'Star Trek 2': J.J. Abrams discusses 3-D, Benedict Cumberbatch
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 , many fans of the franchise feared that the sequel would fall into the latter camp of 3D movies.
Well, director J.J. Abrams isn鈥檛 letting those fears go unaddressed; check out what the geek-chic icon had to say on the subject 鈥� as well as some of 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 , which he serves as producer on.聽On the subject of how they will shoot Star Trek 2:
We鈥檙e shooting on film, and the reason for that is I wanted to shoot with anamorphic, and you can鈥檛 shoot 3D in anamorphic.
Addressing the ongoing (jokes? concerns?) circling the Internet, in regards to Abrams鈥� divisive signature 鈥渓ens flare鈥� filming style potentially being an even bigger聽nuisance聽in 3D:
I鈥檝e had some people make fun of me about that. Yeah, we鈥檝e done some tests. Not only lens flare tests, but we鈥檝e 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鈥檛 want to shoot the movie digitally鈥t 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 the project which 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鈥檛 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鈥檓 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鈥檛 even want to have the movie in 3D. There already enough people who currently view 3D as nothing more than a Hollywood cash-grab 鈥� Abrams鈥� words to little to dissuade that assumption.
Regarding some of the casting news that has recently been announced for Star Trek 2聽- specifically that of (Sherlock, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy), who is rumored to be taking over the villain role (of Khan?) from :
Who said he鈥檚 our villain?鈥onestly, he鈥檚 just an incredible actor. If you鈥檝e seen his work in聽Sherlock, he鈥檚 just got incredible skills. He鈥檚 an amazing stage actor. He did amazing work (on stage) in聽Frankenstein. He鈥檚 brilliant. You try to cast people who are great. We got lucky.
Don鈥檛 let Abrams throw, Trek fans: for now, signs point to Cumberbatch indeed playing the villain, and that villain being Khan. We can鈥檛 prove it beyond a doubt, but the clues are聽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鈥檒l have to wait for an official confirmation to know for sure.
What do you think about Star Trek 2聽being pushed into 3D by Paramount? How about the casting of the film so far?
Star Trek 2聽will be in theaters on May 17, 2013.
Kofi Outlaw blogs at .
