Harrison (Kip) Kipling did a fantastic job on his two shoots and I think he's got the acting gene. His range of emotions is fantastic - from dignified to aloof, all he needs to learn is to not poop onstage so much.

Whenever someone tells me they saw a movie I always ask if they saw it in 3D. The answer about 70% of the time is a strong "no way!" When faced with a movie where I have a choice I always opt for the non 3d one because I don't want to wear the stupid glasses and would rather not have a headache. Hollywood pushes 3d every decade or so and this was the largest push yet. They really really thought it was going to go. They thought they could force it this time.

24 fps, 2D, super 35mm is dream-like quality. It will be a long time before people want that changed. I saw the Hobbit and it looked like shit...reminded me of ShowScan back in the 80's. I was all hyped up for ShowScan and when I actually saw it I thought I was watching a soap opera on TV.

This is the basic reason 3D is a problem no matter how well it's handled:
"The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the “convergence/focus” issue. A couple of the other issues — darkness and “smallness” — are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen — say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another."

A fun read from the creator of the Insectula model I'm using:
http://gnormanlippert.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/in-defense-of-bad-movies-or-five-reasons-why-battleship-is-actually-a-great-flick/