Paramount wants the next Trek to be in 3D
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
I'd rather the next Trek movie be 2d, but...
...if that is the case, I would rather have a 3d Trek directed by Abrams than a 2d Trek directed by Brett Ratner.
Well, that's an easy call.
Paramount can't compete in the marketplace they hope to - big summer blockbusters - by releasing expensive 2D films and they know it. If not being able to come to terms about this means that Trek is directed by someone else, you can bet that fans will be walking around scratching their heads about how the studio can be so stupid - but this is strictly financial. It does them no good at all to release a movie, no matter how well made, that's guaranteed to under perform at the box office from the day they start shooting.
Oops, I meant to say, I would rather have a 3d Trek directed by Abrams than a 3d Trek directed by Brett Ratner.
I can definitely see the studios thinking this way, but that is too bad. 3D can be a fun experience for certain movies like Avatar, but not every movie should be designed around 3D just because it is the popular thing right now.
I'm not impressed with 3D at this point. It's kind of neat but the way it's done makes it's just so obvious. And distracting. "Oh an axe just came at me! Ahhhhh!". I don't want to be distracted from the story. If it's done in a way that enhances the story, then okay. I fear if Star Trek XII is done in 3D, it's going to be horrible. It's going to make lens flare seem like a great idea. Stick to the story and characters and less emphasis on gimmicky stuff.
Are you posting from 1956?
Some recent movies haven't used it well. OTOH, Avatar is not remarkably full of things flying at the camera - any more than they do in other action movies, anyway. It uses 3D space of all kinds awesomely.
A 2D "blockbuster" has an effective cap on its earnings - the number of screens it will be shown on, how it will be promoted and so forth. 2D Trek is not a financial risk that I expect Paramount is willing to take.
A 2D "blockbuster" has an effective cap on its earnings - the number of screens it will be shown on, how it will be promoted and so forth. 2D Trek is not a financial risk that I expect Paramount is willing to take.
My first reaction would be, "No, please don't do this!!"... but my next reaction would be to ask what sort of 3-D are we talking about? If they'll use 3D like they used it in Avatar, I'll be onboard. I thought it was done very tastefully, looked good, and wasn't jump-at-your-face obvious. Avatar felt like the 3D was used to enhance the enviroment rather than used to spend 3 hours throwing stuff at you, and I liked that. If they go that route, I won't complain about it.
I'm going to avoid this board if it's released in 3D. I don't have the patience to read about "Kirk is wearing the wrong kind of socks, and it's in 3D"
As much as "reboots" or "reimaginings" are the past and ongoing fad in Hollywood, 3D is the new one...good luck ...
I'm trying to imagine the battle in The Wrath of Khan in the style of 3D that made Avatar so famous.
(furrowing my brow as I Imagine...) Oh Wow!!
IMHO I've only found Avatar and How to Train a Dragon to have 3D worth paying for. Alice in Wonderland, Tron and the others left me wishing for my money back.
Jus' Sayin'
(furrowing my brow as I Imagine...) Oh Wow!!
IMHO I've only found Avatar and How to Train a Dragon to have 3D worth paying for. Alice in Wonderland, Tron and the others left me wishing for my money back.
Jus' Sayin'
Amen to that.
How much does doing a movie in 3D add to its budget, anyway?
What, Paramount still thinks a Star Trek movie by Abrams/Lindelof/Orci/Kurtzman could underperform? I don't think so.
Similar threads
