Steven Spielberg Quotes

It's quite amazing what 3D is doing to movies. Just simple things like a paper plane flying at you or flower petals fluttering about are wonderful.

The nature of motion capture is only going to work for certain films. It's not going to put any other type of movies out of business.

I've always been into visual effects. It was something I took keen interest in before films happened. Ironically, I am a part of 'Raaz 3,' a film that is shot entirely on 3D. It has encouraged me to pursue my dream. Hopefully, if time permits, I will travel to the United States and attend a crash course in visual graphics and animation.

Polar Express is not an attempt to do animation. It is a technology-based film.

I love 3-D, and for certain movies it can be really great, and for certain movies it can be poison.

I don't particularly enjoy watching films in 3D because I think that a well-shot and well-projected film has a very three-dimensional quality to it, so I'm somewhat sceptical of the technology.

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

3D is quite a lot more advanced in animated movies; for live-action movies we're just taking baby steps, we're just in the beginning.

Every film that comes out that incorporates CGI or performance capture is a little bit ahead of the last film that came out. You're on the cutting edge for a certain amount of time, and then the new technology comes out.

3D is obviously not as suited to drama and romantic comedies. But for what I do, I felt that 3D was a very, very appropriate technology.

I'd be really interested in making a dramatic, low key 3D film.

People ask me, 'Is 3D a good medium for horror movies?' I think it's the perfect thing for horror movies because it really puts you into it.

The learning curve is 'The Hobbit' is being shot in 3D.

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.

Obviously, CGI in the last ten years has gone through such leaps and bounds that today, people are looking for these kinds of movies to wow audiences with technology.

I don't enjoy movies in 3D. I find I can't engage with the story as well.

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.

To me, still my favorite 3D film is 'Dial M for Murder.' I thought that was great. Hitchcock used it, could put you in the room, which I thought was fantastic, but I'm still not a devotee of 3D.

I saw 'Avatar' and liked it very much. It was a great achievement.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if there were a way to make movies without actors, George Lucas would do it.

The thing with computer-generated imagery is that it's an incredibly powerful tool for making better visual effects. But I believe in an absolute difference between animation and photography.

Oftentimes, when we think of 3D, we think of things coming out of the screen, but actually, you've got this zero, this negative space, what they call the negative space, which is the scene, what's being filmed in the positive space of the audience. As you can have things come out, you can have all of this depth.

Technology continues to bring us wondrous advances in filmmaking to improve how we view movies.

Critics in particular treat CGI as a virus that's infecting film.

I think that two-dimensional film will always be here to stay because it always has its place, but 3D does too.