J.J. Abrams Talks ‘Star Trek 2′ 3D and Casting

Published 3 years ago by , Updated February 15th, 2014 at 4:27 pm,

3D has become something of a dirty word amongst moviegoers, and not without good reason: for every genuinely creative and/or enriching use of the format (Avatar, Hugo) there are a dozen other shallow, shoddy and gimmicky examples of 3D done wrong (Alice in Wonderland, Green Lantern, Clash of the Titans). When word got out that Star Trek 2 was going to be post-converted into 3D, many fans of the franchise feared that the sequel would fall into the latter camp of 3D movies.

Well, Star Trek 2 director J.J. Abrams isn’t letting those fears go unaddressed; check out what the geek-chic icon had to say on the subject – as well as some of the recent casting news about the sequel.

Abrams addressed the Star Trek 2 3D issue at the Television Critics Association Winter Press Tour, while talking up the new Fox show Alcatraz, which he serves as producer on. On the subject of how they will shoot Star Trek 2:

We’re shooting on film, and the reason for that is I wanted to shoot with anamorphic, and you can’t shoot 3D in anamorphic.

Addressing the ongoing (jokes? concerns?) circling the Internet, in regards to Abrams’ divisive signature “lens flare” filming style potentially being an even bigger nuisance in 3D:

I’ve had some people make fun of me about that. Yeah, we’ve done some tests. Not only lens flare tests, but we’ve done 3D tests. We actually converted a bunch of the original movie, which looked really good. That was the thing that made me feel like, maybe that would be okay. But, I didn’t want to shoot the movie digitally…It will be converted, for those who want to see it in 3D. But, I wanted to match the look of the first one and shoot it anamorphically.

On a more interesting note, check out what Abrams had to say about his he the project was ultimately selected for 3D conversion:

 I did not fight for the 3D. It was something that the studio wanted to do, and I didn’t want to do it. And then, when I saw the first movie converted in sections, I thought that it actually looked really cool. So, I was okay with their doing it, as long as I could shoot the movie the way I wanted to, in anamorphic film, and then let them convert it. So, those who want to see it in 3D, which looked pretty cool, can do it, and those that want to see it in 2D can do that too.

While I’m sure that Abrams was just being honest in his answer, nothing is going to fuel the fire of those online naysayers than hearing that he didn’t even want to have the movie in 3D. There already enough people who currently view 3D as nothing more than a Hollywood cash-grab – Abrams’ words to little to dissuade that assumption.

Benedict Cumberbatch Star Trek 2 J.J. Abrams Talks Star Trek 2 3D and Casting

Actor Benedict Cumberbatch

Regarding some of the casting news that has recently been announced for Star Trek 2 - specifically that of Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy), who is rumored to be taking over the villain role (of Khan?) from Benecio Del Toro:

Who said he’s our villain?…Honestly, he’s just an incredible actor. If you’ve seen his work in Sherlock, he’s just got incredible skills. He’s an amazing stage actor. He did amazing work (on stage) in Frankenstein. He’s brilliant. You try to cast people who are great. We got lucky.

Don’t let Abrams throw, Trek fans: for now, signs point to Cumberbatch indeed playing the villain, and that villain being Khan. We can’t prove it beyond a doubt, but the clues are definitely there to suggest that the actor will be playing a brainer version of Khan, with supporting actors like Joe Gatt providing the muscle. Still, we’ll have to wait for an official confirmation to know for sure.

What do you think about Star Trek 2 being pushed into 3D by Paramount? How about the casting of the film so far?

Star Trek 2 will be in theaters on May 17, 2013.

Source: Collider

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. 3D doesn’t work for every movie but it might work for Star Trek. I don’t support converting from 2D to 3D or shooting in 3D. I just see it as another way for movies to compete with television. I don’t think it’s necessary. As long as you have a solid story than you shouldn’t need to add eye candy for anybody.

  2. A BRAINIER version of Khan?

    “Quickly, Joachim…the game’s afoot”???

  3. I like the casting choices so far. I doubt I will pay extra to see this film in 3D. It just isnt necessary.

  4. Heh.. I’m curious just how much the look of the movie will change from JJ’s vision when the suits who are pushing 3-D start looking for ways to make the movie pop for the 3-D effect? Sure the Enterprise bolting straight at the audience at the climax of the first one was exciting but what will Abrams think about someone dictating to him that “this setup could be better for the 3-D audience lets do it like this!?”

  5. Kahn again. Sigh.

  6. So I guess that pretty much kills the hope of Khan actually being Indian like the character is supposed to be (if he indeed does end up playing Khan).

  7. 3-D is usually a waste of money. And being converted to 3-D doesn’t make me want to see it any more than I allready do. But then again I want to see it in IMAX….and that will be IMAX 3-D….damn it!

  8. I think J.J. is smart to shoot it anamorphic (like he did the first one). I didn’t want to see it in 3D anyway.

  9. I have a very strict rule about never watching a 3D conversion.
    I will (sometimes) watch one shot in 3D.
    I’m not worrying or caring who the Gillian is; they have a great cast so far and I’m sure it’ll be fantastic no matter who (or what) it is

    • Gillian? Wasn’t he stuck on some uncharted island? ;)

      • Only for a 3 hour tour. 8-)

  10. Cumberbatch is gonna be AWESOME!!! HE WILL STEAL THIS MOVIE!! whether he plays Khan or whoever it doesnt matter because he is ging to KILL IT!! I would love to see him play some kind of renegade captain. CANT WAIT!!

  11. Lens Flare in 3D! Its all fun and games until someone looses a retna! I’ll wait to see what kind of response the audiance gives (here on SR) and then decide if I’ll see my first 3D film in like 3D years.
    As for Kahn, c’mon everybody, chant with me:
    NO – KAHN!
    NO – KAHN!
    NO – KAHN!

    • 3D years? Is that like some dimensional space-time quantum string theory garbage? :-P

  12. Gillian was the whale expert played by Catherine Hicks in ST4…

  13. I’m fine with a 3D version as long as the 2D version is available as well. I’ll probably see it in both formats. I’m glad the lens flares have been addressed. That’s one thing that I couldn’t stand about ST and then again in Super 8. It’s like someone maliciously shining a flashlight in your eyes to bug you while trying to enjoy a movie. I hope Abrams takes those “making fun of him” seriously, because it really ruins those 2 movies for me. Other than that, Abrams is a genius and I’m really looking forward to ST2 — in whatever dimension I prefer to see it in.

  14. I like 3D! I see in 3D and have no issues with 3D movies whatsoever. I certainly don’t understand some of the outright hostility to it from some quarters! I don’t like conversions though. So far none have been 100% perfect, there is always something that isn’t quite right about them even when its done well. Shoot in 2D or 3D but Star Trek should be shot in 3D.

  15. Anyone who still has issues with 3D and/or conversions has not seen Titanic in 3D. Trust me, I’ve been a 3D fan for ages and agree with everyone who has been wary given the way Hollywood reintroduced 3D. But it’s getting better and better and as long as they take the time to do it right, it can be a better experience than the 2D version.

    Star Trek lends itself to 3D – all spectacle movies do. And given the popularity of the franchise, I have faith they’ll do a great job with the conversion!

  16. Abrams is an old-school film kinda guy. At this point (as seen in Star Wars) digital “film” does not have the depth of good film. Thank God for J.J!!!