comScore
  1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

Dammit Jim!

Will We Have To Wear Silly Glasses To Watch J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek 2?


We know J.J. Abrams second Star Trek film is happening. And that’s about it. We’ve been jerked around about who will actually star in the movie but even the returning cast have no idea what’s going on with the plot. Abrams recently revealed very few details about Star Trek 2 including whether or not we’d have to wear those horrific 3D glasses in the theater. Hit the jump to find out what he said. 

“It’s a little early to be talking about Star Trek, but I will say that they wrote — the three writers, Damon [Lindelof], Bob [Orci] and Alex [Kurtzman] — they wrote the most amazing script, and I’m thrilled to get a chance to direct it,” he told MTV recently. “It’s totally mine to screw up, so if you don’t like it, it’s completely on me. Our sets are almost done, so we’re going to go back and start shooting next month.”

And when he does start shooting, will it be in 2D or 3D?

“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,” he said. ”We were talking about [shooting in IMAX] and I would love to do it. IMAX is my favorite format; I’m a huge fan.”

Boo-urns, I say. Boo-urns. I’m not a fan of 3D at all but if you’re going to have your movie in 3D, just film it in 3D, it looks so much better.

As for his hopes for the sequel Abrams said, ”I’m sure, like many people, you see what you do and you go, ‘I really could have done that one better, I should have done that, that was a mistake, more of this, less of that.’ You always do that. I’m hoping that as we do the next one, all the mistakes that I’ve made that I’ve hopefully learned from, I can bring to this one and hope make it better.”

(via MTV)

TAGS: | | | | | |


  • http://twitter.com/rickthecompgeek Rick Obert

    Its better this way. Means the 2-D version won’t look stupid.  Hopefully the 3D gimmick will run its course in another year or so.

  • John Wao

    Sorry no 3-D for me. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/macabri Mac Beauvais

    2D all the way. 3D makes me nauseated beyond belief.

  • http://zadl.org SuperZADL

    Let me just jump on to the no 3D bandwagon here….

  • http://shadowfirebird.tumblr.com shadowfirebird

    So we don’t know anything about the plot?  

    Hahahahahahaha.

    You were expecting a _plot_?   Did you _see_ the previous movie?

  • http://twitter.com/ButterflyBayDsn Keith

    Let’s hope he learned not to use so much lens flare… but I’m worried he’ll just keep it the same but make it 3D LENS FLARE!!! :P

  • Anonymous

    phlpn.es/829r8s

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.ie/7fb

  • http://nakedhobo.com/blog Glenn Buettner

     But I want to pay twice as much for my ticket so I can wear glasses that don’t fit over my prescription glasses and get a headache that lasts for hours after the movie……

  • http://twitter.com/KennyZ3D Kenny Zaborny

    I’d like to see it in 3d so I don’t get a headache. For some reason 2ds induce migraines where 3ds have yet to do that to me.  I don’t know why.

  • Frodo Baggins

    Post Production 3D just doesn’t work. Harry Potter looked great in 2D, like garbage in 3D. Films shot stereoscopically, like Hugo, look spectacular with silly glasses.