It always warms my heart to hear that another decent filmmaker isn’t interested in shooting a huge franchise movie in 3D, especially when that filmmaker is J.J. Abrams and the franchise is Star Trek.
Abrams said Paramount approached him about shooting the sequel to his 2009 revamped Star Trek film in 3D, but he wasn’t very enthusiastic about the idea, according to a recent interview.
“I have nothing against 3D in theory. But I’ve also never run to the movies because something’s in 3D,” Abrams told NY Mag. “[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 3D!’… I dunno.”
More from the Interview:
I’m a big fan of whip pans, which is very hard to do in 3-D. You know, when I was in New York fifteen years ago, and I sort of had the flu, I remember turning the TV on. There were these kids in a very dark, kind of muddy movie that was on a local channel, talking about making out. Then you cut to them walking in the forest, and somebody had a paddleball, and they were doing it right to the camera. It was like this weird, experimental Fellini movie. I was like, “What the fuck is this movie?” And it was Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D â€” without sex, violence, or 3-D! It was genius.
Abrams is lucky that his flick came out before Avatar, because otherwise I think saying no to 3D on a money maker like the Trek series would have been a deal breaker for the studio. However, since he’s sort of proven his abilities, there might actually be a chance that we’ll see it come out solely in 2D.
I’d like to think that ultimately, Joss Whedon will also be added to the list of people who more or less piss on the idea of directing huge franchise movies in 3D just for the sake of doing it. Pending that the Captain America and Thor movies both make their money back, the argument against 3D might have some ground — but I’m probably just being overly optimistic.
[Source: NY Mag]