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.

It's technically demanding to shoot in 3-D. It's an extra element. Also, just the size of the cameras. They look like these 'Transformers' monsters; they are incredibly big, many of them.

I mean I've seen 3D films so far and I think it's a long way to go before they replace actors. It's a funny thing with 3D, I haven't quite got it yet. Yet.

I hope people don't compare 2D and 3D because 3D's new, it's unfair to compare to 2D which is really sophisticated, even when we're jaded about it. 3D just began, give it a chance, let the equipment and projection system catch up and be better, let the price go down, let more filmmakers get a hold of it more easily.

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.

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.

I get a little nauseous and disoriented watching 3D, but as a kid I loved it and I was really into it, so if a movie can be in 3D, then why not?

I'm not a massive fan of 3D. I've seen some good 3D, and I've seen quite a lot of bad 3D. I think if a film is created for the shock effect of 3D, then it's a certain type of film that I'm not massively bothered about.

I've always wanted to appear in a 3-D Movie, that's always been a goal of mine. If you appear in a 3-D picture you are a shoo-in for an Oscar. There's no competition.

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