When I first read 'Lord of the Rings,' I wanted to see a film of it. But at that time, the technology wasn't there; there was no such thing as CGI.
Technology will need to make many more huge leaps before one can ever view films with the level of picture and sound quality many film lovers demand without having to slide a disc into a player, especially with the technical requirements of today's 3D movies.
When I was a kid, there was no DVD, no VHS. The only way to re-live a movie once it was out of the theater was to listen to its film score.
I have done scenes as Harvey Two-Face. It's interesting. I won't tell you exactly what we're going for, but I think that I can say that it will use all of today's technology to create this character. He's going to be interesting, and I think that's what makes this character important in the movie-you get to see him as he was before, as in the comic books. Harvey is a very good guy in the comic books. He's judicious. He cares. He's passionate about what he loves and then he turns into this character. So you will see that in this film.
Well, I have no problem with 3-D but I don't think it's necessarily a blanket requirement for every film.
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.
I'm not a big fan of CGI. I'm not a fan at all, unless they use it in a way that doesn't call attention to itself.
I can't see any reason why a dramatic story can't be in 3-D. I think 'Lawrence of Arabia' would have been fabulous in 3-D.
48 frames per second is something you have to get used to. I've got absolute belief and faith in 48 frames... it's something that could have ramifications for the entire industry. 'The Hobbit' really is the test of that.
I know that 'Tangerine' is getting a lot of attention for pushing the iFilm, but I am really mourning the death of celluloid.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the science of how to get machines to do the things they do in the movies.
But I do believe that there's going to be a time where all movies are going to be made in 3D and it's just going to be a given, and that is going to be an exciting time.
Big, big movies are in 3D, but we haven't reached a point yet where that's just what a movie is.
I'm of the opinion that the technology is in a place where there's really no excuse not to just make your movie.
I'd formed a research and development company under the banner of Paramount Pictures back in about 1975, and its mandate was to explore advanced forms of entertainment, not just movies.
When you put on the glasses in a 3-D movie they just kind of sit there and you forget about them.
You always learn something about movies. Directing or acting, there's always something new. It's the technological thing; there's always something to learn.
You don't go to the movies to do historical research, unless it's historical research about the movies.
I'm one of those people who says, 'yes, cinema died when they invented sound.'
When movies first came out, maybe they were in black and white and there wasn't any sound and people were saying the theater is still the place to be. But now movies and theater have found their own place in the world. They are each legitimate art forms.
Sometimes I don't know whether a movie has been shot on film or in digital when I watch it in the theatres.
I don't have anything against CGI.
'Finding Nemo' was originally shot in 3D.
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.
I saw 'A New Hope' on my Vidamax because I came a little late to the party.
