Star Trek Into Darkness was released in 3D to the great worry of Trek fans everywhere, but it worked. Unlike the gimmicky and obvious 3D post-conversions of films like Thor, Into Darkness benefited from boldly going where no Star Trek film had gone before, both showing us the benefits of 3D space adventures (yes, Gravity, you too) and giving us hope that JJ Abrams may just be able to pull of Star Wars: Episode VII without pulling another Phantom Menace. Abrams has said that, had he not wanted to shoot on anamorphic film, he would have shot it in 3D at the request of the studio, a decision he was originally against until he saw a test conversion of his 2009 original which, in his words, "looked really good". And if a post-conversion of his own film can convince a digital-rejector like Abrams that 3D is a good idea, especially as his new project (you might have heard of it?) is being shot on film and released in 3D, why the hell not go back to Star Trek? Star Trek has the ability to be paused at any moment and still look cool, even with all the lens flare (sorry, JJ), so it should hold up to 3D scrutiny just as much as Into Darkness. It's pretty much a guarantee that Star Trek 3, the first non-Abrams-directed film in the series, will be released in 3D, so could it be joined by a post-converted version of the original? Again, we hope so, and we return once more to the nice idea of completing the set.
I'm a British filmmaker (or, at least, trying to be) and about to graduate with a Film Studies degree. Most of the time I should spend working is actually on Netflix so I obviously have loads of life experience to share with you lovely people.
