the many outweighs the good of the many. Let Paramount release a Star Trek filmed in 3D.

139. Iva - April 16, 2011

“But let’s do this the Vulcan way, with logic. The studios make a lot of money off 3D film”

72% will pay to see it in in 2D and ignore the 3D option, how is that making a lot of money?

140. Trek Lady - April 16, 2011

Maybe the studio sometimes makes more money on a single ticket in 3-D, but if I even go see it in 3-D (which I might not as 3-D gives me migraines) then I will go once…twice at the most…. due to the higher cost of the tickets. Around here, a 3-D movie is about $12-14 a pop. On the other hand, I went to see ST 2009 six times in 2-D… so I am a person who is likely to actually spend MORE money if it is in 2-D. Surely, I am not alone.

141. Chadwick - April 16, 2011

Another note, JJ and crew are not sell outs, they have their unique views and stick by them. Just like the choice to skip digital recording and go with the 35mm film JJ wanted, there is no need for 3D.

I agree with JJ on the decision with his choice of film although I am not a fan of the anamorphic cinemascope which squeezes the image onto the film only to have the projector stretch it back out to 1:2.35 aspect ratio. Which means Star Trek was never IMAX because it was never shot in 65mm, 15-perf film of 1:1.37 ratio. It was fake IMAX, just like movies not shot in 3D but later made to 3D. No big deal, 35mm still makes a wonderful movie on blu-ray on my 50″ plasma.

I am an avid digital photographer but I am still going to miss the Kodachrome film. If JJ (or Paramount) chooses 3D this time around I would ask, why did you choose to go against the ever growing norm of digital for the last film?

3D movies do not look as good as 2D movies, not yet anyway. I hope JJ decides to use film once again for the next movie, it was much more rich and full. Visually delicious.

142. Basement Blogger - April 16, 2011

@ 139 Iva, you’re looking at percentages of total moviegoers. Look at the bottom line. The studios make good profits off 3D. The extra they charge makes the studios more money. It’s that simple. Otherwise they wouldn’t be releasing all these films in 3D. (Link: Flood of movies in 3D for 2011) Do you really think the studios are doing this for art?.

Again why the hatred and fear? I agree with the criticism. But 3D doesn’t hurt the film unless Paramount does something stupid like shoot the movie in 2D and convert it. Otherwise, there’s no harm. And get this. The more money Star Trek makes, the better chances there will be more Star Trek. Money moves Moonves. Why do you think they are trying to save Two and a Half Men? Want Star Trek back on TV, show CBS how great the franchise is financially from the movie end.

Studio are not releasing 3D movies because they’re losing money and want to make art. Look at the large list of 2011 films in 3D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film#3-D_re-enters_mainstream_cinema_.282003.E2.80.93present.29

143. Basement Blogger - April 16, 2011

@ 141 Chadwick

I also like J.J.’s decision to use film instead of digital video. It’s a warmer picture, more like a painting. I do have a question.

Can a movie be made with film and 3D cameras? Or put it this way, can you use film and film with 3D cameras? Or does 3D native filming require digital video?

144. Iva - April 16, 2011

“142. Basement Blogger – April 16, 2011

@ 139 Iva, you’re looking at percentages of total moviegoers. Look at the bottom line. The studios make good profits off 3D. The extra they charge makes the studios more money. It’s that simple. Otherwise they wouldn’t be releasing all these films in 3D. (Link: Flood of movies in 3D for 2011) Do you really think the studios are doing this for art?.”

Lol, no. Did they ever?

“Again why the hatred and fear?”

We are all adults here, put the hate&fear card back into pocket, please.

” I agree with the criticism. But 3D doesn’t hurt … ”

and doesn’t add either.

“….the film unless Paramount does something stupid like shoot the movie in 2D and convert it.”

That there is very likely to happen.
Besides, given the last poll with over 5 000 people voting, they have bigger issues to take care of than waste what little time is left on adapting the movie for 3D. Not even the script is ready yet.
Avatar was good (visually) because of all the time and effort put into it. These guys are neither the type to make the next movie The Project instead of just another project on the list, nor do they have the time.

“Otherwise, there’s no harm. And get this. The more money Star Trek makes, the better chances there will be more Star Trek. Money moves Moonves. Why do you think they are trying to save Two and a Half Men? Want Star Trek back on TV, show CBS how great the franchise is financially from the movie end.”

It means nothing to have ST back, if it is ST in name only. I’d rather have a longer pause and have it done right than have just a random product with a canon sticker on it, because it pays.
Enterprise for example could have been done much better and lasted longer it the people behind it made a break from Trek for some time, took the time to rethink their plans and only then starting making the show.

“Studio are not releasing 3D movies because they’re losing money and want to make art. Look at the large list of 2011 films in 3D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film#3-D_re-enters_mainstream_cinema_.282003.E2.80.93present.29

Out of all on the list, only 3-4 paid off being in 3D. And after a string of movies in pointless 3D, less and less people are ready to spend money on it unless it really is worth it.

145. Aurore - April 16, 2011

Mr Orci,

If I may be so bold to ask, how did you vote ?

Should you answer this question, PLEASE, no boborcism!

(A girl can dream, can’t she?).

:))

146. MJ - April 16, 2011

@119 Schultz

As I suspected, Seargant, you ‘know nothing, nothing”

:-)

147. MJ - April 16, 2011

@144 / Iva

Iva, are we suppose to believe that you know movie economics better then the studios do? They are in the business of making money in the movie industry, and they are very good at it. You may provide all the cute and supposedly clever responses to Basement Blogger that you want in this area, but let’s face it, neither you, him or I is an expert on movie economics…hence, I think the studios know what they are doing to maximize profits with 3D. In fact, it is pretty much the only area where they have seen growth in revenues.

148. Iva - April 16, 2011

Why, thank you, I indeed am both cute and clever, none of which have much to do with the topic at hand. You are also right in saying that “movie economics” is not my field. That much is obvious, ne? Nor did I ever claim it was.
What I do know is the current popular opinion of the media – you know – the thing that controls the opinion of the majority of moviegoers. And the “must see” right now is the upcoming 48fps version of 3D, not the old one. If you actually check how the flood of 3D movies did, you’ll see the prevailing number of people who either watched only the 2D version, or watched both but liked the 2D one better/ that is the version they went to watch more times.

149. Schultz - April 16, 2011

146 :-D

150. EM - April 16, 2011

Yeah….I still say make it in 3D and also have a 2D conversion for all those who can’t adjust as quickly as the some of us. I bet that if they broke down the box office by 3D vs 2D the 3D would out sell 2D. And have more new Trek viewers. Most people seem to be accepting the “new” timeline. They’ll accept 3D, as well.

151. gingerly - April 16, 2011

You know what?

If you have a real reason to do it, that doesn’t seem gimmicky, and Trek will make buckets of money from it; if it’s actually shot in crisp 3D and the sets are mostly very bright…

Then…

Maybe. :)

152. Destructive - April 17, 2011

Eventually JJ Abrams will have to shoot something in 3D if he expects to keep working in Hollywood, as everything in the industry is moving to 3D, might as well start with Star Trek 2

153. Keachick - April 17, 2011

“Here is my suggestion, Keachick — watch 3D movies in a movie theater right next to high-power lines, while holding your cell phone right up against the side of my head, while drinking a Diet Coke that you have added extra saccharin packets to, and while seated near a wireless power meter. :-)”

Given that our local movie cinemas are nowhere near high-power lines (all underground power cables), that I do not even own a cell phone, hate Diet Coke and any artificial sweeteners (pure raw cane sugar for me) and have no idea where or why I would want to sit near a wireless power meter, I do not see how I would be able to do as you suggest, MJ. But I thank you for the advice…I think? :)

If they do decide to make Star Trek in 3D, I will still go to the cinema to see it on the big screen. I have already waited and waited and waited for sooo long. Seriously, I know I’ll probably have to take a couple of paracetamol (analgesic) half an hour before hand, take my chances and hope for the best.

154. Keachick - April 17, 2011

I wonder how many people out there decide to self-medicate before seeing a movie in 3D, in order to try to avoid severe headaches, sore eyes, nausea etc? Gosh, I’ve just seen a profitable opening for a pharmaceutical company selling medications to avoid any possible negative side-effects that people might have while watching 3D movies. Wow, a real win-win for the corporate giants here…

155. Joshua J. Slone - April 17, 2011

I love me some 3D. Too bad if the next movie can’t provide what I can get from Star Trek Online.

156. JKP - April 17, 2011

No. No. A thousand times no. I can’t stand wearing the stupid glasses to go look at an overly dark film. Yuck. Leave 3d for the stupid slasher flicks.

157. Iva - April 17, 2011

Omg, imagine that scene from Ring, when Sadako comes out of the tv screen, in 3D.

:3

158. Varda - April 17, 2011

156. Yeah, NO. That scene is terrifying enough. XD

I agree with the people who say “3D = more money = more Star Trek in the long run”, but they haven’t talked about how the style of the movie would change. STXI’s sequel would lose the quality of STXI and would just look like all those movies in 3D we see nowadays. I liked the look of STXI, it made it special, recognizable. Star Trek sequel in 3D is ST bending to the rules. I fear that it will be more likely to make less money that way than if it stands on its own, 3D-free-proud way.

…Don’t know if I’m making much sense here. It was so clear before I tried to write it down.

159. iammitchell'sson - April 17, 2011

you people that voted to not make the next trek movie 3D you’re all fools. They try to do something different with it and you don’t want it. Gay people in Trek is okay but 3D Trek is not? This is why it’s taking so long to launch a Star Trek movie or new Star Trek series. Too many complainers complaining about the wrong thing. Either be open minded to the whole 3D thing or shut up. Had enough of you.

160. Phil - April 17, 2011

153. Keachick – April 17, 2011

Not going to take a pill to go see a movie. A drink prior too, maybe….
I’ll just stick with 2D. It’s not that big of a deal.

161. ncc - April 17, 2011

Why the negative attitude towards 3D?

So far every 3D movie has been available in 2D version as well. So, if you think that 3D is “meh” (much like color TV was decades ago for some folks) you can still watch in your 2D (much like you can watch color movies in B&W).

Beats me

162. Trek Lady - April 17, 2011

161

As people have pointed out MANY TIMES, if a film is in 3-D it may very well NOT be available anywhere locally in 2-D! Most theaters will not show both versions of a film – they will show the 3-D. My local theaters do not show a
2-D version of 3-D films, and I would have to drive quite a distance to find a theater that does. So it is not as simple as you seem to think.

163. Trek Lady - April 17, 2011

159 “Either be open minded to the whole 3D thing or shut up. Had enough of you.”

LOL! Oh,in other words, either “agree with me” or “shut up”. How “open minded” of you!

164. Varda - April 17, 2011

163 : THIS. I have exactly the same problem. Not everyone will have the choice to see it in 2D if it does comes out in 3D. But hey, we’re a minority, so we don’t count.

Also, as for the ‘why is it such a big deal if it’s in 3D or not’ : 3D done post prod = awful. film shot in 3D = radically different sanitized style and maybe no JJ, as he’s not so hot on 3D.

165. Keachick - April 17, 2011

I’m luckier as I live in a relatively small city compared to many of you living in the States and Britain. However, when I tried to see a 2D movie version of a film I wanted to see, there was only one cinema that was showing the 2D version and that was on the other side of the city and screening at the worst possible time for me personally. Hopefully, if Star Trek is done properly in 3D, there will be the 2D version screening at the same cinema at much the same times, but who knows.

166. MJ - April 17, 2011

@160 “you people that voted to not make the next trek movie 3D you’re all fools. They try to do something different with it and you don’t want it.”

I hear your frustration, iammitchell’sson.

You mean they are like “Old BUZZ”…whoops, I mean “sentimentalists”

167. Guy from Berlin - April 17, 2011

To all 3d haters … EVERY 3D MOVIE CAN BE PLAYED IN 2D !!!

168. Phil - April 17, 2011

163. Trek Lady – April 17, 2011
Not sure where you live, but 2D and 3D seem to exist quite well side by side most everywhere I’ve been. Don’t take this the wrong way, but a huge percentage of the box office is still 2D, so it dosen’t make sense that distribution would limit it’s revenue by insisting on a theater taking a version that will draw a smaller audience. Further, drama and comedy isn’t being shot in 3D, so the vast majoriety of available product is in 2D.

This isn’t the problem some people think. I think it’s the preception of a potential problem that’s getting people worked up a bit too much.
Cheers….

169. fred - April 17, 2011

Would consider paying for 3D if:

1) It was capped and played at 48fps like Cameron is going to do

2) Recycling the damned glasses actually meant cheaper costs and actual less landfill – Man they nail you on those 3D plus the 3D glasses.

3) bonus points if 3D doesn’t delay it.

Seriously, the headache from 24fps 3D is serious, and the over-reaching cost to viewers doesn’t equate the to the 3D experience so far. I’ve paid $500 or so in 5 years and not once been impressed with 3D, so much so as to give up on it entirely until they change something – specifically in the headache department.

170. Kokolo - April 17, 2011

Pegg isn’t only voicing Inspector Thompson, he’s playing him.

171. MJ - April 17, 2011

“Yes” and “Maybe” are now up to 30% with “No” dropping to 70%. Recall after the first 24 hours of the poll with about 300 participants, that “No” was at 78%. Obviously, those of us making the strong case for 3D are now winning the battle of minds here as our arguments have caused a catastrophic nearly 10 percentage point drop in the anti-3D vote.

If this poll is conducted again in a year it will be 50/50.

172. Trek Lady - April 17, 2011

172

Sure you’re not taking a bit too much credit there, MJ? The old, “You stuffy farts shut your mouths! You’re just stupid and stuck in the past! ” approach doesn’t really work for me as a convincing argument.

173. Phil - April 17, 2011

172. Hearts and minds my ass. I’m not puking in a theater, having to balance the 3D specs over my impressively thick bifocals, and I’m too damn cheap to cough up the extra five bucks means I’ll be enjoying 2D just fine.

I do appreicate your cheerleading, though. Cheers….

174. Tony Whitehead - April 17, 2011

Maybe if it’s in 3D, the cam will settle down a bit more on this production. Nothing against ST09, but I like looking at the sets a bit more rather than having to catch it frame by frame later to see what I saw. . .

Looking forward to a rip-roarin’ tale from this crack team in any dimension.

175. Let Them Eat Plomeek Soup - April 17, 2011

Why is it that whenever they want a movie to be watched, they put it in 3D? It’s like some sort of gimmick…I mean, come on: They put “Alice In Wonderland” in 3D. O_o

So I’m saying no 3D. You can keep the lens flare and the shakey cam–just no 3D, please.

176. Basement Blogger - April 18, 2011

@ 144

First Iva, I’m assuming you’re the same Iva who exhibited the strong anti-Zoe Saldana feelings and was warrned about coming close to trolling. So I’ve read your strong feelings before. Regardless whether you are that person or not , I apologize for using the term “fear and hatred.”

Second, you say “That there is very likely to happen.” in regards to 3d conversion for Star Trek. You offer no proof that Paramount is going to convert Star Trek from 2D to 3D. Now if they do, I’ll be there with you, screaming about the lack of quality. Almost all conversions I have seen stunk.

Third, you offer no proof that a Star Trek filmed in 3D will hurt the movie. Look, it all starts with the screenplay. If the movie is terrible in 2D, 3D won’t save it. It’s exactly what Bob Orci wrote on the threads, that we should be concerned about 3D characters first. Yes, he’s absolutely right.

And there could be advantages. Maybe a Star Trek fimed in 3D will be as good or better than Avatar. I’ve already said you won’t get the motion sickness inducing hand-held camera with 3D. And of course, it’s more money for Paramount. The more money Star Trek makes, the more Star Trek there will be. You do want more Star Trek after 2012, don’t you?

You then take a look at the long list of 2011 3D movies and say,

“Out of all on the list, only 3-4 paid off being in 3D. And after a string of movies in pointless 3D, less and less people are ready to spend money on it unless it really is worth it.”

There’s nothing in that statement says the studos lost money by releasing them in 3D. Where’s the proof? Movies that failed, failed because they were bad movies first. For example, if Step Up 3D failed it’s not because people said “Ewww. No way I’m seeing that, it’s in 3D.” It failed because it wasn’t a good movie to begin with. (47% on Rottoen Tomatoes.)

Let’s use some logic here, shall we?

Let’s pretend you and I own a studio. We release a movie in 3D. It costs say five million in additional costs to release it in 3D. Let’s say makes 40 million the first weekend with twenty five percent of the revenues from 3D or ten million from 3D. We have made five million over costs. That’s a profit. Now before you write that I don’t have real numbers, you are correct. I don’t. But the studios do have exact real numbers. And it’s obvious that they are making money off 3D. Because if it costs them money, i.e. if they are losing money, the studios would stop making movies in 3D.

By the way Rio opened in the U.S. with forty million this weekend. It was released in 3D and 2D. I’m sure the extra money that moviegoers paid helped the bottom line for Fox.

177. Bennie - April 18, 2011

I say maybe if they are going to shoot at 48 fps or even 60 fps. That would solve issues of headache etc and would look realy great.
Jackson is doing it with the Hobbit and Cameron is thinking of shooting
Avatar II at 60 fps. So why not?

178. Cervantes - April 18, 2011

Mmm, yet another issue that seems to ‘polarize’ the fanbase here it seems.

Oh well, in for a penny, in for a pound. BRING ON THE 3D!

I always wished that the ‘Star Trek’ 2009 reboot have been at the forefront of cutting edge developments, and had been the first major ‘live-action’ movie to really showcase the latest polarized 3D technology at the time…so I really hope it catches up with the pace of change that is happening in this area at the moment.

Unfortunately, the alternative ‘conversion’ process that could offer a kind of ‘psuedo’ 3D from 2D footage, rather than using ‘true’ 3D filming, is what has ruined this latest revival. Too many studios (and directors) have been content to just add the (inferior) 3D afterwards in post production…when this should really have only been used in PAST-filmed movies. If even that.

But this 3D bandwagon is on an unstoppable roll this time for various reasons, no matter the pros and cons of the process…and hopefully, those same careless studios and directors will become fewer and fewer with time. And at least the despised ‘conversion’ technology should improve in time too.

Having enjoyed plenty of (Real-D only) 3D viewings now, I’m glad to say that I’ve never once experienced anything remotely like a headache or nausea from it…although I’m sorry for any that do. Hopefully this ‘higher framerate’ development will take off, where 3D movies are concerned…although I’d ALSO like someone to concentrate on sorting out the ‘darkening’ aspect if possible.

As far as existing ‘glasses-wearers’ go, I suggest you do a google search for 3D glasses, to see what’s available to help you. Even though I don’t have that problem myself, I’m certainly going to invest in a pair of my own soon, rather than continue with the standard ‘one-size-fits-all’ giveaways that are currently offered in my own local cinema! There’s some very good designs being offered by various manufacturers nowadays if you look, and are willing to invest in something better for yourself.

However, for those with other vision problems or only one eye perhaps, I’m sorry that 3D is probably never going to work for you.

By the way MJ, I stuck another ‘alternative’ for you at the bottom of the Shatner article on the previous page, lol. – http;//trekmovie.com/2011/04/08/shatner-still-wants-in-to-star-trek-sequel-talks-generations-death-scene-poll-how-to-bring-back-kirk/

179. Cervantes - April 18, 2011

Typo alert. Should be – http://trekmovie.com/2011/04/08/shatner-still-wants-in-to-star-trek-sequel-talks-generations-death-scene-poll-how-to-bring-back-kirk/

180. Bringbacktrekagain! - April 18, 2011

I like 3D, however I sure don’t like the extra cost at the theater on top of refreshments and food. That’s money better spent on the gas to get there in the first place.

181. Woulfe - April 18, 2011

3D or not 3D that is the question
Didn’t we have this poll before ?
I seem to remember NO leading the votes by a whole lot then as well

Why are folks against 3D ?
1. Not everyone has PERFECT 20/20 vision you know, DUH
2. A lot of local cinemas don’t have the 2D option, DUH #2

Unless you live in a MAJOR city you don’t have the option, i live in a small city and we don’t have that option to watch something in 2D if we want to do so

182. Cervantes - April 18, 2011

I’ve no doubt that the future popularity of movies like’The Hobbit’ and ‘Avatar 2′ in a higher framerate will help sort out current issues and push the 3D revival ever further.

But on top of certain poor and lazy ‘conversions’, the badly-judged matter of higher ticket prices for 3D showings has been my other main gripe with this 3D revival.

It’s not as if every 3D movie was going to be as much of an event as ‘Avatar’ was at the time…especially badly ‘converted’ cheap knock-offs.

If the latest ‘Trek’ movie DOES end up in 3D, then I sure hope the makers film it properly like Cameron and Jackson are doing on their projects. A post-production ‘conversion’ would be a real slap in the face for this particular franchise.

And then there’s the matter of 3D blu-rays at home…where you can have the option of 3D or 2D veiwing on a 3D tv. Having now seen a demo of ‘Avatar’s 3D blu-ray, I was very impressed with how this format looks in comparison to what I saw on the big screen…and I’d certainly like to see any 3D ‘Trek’ given the same kind of careful treatment if I choose the 3D option in future.

Here’s a very helpful guide on 3D home cinema front, that I came across recently – http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/jeffkleist/3d2010primer.html

183. Shannon Nutt - April 18, 2011

I’ve seen STAR TREK in 3D – The Borg Experience, formerly in Las Vegas…I do NOT want to see a STAR TREK movie done that way!

184. Dom - April 18, 2011

If they shoot the damn thing at 48fps, I have no issues. 24fps has been ridiculous for years. 3D is unnecessary with a higher framerate. I love the way a bunch of spanners out here are behaving like those of us against 3D are against ‘new’ technology. WAKE UP! 3D’s been around as long as photography has! The reason people haven’t adopted it is because it’s a cheap gimmick that adds nothing to the quality of a movie.

The main reason for the current flare-up of the 3D disease is to stop some guy in China from sitting in the back of a cinema with a dodgy camcorder from taping what’s on screen and mass-producing DVDs the next day! The higher prices to see films in 3D are simply there to cover the costs of those of us who can’t watch it in 3D and will have to miss the film.

And as for people saying a film is fine in either format, you’re wrong! It’s very hard to find 2D screenings these days and on top of that, 2D versions of 3D films generally look flat, have appalling depth of field and look utterly sterile.

3D’s a fad being sold by Hollywood fat cats and has-been filmmakers as something everybody wants when that couldn’t be further from the truth. Release The Hobbit, Star Trek Part Two, Tron or whatever in 2D at 48fps with 4K projection and I reckon they’d do just as well!

185. Henrique - April 18, 2011

NO please!

186. ML31 - April 18, 2011

No 3-D until glasses are no longer required.

187. James D. Fine - April 19, 2011

If they only show it in 3D I will not go see it at the theater. I will wait and buy the DVD and watch it on my big screen TV. End of story.

188. Basement Blogger - April 19, 2011

@ 189 James Fine Most 3D movies are released 2D also.

Every 3D movie I’ve seen has been released both ways. 2D and 3D. For example both Avatar and Tron: Legacy were filmed in 3D. Both were released in IMAX, 3D and 2D. There are still many theaters that do not have 3D capabilities. So based on the past evidence and it makes sense to have it as wide releases as possible, expect a 2D release with the 3D.

189. Josh - April 19, 2011

Perhaps in IMAX – but not in 3D. The tech isn’t there, yet.

190. Spatan555 - April 20, 2011

Honestly, Star Trek is better off without 3d, the franchise isn’t ready yet to take on that experience. If Paramount have sense, they should wait for at least 5 years.

191. Elise - April 21, 2011

YES

YES

YES

YES

:D

192. Elise - April 21, 2011

1. I think the Star Trek demographic needs to wake up and get with the times. You can bet your bottom dollar if Lucas trots out three more Star Wars films they will all be in 3D. Do you want Trek dragging its tail 5yrs behind the times?

2. I find the overwhelming “No’s” strange considering that Trek is supposed to be forward looking. 3D is it, that is the thing aaaaaaand what younger audiences want.

3. If you want Trel to continue into the next generation with more films, then you had better re-think your choice. Cuz without those kids and a new young audience Trek will be headed for the Bone yard….just saying folks…wake up…this is 2011, 3D is the scream with the kids. Trek needs a future demographic and thats all the teens and pre-teens.

4. 3D would Trek to have a blockbuster summer. Ya gotta think “Big Picture” folks.

=^^=
LS

193. Keachick - April 21, 2011

When my eight year old daughter had a choice between seeing Tangled in 3D or 2D, she chose the 2D version. She had seen Ice Age 3 in 3D and although she enjoyed that movie, she did not want to have to wear the glasses again. I was prepared to go and see whatever she chose and pay the extra if I had to.

194. Niv Calderon - April 23, 2011

I say NO to 3D.

I mean, everyone who’s gonna buy the DVD afterwards will buy a regular 2D movie…
and as a trekkie who goes to watch Trek 3-4 times in the cinema for every Trek that comes out- the notion of watching 3D for 3-4 times is not a pleasant thought at all.

No to 3D.

195. Dom - April 23, 2011

193. Elise

’1. I think the Star Trek demographic needs to wake up and get with the times.’

I work in the business. Do you?

‘You can bet your bottom dollar if Lucas trots out three more Star Wars films they will all be in 3D.’

Star Wars is a profit-making machine for a peculiar billionaire with no connection to other the real world or the film industry. It’s not even worth citing in an intelligent argument.

‘Do you want Trek dragging its tail 5yrs behind the times?’

No. What has 3D got to do with being of the times?

’2. I find the overwhelming “No’s” strange considering that Trek is supposed to be forward looking.’

It is. It’s also a reflection of our times.

’3D is it, that is the thing aaaaaaand what younger audiences want.’

There is no evidence of that. Most 3D movies, had they been released in 2D only, would likely have made more or less the same money.

’3. If you want Trel to continue into the next generation with more films, then you had better re-think your choice. Cuz without those kids and a new young audience Trek will be headed for the Bone yard…’

If you think strapping a pair of cheap specs to your face is the attraction of Star Trek, then you have some confused priorities!

‘just saying folks…wake up…this is 2011, 3D is the scream with the kids. Trek needs a future demographic and thats all the teens and pre-teens.’

What bollocks! Prove to me or anyone else that 3D is the attraction over storyline, characters, performances or anything else in the films.

’4. 3D would Trek to have a blockbuster summer.’

And it hasn’t in 2D?

‘Ya gotta think “Big Picture” folks.’

Come back in five years when you hit puberty! If anything, Trek bucking the 3D trend might be future-proofing itself when this 3D farce burns out!

196. Trek Lady - April 24, 2011

Look, I have no problem with “editing” to remove some of the nastier comments posted recently. (Especially since some were aimed at me in particular), but was my reply to 193 really so foul that it had to be removed? I don’t believe it crossed the line into personal attack.

Now I am uncertain about what is allowed.

197. Elise - April 25, 2011

@196 Dom,

1. Yes, I do happen to work in the buisiness and I happen to be a Grammy Member as I have produced/mixed several Musical Projects that can be found in most stores and online in the world, as well as having engineered acouple of projects for multi-million selling artist.

2. ‘DOM’ you are niave if you think J.J. is making Trek just to have fun. These films HAVE to make money. The art part is fun, the Trek/History part of it is fun…but at the end of the day J.J. has to bring in the bucks. That means 3D as well as 2D. The more money Trek makes, the more movies there will be simple as that.

Profits = More Trek Films

No Profits = Stagnant Franchise and no future series

3.3D is a reflection of ‘changing times’. 3D is to motion pictures what Dobly was to films in the mid 70′s. Surround 7.0 is to Surround 5.0, to Stereo to Mono….it’s TECHNOLOGY. The tools that directors/editors/mix engineer (which is what I do) have change with the times. These things enhance a film if used correctly. Just like Surround Sound, THX, Dolby, Stereo, HD etc…etc..etc…

4. ‘Strapping a cheap pair of glasses’ to ones face to watch a 3D movie done well ENHANCES a film. I saw Avatar several times with and without 3D. It was great either way, however, the 3D gave it a unique spin and was (God forbid) fun! yes fun! nothing wrong with a film being ‘fun’, and enternaining.

5. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making Trek fun for 5yr olds, 10yr olds, 15yr olds, 25, 35, 45 and up…nothing wrong at all with wanting younger children to be ‘curious’ about the phenomenon of Trek and then go back and discover TOS, TNG. (I grew up with DS9…still my fav, but I also luv TOS).

6. 3D is not meant to be “the attraction” to the film. Merely a way to enhance it and get younger audiences excited about seeing the film. Don’t be niave ‘DOM’. A film released in 3D will also be released in 2D…so fundamentaly your argument(s) hold no water. Your point(s) are moot.

7. “Puberty?” Lol, i am 28 and have degrees in Sound Engineering and Music Composition/Performance as well as two C.D.’s of my own music coming out this summer.

Embrace your fear…go there…the film will be fun with and without 3D and I will end up going to both, thus doubling the amount of cash I give to ‘J.J.’ and the studio. Thus insuring for my part, that there will be future films.

=^^=
LS

198. Tim Gillooley - April 27, 2011

We should have the option to see it in 3D as long as they can justify it, a lot of live action 3D stuff is dissapointing compared to the whole computer generated movies, If it’s going to be another visual effects bonanza than yes, I would have loved to seen the Enterprise rising from Titans ring in 3D, but a dual release covers everyone now, just make sure we have a good plot, I still want Kahn to be found, not a remake of the wrath of Kahn but a good plot about finding him, as in this new universe he’s still floating about somewhere yet to be found…. even a sub plot about finding him to lead up to a remake of the wrath would be cool, more violence, less namby pamby stuff, this is Kirks enterprise, we need more naked women and violence, lets have a decent raiting because of some violence and swearing!

199. Keachick - April 27, 2011

Wow, Tim, there are plenty of movies that have R-ratings where you can enjoy as much swearing and violence as you want. Star Trek did not have any or very little actual swearing, just enough “legitimate” violence. I do not want to see the sequel get a MPAA rating over PG-13 or M in NZ.

What I find disturbing is the fact that so many people seem to put the showing of healthy human sexuality and an uncovered human body in the same vein as the showing of gratuitous and bloody violence and the profuse use of profane language, especially the “f” and “mf” words. The former is healthy and natural, whereas most violence and swearing is the result of unhealthy, negative motivations and can be life-denying.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.