Quote

Actually shooting a 3-D movie is not different at all than making a 2-D one. You never really notice that you're making a 3-D movie. The terminology used around the set is a little bit different, but other than that, you'd never know.

The difference between a regular camera and a 3D camera, for an actor, is really no different except that the turn-arounds are longer. It takes a lot longer to set up a shot because the cinematographer is really trying to set up a whole world, so it can't be more intricate and more beautiful to the viewers, in 3D.

I wasn't sold on 3-D until it was in my own home. The images jump out at you, even more so than in the theater, because you're in tighter quarters and you're closer to the TV, so it feels like the depth is very dramatic.

I think it tends to be overused and can be a little bit gimmicky. A lot of people are using 3-D now because they feel have they have to... that will come and go and the pictures that deserve to be in 3-D will continue to be. When it's done bad, it can make you carsick.

When you make a 3-D movie you actually have to plan the way the visuals look because there's a parallax issue, and there's an issue of editing; you can't edit very quickly in 3-D because the eye won't adjust fast enough for it.

The only thing about 3-D is the dullness of the image.

They love 3-D. It's fun to watch a movie in 3-D with your children or with a group of children because you see the kids in front of you from time to time reaching up. You see little hands reaching up to grab things that they think are right there. I think it's remarkable and it does obviously, literally, add another dimension to the movie.

Big, big movies are in 3D, but we haven't reached a point yet where that's just what a movie is.

I love 3-D. I have been a big fan of 3-D for a long, long time. I took my 1988 wedding pictures in 3-D!

I like that 3D is based on the fact that you look with two eyes, so two cameras imitate that.