Paramount wants the next Trek to be in 3D

[Cyke101]

My only objection to this is if XII was made with 3-D as an afterthought. Movies that do this as a cheap attempt to cash in on the 3-D craze after they've filmed tend to do pretty badly in terms of quality. Films that were made with the intention of 3-D from the start and take into account its properties tend to be fairly well made films (Avatar and Tron: Legacy, though admittedly both are pretty weak in the plot and character department).

 

[Joker]

Audiences will love the ships moving around in 3 dimensions through space battles and all that.

There's actually no obvious 3D effect when it comes to something like that.

I'm sure they'll produce something more interesting than the standard 2D fare.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Anyone who thinks "Avatar sucked" may as well just give up going to the movies now. It was a better sf film than any Trek movie or all of them put together - which is one reason, of course, that it was so enormously more popular and successful than Trek.

 

[USS Excelsior]

Would be funny to have Trek in 3D and the monitors and viewscreens in the film still be in 2D!

 

[Therin of Andor]

A lot of people probably don't remember that "Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock" was once announced as a potential 3D project. They were the days when numerous 1980s "third in the trilogy" movies were making convenient use of the "3" in their titles. Paramount even investigated funky plastic, Trek-themed, collectible 3D glasses - at a time when other 3D movies (ie. "Jaws 3D", "Halloween III", "Amityville 3-D: The Demon") had to make do with boring, cardboard disposables.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Anyone who thinks "Avatar sucked" may as well just give up going to the movies now. It was a better sf film than any Trek movie or all of them put together - which is one reason, of course, that it was so enormously more popular and successful than Trek.

While I enjoyed it, give me ST any day. The story of "Avatar" felt like an overblown, live-action version of "FernGully: The Last Rainforest".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FernGully:_The_Last_Rainforest

 

[kkozoriz1]

Star Trek XII: Dr. Tongues 3-D House of Klingons

 

[JarodRussell]

Anyone who thinks "Avatar sucked" may as well just give up going to the movies now. It was a better sf film than any Trek movie or all of them put together - which is one reason, of course, that it was so enormously more popular and successful than Trek.

While I enjoyed it, give me ST any day. The story of "Avatar" felt like an overblown, live-action version of "FernGully: The Last Rainforest".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FernGully:_The_Last_Rainforest

I thought they were paying homage to Star Trek: Insurrection.

Would be funny to have Trek in 3D and the monitors and viewscreens in the film still be in 2D!

That was one of the coolest things in Avatar, even the photographs.

 

[Cyke101]

A lot of people probably don't remember that "Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock" was once announced as a potential 3D project. They were the days when numerous 1980s "third in the trilogy" movies were making convenient use of the "3" in their titles. Paramount even investigated funky plastic, Trek-themed, collectible 3D glasses - at a time when other 3D movies (ie. "Jaws 3D", "Halloween III", "Amityville 3-D: The Demon") had to make do with boring, cardboard disposables.

Star Trek 3-D: The Search For More Retinas

 

[Devon]

About 14 years ago, ABC ran a week of programming in 3-D if I recall correctly. Shows like Home Improvement, The Drew Carey Show, etc, were all in 3D that week. Wendy's fast food chain even gave out 3-D Glasses for this event. Being younger at the time, it was really cool to see these things in 3-D. However, when I see those particular episodes in reruns in 2D it kind of looks silly because they were "throwing" things at the Camera. Someone tripped toward the camera and "threw" a bowl of popcorn at the camera. Things were flying toward the camera, etc. Of course, they did that on purpose.

With 3-D films, I look for things where if I weren't watching in 3-D (aka watching in 2-D) then I'm not going to notice anything. I watched Avatar just fine in 2-D. 3-D did not seem like a necessity to enjoying it. I saw a demo at Best Buy of Avatar in 3-D through 3-D glasses and it was really well done, but I ended up forgetting what was going on behind the special effects (as well done as it was.)

So, while I may or may not choose to see the new Star Trek 3-D, we all have the choice to watch it in 2-D as normal and not watch it in 3-D if we object. We are not going to be forced to see it in 3-D if we don't want. Others may choose to do that vice versa. However, 3-D is not going to be the "only" way to see the new Star Trek film, therefore I would have no objection to the film being produced with 3-D in mind, as long as one group is not excluded from the viewing pleasure they come to expect from their preferred format.

So when it comes to 3-D, why not?

 

[JarodRussell]

It's funny. I mean, Star Trek The Original Series was all that colorful to - guess what - promote and sell color television. It's not like the stories actually needed those ubercolorful sets and uniforms. It was just a gimmick.

http://www.retroist.com/2011/01/10/1967-rca-color-television-star-trek-ad/

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/no-bloody-a-b-c-or-d-dept/

Illustrating the big push for color television. Star Trek was the most colorful show on the first “Full Color Network” NBC. NBC was owned by RCA, and RCA wanted everyone to want a color TV… so make your show colorful!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-1AQNkJdrk

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Charlie_X_%28episode%29

During the first-season episodes, cinematographer Jerry Finnerman was encouraged to maximize placement of colored background lighting to add exotic warmth to the gray walls of the Enterprise set. This was a major promotional point for NBC, as Star Trek was a selling point for color televisions. As pressure to complete episodes grew, this touch gradually faded from the series. NBC was owned at the time by RCA, a major manufacturer of color television sets. (Inside Star Trek)

" - in color" was thrown at you left and right just like " - in 3D" today. Did anybody complain?

 

[Hythlodeus]

Coraline and How to train your dragon are the only 3D movies worth their money. I'd prefer a Star Trek movie without cheap gimmicks

 

[JarodRussell]

I'd prefer a Star Trek movie without cheap gimmicks

See my post above yours.

 

[Mach5]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcnPXpUFj4w[/yt]

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[donners22]

XI looked awful being squeezed into IMAX, so I'm a little sceptical about how 3D would go.

Stuff the lens flares, CGI monsters and 3D; I just want a well-written story with interesting characters.

 

[ClawsThatCatch]

I don't like the 3d stuff, if for no other reason than because I don't want to pay an extra 6 dollars (or whatever) per ticket.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Anyone who thinks "Avatar sucked" may as well just give up going to the movies now. It was a better sf film than any Trek movie or all of them put together - which is one reason, of course, that it was so enormously more popular and successful than Trek.

While I enjoyed it, give me ST any day.

Well, if that's a choice you're welcome to it.

I don't see Star Trek as being more sophisticated than Avatar in any respect - pretty much the opposite, in fact.

I rather enjoyed seeing that Cameron's movie so annoyed commentators on both ends of the political spectrum, for specifically political and ideological reasons - I can't remember the last time anyone but trekkies gave a damn about the supposed social commentary in Trek.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I hate 3D for one simple reason...I wear glasses and when I put the 3D gasses on over them it gives me a headache. I had to take them off every 15 minutes during Avatar. Too bad my eyes suck cause I do love 3D.

 

[Kelso]

^ You have until summer 2012 to get laser eye surgery.

 

[SMC]

I don't see Star Trek as being more sophisticated than Avatar in any respect - pretty much the opposite, in fact.

I rather enjoyed seeing that Cameron's movie so annoyed commentators on both ends of the political spectrum

Avatar was about as sophisticated as Barney The Dinosaur IMO. I'm not saying I think Trek is the most sophisticated thing ever (truth be had a lot of it is unbearably childish) but Trek at its best is FAR more intelligent than Avatar in my opinion.

Cameron's film didn't annoy me on a political level - it annoyed me on ALL levels. It was just simplistic drivel that thought it was being terribly clever and meaningful - dumb things pretending to be smart - that's orders of magnitude more annoying than dumb that glories in its dumbness (such as most Michael Bay films)

Yes, Avatar is more successful than any Trek, but then again, the Twilight novels are more successful than Nabokov....