I think a lot of people end up making sequels to movies just because the first one did a lot of business, and I think what people have learned is that it doesn't matter if the first one did a lot of business or that people want to go see another one just to see another one.

So what'll happen is there'll be some very good cinema experiences are going to see 3D where you have to pay more. And there'll be some bad experiences of going to see movies in 3D. And I just hope that this kind of gold rush mentality doesn't kill what could actually be something that really, really benefits the industry.

I hate high expectations because they're hard to beat.

I have a ton of fun, I mean luckily I've been balancing a ton of projects for a lot of years now, and I'm better when I'm busy and I just do my job in a way where I really totally compartmentalize.

There's pressure to deliver as good of a movie with a little bit more of a budget, and that to me ... to me the hardest thing always is, I just want to deliver a good movie no matter what the budget is and no matter where we shoot it or any of those things.

You might have been able to fool people the first time, or something, but you really can't make a successful sequel today unless people really, really liked the predecessor.

If I'm shooting actually a live-action movie and I feel like I can get the shots that I need with the existing 3D cameras, then I see there is no reason to not use those-to not shoot it in 3D. But there are limitations to the 3D cameras in terms of the amount of them, in terms of the size of them, in terms of where you can actually shoot them. There are definitely limitations so you have to weigh the costs. And you have to weigh also what ultimately what creatively you want to get.