Circle May 17, 2013 on your calendars Star Trek fans. That’s when we’ll see the sequel to the rebooted Star Trek.
That’s the good news.
The bad news is Paramount has decided the next installment will be in 3-D.
The glimmer of hope in this is reports the sequel will be shot to be seen in 3-D and won’t be a conversion once filming is complete.
3d has been a gimmick for so long people think it’s actually the “right” way to make a movie now. I will gladly pay my $10 and sit in a 2d theater and enjoy a glasses free movie. That is unless I actually need them to see by the time this thing hits theaters.
They can do whatever they like in terms of 3D. I’ll vote with my hard-earned dollars when I specifically take the family to see it in 2D.
3D or 2D, I don’t care. I’ll happily see it in 3D.
2D always. Nobody in my family likes 3D at all. (And I can’t see out of one eye, so 3D is a waste.)
3D is a bit of fun. I don’t care either way. I will watch 3D in the cinema and 2D on bluray on my TV later on.
Star Trek reeks of YAWN in any D at this point. Still waiting on that Babylon 5 movie. Wishful thinking. I heard somewhere it is too expensive to make spaced based scifi anymore. But when they do it. It’s the “masses are asses” kind of science fiction that they spend the $$$ on. I watched Serenity again today. Beautifully made for the sum of 39 mill. And not in 3D. That’s how it’s done
I actually LIKE 3D and am looking forward to seeing some of those trippy Trek Nebulae in 3D… should be awesome!
Hugo restored my faith in 3D. What an experience! So I can’t wait to see the new Star Trek movie in 3D. Or 2D, black and white, George Melies-style, with or without Kahn… I really don’t care!
I’m not a 3D kinda guy… Besides, any movie that depends on the 3D aspect for its success would have to have a pretty weak story. It has to be able to stand on its own 2D legs, and seeing it in 2D is the only way I’ll go.
Anyway, who needs to be subjected to 3D lens flares???