Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Tom, Apr 21, 2010.
Will the next movie get made in 3D, yes or no?
What are reasons behind your answer?
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.
Don't care. I wish they invested in a good story instead.
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?
There are numerous digital cameras though that can shoot live-action stereoscopic 3D.
Star Trek 3-D in digital cinema
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
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.
I think it should be in 4-D.
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.
No. 3D's a fad.
From the NY Times article mentioning the next Star Trek film in development
For All Its Success, Will ‘Avatar’ Change the Industry?
January 12, 2010
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.
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.
3D is inevitable
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.
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.
I didn't necessarily realize that.
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.
I hope not. If they do, it should actually be made for 3D, rather than half-heartedly trying to adapt it to 3D, as with Clash of the Titans.
Seeing Trek in IMAX when it wasn't filmed for that was a bad enough experience.
If it is actually filmed in 3D it could be really nice, but if they adapt it later I think they should leave it. None of the movies adapted for 3D look good.
If they shot it in 3D maybe then they would not shoo the inside of the Enterprise in Budweiser factory!
I'd like to add that after seeing "Avatar" in IMAX 3-D twice, I like it A LOT more in 2-D on my TV on home. The biggest reason has been how much more vibrant and alive the movie is without the polarized 3-D glasses, which have the unfortunate effect of darkening the film. The movie also just looks sharper and it is easier to see how much detail and work there is in the background shots when your eyes arent forced to focus on what is popping off the screen.
Instead of focusing on stupid gimmicks, they should focus on making a good movie with a coherent story that isn't all style no substance.
Separate names with a comma.