Star Trek 2013 in 3D

pah

http://m.deadline.com/2011/11/star-trek-3d-sequel-will-debut-may-17-2013/

Seen a few reports of this online.

3D has the potential to be epic for Star Trek on the big screen. Haven't seen a 3D movie since avatar but I hear good things about how it was used in Hugo.

Myrddin

So long away

norrie rugger

3D space battles could be the only real use of 3D

Kiith

3D Lens Flare!!

Myrddin

Fugg 3D, they should go back to live action models. The Wrath Of Khan had EPIC space battles shot by ILM...imagine something like that done with modern tech today...:cool:

mister_h

I hate 3D. Never in my life have i ever sat down in a cinema and said, "wouldn't it be great if that guys arm flew out of the screen?"

pointless gimmick. Movie studios are using this flashy, expensive crap to distract us from the fact that they have run out of original ideas.

Myrddin

mister_h wrote: »

I hate 3D. Never in my life have i ever sat down in a cinema and said, "wouldn't it be great if that guys arm flew out of the screen?"

pointless gimmick. Movie studios are using this flashy, expensive crap to distract us from the fact that they have run out of original ideas.

Your 95% right, its largely a bolted on gimmick that is only an excuse to charge more for cinema tickets. I do maintain, when done correctly, it can be a fantastic cinematic experience. Avatar was such an example, but these cases are rare. It quite often ruins films because its not implemented properly...which is why I'm not too thrilled about this news

pah

A lot of stuff seems to be converted to 2d in post production. Im willing to give it a chance. Like i said avatar was the las thing i saw 3d and that was impressive, those of you moaning about the gimmick of 3d, whats your frame of reference?

Combining the possibilities of 3d with a good story could be amazing for trek.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3-D_films

Myrddin

pah wrote: »

A lot of stuff seems to be converted to 2d in post production. Im willing to give it a chance. Like i said avatar was the las thing i saw 3d and that was impressive, those of you moaning about the gimmick of 3d, whats your frame of reference?

All the other 3d films

Ah no joking aside, I'm in a similar camp to your own in that I thought the 3d in Avatar wasn't tacky & tbh I found it incredible. The vast majority of 3d films I've seen in the cinema since then though have been fraught with that 'gimmicky' look.

I'll give it a chance by all means, as long as its designed for 3d from the beginning & isn't just a tacky add on. That'll do more harm than anything to an already shaky franchise

Captain Chapman

I saw the movie "Up" in 3d, to be honest I thought it was great. In my opinion it was another case of a movie made better by 3d.

I like the concept of 3d space battles, although I will be disappointed if the plot was affected to accommodate more action solely for the point of being in 3d.

Cookie_Monster

The problem with 3d as it stands is son many movie are unsuitable for it. They are shot too dark to try and hide the short comings and just end up being poor all round.

Space battles with no sound would be an interesting experiment, flicking from interior cameras and sound to exterior camera only.

pah

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=32732

A wasted opportunity IMO.will stick to the 2D version then

Myrddin

it'll be a post-conversion affair. Not to worry though, because "We'll do a good high-end conversion,

Sounds like someone doing tarmacadum driveways :rolleyes:

2D it is then

johndoe99

that's a long time to wait, but i guess the longer its in production the better it could be. I hate 3D, always have always will, will only get the 2D version myself.

Wonder what the storyline is, i hope its something new and fresh and that they don't copy the original films.

Goldstein

Suppose the 3D had to be fake to match the films.

al28283

pah wrote: »

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=32732

A wasted opportunity IMO.will stick to the 2D version then

A High end conversion these days is as good as if not better than actually shooting in 3d. Most directors themselves can't tell the difference between a sequence shot in 3d and the same sequence converted

Kirby

Disagree. Name one film that looks good in 3D when it wasn't shot in it?

al28283

The 3d in the immortals was pretty good. It's really in February and March we'll start to see the next batch of conversions with Star Wars, John Carter and Wrath of the Titans. I think on those 3 movies we can probably get a fair idea of the current state of conversions, but I'm pretty sure they'll hold up

Myrddin

al28283 wrote: »

The 3d in the immortals was pretty good. It's really in February and March we'll start to see the next batch of conversions with Star Wars, John Carter and Wrath of the Titans. I think on those 3 movies we can probably get a fair idea of the current state of conversions, but I'm pretty sure they'll hold up

How will be know by those, that conversions are as good if not better than original 3d shooting? It's not as if we have both versions to compare.

Post-production 3D is the equivalent of HD upscaling, your trying to add information that isn't there in the first place. It'll never be better than doing it in that format in the first place.

pah

I assume its a digital effect? Possibly software used to create an imaginary second camera perspective to create the 3 d, not the same imo

Sad Professor

Abrams obviously thinks 3D is a fad and isn't willing to give up shooting on film for the sake of it. But the studio want it to be in 3D, hence the conversion. Abrams worships at the altar of Spielberg, who only started using an Avid on his latest film. Prior that he was still cutting film by hand - seriously. So it's no surprise that Abrams doesn't want to use digital.

I don't know why anyone cares about this. The only decent use of 3D I've seen was in Hugo.

Myrddin

Sad Professor wrote: »

Abrams obviously thinks 3D is a fad and isn't willing to give up shooting on film for the sake of it. But the studio want it to be in 3D, hence the conversion. Abrams worships at the altar of Spielberg, who only started using an Avid on his latest film. Prior that he was still cutting film by hand - seriously. So it's no surprise that Abrams doesn't want to use digital.

I don't know why anyone cares about this. The only decent use of 3D I've seen was in Hugo.

It's just handy to know when its finally out. I'll likely not bother seeing it in 3D now. Had it been shot in 3D I would have, that's the only difference

Sad Professor

The good thing about the film not being shot in 3D is that 3D-haters like myself will have a greater choice of 2D showings. Multiplexes really force the 3D-shot films down your throat.

Myrddin

Sad Professor wrote: »

The good thing about the film not being shot in 3D is that 3D-haters like myself will have a greater choice of 2D showings. Multiplexes really force the 3D-shot films down your throat.

Really though? Once they tack 3D on the end of it that's gonna be what most people will want to see in my experience. Ah cinema go'ers