‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Would Not Have Been Made In 2D

[myselfdestruct]

As powerful as we like to think filmmakers are, they can’t compete with the studios. When a studio puts their foot down on and issue and threatens to not make the movie, even the most successful filmmakers are forced to say “okay.” That seems to be what happened with J.J. Abrams and Star Trek Into Darkness

Comments

[jsherlock]

2D. 3D just gives me migraines and nausea.

[larissa_j]

THIS. Hollywood doesn't get the Migraine - 3D thing.

[ashkitty]

It's so weird--it seems like basically everybody in the world prefers 2D, and yet they keep putting things out in 3D like eventually we'll realise we actually love it or something. :p

[coendou]

Meh. I saw my first 3d movie recently - the hobbit, and I only saw it in 3d because the HFR wasn't available in 2d. HFR was at least a truly new and interesting experience, even if there are still a ton of bugs to work out (and I don't think it suits an epic at all even without the obvious problems), but the 3d didn't really add anything at all for me. It's just a gimmick, whereas I think HFR has the possibility of really enhancing certain types of films.

[lil_insanity]

2D. I saw Avatar in both 2D and 3D and didn't really think the 3D was more enjoyable.

[thetaet]

2D. 3D gives me a headache, and we're cheap. :)

[ashkitty]

2D. I don't hate 3D as much as a lot of people, but it does really make my eyes tired and I can't focus on action scenes (which are my favourite part). Also, the 3D in the preview had all the quality of a pop-up book. :p