J.J. Abrams Says STAR TREK Sequel Will Shoot in 2D and Possibly IMAX; Will Post-Convert to 3D

     December 20, 2011

While J.J. Abrams is currently doing a few press rounds to promote Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (which he produced), he’s obviously being bombarded with a fair share of questions regarding the Star Trek sequel. The film is set to begin filming in mid January, and it’s previously been revealed that the sequel will be in 3D (we also recently learned that no original series cast members will appear). It was unclear whether Abrams would be shooting in 3D or if they would post-convert, but now the director has confirmed that it’s the latter; they’ll be post-converting the sci-fi sequel to 3D. Hit the jump for more.

star-trek-set-photo-jj-abrams-01Speaking with MTV’s Josh Horowitz, Abrams said that not only will they be post-converting to 3D, but he’s also considering the IMAX format:

“We’re shooting on film, 2D, 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…We were talking about [shooting in IMAX] and I would love to do it. IMAX is my favorite format; I’m a huge fan.”

While it’s a bit disappointing that Abrams won’t be shooting in 3D, an intense post-conversion is the next best thing. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 looked gorgeous because of the painstaking detail with which it was post-converted, and I see no reason why the Star Trek sequel can’t follow suit.

I’m also happy to hear that Abrams is considering IMAX. After catching Mission: Impossible in the format this past weekend (which looked spectacular), I think IMAX is definitely a great fit for the Star Trek franchise. Besides the pristine image quality, the sound is tremendous. I’m sincerely hoping Abrams shoots a good deal of the film in the format not only so we can see some ginormous lens flares, but also so we can be fully immersed in Michael Giacchino’s sure-to-be bombastic score. The currently untitled Star Trek sequel is set to open May 17th, 2013.



  • IllusionOfLife

    Post conversion: Boo, hiss!

    IMAX: Yay!

  • Nick


    • Bruce

      Because He love’s FILM. Which is getting a bit old fashion… AND you can shoot 3D with it….
      Oh I don’t know!

      • NorrTron

        The really great directors prefer film because they all know it looks a million times better. I know Nolan, Tarantino and PT Anderson refuse to film digitally.

  • Strong Enough


  • Michael

    Abrams is about half a notch above Michael Bay in talent. Why is he still getting work. Super 8 was the most unintentionally funny movie of the year. And I can’t wait to see incessant lens flare in post-converted 3D.

    • meme

      You my friend, are crazy. Half a notch above Michael Bay? Abrams is responsible for the fantastic show Alias, completely revitalizing the Mission Impossible franchise which hit a wall at part 2, rebooting start trek to massive success, created and produced one of the biggest spectacles on TV with Lost, made a japanese monster movie in Cloverfield actually relevant. And you say you wonder how he gets work?
      I wonder how he doesn’t get more.

  • DDD

    Not filming in 3D is excellent news. I’ll happily see it in 2D and completely ignore the 3D conversion.

  • felliniboy

    it’s kind of understandable because Abrams is more comfortable with the “look” of film. and you can’t shoot 3D on film, it will have to be shot digitally to be able to “shoot in 3D”.

    Wrath of the Titans flirted with the idea of shooting in 3D, but alas, Gods and Greek Mythology don’t look well on Digital. there will always be that notion that Digital looks different from Film. and directors like JJ just isn’t comfortable shooting on digital. if you mess it up, most of the time, it will look like an amateur student film. even the Hobbit trailer now, there’s that notion where you notice that it’s shot on digital.

    • Anthony Thompson

      What do you mean 3D can’t be shot on film? What about “Friday the 13th 3D? Digital didn’t even exist then!

  • felliniboy

    SHOOT IT IN IMAX, then abandoned 3D so we can watch it in 2D IMAX!

    p.s. it would be interesting seeing Abrams hold a camera still. he won’t be able to tap it like a normal camera.

  • Pingback: STAR TREK 2 To Boldly Shoot In 2D & Maybe IMAX — Cinemart()

  • betelguese1984

    Good move by Abrams, I’ll be seeing this in 2D… 3d is always garbage

  • flash-t

    You can keep yer 3D, 2D imax all the way.

    You can also keep your lens flares…

  • Pingback: Set Phasers To Stun: J.J. Abrams To Post-Convert 'Star Trek 2' To … | Avatar Imax | 3D Experience | Cinema | Tickets | Locations()

  • Ryan

    Happy to chime in here and say 2D IMAX is far more spectacular than 3D post-conversion. I will NOT spend any more money on another post-converted film.

  • Pingback: The Conversation: Should 'Star Trek 2' Be Post-Converted to 3D?()

  • Pingback: News: The Conversation: Should ‘Star Trek 2′ Be Post-Converted to 3D? | News 25/7! Delivering news in real time()

  • esrhgfh

    Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in.
    Welcome to


  • Pingback: The Conversation: Should ‘Star Trek 2′ Be Post-Converted to 3D? | Video Zone()

  • Pingback: STAR TREK 2 Wraps Production()

  • Pingback: STAR TREK 2 to Be Released in IMAX 3D()

  • Pingback: The Conversation Should Star Trek 2 Be PostConverted to 3D | HaLaPicHaLaPic()

  • Pingback: STAR TREK 2 Movie Image Set Photo | Collider()