There are really only a handful of directors who have a final cut clause in Hollywood. You only get that power if you've made a couple of hundred-million-dollar successes.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
So many directors are solely focused on their own success in Hollywood and multimillion dollar budgets and deals.
Realistically, it's the great truism that screenwriters are fungible, that at the end of the day a studio is not going to want to fire a movie star. And they're really not going to want to fire a star director because the director has the hand on the tiller of a ship.
I don't believe that all actors should end up being directors.
I thought that Hollywood was just for geniuses and that directors come from three generations of directors. I was worried that I was not up to the challenge of making a movie. Then realized that all a director has to do is know what he wants to do.
All directors make films in individual ways. But the classical kind of view of filmmaking is that you have a script, and it's very linear. There's a script, then you're going to shoot the script ,and then you cut that, and then that's the end of the film. And that's never really been how I've seen it.
The problem with most Hollywood movies is they don't give the director enough control.
Ultimately, making movies, if you don't have a big star, it's hard to do. Or if it's not a star director.
I don't run after successful directors. I give importance to the content of the film.
There are thousands of directors in Hollywood.
I'd be lying if I said Hollywood wasn't still an ambition; it's everyone's, isn't it? You're getting paid very well, you're working with great actors and great directors - who wouldn't want to be a part of that? But it's not going to break my heart if it doesn't happen. This business is about doing good work rather than how famous it makes you.