Star Trek 2012 in 3D, Yes or No?

[Tom]

Will the next movie get made in 3D, yes or no?

What are reasons behind your answer?

[MvRojo]

It probably will, but I've really gotten sick of 3-D, so while I might check it out once, if I see it multiple times, it will be in 2-D. Plus, by then 3-D prices will probably easily top $20/ticket.

[Sky]

Don't care. I wish they invested in a good story instead.

[jefferiestubes8]

see the
Poll: Trek XII should be shot on film or digital?

It is directly related as what is the last live-action recent film shot in stereoscopic 3-D on 35mm film?

Producer JJ Abrams spoke about 3D Trek last October, at the Star Trek DVD press conference:

...if Paramount wanted the first Trek in 3D, they are likely to really want the second one to be 3D. Especially if they have to go head to head with a 3D Spidey.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...3&postcount=13

There are numerous digital cameras though that can shoot live-action stereoscopic 3D.

[jefferiestubes8]

I have also speculated in February that if CBS Television were to really get into the marketing of the next Trek TV series (probably after 2013) that

What about shooting just the 2-hour pilot in 3-D that would get a limited release in digital 3D cinemas?

The rest of the series could be in 2D but if they do a pilot and possibly a season finale in 3-D it could be an event for Trek as well as some extra revenue for $12.-15./ticket.

Surely with a handful of 3D TV channels launcing in the next few years it's quite doubtful that the next Trek TV series would be shot in 3D due to the limited home viewers who would be able to see it in 3-D.

There is the possibility that scripted narrative episodic shows could come to 3-D HDTV channels just as sports 3-D HDTV channels will be growing in the next few years.

While the live-action stuff is great I think it would be the space battles that would really give more of a realism feel from the Z-axis depth that current 3-D technology provides.

[Set Harth]

I think it should be in 4-D.

[jefferiestubes8]

Set Harth wrote:

---

I think it should be in 4-D.

4-D film,

A 4-D film (sometimes written 4D film) is a marketing term that describes an entertainment presentation system combining a 3-D film with physical effects in the theatre, which occur in synchronization with the film. Because the physical effects are expensive to set up, 4-D films are usually presented only at special venues such as theme parks and amusement parks.

Somehow I don't think Paramount is going to talk the exhibitors into this.
Yes I'm being serious with my reply to your post.

[Campe98]

No. 3D's a fad.

[jefferiestubes8]

From the NY Times article mentioning the next Star Trek film in development

But Paramount executives have already begun debating whether to shoot the next film in 3-D, even if that increases the cost and production difficulty, according to one person who was briefed on the talks but spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment.

Asked whether he would consider making a movie on the scale of “Avatar,” Brad Grey, the chairman of Paramount, said in an interview in early December, “With a lot of sleepless nights, I guess I would.”

For All Its Success, Will ‘Avatar’ Change the Industry?
January 12, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/movies/13avatar.html

[Joshua Howard]

In spite of trying to embrace 3-D, I find that it is distracting and does not add a great deal to the quality of the film. I prefer a standard format.

[Sabataage]

Only if there's a weightless scene. Prefferably on the bridge and not inside some tiny shuttle or enclosed space. It would be really cool to have these characters struggle to reach their consoles in time after bouncing off the ceiling. Or better yet, have Kirk deliberately turn the gravity off so he can literally get the drop on a boarding party attacking the ship. To me that's the only way they could justify 3D is by making it part of the story.

[Starbreaker]

3D is inevitable

[Captain Rob]

jefferiestubes8 wrote:

---

4-D film,

Somehow I don't think Paramount is going to talk the exhibitors into this.
Yes I'm being serious with my reply to your post.

When I worked for United Artists our nearest neighbor in Dallas had a 4-D auditorium complete with seats that moved. Guess what it is now. A regular auditorium.

[Captain Rob]

The benefit for 3-D is for action that is close to the camera. Just like in real life. Depth perception from our two eyes is only usable out to about 20 feet. Beyond that range the image offset between our eyes isn't perceptable. Avatar looked great because the perceived offset was only for foreground objects. Older 3-D movies looked bad because they tried to offset objects that were much further away. Especially in space movies. If there's a scene with a spaceship that's far away and there's an image offset of an object that's only a few feet away; then your brain will perceive that ship as a model or toy. Just think of both eyes being a range finder. If you see a 1000-foot long spaceship in a 3-D movie and your brain tells you that it's only 5 feet away, then you're going to think that it's a toy. Or you're going to get a headache.

[jefferiestubes8]

Captain Rob wrote:

---

The benefit for 3-D is for action that is close to the camera. Just like in real life. Depth perception from our two eyes is only usable out to about 20 feet. Beyond that range the image offset between our eyes isn't perceptable.

I didn't necessarily realize that.

Especially in space movies. If there's a scene with a spaceship that's far away and there's an image offset of an object that's only a few feet away; then your brain will perceive that ship as a model or toy.

thanks dude.
I guess our only real gain would be from live-action scenes on the bridge, sickbay, & engineering interiors...
And really I think we'd all like to see the bridge in 3-D to give some more dimension to what is really a fictitious location.