J.J. Abrams Says 'Star Trek 2' Will Shoot in 2D and Maybe Also IMAX

December 20, 2011
Source: MTV

J.J. Abrams Directing Star Trek

Even though we're still waiting to learn whether or not Khan will actually turn out to be the villain in the forthcoming sequel to J.J. Abrams' 2009 franchise reboot of Star Trek, we definitely know that the film is hitting theaters on May 17th, 2013 in 3D. However, MTV News recently caught up with the director who revealed a little bit more about the developing sequel that is both disappointing and exciting at the same time. First, Abrams revealed that they will be shooting in 2D and convert the film to 3D in post-production, and while that's a little tragic, they're also talking about shooting in IMAX as well.

Here's what Abrams told MTV:

"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. We were talking about [shooting in IMAX] and I'd love to do it. IMAX is my favorite format; I'm a huge fan."

A conversion isn't the best decision, but I imagine that with all the time for post-production, it could very well turn out all right. But what's really thrilling is having another major blockbuster looking to shoot in IMAX. Abrams doesn't specifically say whether they're planning on shooting the whole film in IMAX or just certain sequences like The Dark Knight or Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (in select IMAX theaters now and everywhere else on Friday), but any IMAX for a deep space adventure is good news. Hopefully we'll have some more solid information and story details on the anticipated sequel soon enough as Abrams also says, "Our sets are almost done, so we're going to go back and start shooting next month." Stay tuned.

Find more posts: Development, Movie News

Discover more around the web:

Reader Feedback - 22 Comments


Epic yay!

Xerxexx on Dec 20, 2011


Bless IMAX Curse 3D!!!

TumM on Dec 20, 2011


Haven't they learned that 3D is pretty much a dying fad?

Chris Amaya on Dec 20, 2011


i cant believe i heard that exact line on 'singing in the rain' when they asked an actor about voices in movies......

Jericho on Dec 21, 2011


Audio is vastly more important that 3-D.

Xerxexx on Dec 21, 2011


YAY.  no 3d, IMAX all the way though!  I would love to see a movie that was shot "entirely" in IMAX...and yes, I would pay extra.

Michael McRorey on Dec 20, 2011


Save the money and keep it in 2d, and with the money they saved shoot the whole thing in 65mm. Oh yea!

Marvin on Dec 20, 2011


now the only question left to be answered is... will there be lens flare???

Anon on Dec 21, 2011



Xerxexx on Dec 21, 2011


Good, Screw 3D!! JJ knows what Im talking about, 3D is a waste of money and is pointless

Adcoria on Dec 21, 2011


Rumor has it that only the lens flares will be in 3D

SavageHawk on Dec 21, 2011


Don't forget a decent script this time, J.J.

rennmaxbeta on Dec 21, 2011


... why are you complaining about the 2D thing Ethan? 3D is unnecessary and will die AGAIN soon.... 

Yahzee on Dec 21, 2011


I'm complaining because it's being converted to 3D. I would rather just have the film presented in 2D if it's not actually being shot in 3D. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Ethan Anderton on Dec 21, 2011


YES!!! haHA! thankyathankyathankya mista J.J. for keeping Trek clean and clear of that 3D garbage!

Noclue002 on Dec 21, 2011


Its a shame not using the 3D in this day an age. I mean, I will see the movie in 2D, Its just a question of option. I say its a shame because the 3D version (converted) will never have its full potential.

Random_dude on Dec 21, 2011


Doesn't really need to have its full potential shown?

Xerxexx on Dec 21, 2011


3D technology is superfluous, idiotic tinsel designed to distract toddlers and mouth breathers. If a filmmaker can't create a compelling aesthetic and world in two dimensions, adding a third one won't help. Go JJ, I look forward to the lens flare.

Lebowski on Dec 21, 2011


Have you not seen Hugo in 3-D? Amazing! "If a filmmaker can't create a compelling aesthetic and world in two dimensions, adding a third one won't help." But if a filmmaker CAN create a compelling aesthetic and world, properly adding a third dimension can be magical! I will definately see the 2-D version of this since I absolutely loved Star Trek and I'll check out the converted to 3-D version just to complain about how bad the conversion is.

mattie on Dec 22, 2011


Why convert it at all? Why can't we just enjoy 2D?

Sammieyayho on Dec 26, 2011


in this movie those jim fall in love or we are going to wait for the next one

Mexfood@YAHOO.COM on Dec 28, 2011


Yes!  Down with 3D and mouth breathers everywhere!

Necro on Jan 15, 2012

Sorry, no commenting is allowed at this time.




Alex's Top 10 - 2017
1. Call Me By Your...
2. War for Apes
3. Shape of Water
4. Florida Project
5. Dunkirk
6. Jane
7. Foxtrot
8. Faces, Places
9. Never Really Here
10. Thelma
Click Here for Thoughts

Jeremy's Top 10 - 2017
1. mother!
2. Lady Bird
3. A Ghost Story
4. The Big Sick
5. Dunkirk
6. Get Out
7. Killing Sacred Deer
8. John Wick 2
9. War for Apes
10. The Beguiled
Click Here for Thoughts


Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main profile on twitter:
For the news posts only, follow this acct:
Add our feed to your Feedly: follow us in feedly