Star Trek 2012 in 3D, Yes or No?

[MvRojo]

Will the next movie get made in 3D, yes or no?

What are reasons behind your answer?

I voted No, because I don't want it to be in 3D.

At present, 3D is still highly over rated and I don't want to have to get an HD3D TV and wear glasses every time I want to watch it when it comes out.

But, but, but it's released in 2D, too.

But increasingly in less theatres as time goes by. Now that digital conversion is accelerating, most theatres now only offer 3-D showings. It's only older theatres that haven't converted all their projectors that tend to have 2-D versions.

EDIT: I realize you meant the home video release. You're definitely correct about that. Disney is even cool enough for "A Christmas Carol" to offer a pack with the BD/3D BD/DVD/Digital Copy for just $27.99.

 

[JarodRussell]

For people getting headaches from focusing problems they could also release glasses that have only one polarisation. Which means you'd see only one 2D image. Focusing problems gone.

 

[SPCTRE]

I thought long and hard, but I came to realize I don't really care either way

 

[Devon]

I'm against it for the gimmick, but am for it for the added experience.

I remember about 13 years ago or so, ABC did this 3-D week where their shows were broadcast in 3-D and you could get special glasses through Wendy's. I remember shows like Home Improvement and Sabrina, The Teenage Witch doing it. The whole thing was is that they went out of their way for that 3-D effect. Throwing pop-corn at the camera, things flying at the camera on purpose, etc. I would HATE for that to happen if Star Trek ever did it. I would like to see it just when needed.

In other words, I'd like the 3-D to be built around what's there and not vice versa.

 

[Praxius]

But, but, but it's released in 2D, too.

I imagine it is.... but too many times in the past with my old vast movie collection, that I ended up picking up a copy of a movie that wasn't what I originally thought it was..... like Species II, where the box was all in english, the back text was in english, it looked like the box I seen everywhere, yet when I got it home, the damn thing was in french and there wasn't a way to select any other language.

To say the least, since it was already opened, I couldn't return it.

I don't need to go to a theatre to slap some glasses on my head to watch a fuzzy movie that isn't even 3D half the time, let alone accidentally pick up the wrong movie again, pop it in my player and end up having a fuzzy, doubled up movie I can't watch because I don't have an HD3D tv.

And that lame old skool red/green cardboard glasses 3D stuff they're putting out like what they did with Coraline when it came out was also annoying..... half the movie would be full color 2D.... then you'd have a few minutes where everything would be blurry red/green...... then it'd be back to 2D, etc....

It takes you out of the involvement of the movie/story..... 2D works just fine, and until they get 3D right without having to wear glasses to see it or giving you headaches.... or unless they introduce hologram technology..... imo, just stick to 2D and be done with it.

Sure some people like the 3D..... but it's not going to become mainstream anytime soon until they solve the headaches and dizziness some viewers get from it.

People could suggest wearing mono glasses that remove the blurriness and reverts it to 2D..... but then what's the point? Why bother going to the theatre in the first place and just wait until it comes out on Blueray/DVD in 2D?

For some reason, I doubt a 3D movie, converted back to 2D with mono glasses would be as crisp and clear to the viewer as an old fashion 2D movie..... and it still doesn't remove the problem of having to slap glasses on your head in order to watch something in the theatre for what I consider as a trivial gimmick that doesn't really add anything to the experience of the movie/story.

 

[MvRojo]

But, but, but it's released in 2D, too.

I imagine it is.... but too many times in the past with my old vast movie collection, that I ended up picking up a copy of a movie that wasn't what I originally thought it was..... like Species II, where the box was all in english, the back text was in english, it looked like the box I seen everywhere, yet when I got it home, the damn thing was in french and there wasn't a way to select any other language.

To say the least, since it was already opened, I couldn't return it.

I don't need to go to a theatre to slap some glasses on my head to watch a fuzzy movie that isn't even 3D half the time, let alone accidentally pick up the wrong movie again, pop it in my player and end up having a fuzzy, doubled up movie I can't watch because I don't have an HD3D tv.

And that lame old skool red/green cardboard glasses 3D stuff they're putting out like what they did with Coraline when it came out was also annoying..... half the movie would be full color 2D.... then you'd have a few minutes where everything would be blurry red/green...... then it'd be back to 2D, etc....

It takes you out of the involvement of the movie/story..... 2D works just fine, and until they get 3D right without having to wear glasses to see it or giving you headaches.... or unless they introduce hologram technology..... imo, just stick to 2D and be done with it.

Sure some people like the 3D..... but it's not going to become mainstream anytime soon until they solve the headaches and dizziness some viewers get from it.

People could suggest wearing mono glasses that remove the blurriness and reverts it to 2D..... but then what's the point? Why bother going to the theatre in the first place and just wait until it comes out on Blueray/DVD in 2D?

For some reason, I doubt a 3D movie, converted back to 2D with mono glasses would be as crisp and clear to the viewer as an old fashion 2D movie..... and it still doesn't remove the problem of having to slap glasses on your head in order to watch something in the theatre for what I consider as a trivial gimmick that doesn't really add anything to the experience of the movie/story.

1. The difficulty you've apparently had in purchasing movies is something you have to deal with yourself. No one can help you if you can't inspect the item properly, or in the case with Species II, there is some error on the manufacturer's end.

2. As for Coraline, you could have just watched the 2D version since they're both on the disc.

3. All the 3-D releases now don't use the red/green glasses now that 3-D TVs and BD players are available.

I'm not a big fan of 3-D either, and don't have any plans to upgrade my entertainment system to it anytime soon, but a lot of your complaints are personal.

As for 3D movies converted back to 2D, there are very few of those so far since most films have been done vice versa for their theatrical release. And check out Avatar, which I find to be far superior in 2-D on my 52" LCD than in 3-D. The film is much, much sharper (since there's no funky artificial depth) and the color are incredibly vibrant (since there's no darkening created by the polarized lenses).

 

[Ryan8bit]

While limiting a 3D movie to 2D is possible, it won't change the fact that things were staged for 3D. There's a big difference there in how a director will handle camera shots if he wants to pull off a good 3D effect.

Unless it's just a 2D movie made 3D as an afterthought, at which time it's a pointless gimmick.

 

[darkshadow0001]

Dudes, 3D doesn't take away from a story. When you come up with a story and write a script, you don't write with technical stuff in mind.

The thing is Star Trek is already a popular household name and we don't need "3-D" attached to it. I don't care if the 3-D technology is different now, there is just way too much 3-D movies all of a sudden and it's not needed to make a good Star Trek film. All we need is William Shatner in this one and it'll be complete.

 

[Captain Rob]

Just my two cents from an old ex-projectionist. Most of the time when you see a movie at home on a LCD HDTV, it's probably going to look better than at the theatre. Since it's your HDTV, you have full control over the environment. Such as focus (not really an issue), sound, screen illumination, etc. With the push towards larger and larger screens in theatres, most screens are underlit to save money. Except in the case of their primary auditorium usually.
Several theatres in my market (Dallas-Ft Worth) a few years ago replaced their screens that had 4-6 foot margins around them with screens that go floor-to-ceiling and wall-to-wall. This could result in an increase of screen area by 20 to 25%. But no upgrade to the lamphouses were done. Resulting in an underlit screen. Different lamphouse models are needed for different bulb power ratings. For example; my theatre's two largest auditoriums were identical in every way except for lamp power. One ran a 4 Kw xenon bulb while the other ran a 4.2 Kw bulb. The screen distance and sizes were identical and you could tell the difference between them. So we always put our biggest movie in the auditorium with the 4.2 Kw bulb.
Having been to movies in most of my local theatres I can tell you that alot of their screens are underlit. Which means a dark, sometimes washed-out picture.

 

[Sector 7]

This article may add to the debate.

The good news for Hollywood bean-counters: Ticket revenue was up this summer, with 2010's grosses up $100 million over the May-to-August record set this time last year, according to the Associated Press. The bad news: the rise came from increased ticket prices and surcharges for 3-D and IMAX screenings, not from attendance, which was actually down two percent. In fact, 11.2 million fewer tickets were sold this summer than during the last big slump summer five years ago.

 

[shapeshifter]

The lower attendance is easy to account for, this summer movie season SUCKED1 Those bastards still turned a nice profit though, figures.

Our local AMC theater is gutting one of its 20 auditoriums and retrofitting in a new 3D IMAX screen. Know we know why.

 

[Gojira]

Because of a vision problem I cannot see 3d FX so I vote no.

 

[RonSexton]

I say yes film it in 3-d at the highest possible resolution. But Stop that damn shakey cam and super quick cuts. Slow the action down so I can see what the hell is going on.

 

[scnj]

As long as it's filmed in 3D and not a crappy conversion I'm all for it. Heh, 3D lens flares.

 

[Commander_Kaz]

I think it would be interesting.

As long as the story itself is actually interesting.

 

[Hythlodeus]

I still don't care for 3D. It adds nothing to the story.

 

[omgahitsbritt08]

O-M-G!!! I have to wait til 2012 to watch the sequel! WHAT THE HECK!!!

 

[VulcanJedi]

Yes, why not? But, make the story, plot, acting, directing and execution 3-D too! I loved Star Trek by the way.

 

[Sector 7]

More 3-D information for the debate found here.

About two-thirds of consumers surveyed in a Nielsen poll released on Sept. 9 said they were less than likely to buy a 3-D TV within the next year, with 68% saying they're concerned about the cost and 57% indicating that having to wear special 3-D glasses would be a turn-off.

 

[Captain Rob]

This article may add to the debate.

The good news for Hollywood bean-counters: Ticket revenue was up this summer, with 2010's grosses up $100 million over the May-to-August record set this time last year, according to the Associated Press. The bad news: the rise came from increased ticket prices and surcharges for 3-D and IMAX screenings, not from attendance, which was actually down two percent. In fact, 11.2 million fewer tickets were sold this summer than during the last big slump summer five years ago.

Unbelievable.
If anyone knows how to do creative accounting, it's the movie business. This summer has been nothing short of week after week of crappy product. With several weeks of the top weekend leader grossing under $20 mil. That's pathetic for summer numbers. Nice to see this weekend's leader, Resident Evil: Afterlife, break $27 mil. We only had four decent leaders this summer: Iron Man 2, Toy Story 3, Despicable Me, and Twilight: Eclipse.
As for lower attendance numbers. Just goes to show what happens when you unjustly jack up ticket prices. Since I left the business four years ago, ticket prices have gone up at least four or five dollars. With 3-D and IMAX movies getting a three to five dollar additional premium (thanks Regal). In my 23 years in the business, I've never seen prices go up this fast. When I started back in 1983 when Jedi came out, adult evening prices just went up to $3.50. Jedi was $3.50 and our older movies were $3.25. And all of this is happening while there's no inflation.
Back on topic: No 3-D Star Trek 12.