Joe Johnston Quotes

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 think they tried the 3-D revolution at least five times throughout history, and it never seemed to work. However, finally, 'Avatar' did it.

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.

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.

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.

And I feel that filmmakers ought to be careful with the use of 3D. Because if you look back over the decades, you see that 3D has come and gone for I don't know how many years now.

Experiencing this film in 2-D is only getting about 20 percent of the experience of 'Gravity.'

We didn't shoot in 3-D. They've talked about doing a conversion and there's been a lot of talk about us doing 'Sucker Punch' in 3-D, but I'm still waiting to see.

And it's very hard to do this stuff too because there are so many effects movies being done, so many companies busy doing this work and the public just wants to see it. Good work is being done all over the world.

You'll hear people say now, 'Oh, I don't want to see something in 3-D. That's wrong, because what they've seen is 3-D done poorly.

I think the long-term effect of video on cinema is good in that what we are now getting up there on the screen is of superior quality. Videos are just so much more sensitive to the world.

The 3D thing has been abused slightly, I think. There is no question about that. 'Avatar' did it magnificently, and then, of course, there was the old 'leaping on the bandwagon' thing where there have been one or two films which, let's face it, all know look bloody awful with the 3D.

I'm not a fan of 3D as an audience member. I'm too old for it. I don't like wearing the glasses over my glasses.

When color TV arrived, it just sat there and you saw color. I've been to retail stores where there were no 3-D glasses at all and the 3-D images were all blurred. People were coming in and saying, 'I don't want to buy that.' There's a lot of marketing connected to introducing technologies and especially introducing new experiences.

I understand the bad rap that 3-D is getting because the conversions are crappy and because the films aren't designed for 3-D. It's a completely different medium.

I don't hold much of care for 3D. I think it's a passing fad. It came and went in the '60s. I don't see what it adds to the story.

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 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've always loved 3D. In fact, as a kid, I was exposed to 3D at an early age because my grandfather was a specialist of 3D in cinematheques. And then my cousin put it in 'Science of Sleep' with toilet paper tube cities. But he was a specialist and I always wanted to do something in 3D.

3-D is a truly exciting possibility. Whether that's going to be something that sustains our interest, I'm not certain, but I think it will.

I don't really like watching 3-D.

I think 'Avatar' is much more appropriate to high frame rates because it's like a ride, and it's futuristic, and vividness and sharp edges and clarity would be an asset.

I've seen 3-D movies where it seems a little crude or too in-your-face.

Whenever I used to watch Hollywood films, I used to feel, when would Tollywood make such films?

I really believe, especially with 3D, you kind of have to approach it as this holistic thing. You have to kind of mount a 3D movie; you can't just add 3D as a kind of a special sauce sprinkled on top of a dish afterwards to give you an extra 20-percent in theater grosses, which I think is the way a lot of studios perceive it.