Lindelof: Star Trek In 3D
2 min read
Although Star Trek 2 has been filmed in 3D, fans can be sure that no story quality was sacrificed in favor of doing so.
According to TrekMovie, Damon Lindelof and the other writers were not originally fans of the idea but came around after seeing the results. “We wanted to tell the story that we wanted to tell and we have already talked about the idea that all of us were a little bit cynical about doing the movie in 3D…,” said Lindelof.
But a test using footage from Star Trek XI soon changed their minds. “…and then they set up a test at Bad Robot where they took footage from the first movie – the sequence when the Enterprise drops out of warp and they come upon all the federation vessels destroyed by the Narada and they are doing evasive maneuvers – and we just looked at each other after and said ‘that was kind of awesome,'” said Lindelof. “We are now – I wouldn’t say converts – but I don’t think this is going to hurt the movie. If people want to see it in 3D, they will get their money’s worth.
“And in terms of actual production, J.J. [Abrams] shot the movie exactly the way he wanted to shoot it. And when you are doing this process, as opposed to a standard conversion, after every single set up – not just every scene but every angle – we had to do a 3D pass where you clear the set of the actors and the camera has to do the same moves so the guys doing the conversion can map accordingly and that will provide a much better 3D experience for the audience.
“But again, our job was to just make an awesome movie and to care about the characters and again do service to this amazing baton that has been passed to us and that we take incredibly seriously and treat with a great deal of reverence. So the 3D decision was more along the lines of like ‘are we going to screw up Trek by doing this movie in 3D or is Trek ready for 3D?’ Hopefully it is the latter. Based on the dailies that I have seen, I think J.J. pulled it off.”
About The Author
Isn’t the “allure” of 3D (mainly 8 year old kids) wearing off now?
$$$ changed their minds. Nothing else.
I don’t know. Sir Ridley Motherf$^&ing Scott is the third actual filmmaker to decide that they liked 3D. Of course he, like Martin Scorsese and James Cameron, actually SHOT in 3D, instead of this upconversion bullshit. I haven’t seen Prometheus yet, but both Cameron and Scorsese use 3D like a visual tool to add depth and detail to their films– an enhancement rather than a gimmick. It shows in the quality of their work.
Of course they also could be bothered to learn how to shoot in 3D, and shoot FOR the 3D, instead of this “oh, I can just shoot any old way I want and the computers’ll fix it” attitude that JJ and so many others have. The history on conversions is very spotty; a lot of turds for every peanut. But audiences, especially overseas audiences, just eat them up.
I don’t think 3D’s going away so soon this time. But I have a news flash for Mr. Abrams: Lense flares look even shittier in 3D.
How can you sacrifice story quality when there wasn’t any story quality in the first place?
I think plenty of money is still being made on 3D it’s here to stay. Don’t like it, don’t go see it in 3D. Isn’t choice wonderful!
Don’t know where you see films but round these parts, studios actively work to prevent choice when they decide to gouge the public with 3D. The number of 2D screenings is usually limited, particularly at popular timeslots