I don't think there's a subject matter that can't absorb 3-D; that can't tolerate the addition of depth as a storytelling technique.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I don't think every movie should be made in 3-D, and it should depend on whether it's one of these films that's more immersive or needs to be taken to another world. I'm interested in other formats.
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.
Video games lend themselves completely to 3-D.
I am in love with the idea of doing a movie in 3D. I think 3D would be great in a kind of realistic normal story without throwing objects to the camera, but using the 3D on the emotions in an intimate story.
There is nothing like being able to develop a three-dimensional character over a long period of time. Sometimes you aren't able to fully portray a character because you only have a couple of scenes to do it in, and you don't get the full life and background of that character.
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.
You tend to compose things more in the middle of frame in 3-D than you would in a conventional frame. You can really see composition in 2-D but in 3-D your composition is much more complex. Everything has to be artificially enhanced. But you do gain something else with 3-D: you have a sense of space and heightened reality.
The only thing about 3-D is the dullness of the image.
With 3D, all you're doing is trying to shock the audience; there's no value to the storytelling.
I love the idea of 3D, but it's completely superfluous to most stories.