JJ Abrams Was Forced To Make STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS In 3D

The director claims that Paramount wouldn't greenlight the film if he refused to go by their ultimatum, click after the jump for more info.

Follow D117:
By D117 - 1/10/2013



Abrams states that the studio wanted to make the sequel in 3D for environmental reasons, but he thought it was "ridiculous". He also thought that the idea was very helpful, getting to work with stereographers. Stating how 3D was a pain to work with: "I have trouble with 3D sometimes. I can't see it right; I get a headache; it annoys me; I hate the glasses; I hate the fact that things get so dim". Approaching this in a very "cynical" way, using different techniques to enhance the picture itself, throughout this process to realize that 3D might not be a bad idea, in some cases.


Chris Pine & Benedict Cumberbatch In 'Star Trek Into Darkness'


Seems controlling that 3D was forced upon Abrams, but he seems enthusiastic about the technology. Be sure to check out the rest of the article, and leave your thoughts below.



Source: digitalspy.com
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and "safe harbor" provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE.
1
LIKE!
10 Comments
DukeAcureds - 1/10/2013, 8:03 PM
Scandal!
n1ghtw1ng2832 - 1/10/2013, 8:15 PM
3D SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Fishandchips - 1/10/2013, 8:20 PM
Aaaaaaannd this is why movies fail (not saying this will) companies need to stop being so controlling and trust their film makers.
OverlyManlyMan - 1/10/2013, 8:22 PM
[frick] 3D
neonhero - 1/10/2013, 8:26 PM
Not surprising if this is true. Simply put, the studio makes more money from a 3D release, which is their job. I'm with Abrams, though. I won't see a movie in 3D, either. Same reasons: dimmer picture, eventual headache, and having to find a way to position the glasses over my own glasses makes for a lousy time.
95 - 1/10/2013, 8:54 PM
Any film with the word "darkness" in the title will be nauseating in 3D. Unlike others, I'm tolerant to the dimness, so I'm not worried. However, the 3D format doesn't even factor into my anticipation. Talk about the IMAX! I'm actually kind of worried about how much of the film will feature the 70mm. It better be more than 30 minutes, Abrams! And hopefully there won't be too much intercutting to 35mm.
CCR - 1/10/2013, 8:58 PM
3D is the proof that the masses are easily-amused idiots. You shouldn't need anything besides a good story, acting and directing to immerse yourself in a movie. Period. Fu k 3D and all the tools promoting its dumbing-down of cinema.
IncredibleRulk - 1/10/2013, 9:00 PM
3D can make movies look good when filmed for it or its bright. The latest film being an example, although it was filmed in 3D(or the RED cameras) was The Hobbit. The reason it looked great in 3D was because it was a movie that had a lot of scenes that were in warm and light areas, which brought everything out. This makes movies look in-depth and fantastic in 3D. However when you make a movie that has dark scenes in darkly light rooms etc, sometimes 3D can look kind of pointless, which is probably why directors and others get annoyed. They've filmed a film that wasn't supposed to be in 3D, if it was then it should and would of been. When I watch 3D movies I forget I'm wearing the glasses, although it does leave to little red lines on my nose which eventually dissapear, other than that I enjoy it, when put in the right movies. I only go to the cinemas to watch Super Hero movies, and the 3D whether it be done after or filmed in 3D looks great either way. I'm watching a Live-Action Comic, it looks great. It would be awesome though if they could apply 3D-Glasses Free on Cinema screens.
Canon108 - 1/11/2013, 12:35 AM
This story is old we've known this for like 8 months already, lol...
Ha1frican - 1/11/2013, 7:44 AM
I avoid 3D unless its Pixar, Dreamworks, or some kind of Stop Motion Animation film like Coraline or Paranorman. It might look ok now but i got screwed early one with movies like Crap of the Titans so i have avoided it. The only other live action movie i have seen (in imax) 3D was TASM an while it was cool for the POV shots it just looked kind of fake otherwise. Luckily for some reason it didnt even look blurry without it so some of the film i just took the glasses of.

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.