Star Trek 2 news has been coming at warp speed ever since a production timeline and release date were locked down earlier this fall. With the original cast all returning, new cast members joining the team, the promise of a great villain (Kahn?), director J.J. Abrams back at the helm, and popular sci-fi TV/Movie writers like Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Damon Lindelof all collaborating on the script, there’s plenty about this sequel to be excited about.
However, one question in particular has loomed over this film: What format will Star Trek 2 be in?
While it has long been expected that this sequel would be in 3D, today we have our first solid confirmation of how, exactly, that’s being approached – and unfortunately, the news will be sour for movie fans: Star Trek 2 will be shot in 2D and then post-converted into 3D.
J.J. Abrams himself dropped the news while out doing the red carpet rounds for the premiere of Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, which Abrams has a producer credit on. Check out what the fan-favored writer/director/producer had to say to Trek Movie:
We’re shooting on film, 2-D, and then we’ll do a good high-end conversion like the ‘Harry Potter’ movie and all that. Luckily, with our release date now we have the months needed to do it right because if you rush it, it never looks good…
There is some truth to what Abrams is saying – post-conversion 3D is not always a deal-breaker for a movie. Films like Piranha 3D and the aforementioned Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 were planned for 3D format, shot in 2D, and then put through a very careful and quality-focused 3D conversion. The end results were up to par, at the very least.
On the other hand, even the most carefully planned and constructed post-converted 3D flicks haven’t been able to hold a flame to films shot in the format – such as this summer’s box office smash, Transformers 3, and Martin Scorsese’s Golden Globe-nominated film, Hugo - both of which were gorgeous uses of the format that made other attempts look like child’s play. When compared to rush-job 3D conversions like Green Lantern, or the now infamously bad Clash of the Titans, the discrepancy between ‘true 3D’ and converted 3D is even more painfully apparent.
That’s not to say that with some careful planning, execution, and meticulous care during the conversion process Star Trek 2 couldn’t turn out to be an awesome 3D film; it’s just hard not to wish that it would be shot in the format, in order to yield the very best possible results.
3D wasn’t the only production news that J.J. Abrams dropped about Star Trek 2: he’s also exploring the possibility of shooting the film in IMAX:
We were talking about [shooting in IMAX] and I would love to do it. IMAX is my favorite format; I’m a huge fan
With Mission Impossible 4 IMAX having made an impressive $13 million on just 425 screens, and The Dark Knight Rises poised to smash IMAX records when its released next summer, it seems that now is the opportune time to make use of the format. If anything, I would personally rather see Abrams shoot in true IMAX, rather than going the post-conversion 3D route. I’d wager I’m not alone in that sentiment.
No Original Series Cast Cameos?
Finally, rumor has it that NONE of the Star Trek Original Series cast members will be making a cameo in the sequel – so if you were hoping for a Shatner appearance, or one of George Takei’s iconic laughs, you may be out of luck. From Showbiz 411:
The next “Star Trek” installment, directed by J.J. Abrams, will have no members of the original cast. No Shatner, no Nimoy. No classic recipe Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, Uhura, Chekhov or Sulu. The last “Star Trek” film featured Leonard Nimoy as Spock. But sources close to the next film, many of whom worked with Abrams on the new “Mission Impossible,” confirmed for me last night that none of the originals has been invited back this time. “MI4″‘s Simon Pegg, who now plays Scotty (original Scotty, James Doohan, is in space heaven now with original Bones, DeForrest Kelly), quipped, “That would involve time travel. And if the real Scotty showed up, that would be something.”
While the new cast has certainly earned the right to step out on their own – come on! What Trekkie wouldn’t love to see a familiar iconic face pop up at a key moment? By the time production is done, there’s a fair bet this rumor could be invalidated. On the plus side: there’s still a part for Bruce Greenwood (who played Captain Pike in the reboot) if he should choose to accept it.
Star Trek 2 will be in theaters on May 17, 2013
Source: Trek Movie, Showbiz 411
No Loki in 'Avengers 2' 
Ryan Reynolds Drops Out of 'Highlander' Reboot 
'Man of Steel' Director & Writer on What Has to Happen in 'Man of Steel 2' 
Movie News Wrap Up: Arnold in 'Expendables 3', 'Choose Your Own Adventure' Movie & More 
Just warp speed ahead now thats an order
Dont you know that Transformers Dark of Moon was post converted. Half was shot w 3d cameras and half shot on film in 2d (just like abrams is planning) and you cant tell the difference. A company called Legend3d did it. Looks amazing
by memory it was like 70% filmed in 3d. but when u put tf3 and avatar to a movie like thor there is no comparison in how much better the 3d is. but having a bigger budget with better directors does help a little
Having worked on the film, I can tell you that at least 50% of it was converted. The fact no one realizes how much of the film was converted, or which shots were converted, just shows what high quality conversion can achieve.
As a die-hard Trek fan for many years, I have to say, in my opinion, this cast doesn’t need the boost from a cameo (unless it was really well-done and integral to the plot…like Spock in the last film–that was very well done, I thought). Let them have this one all on their own!
Ugh…just shoot it in imax and release it in IMAX and regular theatres….I love seeing movies in IMAX, but hate seeing them in 3d..which the IMAX versions of movies tend to always be in 3d with no option of a regular IMAX version.
There’s only about five IMAX screens on the flipping planet!
It’s really awkward to find one within 100 miles that is showing something worth watching. usually they are showing something that was not filmed in IMAX and is just a bit bigger. Pointless.
Until IMAX is more user friendly; IMAX suck!
Really exciting if its shot in IMAX; great format.
Post 3D conversion is never good. I definitely wont be paying for glasses on this one.
I think the new cast is fantastic! I don’t mind at all that there’ll be no cameos.
Can’t wait for who the villian will be and the actor.
I am a fan of 3D but if SHOT in 3D, but if i were JJ i would jus shoot the film in imax, like what Christopher Nolan did, Seeing star trek in Imax would be AMAZING
I would love to see it in IMAX, but would rather watch it in 2D if it’s post-converted.
Oh, and they should get Patrick Stewart to do a cameo!
What if a young Picard made a cameo!?
He wont be born for many more years. Remember, next generation takes place about 100 years after TOS
I know…it was a bad joke
The more IMAX the better.
Dont you know that Transformers Dark of Moon was post converted. Half was shot w 3d cameras and half shot on film in 2d (just like abrams is planning) and you cant tell the difference. A company called Legend3d did it. Looks amazing
I can’t help but feel that they should put the original actors in the films in some way while they’re all still with us, and also feel that to an extent not having Spock Prime make an appearance is a bit of a cop-out, but on the other hand, it’s probably good that they’re having story come first, instead of shoe-horning those actors into an otherwise unrelated story. It’d be nice to see the original actors get a nice send off tho’, especially Kirk, Generations was lame, although I’d like to see all the originals get equal screen time, and not just have Shatner try to upstage everybody.
But, whatever. This movie is gonna be great…! KHAAAAAAAN!!!!
well then… guess who is seeing it in 2D!
*Raises hand*
I won’t be seeing this in 3D, but I will be there opening night for the 2D showing!! I also agree that the cast is solid enough that they don’t need cameos from the original cast.
I prefer my movies in 2D so what they do to it afterward I don’t care. I think 3D is a waste of money. I wish it would go away.
If you don’t like 3D, just don’t watch it, nobody’s forcing you to. Just let us 3D fans enjoy the marvelous extra dimension all by ourselves…
I’m not a big fan of 3D (I wear an uneven eyeglass prescription), but since it’s Star Trek I’ll make an exception!
if they did a CGI scotty or bones like they did in tron2, it could be done even tho the real actors are dead, voice editting and some cpu magic could bring them back to the big screen
I’m torn. If you know the movie is going to be 3D, why not shoot it in 3D? Maybe JJ doesn’t really care about the 3D and wants you to watch the 2D? I’d have to see results before I made a decision.
Conversion is cheaper and allows for fasting shooting and more dynamic camera movements and close-ups. Of course, if you rush it, you get crap like “Clash of the Titans” or “The Last Airbender”. Fingers crossed they’ll give the conversion here the time and attention it needs.
*faster. They probably still have catering ^^;
I’ve only seen 2 movies in 3D and enjoyed them both. Avatar we all know was shot in 3D and it shows through in the stunning beauty of the cinematography, CGI, and 3D appearance. I saw Tron: Legacy in 3D and thought that it looked pretty amazing but not quite Avatar amazing. Anyone know if it was a post-conversion or true 3D?
Star Trek strikes me as a franchise that begs for a true 3D treatment. The prospect of the view from the captain’s chair as stare out the view screen the front of the saucer section stretching out into the distance, the trail of the glowing torpedoes, and the warp speed effects all make me a little giddy to want to see them in 3D. But, all of that comes with the caveat that I will only pay the premium to see it done extremely well.
There is no excuse for half-baked post-conversion anymore. The technology is readily available to shoot in 3D and if you want a movie to be in 3D you really need to shoot it in 3D or use a post-conversion technique that is on par with a 3D shot movie. I’ll probably see it in 2D (IMAX if possible) and wait on the reviews for 3D and if they are positive I will maybe drop some extra money on it for my second trip.
Avatar was both filmed and converted, that’s what JJ is saying, there is a major difference when the time is taken to do it right. also for the guy spamming that Legendary was the only company who did the conversion on TF3 he is wrong, 3 companies did the conversions. Legendary, In-three and I’m pretty sure Stereo D did a few shots. Tron was shot and converted both but not as carefully as Avatar or TF3 was.
I agree, let this cast ride it on their own. But I’m not sure about post 3D. I tend to prefer 2D anyway. Some recent 3D films have made me nauseous, and that wasn’t always the case. New way of flming it? IDK.
Will see no matter what in any case.
Fact check alert: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 was NOT planned in 3D. Also, at least half of Transformers 3 was converted. It’s not as black-and-white as it used to be, and conversion is improving.