A bad version of a virtual reality video makes you vomit in your headset in under 10 seconds. It's much easier to make bad VR than it is to make good VR.
What we want Vrse to be is a collection of the best in class - the greatest cinematic VR that you can see, and a place that you can trust.
I can't play horror games anymore, let alone in VR.
At 18, I stood in the Louvre in front of the paintings that TV had first shown me.
Virtual reality, to me, seems to have a number of different tiers. Entry-level-tier VR is this experience: on a phone, some simple head-tracking, and some quick and dirty, game-engine-quality stuff.
Usually, companies, when they approach other people to do VR, they're like, 'We're gonna offer a virtual reality experience' - to me, that usually means they're gonna put a bunch of 360° cameras in a room, film something, and wrap the video in a sphere so you can head-track and look around. To me, that's not virtual reality. That's 360° video.
If you look at my movies, they're pretty densely packed, such that they not only hold up to a second viewing, they're oftentimes better the second time you watch them. So I've always thought about crafting stories that could hold up to multiple viewings, and so VR obviously fits right into that.
VR should offer an experience that's more exciting than watching in 2D, and we're pretty good at 2D storytelling, so the bar's already pretty high.
There's no reason my films can't work as hard as VR does to hook an audience and never let them go, so I think that that it turns the volume up a little bit on storytelling. The same way when I was doing commercials and then I went and shot 'Go,' and 'Go' has a level of pace that is unlike any of my other movies.
VR should be more emotionally involving, but that doesn't happen automatically by just taking a VR camera and sticking it onto what would be a traditionally blocked scene for 2D.
