Back to IndieWire

J.J. Abrams Admits He Was Forced To Deliver ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ In 3D “For Economic Reasons”

J.J. Abrams Admits He Was Forced To Deliver 'Star Trek Into Darkness' In 3D "For Economic Reasons"

For a guy who prizes secrecy, director J.J. Abrams certainly isn’t holding anything back when it comes to 3D. When it was announced at the end of 2011 that “Star Trek Into Darkness” would be arriving in 3D, it was a bit of a surprise to fans. Until then, Abrams had already expressed his reservations about working in the format, and fans were thrown for a further loop last summer when it was revealed he wasn’t shooting natively in the format, but post-converting it. And while he begrudingly admits he’s turning around the format, he reveals he was strongarmed into it.

“The studio said, ‘You have to make it in 3D if you’re going to make it, for economic reasons’,” Abrams told SFX. “But my feeling was I didn’t like 3D. So the idea of doing ‘Star Trek’ in 3D was ridiculous.” But of course, he eventually agreed and signed on and, as it turns out, he’s happy with the results. 

“I approached it very cynically. And the fact is that we’ve been using techniques that haven’t been used before in 3D. They’ve figured out things. They’ve made enough movies now with this new process that they can understand ways to eliminate some of these problems,” he said, citing his own headaches and distractions while watching 3D movies. “Things like breaking shots into zones, 3D zones, using multiple virtual cameras. A lot of this has made me a believer, whereas before I was really against it… There’s this myth that if you don’t shoot the movie in 3D it doesn’t look good. Actually, the opposite can be true.”

So, you can probably rest assured that when you buy your ticket this summer for the movie and pay that extra 3D surcharge, you’ll get your money’s worth. But for Abrams, he’s far more philosophical about it all. “The key for me is I got to make my 2D movie that I wanted to make, just the way I wanted to; and it gets to be augmented in 3D but that doesn’t detract from the 2D,” he said.

Pick your format and beam up on May 17th. [via DigitalSpy]

This Article is related to: News and tagged ,


John Brune

They won't get any 3D surcharge money from me. I won't buy tickets for converted 3D and I don't purchase them on Bluray after the fact. It's an unnecessary expensive process that does nothing but delay a movie that could have been released 9 months ago.


There are very few movies I've seen in 3D that I've enjoyed watching, meaning the 3D effect was well planned and properly used. Most are just boring "Look what we can do!" scenes tacked into the storyline. So for me, it's not worth the surcharge.




J.J. did not shoot this movie in 3D but in 2D. And we all know that the "the augmented" version (done in post production) of movies will always look bad. So, shall we say the "dimisned" version in 3D them?
I'm so glad we'll get to see it in 2D just like he wanted. Good job J.J.


I saw the prologue in IMAX 3D and I have to say I was really impressed. The shot where Kirk and Bones jump off the cliff literally made me gasp. This is coming from a 3D skeptic who has never really enjoyed the format that much.


2D for me, then, if he was able to make his 2D film the way he wanted to.
i hope not all IMAX theaters will have this in 3D..

Jim Jarmusch

what a sap.


JJ san, so stupide!

Gerard Depardieu

Quel imbécile, ce JJ


I'm actually more likely to see a movie if there's no 3D option available at all. Having the choice between 3d and 2D says to me: this is a commercial product first and foremost. When something like Django Unchained or Skyfall is released purely in 2D, I know it's less likely the director's vision has been compromised by the studio.

Daryl Hannah

Top 5 directors for JP4 coming in 5….4…3….2…

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *