Shortly after J.J. Abrams announced that he will in fact be directing Star Trek 2, Collider interviewed writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, touching on many topics, including the possible usage of 3D in the Star Trek sequel.
Though neither Kurtzman nor Orci confirmed specifically that the film will not be shot in 3D, both implied it by saying that they aren’t strong fans of the latest, gimmicky trend.
Orci expressed his dislike pretty boldly, saying, “It gives me a headache unless it is animated. That is all I am going to say.”
Kurtzman isn’t entirely on the same page, saying “I think it’s great when you have time to design your story thinking around it. I think if it’s just a matter of throwing more things at the camera I tend to personally not be much of a fan.”
I agree with Orci for the reason that he stated and more. The glasses are uncomfortable, tinted too darkly, and ugly. The 2009 Stark Trek film was gorgeous in plain old 2D, and I hope Star Trek 2 remains just as stunning and untainted by 3D.
Plus, as fans know, J.J. Abrams has other tricks up his sleeve, like borderline-abrasive lens flare.
Are you as adamant on the subject of 3D as I am? Should the film go down that route?
