Emile Hirsch Quotes

The one thing with 3D presentations is I think that 3D itself, whether it's 24 or 48, is at a very interesting point in time.

3D, the ever-changing 3D. It's great. It's been really interesting. My family came to the set a few times, and I see them with their 3D glasses on. It's lovely to have them there and be a part of it, and see the magic that we're playing with, because it really is incomprehensible until you see it on a 3D screen.

I used to get headaches in 3D movies, and I didn't want the movie to give people headaches.

I don't particularly like to go see 3D movies, but when I'm doing it I kind of do enjoy it. I enjoy seeing the image in 3D, there's a childhood fun about being able to see those dimensions.

When you put on the glasses in a 3-D movie they just kind of sit there and you forget about them.

To be quite honest. I have seen a few things in 3D, and it didn't involve me anymore than when I saw something in 2D.

I was on record before I did 'The Hobbit,' saying I don't care at all about 3D. And I suppose I should now say I care a lot about 3D. I've always loved 3D, I think everything should be 3D, and I think it's just a shame 'The Godfather' wasn't in 3D.

Filmmakers have to commit to making 3-D films properly like Jim Cameron did and not do cheap conversions at the tail end of the process.

I believe in 3D for certain kinds of films. I certainly believe in using 3D for all things in animation because animation has such clarity and so much depth of focus. It worked great with 'Avatar' because 70 percent of that film is animated.

The 3D world allows you to engage even more with a film because you're somehow drawn into the landscape or the universe of that scene. Even when it's two people talking at a table, you feel like you're a third party.

I can't see any reason why a dramatic story can't be in 3-D. I think 'Lawrence of Arabia' would have been fabulous in 3-D.

The cameras were a little twitchy, and you'd get less footage and less set-ups every day. The interesting thing about it was that you just composed images in a completely different way because we had big 3D monitors on set, and you'd wear the glasses and see the image in 3D.

So it [3D] is something I'm still learning, it's fresh, so if the budget allows I'll do it again and just see how far it goes because it's the frontier, it's more interesting. It's still expensive, the projection system can be annoying sometimes, it's not really regulated or perfected yet, so it's still expensive. If I do a lower budget I'll just do 2D, but if the budget allows I think I'll try 3D.

I really believe in 3-D. I really think it is the wave of the future for cinema.

My own idea about 3D is that it is there to enhance the viewing experience but I don't think that you have to use it in a tricky way, I think that the minute you sacrifice story and character for something coming out of the screen, I think you've lost it.

3D is not a fire and forget tool. It takes a lot of very careful consideration and it will change your approach to where you put the camera so 3D isn't for everybody.

Now 3D is no longer a fad but I don't get all crazy about it and say that everything has got to be in 3D. It is a nice tool, like color or sound or whatever. I was quite intrigued and I learned, 3D opened up a lot of questions about how to use it. I think it is great. It's like if a movie needs to be in black and white then that's how I will shoot it. I see color as just another character or black and white as a character.

I don't believe that Citizen Kane or Gone With the Wind, or any damn picture that you can name, would be better off in 3D. I think it's a gimmick. I find 3D distracting.

With the right movie, 3D can enhance the experience. Absolutely, it can make a good film a great film. It can make a great film a really amazing film to see .

Usually, when you go to a movie, your consciousness floats above the film. 3D sucks you in and makes it a visceral experience.

The camera can't see space. It sees surfaces. People see space, which is much more interesting.

I think 3D at 24 frames is interesting, but it's the 48 that actually allows 3D to achieve the potential that it can achieve, because it's less eye strain and you have a sharper picture which creates more of a 3-dimensional world.

When you're dealing with shooting a lot of live action in 3D, you're committed to how much 3D you're giving the audience.

3D is very exciting. I love it. I'm a complete convert. Everything for me, from now on, is 3D. I'm completely convinced it's the future of home entertainment, as well as cinema entertainment. I think it's a paradigm shift, in terms of cinema, and those things don't happen very often. The introduction of sound, the introduction of color photography and now 3D have been the big shifts. They happen once every 40 or 50 years, so it's very exciting to be a filmmaker, working while one of them is happening.

Ever since the invention of the camera, people have been trying to create 3D, because we see things in 3D, and everyone's aware that the camera doesn't.