The visceral experience of seeing a movie in three dimensions, coming at you in the theater, is obviously here to stay, because it is a unique experience. I think that kind of format is only appropriate for some genres, but I'm all for it.
Once you got Hollywood doing these kinds of movies and having all the, how you say, the tools to do it, and also to keep on finding new ways of doing it becomes - Hollywood can be avant garde on what concerns action.
Sometimes I don't know whether a movie has been shot on film or in digital when I watch it in the theatres.
On movies like Star Trek and Star Wars, you have so much that will be created or extended digitally, and it's a slippery slope where you can get lost in a world of synthetic.
I'm not a fan of 3D. But I am a huge fan of digital imagery. Because it allows a filmmaker much more latitude to appreciate their own visions and dreams.
For behaviorist films, that's been much more useful - the change of technology - but for my kind of films, doing them on film is much better, because it's more beautiful.
Peter Jackson is a real big hero of mine because he had the nerve to make 'The Hobbit' at 48 frames per second.
There could be no filmmaking without industrywide agreement on frame rates, lenses, and audio recording equipment.
I heard the new film, 'Tangerine,' was filmed entirely on iPhones. No cameras were involved!
I think 3D can be an incredible thing on a movie and a terrible thing for a movie, depending on what kind of movie it is. And I've seen movies where I thought the 3D really enhanced the experience, and sometimes where I thought it just detracted from it.
Film still looks way better than digital.
I have to say, 'Gravity' is better in 3-D, even though in 2-D the quality of the picture is better. But the 3-D is better.
I do believe that a film like Ten could never have been made with a 35mm camera. The first part of the film lasts 17 minutes, and by the end of that part, the kid has totally forgotten the camera.
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 .
My personal feeling is that ultra-high frame rates and ultra-vivid giant screen movies can be like a window onto reality. And if you recognize it as such, you can write your screenplay, direct your movie, edit it, and present it as a live experience - not like a movie.
I got hooked on immersive cinema when I worked on '2001,' which was initially shown on these Cinerama screens, which were all 90 feet wide and deeply curved.
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.
I have no opinion on 48 frames a second at all. I'd be completely unsuitable to talk about that.
