Paramount wants the next Trek to be in 3D

[JarodRussell]

Wouldn't a white ship against black 'pop out' even more?

What the hell does the color of the background have to do with the 3D effect?

Technically having any flat color in the background will not work as well as a background with a pattern or noise. Shots with much more frame of reference or depth work a lot better.

The 3D effect solely results from stereoscopic vision. The background has nothing to do with it. You are right that there's not much of a 3D effect in space battles, but for the wrong reason. The right reason is that human eyes are only 6-8 centimeters apart, but a spaceship in Star Trek is 300 meters long. If it fills the whole frame, the difference between both images for the right and the left eye are minor. Thus, the 3D effect is barely noticable.

Which is for example why physical miniature shoots in 3D are 'problematic'. You can tell much easier that the scale is off in 3D.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^A spaceship in Star Trek is 725 meters long.

 

[Ryan8bit]

The 3D effect solely results from stereoscopic vision. The background has nothing to do with it.

No, it definitely does. It's just one of those optic tricks played on the eyes. I've done a lot of stereoscopic 3d work, and there was a huge list of guidelines for making things pop. Things infinitely far away and mostly solid backgrounds were on the list of don'ts.

 

[SMC]

Well, the 3D effect will work very well when you have closeups of ships where there will be the illusion of the ship receding into the distance - plus torpedoes and phaser beams can really lend a dynamic feeling to space battle scenes. I think it'll work beautifully.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'm astonished that people STILL aren't finished calling it Ferngully with smurfs

Can't help it. And I love Smurfs (and Andorians).

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'd like to see this 3D fad come to an end just to see James Cameron's head explode.

In 3D?

 

[SMC]

I'm astonished that people STILL aren't finished calling it Ferngully with smurfs

Can't help it. And I love Smurfs (and Andorians).

I call it Thundersmurfs

 

[Devon]

My personal opinion on 3D - it's a new form of copy protection. Studios are pushing for it because you can't sneak a video camera into a 3D movie and replicate it on the web. At the same time, they can charge more for a movie ticket for the novelty.

They still have the 2-D version.

Where I live if there is a 2D and a 3D version... the 2D version gets pushed out after a week or two to make room for the next movie.

Then it's safe to say the video tapers won't be in your town.

 

[John Vasiliou]

I'd like to see this 3D fad come to an end just to see James Cameron's head explode.

In 3D?

Now that would be fitting.

 

[NX-01]

I saw Tron and enjoyed it. If Star Trek does 3D as effectively as Tron, I'll be psyched... As long as they make a good film first. I do hope Abrams will direct.

Agreed, Tron did a nice job. If Star Trek 12 has to be 3D, I hope it is only parts of it that are 3D. But then even if all of it is in 3D normally there is a 2D version that can been seen instead. Some films need to be left in 2D and Star Trek is one of them.

I can't wait until the next film either way....

 

[kkozoriz1]

Maybe being in 3-D will give Kirk some depth beyond a womanizer who doesn't follow orders.

 

[Set Harth]

Maybe being in 3-D will make the studio more money while being totally unnecessary.

 

[MvRojo]

I'd like to see this 3D fad come to an end just to see James Cameron's head explode.

Why? He's one of the only ones in the industry who takes the time to at least make the 3-D worth it, as opposed to all the POS conversions we've been given.

 

[23skidoo]

If Star Trek 12 has to be 3D, I hope it is only parts of it that are 3D.

The only thing worse than a film in 3-D is a film that you're enjoying only to be taken out of the experience by having something flash on screen saying "put your glasses on now".

As I said earlier, if you want Trek to be nothing but flashy effects and lens flares, then 3-D is for you. If you want Trek to be story driven, there's always the TV shows, I guess...

Alex

 

[Anticitizen]

A rather interesting Roger Ebert article, titled 'Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will'.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And horseless carriages are a fad.

3D is here because it serves the studios in ways that are not really negotiable to them now. It's becoming more built-in to the distribution and exhibition framework for movies in the U.S. every day, and since so far it's an unalloyed business success for the studios folks may as well get used to it.

Since James Cameron has entertained me more than any other five directors you can name, I've no reason to wish his head to explode either.

 

[Anticitizen]

Since James Cameron has entertained me more than any other five directors you can name

Stanley Kubrick, Christopher Nolan, Joel/Ethan Coen, Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielburg? Just throwing a few names out there...

 

[SMC]

Since James Cameron has entertained me more than any other five directors you can name

Stanley Kubrick, Christopher Nolan, Joel/Ethan Coen, Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielburg? Just throwing a few names out there...

Stanley Kubrick is God.

Christopher Nolan is an overrated hack who has a Cult of Personality. As in, he has an army of groupies who would fawn and gush over him even if he made a film that consisted of a blank white screen for 2 hours. (which would be an improvement over Inception, I grant you)

The Coens are the finest living filmmakers.

Alfred Hitchcock was a shameless populist who nontheless made some very fine and entertaining films but I'd never call any of them pieces of filmmaking art.

Orson Welles was hit and miss - and Citizen Kane is about the most overrated film ever made, though its still very good.

Martin Scorsese is very much like Hitchcock but I'd say he edges him out on the actual "film-with-meaning" category.

Steven Spielberg hasn't made a good film since Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

And James Cameron, well, he was great until he made Titanic. After that he did a Spielberg and became one of the most dismally inept writer/directors of all time.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Loved Titanic. It was, of course, the most successful film of all time - and not by a little bit - until Cameron made another movie. None of this happened because he's "inept" in any way.

This all reminds me of Groucho Marx's story about the school acquaintance who would come to his Broadway shows over the years and plead with Marx to get into a dignified, adult line of work that he could be proud of. The guy was a junior accountant at an insurance firm or something.

 

[ST-One]

And James Cameron, well, he was great until he made Titanic. After that he did a Spielberg and became one of the most dismally inept writer/directors of all time.

As with Star Trek, critics and the audience disagree with you.

Cameron was great before Titanic; he created a masterpiece with that film; he continues to be a great film-maker after it, as, by all objective measures, Avatar proves.