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.

I think that if you're creating an environment completely or...in my research, what I've learned is that if it's a CG world or a lot of visual effects, you're almost better doing that in post.

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.

I think the combination of action and the combination of comedy are two really, really good genres to meld together.

I think there was always something that everybody wishes they could relive in high school.

I think 3D is a great innovation for the film business. But I hope it's not the thing that kills the golden egg because what's happening now is every movie there's pressure from the studio to turn it into a 3D movie.

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.