Kou Shibasaki Quotes

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 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.

I've seen some of James Cameron's work, and I've got to go 3D.

We're in a time now where technology is such that we can create anything, and that's what's new about television and film these days.

There are films like 'Interstellar' where you cannot replicate the experience of seeing it in IMAX - it's an amazing film presented in a spectacular way. It really is an experience, like going to Disneyland, and you can't replicate that by watching home videos of going to Disneyland.

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

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.

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

The great thing about computer animation is that all of those environments exist as three-dimensional worlds, so these VR worlds already exist.

Special effects are becoming more and more affordable and looking more and more like the real thing.

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.

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.

I think some of the special effects in Close Encounters hold up better than the new more expensive special effects is because they were better actually.

The combination of the CGI, 3-D, and sound effects, it's just impossible to separate them. It gives you a more immersive experience, and I prefer that.

100 years ago, movies were black-and-white, silent, and 16 frames a second. So 100 years from now, what are they going to be?

Clearly, if we'd had the kind of computer graphics capability then that we have now, the Star Gate sequence would be much more complex than flat planes of light and color.

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

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

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'm of a generation of director that came up understanding special effects.

That's the trouble with anything which essentially has a lot of bits that are physically impossible: You're left, stuck, in the studio. And that's a shame. You're making a movie. You don't want it to stay put, you want it to be a movie - to move.

I wouldn't want to do a whole movie with effects.

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

With 3D, all you're doing is trying to shock the audience; there's no value to the storytelling.