Alfonso Cuaron Quotes

Not every movie, in my opinion, should be in 3D. There are a lot of stories I wouldn't shoot in 3D. But, you know, there are movies that are perfect in 3D.

Everybody's going to do the 3D slightly differently the same way that people are going to deal with color differently. Some movies downplay the color, some color is very vibrant. Color design is very different. We've got to think of 3D like color or like sound, as just part of the creative palette that we paint with and not some whole new thing that completely redefines the medium.

Forty-eight frames per second is a way, way better way to look at 3D. It's so much more comfortable on the eyes.

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.

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.

My fear in converting it to 3-D is that people will say, 'Oh, it's the 3-D 'Clash of the Titans.' No, it's 'Clash of the Titans,' the movie, and then, on top of that, you have the 3-D conversion. The 2-D movie works as well as the 3-D movie. I want to make sure that people like the 2-D version.

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.

I think it tends to be overused and can be a little bit gimmicky. A lot of people are using 3-D now because they feel have they have to... that will come and go and the pictures that deserve to be in 3-D will continue to be. When it's done bad, it can make you carsick.

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 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.

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.

I really believe that, as filmmakers, we have a duty, which is, if we're asking people to pay a premium price for a 3D ticket, we have a duty to deliver a premium product.

I think 3-D across the board both in a home format and cinema is, it's going to be very big.

I don't like 3D. I don't believe there is any film that I have seen and loved that would have been improved by a scintilla in 3D. To me, it's just a gimmick.

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. So when I think of doing that I was very excited. It didn't go as far as I think it should, I'm still a novice, but I think it's fair to say it's a new cinematic medium, experience.

Depending on the budget [whether to use 3D on future movies]. I think I prefer 3D to 2D now. Also, because of 3D I have to use a digital camera, which is the way it's going anyway. That still confuses me, a digital camera versus film.

Where I think that 3D will fall apart is going to be as audiences now get treated to incredibly artistic utilizations of space. I think the films that are just sort of done as 3D transfer type films, the audience will perceive the difference in that.

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.

Of course, at their best, movies are anti-literature and, as a medium, belong not to writers, not to actors, but to directors.

There are people in the world who won't watch a movie that's in black and white. There's got to be a special place in hell for them.

The 3-D effects in "Star Wars" are so realistic, you can actually see George Lucas reaching from the screen and taking the money from your wallet.

No other art-medium–neither painting nor poetry–can communicate the specific quality of the dream as well as the film can. When the lights go down in the cinema and this white shining point opens up for us, our gaze stops flitting hither and thither, settles and becomes quite steady. We just sit there, letting the images flow out over us. Our will ceases to function. We lose our ability to sort things out and fix them in their proper places. We're drawn into a course of events–we're participants in a dream. And manufacturing dreams, that's a juicy business.

I don't believe in the concept that 3D should be shot separately. I mean, every director has their own style, sure, but I don't think any of that is really an issue with 3D.

What I love about IMAX is that, when you're in an IMAX theater, in a museum, science center or aquarium, it's eight stories tall and it's immersive, and you can see it in 3D, you really feel like you're being transported to that place.