Quotes from Douglas Trumbull

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.

Peter Jackson is a real big hero of mine because he had the nerve to make 'The Hobbit' at 48 frames per second.

I think miniatures are still superior to a lot of computer graphics.

My first job on 2001 was to make all of the HAL readouts: the 16 screens that surround HAL's eyes.

But as far as the concept of HAL, who HAL was, his character - I had no role in creating him.

I honestly believe that the next big leap in immersive technology will be very much like Brainstorm.

The technology of the time dictated the way things looked.

IBM was the original contractor for much of the computer interface design on the film.

My particular aesthetic of light and color and design wouldn't change as a result of working with computer graphics rather than with slit scan or miniatures.

There's a consistency in my work that pops up independent of the limitations of the technology.

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.

There was every reason to honestly say that 3D was a gimmick. And it's largely true. And it's largely pretty bad. When you put a filter in front of the projector, and you put on your glasses and cut the light in half again, the movies are dim as hell, and they give you headaches and eye strain, and it's terrible.

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.

If you want people to come to theaters, you better do something different.

The diversity of content is now offered from streaming and downloading, so young people are really not going to theaters because they don't see any particular benefit.

There's been a bit of confusion about Showscan. The basic problem was, it was film and it was 70 mm and it was a lot of it, so the negative cost was very high, the print costs were very high, and it also required conversion of the projectors and theaters and a lot of costs. I just couldn't get any traction in the theatrical movie industry to do it.

I think 'Avatar' is much more appropriate to high frame rates because it's like a ride, and it's futuristic, and vividness and sharp edges and clarity would be an asset.

I wouldn't apply high frame rates to a love story or a thriller or a film noir or a mystery.

When I worked on 2001 - which was my first feature film - I was deeply and permanently affected by the notion that a movie could be like a first-person experience.

The technology of the time dictated the way things looked.

'2001' used a lot of what's called 'front projection.' You project an image onto this giant reflective screen, and the image bounces back and comes back to the lens and seems to be in the background behind the actors. The whole 'dawn of man' sequence in '2001' was projected eight-by-ten photographs of the African savannah.

I honestly believe that the next big leap in immersive technology will be very much like Brainstorm.

I'd rather have fewer spectacular theaters than tons of cheap little multiplexes.

I took IMAX public back in the early '90s.