Here’s a great example of just how uncreative Hollywood can be. J.J. Abrams recently stated that he has yet to see the screenplay for Star Trek 2 and that, without seeing the screenplay, he won’t commit to directing the picture. So – as of this moment – he is not directing the film. Despite that, in a new interview with Vulture, Abrams admits Paramount has already asked him to shoot the film in 3D. That’s not to say that it will be shot in 3D, whether Abrams directs or not, just that it’s been suggested very early in the process.

A film should be the creative, collected vision of all those involved. But when studios are suggesting 3D without even knowing who the director of the film is, it certainly feels like they’re just grabbing for those extra few dollars per ticket. Read J.J’s quote about this and more after the jump.

In the interview with Vulture, Abrams admits that Paramount asked him to shoot the film in 3D and followed up by saying this:

I have nothing against 3-D in theory. But I’ve also never run to the movies because something’s in 3-D. [As for Trek], as soon as I read the script, if it says, ‘Somebody pushes a weapon toward the camera in a menacing way,’ and we think, ‘That’d be better in 3-D!’… I dunno. What do you wanna see? 2-D or 3D?

The journalist said they didn’t care. Abrams continued:

I’m a big fan of whip pans, which is very hard to do in 3-D. You know, when I was in New York fifteen years ago, and I sort of had the flu, I remember turning the TV on. There were these kids in a very dark, kind of muddy movie that was on a local channel, talking about making out. Then you cut to them walking in the forest, and somebody had a paddleball, and they were doing it right to the camera. It was like this weird, experimental Fellini movie. I was like, “What the fuck is this movie?” And it was Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D — without sex, violence, or 3-D! It was genius.

Like Abrams suggests, if a film is developed, written and thought of as a visual, three dimensional story, then by all means, make the movie in 3D. But it really bothers me to think that 3D isn’t being thought of as a creative choice, but a financial one. In all probability, Paramount is just assuming Abrams will direct and that’s why they asked him. But Abrams isn’t stupid. He knows 3D is popular right now. He should be the one suggesting 3D to Paramount, not the other way around. It simply doesn’t feel as organic.

Warner Brothers took the first step in honoring the viewer when it comes to 3D when they canceled the 3D release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One. But if other studios don’t follow suit and treat 3D with respect, it’s just going to ruin a whole bunch of otherwise good movies.

Do you feel that 3D is becoming less creative and more financial? And do you think Star Trek 2 should be in 3D or will you differ to Abrams, if and when he decides to direct?

Cool Posts From Around the Web:

.

Please Recommend /Film on Facebook

blog comments powered by Disqus