Ultimately, the film industry has always pushed out its biggies, and I don't have a problem with that. I just wish that we'd spend more time nurturing the smaller ones.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think it's important to do smaller films because I think that's where a lot of new things are happening.
I think the problem I have with films is that, because there's so much hype around them, they become bigger than they should be, really. There are things that people do every day in their little workshops that they'll take to heaven with them. You've got to realise that it's not everything, making films.
Sometimes people say to you that you should try to be in a bigger film, but it's the way it pans out.
People are making better and better small budge independent films these days.
The size of the budget doesn't make that much of a difference because the kind of issues I have on a low budget film I I have on a big budget film as well, but they're just much bigger.
The size of the budget doesn't make that much of a difference because the kind of issues I have on a low budget film I have on a big budget film as well, but they're just much bigger.
The core of the movie business remains intact and it's not descending in scope. Studios want movies that are bigger than ever.
I think the one thing that I've experienced with American films is just that the size tends to be so much bigger, the budgets have been bigger, the size of the sets have been bigger, the number of people working on them is bigger, but that's not to say that I haven't been able to get close to people or develop good relationships.
I can't say that I wouldn't prefer to make small films, basically because I think they are probably more interesting in terms of the material. But every now and again, it's quite good to do a big one.
When you're making under-million-dollar films, it becomes so much about actors' availability. When you're using big actors for small films, you're in second or third position to the big monoliths.
No opposing quotes found.