JJ Abrams Gives Star Trek Sequel Update – To Be Shot in 2-D & Converted

At the world premiere of the new Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol, JJ Abrams gave an update on progress on the Star Trek sequel talking about the sets, lessons learned from the 2009 movie and how he will be handling 3-D. Watch his comments below.


Abrams Star Trek sequel update

Last night MTV, JJ Abrams gave an update on progress for the Star Trek sequel:

It’s a little early to be talking about ‘Star Trek,’ but I will say that they wrote — the three writers, Damon [Lindelof], Bob [Orci] and Alex [Kurtzman] — they wrote the most amazing script, and I’m thrilled to get a chance to direct it. I’s totally mine to screw up, so if you don’t like it, it’s completely on me. Our sets are almost done, so we’re going to go back and start shooting next month.

Abrams also talked about how he learned from his first Star Trek:

I’m sure, like many people, you see what you do and you go, ‘I really could have done that one better, I should have done that, that was a mistake, more of this, less of that.’ You always do that," he said. "I’m hoping that as we do the next one, all the mistakes that I’ve made that I’ve hopefully learned from, I can bring to this one and hope make it better.

Abrams also confirmed they will be doing a 2-D conversion to 3-D:

We’re shooting on film, 2-D, and then we’ll do a good high-end conversion like the ‘Harry Potter’ movie and all that. Luckily, with our release date now we have the months needed to do it right because if you rush it, it never looks good…. "We were talking about [shooting in IMAX] and I would love to do it. IMAX is my favorite format; I’m a huge fan," he added.

Here is the video:


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Shot in 2D and converted later… I feel like I should have an opinion on this but don’t know enough about the technology.

I hope some IMAX locations show this in 2D because I don’t care about 3D and neither does JJ.

Hey JJ, take this from someone who’s worked as a projectionist for several years, 2d converted to 3d NEVER looks good, no matter how much time is spent on it. And people also feel gypped cause they’re spending 3 bucks extra as a tech fee that becomes less necessary than if it was shot with 3D cameras. Basically, expect a lot of backlash on this.

Booooooo. Real 3D or no 3D at all. Conversions are what give 3D a bad rap.


No article on the report of no original cast members in the sequel?

now i see it



I was very happy to hear that Star Trek 2012 was going to be in 3D. In fact I was in the minority when they did, but I like 3D, I really do and films SHOT in 3D are the next medium of film in my opinion. 2D to 3D conversion is NOT 3D, it is NOT! I have yet to see a SINGLE 2D to 3D converted movie that I enjoyed the look of!

If it’s shot in 3D I will see it in 3D. E.G. Avatar, Hugo. If it’s converted E.G. Green Lantern, Thor, Pirates 4, Captain America. I will see it in 2D.

J.J. Abrams, I know you love the “purity of film” and what not. But if you’re going to shoot in one way, shoot in that way, don’t half-ass it. Conversion is horrible and if you don’t believe me, look at what your audience is saying.

PS: Good high end conversion like Harry Potter? Are you kidding me? I couldn’t see shit in that movie!! Shoot in 3D or release only in 2D, make up your mind. There’s no inbetweens here.

It will be interesting to see how the lens flares will look after a conversion to 3D. Blue light wrapping over peoples heads…

YAY! Shooting on FILM! And YES! Please shoot it on IMAX!

Now how about upping the FRAMERATE, JJ!!!

Petros, dude, relax. It’s just a movie.

Sigh. You fans realise this is not his decision to make, right? The Star Trek sequel will be a big summer blockbuster – studios will expect, nay, DEMAND a 3D version. Better to have the director decide off the bat that he’s not shooting in 3D, a medium few have the vision for or experience in, and warn the viewing public before hand.

Rather not see it in 3D at all. JJ isn’t a fan because he’s said it affects how you shoot the movie. I want the movie to drive the special effects, not vice versa.

Basically, JJ wants to make a solid 2D film, so he’ll let the studio bugger it up with faux-3D in the knowledge that his core film is future-proofed. A shame it doesn’t sound like he’s shooting any of it in IMAX format. I, for one, don’t believe 3D is the ‘next medium of film;’ it’s a very old concept that shows up every 25 years, outstays its welcome and gets abandoned.

I believe the future is higher framerates and higher quality image such as IMAX, hence I’m looking forward to Mission: Impossible and The Dark Knight Rises!

OK JJ… whatever you want… but do it, do it… LOL

… so begins really next month… can’t wait!!!!!

:-) :-)

I’m not replacing any of my TVs or bluerays with 3D versions. In fact, if they ever do make 3D TVs the only available kind, I will figure out a way to downconvert them to 2D.

Just my way of flipping the technocracy the bird.

I hate 3D. I’d much rather see this in real iMax *without* the 3D.

I will advise my Trekkie friends who are prone to motion sickness, to take proper medication in order to prevent it before they are to watch the movie.

Awesome! Shooting in 2D is the way to go. Great news! Thanks, Anthony! (Could care less about the conversion. Sure I’ll go see it on viewing 4 or 5 in 3D, but will enjoy it and get to know it as I do all my media content, in 2D.)

I’m on the fence on whether JJ should go with IMAX or Panavision System 65. It’s always been my dream to see a Star Trek film in 70mm (see Branagh’s Hamlet, Ron Howard’s Far and Away & the flick Baraka for great recent examples of System 65). I’m not a fan of 3D, mainly because of the headaches I always suffer after seeing a screening. I’ll be going to a 2D showing.

Mr. Orci, I’m curious if Paramount has come forward with any kind of request to publish the shooting script as a tie-in to the theatrical release? It would be cool to see that and another Making-of/Art-of coffee table book.

Toss 3D in the toilet. Love the prospect of IMAX, however

Mr. Bob Orci… are you there?… Congrats for the most amazing script… yeah I believe in JJ Abrams… if he is saying… can’t wait!!!!…..:-) :-)


3D is worthless. IMAX would be good if the pace of the film allows for some moments of cosmic awe and wonder, which not coincidentally are the emotions Shatner emphasized in Captain Kirk. There should be some exploring of strange new worlds in Star Trek and IMAX should be used for that. It doesn’t have to be multiple 7-minute flybys like in Star Trek The Motion Picture but there should be more than a few seconds where the movie is willing to let people just experience being somewhere strange and new!

Shame on you J.J. Abrams and Paramount for not shooting in 3D and converting. The only quality picture I’ve seen that was a partial conversion was Transformers: Dark of the Moon. The rest of the conversions I have seen are not worth a filmgoers extra money.

I’ve seen a bunch of conversions since 2009. I still want my money back for “The Last Airbender.” (2010) There are two reasons why conversions stink. One, the director of photography is shooting in 2D. The polarization process of watching a movie in 3D is usually not taken into account. So you get a darker picture. Two, the special effects don’t mesh. That’s because the director is not thinking in 3D. Special effects are not special And J.J. Abrams makes silly comment about the last Harry Potter movie. The live action shots in that movie could have been better but the conversion could not capture a real 3D picture. Harry Potter was a great movie but not made any more special by being converted to 3D.

Trek Nation you deserve a quality 3D film. You are not anything less than the fans of Avatar. It amazes me that Abrams wasn’t inspired by Martin Scorsese’s Hugo in 3D. What makes that film great was that Scorsese thought about seeing the movie in 3D throughout the whole movie. Star Trek (2013) has made a misstep.

thank god he is not selling out and doing 3-d. i get the genre of 3-d films for the sake of being a novelty and a fun experience, but move on….

if i want a 3-d experience i’ll go see some stupid pixar cartoon that was made for it.

i should clarify i am glad the original cut of the film will not be using their 3-d making process……

To hell with 3D, and the inflated prices for the “experience”

I was not happy when the original “Trek in 3D” reports came out, but this makes me feel better. The upconverting to 3D will be nothing but a money grab for Paramount, that’s cool, they need to make money off this. Let the geeks and the foolish pay extra for 3D viewings (they love giving money away), and let the rest of us watch a real movie shot on real film. Thanks JJ for restoring my faith in real filmmaking and letting your bosses have their cash grab. Win – Win.

Scorcese’s next film after Hugo is Silence. If he does not shoot that movie in 3D, then that tells you something about what one of our master filmmakers feels about the universal necessity of 3D. In a movie about the magic of movies, which Hugo was, 3D makes perfect sense. But that is not always going to be the case, and 3D will remain a marketing gimmick used to get people into the theater — except for James Cameron’s movies, because it’s clear that everything he will do from now on will be movies that are 3D appropriate.

But Cameron is just one guy, and he’s not a guy in the same artistic class as Scorcese. James Cameron is a mechanic who likes to build hot rods, and beyond that if you want to call him an artist, he’s more like a comic book artist than a Van Gogh. And there are many more people out there making films who are more than that.

I enjoy all of James Cameron’s movies, just like millions of people who pay to see them, but perhaps the best way to symbolize the way I feel about his films is also to say that the only one I own is Aliens.


SO GLAD it will be shot in 2D. 3D is a terrible looking gimmic for kids and exhausted parents.

I just want a great looking film!


Cool. Now JJ can focus on the movie instead of clever camera moves and blocking to sell the 3D. IMAX is as good as it gets. Put it there and I’m happy.

I will be seeing this film SOLELY in 2D.

All 3D is rubbish. I would not bother shooting in 3D either.

The 3D fad may well have passed by 2013, it’s on it’s death bed now.

And no 3D film no matter how it is shot makes up for the stop less light you get from wearing the glasses. All those films look too dark.

37 – After seeing Hugo, a film by a master, i can’t agree that all 3D is rubbish. The use of 3D is a new art form.

Not having seen a 3D movie since the early 80s, I have no opinion on this. But the news of 2D to 3D conversion seems to be going over like a lead zeppelin.

70mm with a HIGH FRAMERATE would be as good as it gets. (Ask Doug Trumbull.)
I’d take that any day over IMAX. But we’ll get what we get…
And 3D is here to stay. Period.

J.J. Abrams should not be applauded for shooting in 2D and converting as courageous or noble. As I have seen many 3D conversions from 2D, it’s likely the 3D version will be inferior to a film shot in 3D such as Avatar or Hugo. In essence, Trekkers are being treated like second class citizens. Abrams should have fought to film Star Trek in 3D. And remember movies shot in 3D would be released in 2D also. Regardless, filmmakers agree that a conversion is not as good as a movie shot in 3D.

A bad conversion can hurt a film. I liked Thor. But the conversion to 3D created a very dark movie. The fight between Thor and the Frost Giants was absolute mud. Why? Because it was on a dark planet with little light. The director Kenneth Brannagh should have adjusted the lighting. But I’m guessing he wasn’t thinking 3D. This visual mud hurt a good movie.

Do the film with IMAX. Shoot some scenes in IMAX and do the exterior effects shots in IMAX. Its about time a space movie would use this format. Watch the star destroyer sequence in the IMAX film Special Effects to get my drift.

The only 3D film I thought looked good was Toy Story 3, and they planned that one out as a 3D film from the start. Coincidence? I think not…

@26: The 3D conversion was the least of The Last Airbender’s problems, and that’s REALLY saying something. :P

On the upside, it’ll make the Hobbit in 3D look VERY good. Check out this link (the fourth Hobbit “production diary”) for a look at how 3D films SHOULD be approached:

Abrams clearly doesn’t give a crap about making his film in 3D and is letting the studio foot the bill for the problem. Good for him, let them deal with it!

Not a fan of 3D. Glad JJ’s going with what he knows.

@40 Trekkers are not being treated as second class citizens. . . as the comments seem to indicate, a majority of us didn’t want it in 3D. Plus, I don’t think that JJ wanted to shoot the film in 3D to begin with (3D sounded like a top-down mandate from Paramount to boost overseas sales — not something that JJ wanted to artistically do). . . he LIKES shooting on film. . .he likes real locations, and real action, which is why we got budgineering instead of something cooked up by ILM. . . plus. . . do you REALLY think that given all the lens flares in the first movie that this next one is going to be “muddy” and dark??? Think about it. . ..


Until they come out with a new way to present movies in 3D that won’t cause people headache, I will stick to watch movies in 2D.

Looks like a compromise was reached. Abrams gets his 2D version for posterity and Paramount gets their 3D version for the moment.

I think JJ should be applauded for shooting the sequel on film the way that he wants to, and letting those who want a 3D version to then convert his vision into something else (3D) to fill the seats.

If JJ had decided to shoot it in 3D to appease someone else, then I think he should not be applauded.

screw 3d. it only makes it worse and its going to be fake 3d which is even worse.