I think for us - the Weinstein name, the Miramax name - they've both become synonymous with brands. We have a real winning formula when it comes to championing a different kind of movie, and I think the audience trusts us.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The thing that's great about those guys at Miramax is the Weinstein brothers. They are the two funniest guys I've ever met in my life.
Brands are useful ways of short-handing practically anything - look at the way Tom Wolfe first used brand name lists to sharpen up a character and a situation. Look at the most brand-referenced novel, Bret Easton Ellis's 'Glamorama.'
Miramax can buy a small independent movie that isn't very good, but because it has great relationships with different theaters, it can get into a big theater.
Eponymous brands aren't that popular with analysts and investors now. You can only take an eponymous brand with a living figurehead so far, they argue. What happens when they grow old and die? What happens when they misbehave and go seriously off-brand?
Who says that big-budget films are safer than mid-range films? In terms of return on investment, I'd rather have 'Sling Blade' and 'Shine' than 'Volcano.'
I'm not seeking out genre films, but this just came my way, and Miramax was good enough to add a role for me because we wanted the chance to work together.
The IndyMac name had a lot of brand recognition - maybe for the wrong reasons, but there was recognition.
Being named among the best at something is special and beautiful. But if there are no titles, nothing is won.
I made a decision back in 1978 that, in a trade off for money when I directed Halloween, I would have my name above the title in order to basically brand these movies my own.
Brand names aren't important to me at all.