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

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



Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


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….


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.

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.

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.

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

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

this guy can’t keep his yap shut!

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

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.

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

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.


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.


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.

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.

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

3D is cheesy imo.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

No Thank you.

End of debate.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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!

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”

Lens Flares in 3-D!!

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

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….

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

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!

:-) :-)

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 :)

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…..

@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.

@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.

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!)

@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.

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?

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.

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

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.

@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.

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?


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.

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