JJ Abrams has spoken about the decision to post-convert Star Trek Into Darkness into 3D.

The director admitted during a recent press conference that he was strong-armed into the move by Paramount, but had since grown to appreciate the results.

"3D was something that, frankly, I was not a big fan of to begin with," Abrams said. "Essentially in order for us to make this movie, the studio said 'You gotta do this in 3D'. So we said, well, we can do a 2D version that we love that can also be converted to 3D."

"And the truth is that I've actually been having a lot of fun with it."

He went on to suggest that Star Trek Into Darkness's conversion will be groundbreaking, marking the first time a film has been shot extensively in IMAX before being converted into 3D.


Abrams added: "We have an amazing amount of creative freedom, doing the 3D in post[-production]. This is kind of the myth, that it only looks good if you shoot the movie in 3D, which is completely not true.

"In fact, we're doing a bunch of things with the 3D in this movie that have not been done before, using techniques that have not been seen. All the exterior shots, including the shots in space, are all either shot or rendered in IMAX format.

"It's the first time a movie has been shot in IMAX to this scale and converted to 3D."

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news ... rsion.html

Spoilers.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/at-t ... ilers.html

It sounds like Abrams is admitting what I was discussing before - namely, that he shot a 2D movie and is doing a post production conversion to 3D when the movie wasn't designed for it. This is the sort of thing that tends to keep me away from many 3D shows - because in many cases they weren't lit and photographed for 3D, and the result is unfortunate. At least he's coming clean that Paramount was the guilty party in pushing it, and that he wasn't able to refuse it, as more experienced feature directors have regularly been doing. (Not that these were great movies but Battleship and Cowboys & Aliens could have wound up as 3D conversions but the directors adamantly refused to do it.)

Having seen the full trailer, this unfortunately looks a lot like the first movie. I don't believe I'll have time to see it this year - too many other shows to catch up on. But we'll see - I'll probably take a look on home video.

Maybe if they do a third movie, things will look up. There are always possibilities. Until then, I'm delighted to have the Blu-rays of the earlier movies and TV shows.

Cumberatch's character is named "John Harrison" according to a syndicated AP story that's in a lot of newspapers today. The story is rundown of the forthcoming 2013 movie lineup.

The conversion of JOHN CARTER was exceptionally good IMO...that's one of the best 3D films out there of the "new generation" and was a conversion, so I'm not dismissing the process altogether. Just depends on how well it's executed, though truthfully, I'll be fine seeing it in 2D. Whatever format my local theater has it screened in on the "big screen" in the multiplex is how I'll see it.

On Cumberbatch's identity -- the name alone doesn't tell us very much. It seems like there are elements of Star Trek II worked into this film and "remixed," much in the same way the universe had a different "spin" to it in the first movie. He may be the Khan of this movie, simply with a different name or identity or something along those lines. There are even quotes from II in the trailer, which makes you wonder...

Andy, you're quite right that it's possible to do a good 2D-3D conversion on some movies, particularly if the company spends a LOT of time and money on the process. I don't know John Carter as I did not see it. But I continue to have an issue with it for the reason that the movie in such a conversion simply wasn't photographed or lit for that process. It is true that J.J. Abrams did film elements specifically intended to be used as 3D layers while he was in production - but he was using 2D cameras and lighting for 2D. Which means that the conversion will be akin to colorizing a black and white image - where the feeling is distinctly "off" as the lighting and imagery don't match the process being applied. In such cases, I find that the 2D version of the same movie is easier to watch, since that's the way it was photographed.

I hadn't caught the Trek II references in the trailer, but I would think those are there to whet the appetite of Trek fans without necessarily playing a significant role in this new attempt. I'm fairly certain that the movie is not a replay of Star Trek II, simply because too much of the plot would be impossible to recreate from the time period in which the story occurs. Star Trek II specifically took place 15 years after the original mission, during which time all the characters had significantly aged, and during which Khan had been exiled for years on a planet that had come to grief. On this bedrock was built the Meyer film's emphasis on aging and the inevitability of death, as well as the notion that you're only as old as you feel you are. With the new J.J. Abrams take, we are now presented with a young crew still on that original mission. In this time frame, Khan would not have been exiled to the planet yet, unless the movie is going to posit that this happened in a flashback between the 2009 attempt and the 2013 attempt, which would make for extremely poor storytelling. It's more likely that the new movie doesn't actually have anything to do with Khan. The nature of the villain appears to be closer to Gary Mitchell in ability, but once again this wouldn't be the same idea as what happened in the original "Where No Man Has Gone Before". In that story, the point was that Mitchell was a longtime friend of Kirk's going back to the Academy and years of servicce. Kirk's struggle was to deal with the fact that he had to kill his friend before that friend became so powerful nothing could stop him. Given the scenario created by Abrams, that central conflict will not be any part of the new movie. Instead, the heroes are faced with a massive threat from this "John Harrison" and they proceed to fight him, whether they have any personal knowledge of him or not. That sounds about right for a typical television plot these days, but it's certainly not the kind of thing that the Star Trek series or the original batch of movies would have thought acceptable. It may turn out to be okay, but the track record is too spotty for me to assume so.

To be fair, my skepticism isn't just reserved for this movie. I've seen trailers for a bunch of the upcoming summer movies, and frankly, none of them impresses me. Again, I'll wait to see if any of them have some appeal as they come out. But I have a feeling that given my schedule (which now includes dealing with an avalanche of screeners from the Emmys on top of full time work), I won't have time for much of these movies until they hit home video. Given that I'm happy with the home theater setup I've been able to concoct, that's been enough for me for most movies these days.

Latest trailer.

[youtube]5ec_rPApKCA#![/youtube]

Looks like it'll be a fun ride.

Just a few discs left to go in season three of my Star Trek: TOS marathon. Now I'm completely Geek Certified.

Dude, you have joined us!! LOL

So you haven't gotten to THE TURNABOUT INTRUDER yet...one of my all time favorites!!!

Eric W. wrote:Looks like it'll be a fun ride.

Heck yeah! Definitely an opening weekend movie for me!

mkaroly wrote:

Eric W. wrote:Looks like it'll be a fun ride.

Heck yeah! Definitely an opening weekend movie for me!

I wonder if they will update the engine room set.

AndyDursin wrote:Dude, you have joined us!! LOL

So you haven't gotten to THE TURNABOUT INTRUDER yet...one of my all time favorites!!!

You know, aside from "And The Children Shall Lead" and "Spock's Brain", the third season isn't as bad as people say it is...it's like the Spider-Man 3 of the original Star Trek series.

AndyDursin wrote:Dude, you have joined us!! LOL

So you haven't gotten to THE TURNABOUT INTRUDER yet...one of my all time favorites!!!

It's so campy it's good. Watching Shatner play an evil menopausy bitch (pardon) in his body is worth its weight in gold.

It is a pity the series didn't end on a higher note than that, though.

Monterey Jack wrote:

AndyDursin wrote:Dude, you have joined us!! LOL

So you haven't gotten to THE TURNABOUT INTRUDER yet...one of my all time favorites!!!

You know, aside from "And The Children Shall Lead" and "Spock's Brain", the third season isn't as bad as people say it is...it's like the Spider-Man 3 of the original Star Trek series.

There were some real character gems in the third season. The Empath is a perfect example. No budget to speak of and yet there was some great acting and character moments between the Big Three. What's especially subtle and revealing is watch Gem during a number of moments of interaction especially with Spock as it relates to the two other characters. Fantastic.

Ridiculously good deal on the Trek movies at Best Buy next week with their "Upgrade & Save" program...after trading in your unwanted old DVDs, you can get each for only $5 a pop. That's all of them, the TOS ones, the Next Generation ones, and the J.J. Abrams reboot. Looks like I'm blind buying a lot.