One of the most anticipated films of this year is undoubtedly Star Trek Into Darkness. Fans have been following the development of the J.J. Abrams-helmed sequel for the past couple of years now, and one of the more peculiar announcements was the news that Into Darkness would be filmed in 2D and post-converted to 3D. It wasn’t exactly a shock that a huge tentpole movie was going to be released in 3D, but it was an interesting decision given Abrams’ previous comments about 3D. The filmmaker had made no secret of the fact that he wasn’t a huge fan of the format, so fans wondered whether he had changed his mind or if Paramount was simply adamant about the film going 3D.
We actually learned about a year ago that it was a case of the latter, but Abrams recently talked a bit more about the decision, admitting that Paramount would only make the film if it were in 3D and saying that he’s actually come around a bit on the format. Hit the jump to read on.
First up, here’s what Abrams had to say about the 3D decision back in January of 2012, before filming had begun:
“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.”
Abrams was keen on shooting on film, not digitally, and in fact he shot some of the sequel with IMAX cameras. Speaking with SFX (via Digital Spy and /Film), Abrams revealed that Paramount essentially gave him an ultimatum:
“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. But that was very helpful in some ways, because it let us work with stereographers and the 3D crew in a way that didn’t assume we just loved 3D.”
“I have trouble with 3D sometimes. I can’t see it right; I get a headache; it annoys me; I hate the glasses; I hate the fact that things get so dim. 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, though, Abrams says he got to shoot the 2D movie that he wanted to shoot, and that gets to be augmented to 3D in a way that doesn’t detract from the 2D. Audiences still have a choice of seeing Into Darkness in 2D or 3D, and after reading Abrams’ comments I feel confident in knowing that when I choose to see the film in 2D, I’ll be getting the movie that the director fully intended to make. Star Trek Into Darkness opens in 2D, 3D, and IMAX 3D on May 17th.