JJ Abrams Gives Star Trek Sequel Production/3D Update + Talks Cumberbatch Casting | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams Gives Star Trek Sequel Production/3D Update + Talks Cumberbatch Casting January 8, 2012

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

The Star Trek sequel is very close to start of production. In a new interview director/producer JJ Abrams has given some more details on the production logistics and on the decision to covert the film to 3D. He also talked about the recent casting of Benedict Cumberbatch. See below for details.


Abrams gives production update, talks 3D and Cumberbatch

While promoting his upcoming Fox show Alcatraz at the TCA event this week, JJ Abrams took questions from Collider on his Star Trek sequel which starts shooting in the next week.

Firstly Abrams gave some details on the nuts and bolts of the production:

Director JJ Abrams on location from his last movie "Super 8"
– now getting ready to shoot Star Trek sequel , again using film

Regarding the recently announced casting of Benedict Cumberbatch, Abrams would not confirm he was playing the villain, but did have this to say about the actor:

He’s a genius. Honestly, he’s just an incredible actor. If you’ve seen his work in Sherlock, he’s just got incredible skills. He’s an amazing stage actor. He did amazing work (on stage) in Frankenstein. He’s brilliant. You try to cast people who are great. We got lucky.

Abrams also appears to confirm previous reports that there will be no returning original series stars for the sequel.

It is worth reading the whole interview at Collider.com.


1. SciFiGuy - January 8, 2012

2D converted to 3D is always crap!!!! That’s NOT the way to do 3D. Thanks for the info. I’ll now be sticking with 2D on this one.

2. Gordon Ramsey's knife - January 8, 2012

I’m guessin is backround filming and location backround shots…no way the script is in all the actors hands

3. Lt. Dakin - January 8, 2012


4. allister gourlay - January 8, 2012

at flaming last!

5. Philip Dunlop - January 8, 2012

Will also be sticking with 2D, since one of my eyes is so weak that 3D doesn’t work anyway. I’m hoping 2D doesn’t go the way of HDDVD and betamax. Unlikely, I know.

It’s nice that there’s not a COMPLETE cone of silence on this movie though. Although I do appreciate Abrams’ efforts to maintain secrecy around his movies. It makes for a more enjoyable experience once I do finally park my posterior on the cinema seat and let it all wash over me. Especially in a day where most of the plot is given away in trailers.

6. James's ladyhips - January 8, 2012

Don’t forget the lensflare!!

7. Gabriel Bell - January 8, 2012

So glad he is not shooting in 3D. Completely agree with No. 1, but I prefer the top level version of the film being good old-fashion 2D, rather than the reverse.

I figure I will see the 3D version upon my third or fourth viewing in the theatres as another way to enjoy the movie (just like I did with the quote-unquote “IMAX” version of the 2009 film).

I have complete faith in JJ. Shooting in film will make this a better film. (And I have no issue with JJ’s lens flares either, and I hope they return. I do not understand the haters on that. They accomplish exactly what they are supposed to: they make each shot feel bigger and grander, like it keeps going outside the frame and all around you. Love it.)

8. Aurore - January 8, 2012

Que le spectacle cOmmence!!!

9. NuFan - January 8, 2012

I knew he wasn’t the villain. He’s just not villainous.

10. Clinton - January 8, 2012

I think we’re getting the best compromise here. We didn’t want 3D and the film is not being shot that way. Previous articles suggested that 3D is still big overseas, so the 3D conversion can satisfy that demand.

11. Craiger - January 8, 2012

What if Weller is the Villain?

12. jas_montreal - January 8, 2012

no imax cameras ?!?!?!?!?! Coman guys !

13. Craiger - January 8, 2012

Or maybe Nazneen Contractor is the villain?

14. Captain Rickover - January 8, 2012

JJ confirmend nothing – as allways – and kept his secrets. So, Cumberbatch could be the villain or not. If he is the villain, I hope Bob & Alex have taken a look on Grand Admiral Thrawn (as Star Wars fans they should do). That is a villain worthy of Spock and Kirk. Ok, it’s the wrong universe but a villain of that magnitute would be something great, in my opinion.

15. NCC-73515 - January 8, 2012

I hope there’ll be some spypics of the cast in costume again when they start shooting :D
Those were actually nice teasers back then for the first one.
Will there be as much secrecy, will they have to cover it all with black curtain outside? XD

16. Tiberius Subprime - January 8, 2012

Weller can’t be the villain in my mind. He is a fine actor, but doesn’t have the gravitas to pull off a great film villain.

It has to be Benedict.

Unless they pull another casting announcement in a few months,—having kept it secret,—and say Edgar Ramirez has been cast. Then we know who the real villain will be.

But I doubt that. I think Abrams is playing coy. It’s Benedict.

And if you’ve evr seen everything this actor has done, you’ll know that only Benedict can pull of a great screan villain, as opposed to Wellar.

17. Captain Hackett - January 8, 2012

No lens flare please! :)

18. Matthew McNutt - January 8, 2012

Yeah, I’m kind of disappointed that they’re making the decision to convert to 3D rather than film in 3D before they’ve shot any footage whatsoever. If the studio actually cared rather than wanting to just cash in, they’d do it right.

19. Killamarshtrek - January 8, 2012

Talking of Benedict Cumberbatch, the second ‘Sherlock’ episode was on BBC1 tonight ‘The Hounds of Baskerville’. BC was as usual, exceptional and by an amazing coincidence at one point watson actually compares him to SPOCK! What are the chances?

20. Trekker5 - January 8, 2012

:D!! This makes me happy!! I’ll watch the 2D and the 3D! Note to JJ:Give me all the lens flares you can muster! Lens Flares+3D=me leaving this movie half blind;but it’ll be worth it!! :)

21. Bugs_nixon - January 8, 2012

Hi Paramount (if youre reading)….

I will not spend a single dime on anything 3D. I urge you to get over this fad asap. If i cant walk around it – it aint 3D.


22. jas_montreal - January 8, 2012

@ 21

Agreed. They should invest in IMAX instead of stupid 3d !!

23. Javi Trujillo - January 8, 2012

Post Conversion 3-D = Star Trek: The Motion View-Master Picture. FAIL. EPIC FAIL!

24. Shamelord - January 8, 2012

Let the mayhem begin! Go! Go! Go!

25. maffc - January 8, 2012

Yay – Filmed in 2D, I have no interest in 3D
1 – It gives me a headache
2 – I can’t focus on the action when it gets fast
3 – Adds nothing to the plot – I’d ask will the the 3D version of Star Wars have a different ending but we’re talking about Georgie boy here so that could happen ;)
4 – Just an excuse to charge more to see the film
5 – I already wear glasses and to have to wear two pairs is just stupid.

Seriously filmakers save yourself the time and money and spend it on the set or costumes or pay for the crew to have a massage even.

26. Cervantes - January 8, 2012

So J.J. thought some ‘conversion’ tests of his 2009 reboot looked cool eh? A pity he hadn’t also done some actual ‘true-3D’ tests of his own for the sequel…as they might just have blown him away!

Oh, and I hope they at least ‘convert’ the REST of the 2009 reboot for 3D Blu-ray release one day too.

But it was an nice little moment when ‘Watson’ referred to Cumberbatch’s ‘Sherlock’ as SPOCK tonight during the second series tonight, here in the U.K.

27. Oddness - January 8, 2012

I’m hoping for a more epic story this go around. Something perhaps bold that parallels our times. The good thing about the 3d is it really doesn’t matter so much for the space battles since they really aren’t filmed anymore(so to speak) they are created .. so they can really be more interchangeable I would imagine between 3d/Imax and standard hiD depending on the theater etc. NOT filming in 3d also seems to lend itself to the movie not needing a gimmick…hopefully. I really don’t think JJ would have directed (a second one) if he didn’t feel real good about it…again.. hopefully :)

28. Trekman_dave - January 8, 2012

Thursday… So excited, will be checking twitter for latest!!!

29. Javi Trujillo - January 8, 2012

Even CGI needs to be rendered in 3-D, tho. I read that while Transformers was shot in 3-D, the cgi wasn’t fully rendered that way.

30. MvRojo - January 8, 2012

I’ll check out the 3-D once, but stick to 2-D for any repeat viewings 3-D conversions are a money grab. If you really want to do it in 3-D it should be filmed in 3-D. I think both brad bird and Christopher nolan going with IMAX for their films should be commended for to giving into pressure to do 3-D

31. Vultan - January 8, 2012

Ah, 3D…

The “special sauce” of cinema.

32. Browncoat1984 - January 8, 2012

While I definitely think that shooting in 3D is better, 3D conversions CAN be good too. My parents go a 3D TV for themselves for Christmas and we recently watched Captain America in 3D and that was in that one is probably one of the most impressive 3D films I’ve seen outside of Avatar and Tron – both of which were I believe shot in native 3D.

Still, for a film as high profile as Trek I would think that Abrams would want to shoot it in 3D. I know Peter Jackson is shooting The Hobbit in 3D but Jackson seems to be a much bigger proponent for the technology than Abrams is.

33. erkle - January 8, 2012

I’ll be sticking to 2D until REAL 3d comes out, not this scam Hollywood is trying to push on people.

34. Oddness - January 8, 2012

#30 I thought I read that Nolan only filmed certain sequences in Imax format due to the expense? As was the case with MI-4 .. I may be mistaken.

I thought the Dive sequence in 2009 Trek was phenomenal looking at the IMAX, even though it wasn’t filmed in IMAX… However it was largely an effects shot … AKA green screen. I just wanna see a killer Trek movie :)

35. captain_neill - January 8, 2012

2D all the way for me. 3D was cool for Avatar but for other films bad conversions have done nothing for me.

36. That One Guy - January 8, 2012

I was okay with 3D when it was going to be shot in 3D. But… not if it’s going to be converted.

37. Thomas - January 8, 2012

I don’t know if this has been posted on other threads, but people here will want to read this; a great deconstruction of why Wrath of Khan was a great movie and why all subsequent movies that have tried to duplicate the formula haven’t measured up.


38. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 8, 2012

Since Paramount has made up its mind to convert its franchise movie into 3D, we must encourage everyone involved in the production to do the best job they can, either when filming in anamorphic or later when it gets converted to 3D.

JJ Abrams – please – not too much that is visually night/dark like film shots. Also I doubt the inside of any starship is that glarey/lens flarey. Use lens flares more sparingly but where they are used, they are appropriate and have a splendid visual impact.

“What was it that made him *(BC) your villain?
ABRAMS: Who said he’s our villain?”

39. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 8, 2012

So filming proper is to start on Thursday, 11 January. Bob – I hope those Pinto puffles are where they need to be…:)

40. Christopher Roberts - January 8, 2012

Wow. Shooting starts this Thursday? That’s my birthday! Now, there’s a good omen.

41. Christopher Roberts - January 8, 2012

He won’t be the Romulan Commander from “Balance of Terror”. That’s Ben Cross’s job obviously! ;-)

I bet he’s going to be the subordinate Romulan. The one with powerful friends the Centurion warned about. Different universe now, so in an early scene he kills his Commander (played by Sarek actor, as an in-joke for the fans) and then takes the Empire to war with the Federation.

Probably over a Vulcan colony, or the same issues Romulans had before. They have an old score to settle with Earth and the same conflict from over a century ago. They’ll be a nice little reference to Admiral Archer having had a lot to do with that. Maybe even a Scott Bakula cameo in some old computer file Kirk is playing in the briefing room, which depicts the Earth-Romulan War at its height.

42. Vultan - January 8, 2012


Thanks for that link, Thomas.

The author of the article was dead-on in his analysis of TWOK (and Trek ’09).

43. Christopher Roberts - January 8, 2012

^^ He = Benedict Cumberbatch.

44. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 8, 2012

Well. At least in 3d we can see how the Lens flares are supposed to look. Lol. looking good so far.

45. NCM - January 8, 2012

Also not a 3D fan. Hoped he’d say ‘fewer’ lens flares, but JJ answers questions (or not) as if he’s running for office.

In the photo on the collider.com piece, Cumberbatch resembles Charlie X; but I think the new story will endeavor to be very relevant to the times in which we live–no Trelane, Charlie, Mudd, or Tribbles.

46. Christopher Roberts - January 8, 2012

39. Keachick – Thursday will be the 12th. I should know! :))

RE: The character I think BC will be playing… in the Original Series, the same actor who did that, went to be Stonn in “Amok Time”.

Imagine BC in a TOS-era Romulan helmet and he’s a good fit.

47. Darren - January 8, 2012

So glad JJ is shooting in anamorphic again, it’s absoloutely the best film format and Trek movie tradition (bar VI). I’m sure the 3D conversion will be fine and good enough. The conversions for Thor and Captain America seemed acceptable to me.

48. Dilithium doublebock - January 8, 2012

May 17, 2013
The much anticipated Star Trek sequel due to be released today has been withheld out of concerns that too much of the plot would be revealed.

49. Mike C. - January 8, 2012

Agree with all – NO 3 D 4 ME, ever. IMAX all the way.

50. TonyD - January 8, 2012

it really sounds to me like 3D will be an afterthought on this movie and that is both disappointing and worrisome. The vast majority of screens showing it will probably be 3D screens – the better for Paramount to wring every penny out of its filmgoers – and fans and critics will waste no time in harping on a bad conversion. And that could really hurt the franchise.

I’m a 3D fan, but only when it fits the material and the filmmakers take the time to do it right. Trek seems like a natural for 3D but Abrams’ comments really give me the impression that he’s going to shoot without any consideration for the medium and that could be disastrous. Even if the post-conversion is meticulously done, the composition of scenes could negate any sense of depth and thus render the 3D aspect meaningless.

If Abrams was so dead set against 3D he should have stood by his guns (as Nolan did with Batman) or stepped aside and let someone else direct the movie who knew how to work in the medium. Sounds to me like he wants to have his cake and eat it too and I just hope it doesn’t backfire.

51. Adolescent Nightmare - January 8, 2012

He’s not the villain?

Well then who is the villain?

52. njdss4 - January 8, 2012

Huge mistake to do 3D conversion. 3D movies aren’t great when they’re done properly, but when they’re not even shot in 3D, just converted, it’s even worse.

I’ll definitely be seeing it in 2D first, and only see it in 3D if the movie is good enough to justify going to see it again (and it would have to be the best movie of the last decade to warrant that).

53. Tom - January 8, 2012

Wow they really could not work the Shatner thing out Really thought they would have found a way to make it work over a course of 2 movies. Poor job by the team on that one.

54. FarStrider - January 8, 2012

Since 3D seems to work best when you are dealing with animated effects and green screen, and considering that JJ likes real locations, and using models and mirrors and old-fashioned movie-making tricks, I think it is a good thing that he is shooting with 2D anamorphic lens, it gives his films a sort of continuity that it wouldn’t have had otherwise (personally, I’d want him to do 48fps and IMAX before even considering 3D. . .plus, if the film only takes 4 months to shoot, Paramount is going to have a long time to do the 3D conversion. . .this isn’t going to be a 1 month rush job like “Alice in Wonderland” and “Clash of the Titans”. . .it should look decent. . .


55. Shunnabunich - January 8, 2012

@7: “(And I have no issue with JJ’s lens flares either, and I hope they return. I do not understand the haters on that. They accomplish exactly what they are supposed to: they make each shot feel bigger and grander, like it keeps going outside the frame and all around you. Love it.)”

I agree with the reasons for which you like them — I know exactly the feeling you’re talking about. The problem, and the reason there *are* haters, is that, at least in JJ’s Trek, they were incessantly overused to the point where they just plain obscured the picture, even in shots where nothing could possibly have GENERATED a lens flare.

As for 3D, I’m glad he’s shooting for 2D instead of pumping the film full of retarded gimmick shots. I’ll enjoy a movie for being 3D when I’m playing it as a holonovel, let’s put it that way.

56. Captain Braxton - January 8, 2012

Star Trek reference tonight on Sherlock = WIN ;)

57. Trekker5 - January 8, 2012

#24,Shamelord,amen to that!! :)

58. Dee - lvs moon' surface - January 8, 2012

………YEAH……..January 12, 2012………

Where is Phil?….. I think he’ll be relieved now….. :-) :-)

59. N - January 8, 2012

I don’t have any problem with his lens flares or shaky shots, I just hope the dialogue isn’t as tacky as last time. And hopefully they did a little more research…
Don’t get me wrong I’ll be the first to defend XI but I’ve watched so many times it’s become a little dated, it doesn’t have the timelessness DS9 and Voyager (for example) have.

3D gives me a headache.

60. Red Dead Ryan - January 8, 2012

The people who constantly bitch about the fact that the “Star Trek” sequel will be converted into 3D instead of being shot that way are the same folks who will most definitely be the first in line to see the movie in 3D conversion. Paramount knows this, and it is why they decided to cheap out on a proper 3D filming. They know that Trekkies are going to pay good money to see the money no matter what.

There was simply no incentive for Paramount to spend extra money on a 3D camera.

61. Red Dead Ryan - January 8, 2012

Damn, that should read

“They know that Trekkies are going to pay good money to see the MOVIE no matter what.”


62. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - January 8, 2012

he played a great Villian on 24 durring the 5th season.
And that show is just as cinematic as anything playing at the theatre.

And he was pretty convincing as Paxton in the last few episodes as enterprise. Like I said in other posts as unlikely as it is, I would love to see his part in Trek XII connected to Paxton some how.

63. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - January 8, 2012

1) very much wrong, I wanna see you say that once you have seen Phantom Meanace in 3D next month or Titantic in April. Those both boast first rate conversions and look great on the big screen. Ive seen test screenings of them both in the past month here in L.A. area.

64. pizza - January 8, 2012

No Lens Flares.

3D conversion? Fringe!

65. Brett L. - January 8, 2012

For those of us not raised by sitting in front of a video game for 5 hours a day, today’s movie FX are just getting way too fast to appreciate. As much as I enjoyed Trek ’09, I sometimes found the FX skirting the limit of what my eyes could comfortably keep up with. Speed things up further, add more lens flares, or force 3D into the equation, and I’m toast.

Today’s films are paced for a new generation as they should be, but don’t forget about those of us who like our big lumbering starships and 80s Trek space operas!

66. Anthony Thompson - January 8, 2012

See. Phil was right after all! Filming is NOT starting on Jan. 15th! It’s starting on the 12th! Phil, you’re the MAN! Keep those great predictions coming! I suppose that Bob is burning the midnight oil right now to finish that unwritten script you’ve told us about. ; )

67. T'Cal - January 8, 2012

Will the lens flares in 3D burn my retinas? My eyes will be wide open and I could be at risk!

68. Sebastian S. - January 8, 2012

Glad they’re using film stock instead of digital. Nothing against digital movies, but they have a super clarity and slickness that negates the warm-fuzzy feeling of film (even though some digital movies try to replicate the look of film, it’s never quite the same… such as “Planet Terror” from Robert Rodriguez). Natural film (even when presented digitally) just looks better for my personal taste.

I just wish they weren’t so compelled to upconvert it into 3D. That’s really not necessary. I saw ST09 in I-Max (and good old 2D), and it was really amazing. 3D works for me only if the movie is actually shot in 3D (ala Pixar movies or “Avatar”). But if it’s shot in 2D? I will go out of my way to see it as it was shot (in a 2D theatrical presentation). I don’t care if the 3D upconverted version is playing in my backyard; I’ll seek out a 2D version.

I am much more optimistic about the casting of Benedict Cumberbatch; he was amazing as Stephen Hawking in the movie Hawking. And his Sherlock in the BBC series is the best since the late Jeremy Brett. He (along with the great ST09 cast already in place) has me far more interested than a 3D upconvert…

69. Mirror Jordan - January 8, 2012

When will the studios quit pushing 3D? It’s really not working out for them lately…

70. Mark Tedin - January 8, 2012

How are overlapping optical effects like lens flares, glass reflections, sunbeams, etc. supposed to be upconverted? Unless they’re shot live in 3D they will always look wrong.

71. Star Trek Nemesis blows, is the point. - January 8, 2012

If the studio is pushing for 3D, and JJ doesn’t really want it to be 3D, why should he film it for 3D?

3D is crap anyway, unless it’s properly filmed with IMAX cameras and viewed in an IMAX theater.

72. Simon - January 8, 2012

#68 – Those aren’t optical effects. They’re “in camera”.

On films, opticals refer to things like visual effects added in post.

73. Red Dead Ryan - January 8, 2012


“Planet Terror” was shot on film. Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino both dragged their films on the floor to give them the scratchy look.


They still earn more money.

74. richpit - January 8, 2012

I agree with everyone’s anti-3D message. I don’t like it and I’ve never seen a movie where I thought it was worth the extra $$. For instance, Green Lantern was a huge mess of 3D foolishness that didn’t help the story at all.

75. Basement Blogger - January 8, 2012

So we have Paramount to thank for this cash grab. I want Star Trek to make money but I want the best effort. I’ve seen dozens of 3D conversions and cannot recommend one.

When it comes to 3D cinema, converted 3D film is inferior to a movie shot in 3D. Link. Trekkers will pay a premium to see a 3D movie that will not be as good as one shot in 3D. And if Abrams and his director of photography don’t plan for the 3D, it may look like mud. Martin Scorsese made a masterpiece in 3D with “Hugo.” Trekkers won’t get anything approaching those visuals.

1. How films are converted to 3D and why they’re inferior to native 3D.

76. Sebastian S. - January 8, 2012


Robert Rodriguez shot “Planet Terror” on digital video in Panavision Genesis cameras. It was smothered in post production with artificial grain, scratches, pops/hisses and jump cuts to make it look like film. But it was actually digital video : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/title/tt1077258/trivia?tab=tr&item=tr0763318

The 2nd movie of the Grindhouse ‘double feature’ (“Death Proof”) was actually shot on film (Tarantino was the one who refused to shoot it in digital; not Rodriguez, who shoots most of his movies digitally now).

77. Daniel - January 8, 2012

Someone probably mentioned this already, but I think the decision to issue a 3D version was to try to help the box office in Asia, where 3D does well and Star Trek is not well know yet.

It seems a fairly smart way to try to boost the Star Trek brand in Asia. Still, having a US or European actor cast that is well known in Asia needs to be done as well. Maybe they can do that for Star Trek 2015/16.

78. Jack - January 8, 2012

Was MI4 shown in 3D at all? I saw it in Germany where there weren’t many 3D films recently, other than Tintin and Immortals.

Is there any evidence that its popularity is waning? I sure hope it is.

79. Jack - January 8, 2012

PS. Maybe there’s a protaganist, or number of them, but not a villain? Maybe? Hoping.

I’m kind of happy that they’re not packing it with (great) actors of the moment, like Patrick Wilson, Michael Fassbender, Ryan Gosling, Tom Hardy, dreamy Joseph Gordon-Levitt etc. All are good, deserving of their recent surges in popularity, but, yeah, big stars from another franchise(s) could be distracting… although, Bana worked well, despite the Nero one-notedness… I wasn’t all, “Hey, it’s Eric Bana” in every scene.

I’m still, er, gushing over Viggo Mortenson’s Freud in A Dangerous Method (in which Fassbender was also good). I really want to see the guy in Trek now, And I want a cigar.

80. Trekboi - January 8, 2012

I’m ok with 3D, it’s always good to have options, Like the next gen remastered I don’t see why we cant choose to watch it in full screen or some widescreen edit?
I hope they convert the original movie as well & release it before the sequel to fill the space left by the delayed release & add to its box office & continuity for pople who missed it the first time or have forgotten how good it was.

81. Jason S. - January 8, 2012

@James’s ladyhips – Don’t worry, I doubt he’d forget the lens flares. *rolls eyes at JJ*

@Jack – Tom Hardy has already been in Star Trek. In fact, he was in the last REAL Star Trek film…

82. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - January 8, 2012

73 wrong again as usual, RR hasnt shot on Film in a long long time, He’s been strictly digital since Once Upon a time in Mexico, he has been a big suporter of digital after George Lucas introduced him to the possibilties of shooting in digital. The scratches and blemishes were added in as effects in post. infact the bluray for planet terror has both the clean version and the scratched up versions included. Deathproof was the only part of grindhouse that was shot on film.

83. Neumann - January 8, 2012

I love proper 3D (Avatar, Hugo, etc). There’s just far too few of them made. I can understand why there’s this push for post-conversion to make all those cinema upgrades “worth it.” But after seeing Alice in post-conversion, I swore off that whole approach.

84. "Check the Circuit!" - January 8, 2012

@ 81

Did you mean the last real BOMB Star Trek film?

85. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - January 8, 2012

83 If its done correctly and isnt rushed it looks great,the upcoming star wars 3D and Titantic 3D will hopefully help open eyes to that.
As i stated above I have seen both in advanced test screenings here in the last few weeks , the thing is it all boils down to your local cineplex following through and projecting it at the proper light levels, if they cheap out on the bulb output then yes your 3D movie converted or native will look like crap. If the xenon bulb is set to the recomended studio settings (each movie is different and have varying requirements as to the amount of light output needed by the bulb.
the problem is most theatre chains dont follow those guidelines and as a result you get a crappy presentation. these are the same theatres that also leave the polarizing filters on even durring 2D presentations.

conversions have come along way since CLash of the titans, Alice in Wonderland, and that other movie with Avatar in the title “The Last Airbender”

Also theatres using dolby digital 3D as opposed to Real D or even XPAND are at a disadvantage as well, since the Dolby Digital 3D is also Cheap 3D as well, for chains not wanting to spend money to upgrade to silver screens required for Real D or XPAND. watch a movie in 3D in Real D or XPAND and then watch the same movie in a Dolby Digital 3D equiped theatre, I promise you its a night and day difference in quality in both converted and native 3D films.

86. braxus - January 8, 2012

Yah I thought they may have been considering shooting in IMAX for a few scenes. Im dissapointed. Come now JJ, IMAX is the new thing for movies. Go with it.

87. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - January 8, 2012

My vote is for a 2D black and white silent film – the way movies were ment to be. Today’s moviegoer suffers from ADD and illiteracy and needs to be dazzled by color and sound. True fans of the lost art need not such distractions and can see a great story on its own merits. In fact still shots would be preferred since motion pictures give me motion sickness. It’s yet another example of my superior yet sensitive faculties.

88. AJ - January 8, 2012

“Phantom Menace” 3D will be the first film people will actually run away from the cinema to avoid, and will be another small nail in the coffin of 3D as a reason to see a film. If Hollywood wants to keep it alive, they should make the 3D showings cheaper than 2D rather than the opposite. Also, home media needs to drop the need for the glasses.

New 3D cinemas are still opening across Europe and Asia, so the higher-price ticket con which has now lost its luster in North America still has a whole half-a-planet to bilk before crashing.

89. Instead of IMAX 3D, Doug Trumbulls New Ultra Showscan Digital Format - January 9, 2012

As long as the film utilizes the format that is properly integrated to the story, it should be fine. I only wish 3D wasn’t projected so dark. Maybe by the time the movie comes out, they’ll be improvements. Its almost 2 years out anyway.

On the other hand, the cutting edge in film projection is this new Showscan digital that Doug Trumbull (the FX wizard who did FX on The Motion Picture). Supposedly, the format boasts 100 fps presentation and 3D for ultra realism.

You can read more about this format at : http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/04/11/the-future-is-coming-fx-guru-douglas-trumbull-to-direct-high-fps-3d-film/

90. Bob Tompkins - January 9, 2012

I am still having trouble conceiving a part that both Cumberbatch and del Toro could play. I think Abrams isn’t being truthful about script alterations.

91. Bob Tompkins - January 9, 2012

Anamorphic lenses = more light flares.
Why does Abrams believe that is an important aspect to filmmaking? He’s like a bully with a new toy that no one else likes but he isists on making everyone else play with it…

92. Basement Blogger - January 9, 2012

@ 78 M:I :4 and the Decline of 3D

Jack, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol was partially filmed in IMAX 2D and released in IMAX. Link.

On the decline of 3D cinema, note the Collider interviewer hints at it. But Stephen Spielberg had some interesting things to say about the decline of 3D.

“Audiences just know whether the extra money they have to pay to see a movie in 3-D is going to be worth it. ” Spielberg in Entertainment Weekly, 12-9-11, pg. 44. He then says that people knew you had to see Avatar in 3D but the audience did not feel the need to see Cars 2 in 3D.

Below is a Slate article about the decline of 3D. I don’t know if 3D is on the decline so much that Hollywood will stop making 3D movies.

1. M:I-GP was partially filmed in IMAX.

2. Decline of 3D

93. Tony Todd's Tears - January 9, 2012

I honestly hate the 3D thing, I think that it’s a stupid gimmick, it distracts from the story, and it doesn’t look right. And it gives me a headache.

Studios never think about things like story or content, they just think in terms of gimmicks, and the bottom line.

And my personal thanks to J.J. for sticking with FILM as well. He’s doing it right, and I look forward to seeing it.

94. Dr. Cheis - January 9, 2012

“Abrams also appears to confirm previous reports that there will be no returning original series stars for the sequel.”

I misread that as “Abrams also appears to confirm previous reports that there will be no returning stars from the previous film.” Had to double-take before I realized what it actually said. I think the fact that I was able to make that mistake speaks good things for the new cast.

95. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - January 9, 2012

89 if its to dark speak up to your local theatres projection supervisor or theatre management, Studios send out specific guidelines as to the propper lighting level for each movie. And if your theatre is to dark then you need to complain to your theatre so they start setting the levels of the bulb to where they should be for each screening.

96. MJ - January 9, 2012

Phil, shooting starts THURSDAY this week.

97. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - January 9, 2012

86 there has been talk of doing a star trek movie in IMAX going back to when Voyager was in its earliest seasons, back when IMAX platters only allowed up to 40 or so minutes running times.
And you do realize their has only been

98. Simon - January 9, 2012

#85 – “Also theatres using dolby digital 3D as opposed to Real D or even XPAND are at a disadvantage as well”

WRONG. Dolby 3D works on top of existing tech and requires strict guidelines. If your theater was showing something in Dolby 3D and there was a problem report it to Dolby immediately.

#91 – Anamorphic is the only TRUE ‘scope format, not the matted off fake Super35 so many productions cheap out and shoot on. It’s also the only 35MM format that is true 4k resolution due to more image being squeezed onto the negative from top to bottom, unlike Super35 where 45% of the negative is cropped off in post to achieve the 2.39 aspect ratio, for a total resolution of only a little more than 2.5k or so.
As to lens flares: it’s part of anamorphic photography but it can be controlled. Abrams will shine a light off camera to create them. If you don’t like it, take it up with the director but there are plenty of directors who shoot anamorphic: does the name Eastwood mean anything to you?

99. MJ - January 9, 2012

@60 “The people who constantly bitch about the fact that the “Star Trek” sequel will be converted into 3D instead of being shot that way are the same folks who will most definitely be the first in line to see the movie in 3D conversion.”

I will have to part ways with your here, RDR. I do not pay to see movies in 3D that were not at least partially filmed originally, period. The only movies I have paid to see in 3D have been Avatar, Tron 2, Transformers 3, Hugo, and Tin Tin.

The only way I would pay to see Trek 2 in 3D would be if their was not a theater option for 2D for me opening week. That does not seem to be an issue here.

100. MJ - January 9, 2012

@92 ““Audiences just know whether the extra money they have to pay to see a movie in 3-D is going to be worth it. ” Spielberg in Entertainment Weekly, 12-9-11, pg. 44. He then says that people knew you had to see Avatar in 3D but the audience did not feel the need to see Cars 2 in 3D.”

Exactly. The viewing audience for 3D is becoming more sophisticated. Before anyone proclaims it dead, I can guarantee you that the Hobbit, which is going to be shown in the next generation 48 FPS 3D next December, is going to revitalize 3D for certain mega films.

101. MJ - January 9, 2012

@89 “On the other hand, the cutting edge in film projection is this new Showscan digital that Doug Trumbull (the FX wizard who did FX on The Motion Picture). Supposedly, the format boasts 100 fps presentation and 3D for ultra realism.”

I don’t think anyone if taking this seriously. And the max FPS for this is 60. The human eye can really tell the difference past 60 FPS in any case.

102. BeatleJWOL - January 9, 2012

@60. “The people who constantly bitch about the fact that the “Star Trek” sequel will be converted into 3D instead of being shot that way are the same folks who will most definitely be the first in line to see the movie in 3D conversion.”

Agreed with MJ here; I will NOT be seeing Star Trek in 3D, just good ol’ 2D. I have, however, strongly considered getting in a viewing of The Hobbit in 3D, because those films will actually be SHOT on 3D, and I’m willing to support the work that’s being done to make that happen.

103. Nano - January 9, 2012

Breaded and Fried Tribbles – Enjoy!


10 extra large eggs
½ pound cooked ham
6 anchovy fillets
2 ½ cups fresh bread crumbs
½ teaspoon apple-pie spice
freshly ground black pepper
bacon drippings or butter and a little oil

Beat 2 of the eggs in a shallow bowl. Put the other 8 eggs into a saucepan of cold water, bring to a boil, and simmer for 5 minutes. Plunge into cold water and peel. This method should produce a slightly softer yolk than rock hard, which I think is nicer.

Process, grind, or mince the ham and anchovies. Combine with the bread crumbs, spice, some black pepper, and most of the beaten egg. Brush each boiled egg with the remaining beaten egg and encase with the ham mixture, molding it around the egg with your hands.

Fry in the bacon drippings or butter with the addition of a slug of olive oil until brown all over. Cut in half and serve on fried bread or toast. Eaten with a crisp, green salad and a glass of wine, this makes an excellent little luncheon dish.

104. Father Robert Lyons - January 9, 2012

Count me among the thankful for 2D crowd. 3D tv and movies don’t work for me… I have yet to watch one that hasn’t triggered my vertigo within 10 seconds of starting to watch.

105. P Technobabble - January 9, 2012

Perhaps if the eventual numbers show that most people went for the 2D version instead of the 3D version, Paramount will get the message. I’ve seen a couple of 3D films, and I, for one, don’t think it’s worth the extra price of a ticket.

106. Do You Wanna Dance - January 9, 2012

@51: Who is the villan?

Killer Tribbles. You heard it here first!

107. SoonerDave - January 9, 2012

3D is garbage, especially the way the studios, distributors, and theaters conspire to try and force you into 3D showings over 2D counterparts. Case in point: TinTin – my family looked up a local theaters offerings over Christmas, and there were plenty of evening 3D shows, multiple times, all at $13.50 a ticket. For the same day, there was exactly *one* 2D showing at a matinee time – for $7/ticket.

Do you have to guess which we did? We attended and thoroughly enjoyed the 2D matinee show, and I pocketed $28 in the process – more than enough to cover a big box of popcorn.

If the studios are truly wondering where their box office is going, yet continue to keep up this idiotic cramming of 3D garbage into customers’ faces, they have no one but themselves to blame.

108. chrisfawkes.net - January 9, 2012

I don’t know what it is like in the States but here in Aus 3D films are often shown with no 2D option in the same or approximate time slot.

This indicates that they are still trying to foist 3D onto a market that would otherwise let it slide.

Hoping the technology disappears within the next few years.

I’m also thankful Trek will be shot in 2D

109. chrisfawkes.net - January 9, 2012

For all the great things that come out of the U.S one thing they have never got right is having a coffee culture (Neither does England).

So what you have is coffee served up in paper and poor quality coffee at places such as Star Bucks or similar franchises. So when you are given the option of pumping the crap with some other flavor you jump all over it.

But if you have a decent coffee there is no way you would ruin the flavor by adding some french vanilla or irish creme or some other candy flavored gimmick.

This is how i also see 3D. It’s a cheap gimmick for the undiscerning. A good film is not enhanced by it but on the contrary it takes away from the experience.

Similar to how a reliance on effects over story can ruin a film except that effects can add something when there is context. 3D is never needed.

Sorry if the coffee analogy causes offense to anyone. The brits are just as bad and i am a brit who just happens to live in Aus.

110. VOODOO - January 9, 2012

Upconverting to 3D is nothing but a money grad for the studio and the finished product will not look like a true 3D film.

Sounds like there was a real battle behind the scenes over this and Abrams is making the best of it…Good for him for standing his ground and not shooting in 3D if he didn’t want to…That said we will be getting an inferior “3D” project.

111. somethoughts - January 9, 2012

I wonder if broke back mountain will be re released with those cool rumbling chairs :) seriously though how can you not film a epic space movie not in imax or 3D, you already had 4yrs to work on the sequel and it better be good or else ppl gonna dress up as borgs, red shirts, klingons and torch paramount

112. Dennis Bailey - January 9, 2012

I wish they were shooting in 3D, but I’ll see the 3D version in any event.

113. Damian - January 9, 2012

As most have noted, with a few exceptions as always, conversions don’t seem to pan out for 3-D. It also doesn’t help if you go to a theater trying to save money by cutting the lighting back.

I’ll likely save the money and see it in 2-D, unless I hear reports that this is one of those exceptions where it worked especially well.

It’s likely JJ Abrams is more interested in filming the movie the way he likes to film more than he is about 3-D. It seems to me that Paramount wanted it in 3-D and this was a sort of compromise.

114. somethoughts - January 9, 2012

James Camerons Star Trek would be awesome, I watched T2 other day with my 17yr old cousin and she loved it, we are talking about a film that is 21yrs old and can still holds its own.

115. somethoughts - January 9, 2012

Why dont they convert Star Trek 2009 to 3D and see how good or bad it turns out, ah right the annoyin lens flares would blind you.

116. Basement Blogger - January 9, 2012


Whip pans and hand held camera shots don’t work well in 3D. They make audience literally sick. J.J. Abrams does use some hand held camera shots in Star Trek 2009 so it may not work.

Regardless, I hope J.J. Abrams and the director of photography plan for 3D. If not native 3D, at least they can go for the best conversion. If they don’t, you could get visual mud. See Paramount’s “The Last Airbender.”

117. the Quickening - January 9, 2012

I’m happy about the production start and TREK being able to grab Benedict Cumberbatch, but can he put people in movie seats, domestically or internationally? Don’t see it.

One of the big questions on my mind years ago regarding the next TREK movie was, would Paramount go for broke with the next production, would they spend the kind of money to entice big audiences to TREK–the kind of money that other genre movies of it’s kind spend regularly? More and more, the answer seems to be no. Paramount didn’t match Benicio Del Toro’s offer; the guest cast, so far, offers no one remotely able to be considered bankable; no big screen name(s) to pull in international audiences–or any audience, as talked about; converted 3D, instead of actual 3D; and, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the original shooting schedule was to be 6 months (a six month shooting schedule implies an epic!), now it’s less than 4 months.

This is guess work of course, but maybe the original script didn’t knock Paramount’s socks off, has been scaled down, and we are not going to get an expensive, visual, extravaganza, but a moderate TREK adventure that can be forgotten in a few years. I’m happy with the start of the production, of course, but just not overly impressed so far.

118. SoonerDave - January 9, 2012


I think its clear that the casting for this movie has been designed to attract non-US audiences. Cumberbatch is not well known in the US, ( I had never heard of him), but he clearly is well-known and respected in the UK. The other actors clearly have a non-domestic flare to them, and I don’t think this is a coincidence given Trek 09’s relatively lackluster foreign performance.

I think Paramount has concluded they have a winning formula with AbramsTrek, have no need to broaden domestic appeal with what might be termed a bigger domestic acting name, and as a result can focus on shoring up overseas receipts with several apparently well-known names from various regions.

We’ll see how it works.

119. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - January 9, 2012

Breaking News. Joseph Gatt to be in trek 12. Here is the Link.


120. SciFiGuy - January 9, 2012

#88 — Much agreed!!! I cannot STAND Phantom Menace and I wouldn’t go see it even if they could somehow make Palpatine walk out of the screen and slap me! I can do without ever seeing Titanic again too…3D won’t get me to go see it again.

Prometheus will be my next 3D film. AssumIng it’s SHOT in 3D…

121. John from Cincinnati - January 9, 2012

I just saw Cumberbatch in the movie “War Horse”.

He was captivating

122. John from Cincinnati - January 9, 2012

oh, and P.S.

No 3D!

123. Craiger - January 9, 2012

Commodore, he looks like Shinzon. LOL.

124. Lt. Bailey - January 9, 2012

I will wait and see it in 2D, I do not see why we should have to pay 3 to 4 dollars more to see a 3D film that we did not ask to be made in 3D. It is the studios ploy to make more money on tickets sales. They take so much of a cut on the ticket price as it is now, the only way a theater can stay in business is to charge $5 for a bucket of popcorn that actually has 40 cents of popcorn if you bought the same amount at a grocery store.

Lets hope they can stick to the shooting timetable…maybe the film can come out sooner.

125. steve - January 9, 2012

I serously doubt any IMAX-equipped theater is going to show a 2D IMAX version. They’re all going to show only the 3D version, figuring that’s what people will want to see. So nobody will ever get to see the best possible presentation of the film, which is 2D IMAX. It’s sad.

126. N - January 9, 2012

@118 I’m from the UK and I’ve never heard of him. His name makes me laugh, it’s so pompous :P

127. Khan was Framed! - January 9, 2012

I have to agree with those who point out the obvious flaw with 3D conversion; there has yet to be a decent looking 3D movie made through using this process.

Last summer’s 3D selections like Thor & Green Lantern were incredibly lack-luster due to the poor quality of the 3D. Not surprisingly XMen & the Apes movie were vastly superior films & both stayed away from 3D as a gimmick.

Basically, Star Trek is too good for that. If we can’t get the Avatar cameras, then there is no point in producing this in 3D.

I will see it, of course, but I’m hoping that Abrams & co. are smart enough to shoot it as though it will only ever be watched in 2D.

128. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 9, 2012

I don’t need to know the actor’s name (or that he/she is well known, A-list, celebrity…) when I watch a movie. I need to be engaged by the CHARACTER he/she is playing. No doubt all these additions to the cast will be receiving the normal remuneration as set down between the studios and Actors Equity, as well as anything more that the actor’s representative may be able get from the studio. Given the medium – movie being made for domestic and overseas market, as well as whoever the character is (big or small part), this basic remuneration would still be quite considerable.

It is NOT just about the money or the big name. It is about SUITABILITY for that particular role, skill, talent of the actor being cast – ie GOOD casting!

129. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 9, 2012

I cannot recall reading anywhere that the filming may take up to six months. In fact, I have read the opposite, as in more like three months as opposed to four months which is how long it took to film the first Star Trek movie in this film series.

I guess there must be a lot of good stuff to film in the story, as well as the fact that some of the actors are contracted to be elsewhere for a short time, ie Chris Pine and Benedict Cumberbatch.

130. denny cranium - January 9, 2012

while on production issues……
Ill probably just watch the 2d version.
What Id love to see is a real engine room.
please bring back phaser BEAMS not those little blue and red 23rd century spitballs from the hand phasers in the last movie.
Also when the ship fires please no more phaser lances.

131. Hugh Hoyland - January 9, 2012

#89 Interesting, I’ll keep an eye on what Mr Trumbull does in the future., sounds like he has some cool ideas! :]

132. Phil - January 9, 2012

@96. True enough, shooting is shooting, I guess. Even if it’s backgrounds and such, you gotta start somewhere. Just wondering when the casting announcements will end…..

133. LordCheeseCakeBreath - January 9, 2012

I need to see the 20th Century Brewery Engineering section in 3D. Its important!

134. Red Dead Ryan - January 9, 2012


I stand corrected!


Wrong again as usual? What are you talking about?

#’s 99 and 102.

Yeah okay, maybe you guys will skip the 3D showing, but I’ll bet my top dollar that there are hundreds of other fans who will shell out the extra bucks to see the sequel in converted 3D. Definitely if the theatre they are going to is only showing the film in 3D. And perhaps because some fans don’t really care, or haven’t been paying attention to the criticisms of converting films into 3D.

135. Keeper of the Katra - January 9, 2012

3D=no worthwhile story and more per cap at the box office
I’ll wait for it on Netflix

136. Phil - January 9, 2012

I don’t understand why so many people have their undies bunched up over this. If you don’t like 3D, just see it in 2D. Or IMAX. ….

137. the Quickening - January 9, 2012


Most films don’t seem to focus mainly on increasing box office performances internationally by racial and/ or national casting–in this case, the Brits. More than that, I see several franchise/genre films increase sales and expanding demographics by hiring well known actors and former big name stars in supporting cast roles. Nolans’ Batman movies have Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman; the new Spider-man has Sally Fields and Martin Sheen; Zack Snyders’ new Superman has Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, and Lawrence Fishburne.

I know this is going to sound sacrilegious on this website, but I still maintain the role of Captain Pike should have gone to a more “named” actor in ST’09 and not Bruce Greenwood. Could have helped domestically and internationally.

I think the British-slanted cast might increase box office in Europe, but beyond that, I don’t see it helping much. Also, the casting decisions are somewhat wasteful since I thought TREK was already popular in the UK.

TREK ’09 made only 393 million–not all that impressive for a genre film today. In adjusted income, that’s only around 12 to 20 million more than TMP. I just think to broaden that appeal, more is going to be needed than just hiring Brits.

I think a bigger domestic acting name is just as much for international gross as domestic, and more than that, it’s for getting older audiences and getting movie fans around the world into the seats, as well as broadening and covering every demographic possible.

138. cdp - January 9, 2012

For those who do not want to see Star Trek in 3D I would suggest that you go to your local theater before the movie is released and request that they show the 2D version of the movie as well. I dont know if that would work but it wouldn’t hurt to ask. If enough people ask for the 2D version I am sure they might show it. I for one am looking forward to seeing star trek in 3D just once as I have always wanted to see a star trek movie in 3D

139. the Quickening - January 9, 2012


I guess I’m thinking along the lines of making a product that will give you more box office returns and a well acted film. Genre films are expensive to make–greater box office is needed. A named actor with talent and suitability is more a plus than just a talented actor with no name but suitability. Actually, Paramount and Abrams went for just that with their first choice, Benicio Del Toro. They just didn’t get him.

140. the Quickening - January 9, 2012


Can’t remember where I read it, but I do remember doing so.

141. VONNEKE WARLICH - January 9, 2012

Please NO converted 3D!!!! It looks flat, REAL 3D Cameras Needed Please!!!!

Speaking of Peter Jackson and Show Scan.

What about what Peter Jackson is doing for the Hobbit which is shooting 48 FRAMES PER SECOND, instead of 24 FRAMES PER SECOND

I can see the trouble of shooting with 3D cameras as they are bulky and inconvenient.

The MAIN advantage I can see would be increased creativity experimenting with real 3D cameras and 48 frames per second as a way to bring people to the theatre again.

Look how Avatar came out. I am sorry but movies converted to 3D look flat to me. I just saw Final Destination 5 in 3D which was filmed with 3D cameras and noticed how great it looked(yes, the movie itself was crap). I didn’t even know they used 3D cameras until I googled it. I just thought wow that looked fantastic in 3D, I wonder if they used real 3D cameras?

I saw Green Hornet in 3D and thought the conversion was so bad I turned to the 2D Blue Ray disc. It gave me a headache that real 3D movies do not.

I think George Lucas’s team turned him on to that 3D conversion crap. Go back a 100n years and look what they had with those 3D photos. They rocked, and they didn’t have conversion then.

I know just trying to get a film off the ground like the new ST movie must be a huge undertaking.

Why don’t you give Peter Jackson a call?

I am sure by this time it is to late.

I think years down the line, JJ will regret converting it to 3D.

Hope the script is good.

142. ToMaHaKeR - January 9, 2012

Just use the 2D, and keep polishing the script…

143. 750 Mang - January 10, 2012

@ 142 ToMaHaKeR – “Just use the 2D, and keep polishing the script…” Amen.

144. Mark - January 10, 2012

I was never going to see this in 3D no matter how they shot it, but thankfully it will be a 3D conversion rather than shot with 3D cameras. Why, you ask? Because in 10 years when no one is making 3D movies anymore, no one will remember this as a 3D movie!

145. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 10, 2012

I loved the lens flares, could have done with a little less shake (and actually, when you watch the Pike/Kirk bar table scene, it’s more like a series of jerks) in the camera when a still shot would have worked just fine, loved the ship, loved the other visuals, loved the movie. I would be fine seeing it in inaction or 3D. The space battle scenes in 3D would be great!

All I ask is that whatever they do with this next film, please achieve one thing: Epic.

Well that, and, you know, Spock/Uhura. :-)

146. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 10, 2012

Darn phone. It’s supposed to say in Imax or 3D. :-/

147. dmduncan - January 10, 2012

The 3D trick is betrayed by narrow depth of field. I noticed that in Hugo.

Controlling your depth of field is an important tool in telling stories on film, and if you shoot with your lenses open to get that narrow depth of field in a 3D movie, it betrays the trick.

You can’t make out of focus objects in narrow depth of field shots sharp by looking at them because you are not looking at real objects. And when you notice that in a 3D movie — I did, anyway — you also realize you are watching a film when you are instead supposed to be absorbed in the story.

If you don’t want that to happen you’d have to make sure all your shots have extreme depth of field. But then you lose what is a beautiful story telling tool.

148. Bob Tompkins - January 10, 2012

Ifinally watched Start Trek 2009 with the audio commentary on. I now understand why the first cut came in at about 3 hours.
I also understand, that given my complaints about the plot holes in the movie and the weakness of Nero as the villain,had they gone with a longer cut, it would have been a much better movie.

149. Spock/Uhura Fan - January 11, 2012

I just wish that since they had the footage that they put it in with the dvd extras. Why let it go to waste when people would want to see it? I can also say that I loved JJ’s part if the commentary and the fact that he took it seriously. He did a great job. I look forward to him doing the next one.

150. A nu Trekkie - January 11, 2012

I loved the last movie and I look forward for the new one! Im in the 2d party!

151. duke nukem - January 12, 2012

great news i just want the lens flare gone please

152. MONGO - January 12, 2012

Mongo glad that they make new Star Trek movie sequel. Mongo think 3D not worth money. Mongo avoid 3D. Have to wear glasses offset any gain from 3D. When movie made in 2D then convert to 3D picture suffer.

Mongo see Super 8 in theater then buy bluray. Agree that JJ mans too much in love with lens flare. It distracting in Super 8 movie. Not make any sense to use. Hope JJ mans move away from fascination with it. Just make best Star Trek movie he can.

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