Paramount's cash grab

In an interview with Collider, Star Trek 2013 director J.J. Abrams has indicated that the new Trek's conversion to 3-D was Paramount's idea. Abrams said,

"I did not fight for the 3D. It was something that the studio wanted to do, and I didn’t want to do it. And then, when I saw the first movie converted in sections, I thought that it actually looked really cool. So, I was okay with their doing it, as long as I could shoot the movie the way I wanted to, in anamorphic film, and then let them convert it. So, those who want to see it in 3D, which looked pretty cool, can do it, and those that want to see it in 2D can do that too."

So we have Paramount to blame for this fiasco. I've seen a bunch of 3D movies that have been converted from 2D and cannot recommend any of them. When it comes to 3D cinema, converted movies are inferior to those shot in 3D. See Brian Palmer's Slate article. The reason is that you can't duplicate the light, shadow and details that the 3D camera will pick up. A computer can only add so much information between the layers of a 2D film being converted.

Trekkers will pay a premium to see Star Trek (2013) in 3D. They won't get the best effort. They will get an inferior 3D product. It's just a cash grab.