Star Trek 12 3-D???

[DontFeedPhil]

So with Avatar 3-d Changing the way films will be made and viewed in the future...
Who wants the next Star Trek shot in 3-d? When I say 3-d I mean 3-d Imax or Real 3-d.
Vote and discuss...

 

[MvRojo]

Eh, 3-D is kinda cool, but it is still a gimmick. I'd be happier if it was shot in IMAX.

 

[SalvorHardin]

I can't say I care either way.... though Avatar did look better in 3D than in 2D.

What the hell, they might as well do it if they can and if they want.
Anyone who doesn't like it can always choose to see it in 2D.

 

[KirkSpockTOSFan]

Yes, I would defentally love to see it in 3-D, count me in!

 

[Piper]

By 2012 3D will be so 2009. I hear Avatar Part 2 will be filmed entirely in Smell-O-Taste-Vision-D, and I would expect STXII to follow suit.

 

[Trek4Ever]

3D IMAX, that's the way to go!!!!!

 

[npsf3000]

3D all the way, when done right it really ads to the experience - and can still be seen in 2D for those who don't want 3d.

It's not the gimmicky stuff that intrigues me, rather the depth perception really ads detail (Emphasis) IMO.

EDIT:

Another thing to consider is that in 2012 3D should start becoming more mainstream, and in the years after become the standard, so shooting a film in 2D only so late in time will date it quickly.

 

[abaldwin360]

I think the 3D in Avatar really made a huge difference as far as the visual impact of the movie. I'd love to see a 3D Star Trek movie if it was done as well as the 3D in Avatar.

 

[Borgminister]

Probably 3D because it'd be less expensive to shoot than IMAX, I would imagine. Although 3D-IMAX would seriously rock.

 

[darkshadow0001]

So with Avatar 3-d Changing the way films will be made and viewed in the future...
Who wants the next Star Trek shot in 3-d? When I say 3-d I mean 3-d Imax or Real 3-d.
Vote and discuss...

I would be fine with it if they did it right, what ever works to keep Star Trek going. I dunno if I could live without it

 

[npsf3000]

Probably 3D because it'd be less expensive to shoot than IMAX, I would imagine. Although 3D-IMAX would seriously rock.

You seriously think they are going to need to save money?

 

[Corran Horn]

It'd be nice but I certainly don't 'demand' it.

 

[Borgminister]

Probably 3D because it'd be less expensive to shoot than IMAX, I would imagine. Although 3D-IMAX would seriously rock.

You seriously think they are going to need to save money?

Save? No. I just don't know how much "extra" it would cost to shoot it in IMAX as opposed to 3D. Filming the movie in IMAX would (I think) add lots to the cost of making the feature, and it truly does depend on return on investment.

Especially with the lackluster overseas performance.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

3-D is a gimmick, nothing more. I don't want to have to wear silly glasses to see a film (or TV).

 

[DontFeedPhil]

See, Im not even 100% on all the terminology. What is the difference between Imax...3-D...Real D 3-D... or imax 3-d?

 

[Hyperspace05]

Just the size of the screen. A larger screen makes it a bit more immersive.

But all Avatar versions are sourced from the same digital (non-IMAX) source. I think it was shot at 2K resolution. (or perhaps 4k) The same would apply to Star Trek XII if shot in 3D I assume.

 

[npsf3000]

3-D is a gimmick, nothing more. I don't want to have to wear silly glasses to see a film (or TV).

1st, Not all 3d need one to use glasses (Though it is by far the easiest implementation).

2nd, What is so wrong with glasses? Are you telling me you have never worn glasses before - not even sunnies? I suppose you have never used a game controller or worn a pair of headphones! It is nothing more than a means to a end.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

No, I would really rather the next Star Trek movie NOT be done in 3-D. Really, really really!

 

[Franklin]

Would 3-D lens flares be dangerous to our eyes? If not, I'm all for it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

3-D is a gimmick, nothing more. I don't want to have to wear silly glasses to see a film (or TV).

What is so wrong with glasses? Are you telling me you have never worn glasses before - not even sunnies?

Nope. Well actually I have occasionally worn shades but I usually don't bother with them.

As for 3D - leave me out of it. I may be too young to remember the 50's with those comical looking 3D glasses that look like they come out of a Wheaties box or something, but the principle is the same. Besides, what good is a 3D image if it looks all red and blue?