Abrams in NYTimes

[SchwEnt]

NYTimes Quotation of the Day


"When you put the glasses on, everything gets dim." J. J. ABRAMS, director of the two-dimensional “Star Trek,” on why he has resisted the growing trend of making movies in 3-D.

...so JJ resists 3D because it messes with his lens flare.

I don't really care, I'm just saying cuz I found this today.

 

[Amaris]

Good. Maybe that means no 3D Trek XII.

 

[Sector 7]

3-D movies give my brother severe headaches. We, therefore, do not go to 3-D showings and do not purchase them. I wear glasses and, although it is claimed they fit over glasses comfortably, they do not.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

NYTimes Quotation of the Day


"When you put the glasses on, everything gets dim." J. J. ABRAMS, director of the two-dimensional “Star Trek,” on why he has resisted the growing trend of making movies in 3-D.

...so JJ resists 3D because it messes with his lens flare.

I doubt it. Image brightness is one of the most common complaints about current 3D tech, so it's not like this is an idiosyncracy of Abrams's.

I'm in favor of them shooting the next one in 3D, myself.

My god, the man's scared trekkies nearly into crawling back into the womb simply by shooting one of "their" movies with a litte visual style (or, um "flair") and some camera techniques popular after 1973.

 

[JarodRussell]

I doubt it. Image brightness is one of the most common complaints about current 3D tech, so it's not like this is an idiosyncracy of Abrams's.

It's also one of the most ridiculous complaints about current 3D tech. First of all, if you know you are doing a 3D movie, you can plan ahead and make it so that the image you see with the glasses is exactly as it was meant to be. Second, you only notice a difference in brightness if you take off the glasses during the movie. Who does that? It's almost like those people complaining "oh my gosh it was all blurred when I took those stupid glasses off, stupid 3D 1111oneoneone".

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Humm....I suppose that's an interesting comment.

In truth, I don't care one way or the other if the next film is shot in 3D or not. As long as they make a DVD version that does not require a 3D TV or glasses, I'm good.

 

[Gojira]

I have vision problems that makes me unable to see movies in 3D so I really do not like this new trend in movie making. So I really hope the next Star Trek movie is not in 3D.

 

[FarStrider]

I'm still wondering what benefit being filmed in 3-D would bring to a Star Trek story. Unless 3-D adds to the story in some way, than it is not necessary. . . for animated films I can see it adding a layer of realism. . . but in a movie (hopefully like Star Trek) where the characters are actually more important that the spectacle, 3-D is totally unnecessary. . . if the story is any good, we are already immersed in their world.

~FS

 

[Cicero]

3-D movies give my brother severe headaches. We, therefore, do not go to 3-D showings and do not purchase them. I wear glasses and, although it is claimed they fit over glasses comfortably, they do not.

I had headache and dizziness problems with the old-style 3D technology (which most live action movies use now, and which virtually all 3D movies did before last year), I suspect because of the artificial viewing plane they attempt to construct, but the Avatar technology - which is based on how the eyes and brain produce natural stereoscopy - didn't cause me any problems. Unfortunately, only Avatar and several cartoons (Toy Story, etc.) have come out so far that use it. I think Resident Evil is supposed to use it, but I don't have any interest in the movie beyond the cinematography, color palate, and Milla Jovovich (who is always good in action roles).

I'm still wondering what benefit being filmed in 3-D would bring to a Star Trek story. Unless 3-D adds to the story in some way, than it is not necessary. . . for animated films I can see it adding a layer of realism. . . but in a movie (hopefully like Star Trek) where the characters are actually more important that the spectacle, 3-D is totally unnecessary. . . if the story is any good, we are already immersed in their world.

~FS

When the modern, more realistic 3D technology is used, the picture is more immersive. After I watched Avatar in the theater, I wasn't interested in anything on 2D television for more than a week; it just seemed flat and uninteresting, like a simple photograph compared to Avatar's real vista (metaphorically speaking).

 

[FarStrider]

I'm still wondering what benefit being filmed in 3-D would bring to a Star Trek story. Unless 3-D adds to the story in some way, than it is not necessary. . . for animated films I can see it adding a layer of realism. . . but in a movie (hopefully like Star Trek) where the characters are actually more important that the spectacle, 3-D is totally unnecessary. . . if the story is any good, we are already immersed in their world.

~FS

but the Avatar technology - which is based on how the eyes and brain produce natural stereoscopy - didn't cause me any problems. Unfortunately, only Avatar and several cartoons (Toy Story, etc.) have come out so far that use it.... When the modern, more realistic 3D technology is used, the picture is more immersive. After I watched Avatar in the theater, I wasn't interested in anything on 2D television for more than a week; it just seemed flat and uninteresting, like a simple photograph compared to Avatar's real vista (metaphorically speaking).

But Toy Story and How to Train Your Dragon, etc. are cartoons, and since nothing in Avatar is real but the actors, it is basically a cartoon, too, when you think about it. . . filming animation in 3-D gives it a verisimilitude that it would otherwise lack, gives computer generated images weight, helps the audience suspend disbelief. Star Trek, on the other hand, even with it's CGI shots, is based on the real. . .they built the sets, or went on location as much as possible. . . there is already "weight" there. . . I think that makes 3-D is unnecessary. . .

~FS

 

[Set Harth]

I'm still wondering what benefit being filmed in 3-D would bring to a Star Trek story.

Just think: lens flares in 3D.

The very idea makes my brain want to claw its way out of my head.

 

[JarodRussell]

I'm still wondering what benefit being filmed in 3-D would bring to a Star Trek story.

What benefit do color, widescreen or visual effects by ILM instead of Associates & Ferren bring to a Star Trek story?

But Toy Story and How to Train Your Dragon, etc. are cartoons, and since nothing in Avatar is real but the actors, it is basically a cartoon, too, when you think about it. . . filming animation in 3-D gives it a verisimilitude that it would otherwise lack, gives computer generated images weight, helps the audience suspend disbelief. Star Trek, on the other hand, even with it's CGI shots, is based on the real. . .they built the sets, or went on location as much as possible. . . there is already "weight" there. . . I think that makes 3-D is unnecessary. . .

More like imagined weight. Claiming Avatar is a cartoon just because most of it is computer generated is ridiculous. And claiming they didn't use any sets is simply wrong. And that when some of the best 3D effects could be seen in the scenes taking place in the real sets. Sorry, I just have to ask: did you even watch the movie?

 

[FarStrider]

I'm still wondering what benefit being filmed in 3-D would bring to a Star Trek story.

What benefit do color, widescreen or visual effects by ILM instead of Associates & Ferren bring to a Star Trek story?

But Toy Story and How to Train Your Dragon, etc. are cartoons, and since nothing in Avatar is real but the actors, it is basically a cartoon, too, when you think about it. . . filming animation in 3-D gives it a verisimilitude that it would otherwise lack, gives computer generated images weight, helps the audience suspend disbelief. Star Trek, on the other hand, even with it's CGI shots, is based on the real. . .they built the sets, or went on location as much as possible. . . there is already "weight" there. . . I think that makes 3-D is unnecessary. . .

More like imagined weight. Claiming Avatar is a cartoon just because most of it is computer generated is ridiculous. And claiming they didn't use any sets is simply wrong. And that when some of the best 3D effects could be seen in the scenes taking place in the real sets. Sorry, I just have to ask: did you even watch the movie?

Don't be patronizing. . .it's really uncalled for, and yes, I watched the movie (and the "making of"). . .and I'm sorry, but to me personally, when 85% of your movie is shot in a big room with lots of cameras, and green screen, and uses CGI to fill in the blanks, the movie can be legitimately called "animated". . . the performances may not have been animated in terms of motion capture. . . but the characters and the world were. . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61kMpOgkZRs&NR=1

and I still say 3-D would add nothing to Star Trek. . .

~FS

 

[Cicero]

I'm still wondering what benefit being filmed in 3-D would bring to a Star Trek story.

What benefit do color, widescreen or visual effects by ILM instead of Associates & Ferren bring to a Star Trek story?

But Toy Story and How to Train Your Dragon, etc. are cartoons, and since nothing in Avatar is real but the actors, it is basically a cartoon, too, when you think about it. . . filming animation in 3-D gives it a verisimilitude that it would otherwise lack, gives computer generated images weight, helps the audience suspend disbelief. Star Trek, on the other hand, even with it's CGI shots, is based on the real. . .they built the sets, or went on location as much as possible. . . there is already "weight" there. . . I think that makes 3-D is unnecessary. . .

More like imagined weight. Claiming Avatar is a cartoon just because most of it is computer generated is ridiculous. And claiming they didn't use any sets is simply wrong. And that when some of the best 3D effects could be seen in the scenes taking place in the real sets. Sorry, I just have to ask: did you even watch the movie?

Indeed, most of the best 3D involved practical sets and real people.

I'm still wondering what benefit being filmed in 3-D would bring to a Star Trek story.

What benefit do color, widescreen or visual effects by ILM instead of Associates & Ferren bring to a Star Trek story?

But Toy Story and How to Train Your Dragon, etc. are cartoons, and since nothing in Avatar is real but the actors, it is basically a cartoon, too, when you think about it. . . filming animation in 3-D gives it a verisimilitude that it would otherwise lack, gives computer generated images weight, helps the audience suspend disbelief. Star Trek, on the other hand, even with it's CGI shots, is based on the real. . .they built the sets, or went on location as much as possible. . . there is already "weight" there. . . I think that makes 3-D is unnecessary. . .

More like imagined weight. Claiming Avatar is a cartoon just because most of it is computer generated is ridiculous. And claiming they didn't use any sets is simply wrong. And that when some of the best 3D effects could be seen in the scenes taking place in the real sets. Sorry, I just have to ask: did you even watch the movie?

Don't be patronizing. . .it's really uncalled for, and yes, I watched the movie (and the "making of"). . .and I'm sorry, but to me personally, when 85% of your movie is shot in a big room with lots of cameras, and green screen, and uses CGI to fill in the blanks, the movie can be legitimately called "animated". . . the performances may not have been animated in terms of motion capture. . . but the characters and the world were. . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61kMpOgkZRs&NR=1

and I still say 3-D would add nothing to Star Trek. . .

~FS

If 3D would add nothing to Star Trek, there still wouldn't be something to lose by filming the movie in 3D; it would almost certainly play on some 2D screens, like most of the (technologically poor) 3D releases since Avatar. And those persons who prefer 3D would be able to watch it in 3D.

 

[Gojira]

and I still say 3-D would add nothing to Star Trek. . .

~FS

I agree. In my opinion 3D really never adds to the telling of a story and it pretty much always has been just a gimmick.

 

[JarodRussell]

and I still say 3-D would add nothing to Star Trek. . .

And I still say color, surround sound, widescreen and other technical stuff doesn't add anything either. So why have it?

 

[Cicero]

and I still say 3-D would add nothing to Star Trek. . .

~FS

I agree. In my opinion 3D really never adds to the telling of a story and it pretty much always has been just a gimmick.

It's not that it adds to the telling of a story; it's that it makes the image more vivid, like the difference between watching a movie in IMAX versus watching it on a traditionally-sized screen, or watching it in color versus in black and white (before movies began making use of color for specific story-telling purposes, which they probably eventually will for 3D, too).

A large part of why most 3D movies are unimpressive is that they're the equivalent of colorized pictures (or Kinemacolor or the multicolor-tinted pictures like A Trip to the Moon or The Phantom of the Opera). When true (subtractive) color first appeared in theaters, it, too was mostly confined to animation or gimmicks, and featured only in a few major live-action pictures - much like the situation of 3D today.

 

[FarStrider]

and I still say 3-D would add nothing to Star Trek. . .

And I still say color, surround sound, widescreen and other technical stuff doesn't add anything either. So why have it?

The difference is that movies started telling stories that needed color, widescreen or surround sound as a part of the story. . "The Wizard of Oz" wouldn't have been as magical if it were all color or all black and white. . . "Ben Hur" and "How the West was Won" would have lost the epicness of scope on a narrower screen (which is why pan and scan versions of videos on TV suck). . . those stories needed those innovations. . . unless Orci and Kurtzman are writing a story that needs 3-D, it would be better not to shoehorn the process onto the film. . .


~FS

 

[Cicero]

and I still say 3-D would add nothing to Star Trek. . .

And I still say color, surround sound, widescreen and other technical stuff doesn't add anything either. So why have it?

The difference is that movies started telling stories that needed color, widescreen or surround sound as a part of the story. . "The Wizard of Oz" wouldn't have been as magical if it were all color or all black and white. . . "Ben Hur" and "How the West was Won" would have lost the epicness of scope on a narrower screen (which is why pan and scan versions of videos on TV suck). . . those stories needed those innovations. . . unless Orci and Kurtzman are writing a story that needs 3-D, it would be better not to shoehorn the process onto the film. . .


~FS

The same argument could be made for widescreen, color, or surround sound and the next Star Trek film. It's not likely to need any of those for the story that will be told, but each will enhance the experience. Like 3D, they add to the immediacy of the picture and the illusion of reality.

 

[JarodRussell]

and I still say 3-D would add nothing to Star Trek. . .

And I still say color, surround sound, widescreen and other technical stuff doesn't add anything either. So why have it?

The difference is that movies started telling stories that needed color, widescreen or surround sound as a part of the story. . "The Wizard of Oz" wouldn't have been as magical if it were all color or all black and white. . . "Ben Hur" and "How the West was Won" would have lost the epicness of scope on a narrower screen (which is why pan and scan versions of videos on TV suck). . . those stories needed those innovations. . . unless Orci and Kurtzman are writing a story that needs 3-D, it would be better not to shoehorn the process onto the film. . .


~FS

Nope. The stories didn't need color or widescreen. It's an after-the-fact argument of yours. You think Ben Hur is epic, and conclude that it must be because of the widescreen. And of course pan and scan versions suck because it wasn't filmed in for a 4:3 screen. Had it been filmed that way, it wouldn't suck.

And watch Star Trek 2009 in black and white. You won't miss a single thing.


"Write a story that needs 3D" is also a phrase that makes no sense at all. You don't write scripts that need technicalities, because that's not the business of the scriptwriter. The Wrath of Khan script did not need widescreen, it did not need color, it did not need stereo sound. Those technical processes are always shoehorned into a film.