It’s October 28th already, and you don’t have a Halloween costume. But worry not, because we’ve got your back.
Star Trek Into Darkness‘ 3D Post-Conversion is Going to be Good, Guys, Really, Says J.J. Abrams.
by Rebecca Pahle | 12:55 pm, December 16th, 2012
3D can be a controversial subject among film fans. On the plus side, it can turn out well if done properly, i.e. if the film is shot with 3D cameras and not converted in post-production (see: Hugo, Cave of Forgotten Dreams). However, that tends not to be the case, with a large number of films post-converted so the studio can tack a 3D surcharge onto ticket prices (see: Clash of the Titans, Green Lantern). Post-conversion has a bad rap, and for a good reason: It tends to not be good.
But post-conversion has a fan in J.J. Abrams, who spoke out recently about how Paramount forced him convert Star Trek Into Darkness to 3D… and he actually ended up liking it.
OK, Abrams. You have thirty seconds. Convince me.
Says the director:
“3D was something that, frankly, I was not a big fan of to begin with. Essentially in order for us to make this movie, the studio said ‘You gotta do this in 3D’. So we said, well, we can do a 2D version that we love that can also be converted to 3D. And the truth is that I’ve actually been having a lot of fun with it…This is kind of the myth, that it only looks good if you shoot the movie in 3D, which is completely not true…
In fact, we’re doing a bunch of things with the 3D in this movie that have not been done before, using techniques that have not been seen. All the exterior shots, including the shots in space, are all either shot or rendered in IMAX format.
It’s the first time a movie has been shot in IMAX to this scale and converted to 3D.”
Well. Abrams knows more about the technology of 3D than I do, so if he says shooting in IMAX makes a difference when it comes to post-converting, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Then again, he wouldn’t exactly come out and say “This thing the studio forced me to do really sucks, I hate it, but they control the budget so YOLO!”
I think what it comes down to for me is this: Shoddy 3D conversions tend to make movies dark (Deathly Hallows Part 2, anyone?), and I can’t believe that Abrams would jeopardize his love affair with shininess by not making the 3D look good. I mean, lens flare is his baby, and you can’t have shady lens flare. That’s just crazy talk.
Can anyone who saw the 9-minute preview of Star Trek Into Darkness with The Hobbit confirm whether it was in 3D or not? Did it look good? Awful? Lens flare-y? (No spoilers, please!)
(via: Digital Spy)