When it comes to 3D, many of us could care less. What does it bring to the table? Not much, aside from the occasional headache and hike in movie fees. Some directors have taken to 3D while others are still not sold on the technology or what it does for their film. After reading about what J.J. Abrams had to in order to get STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS made, I wonder if this happens often in Hollywood now: either make the film in 3D or forget it…or they’ll find someone else who will.
Abrams was told by Paramount that if he wanted to make the sequel, he’d have to do it in 3D for economical reasons. Not to mention post-conversion. This is what he told SFX:
“The studio said, ‘You have to make it in 3D if you’re going to make it, for economic reasons.’ But my feeling was I didn’t like 3D. So the idea of doing ‘Star Trek’ in 3D was ridiculous.”
“I approached it very cynically. And the fact is that we’ve been using techniques that haven’t been used before in 3D. They’ve figured out things. They’ve made enough movies now with this new process that they can understand ways to eliminate some of these problems. Things like breaking shots into zones, 3D zones, using multiple virtual cameras. A lot of this has made me a believer, whereas before I was really against it… There’s this myth that if you don’t shoot the movie in 3D it doesn’t look good. Actually, the opposite can be true.”
In the end, Abrams wasn’t too bothered by the conversion. He actually seemed rather comfortable when it was all said and done, “The key for me is I got to make my 2D movie that I wanted to make, just the way I wanted to; and it gets to be augmented in 3D but that doesn’t detract from the 2D.”