Abrams talks Star Trek 3D in SFX magazine

[SalvorHardin]

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Though I'll probably be seeing it 2D first.

"The studio said, 'You have to make it in 3D if you're going to make it, for economic reasons'," Abrams said. "But my feeling was I didn't like 3D. So the idea of doing Star Trek in 3D was ridiculous.

"But that was very helpful in some ways, because it let us work with stereographers and the 3D crew in a way that didn't assume we just loved 3D."

"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," he explained.

"I approached it very cynically. And the fact is that we've been using techniques that haven't been used before in 3D. They've figured out things. They've made enough movies now with this new process that they can understand ways to eliminate some of these problems.

"Things like breaking shots into zones, 3D zones, using multiple virtual cameras. A lot of this has made me a believer, whereas before I was really against it… There's this myth that if you don't shoot the movie in 3D it doesn't look good. Actually, the opposite can be true."

"The key for me is I got to make my 2D movie that I wanted to make, just the way I wanted to; and it gets to be augmented in 3D but that doesn't detract from the 2D," he commented.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/n...ess-in-3d.html

[3chordboy]

I hate 3D with a passion so i'm very glad to read his comments

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I like 3D, and I like it better when it's done really well.

[indranee]

Okay so that's fine. I'll watch the 2D first, too. I hate the 3d glasses with a passion. On top of how uncomfortable they are, they're dirty! Yuck.

[NeedsOfTheMany]

3D lens flares all around.

[SalvorHardin]

I have no problem with 3D. I don't get headaches, the glasses don't annoy me and it can be fun.
But for some reason I still watch 2D first in most movies. In the rare cases I might go see it more than once I check out the 3D version.

indranee wrote:

---

On top of how uncomfortable they are, they're dirty! Yuck.

Dirty? Don't the theaters give you new, sealed ones before going in?

[Ovation]

SalvorHardin wrote:

---

I have no problem with 3D. I don't get headaches, the glasses don't annoy me and it can be fun.
But for some reason I still watch 2D first in most movies. In the rare cases I might go see it more than once I check out the 3D version.

Dirty? Don't the theaters give you new, sealed ones before going in?

Not everywhere, in my limited experience.

I do experience headaches and find the glasses annoying (especially the latter) and so I avoid 3D whenever possible. I don't begrudge those who like it, I just hope it doesn't become an exclusive form of presentation. However, as I was curious about the high frame rate format of the new Hobbit movie, I did go to a 3D IMAX presentation of that. The 48fps (double a standard film frame rate) presents a different aesthetic and I will have to see it on more than one occasion before forming a considered opinion on the format, but it did seem to eliminate the headache I invariably get past the 75-90 min. mark of any 3D film I've seen until now.

[indranee]

SalvorHardin wrote:

---

I have no problem with 3D. I don't get headaches, the glasses don't annoy me and it can be fun.
But for some reason I still watch 2D first in most movies. In the rare cases I might go see it more than once I check out the 3D version.

Dirty? Don't the theaters give you new, sealed ones before going in?

Sure, but how do I know they're clean-clean? For Life of Pi, my niece and I got these smudged/bent ones that were truly uncomfortable and yucky. And yes they came in a sealed package. Go figure.

I spent most of that movie not wearing them. I only wanted to see Ang Lee's version of the ocean/water with them anyway...

She and I've decided that the next time we get a good pair of 3D glasses, we're confiscating them for future use.

[LOKAI of CHERON]

I find 3D to be largely distracting and gimmicky, so I'm extremely pleased STID was shot in 2D native. Unless the film is a major disappointment (which is looking very unlikely given what I've seen thus far) I'll probably be going multiple times. Although my first viewing will definitely be 2D, I will check out the 3D version at some point.

[Phily B]

I like 3D, I understand some of the complaints certainly though. But ultimately, I think it looks the CGI look "better" somehow. I didn't really like the Avengers but saw it in 3D, but I saw it again recently on the smaller screen and it just looked completely awful without the 3D.

[The Keeper]

They seem to have gone out of their way to make this special so I will see it at least once in NON-IMAX 3D, if available.

[Xaios]

I've stopped railing against 3D as a whole. It all comes down to execution.

Avengers? Well done.
Life of Pi? Incredible.
The Hobbit? Eh... could be better.

[JarodRussell]

Eh, you guys wanted Trek for the new generation, and you're getting it.

[Cinema Geekly]

Seeing it in 2D either way. 3D is still a gimmick to me and one that isn't even very good.

To me 3D is only worth it if there is a movie done in 3D and first watched in 3D. Then in a second viewing you see it in 2D and you think "Man it just wasn't the same without 3D".

If Avatar didn't do that for me I'm not sure anything will. The movie was no better or no worse in 2D.

[JoeZhang]

I don't like the dimness of 3D (which is because of the glasses rather than the film itself or the projectors if set up right).