Still, the film nearly didn't happen a number of times. There were great arguments with United Artists about how to reduce the cost because they were nothing if not conscious of the price of the film.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think, on a larger note, that filmmakers and studios should start to tuck it in a little bit, because films wouldn't have the pressure they have if the word wasn't out about how expensive they were.
And that's another reason to make this movie: We can put plays on film now, at a relatively small cost, and they will reach an audience they would never have reached otherwise.
We've turned down multi million dollar films, simply because we liked the film better. We have the luxury to do so - we have projects that make the money, and others that we do for love.
It's not a great feeling for a film to suffer financially, but you can't sit and mope about it. You just have to just move on to next project - I try to always be working on a new project when my last one hits the theaters.
The fact that someone came forward and offered $1.25 million to make a movie was astonishing. We were also allowed to keep many of the original stage cast.
When we were making the movie, winning awards for it wasn't the point at all. We didn't even have an American distributor.
Audiences can be leery of sequels; the studios make a hit, they see dollar signs, and they make a cheap rip-off.
Even on a $100 million film, people will complain that they haven't got enough money and enough time, so that's always going to be an element in filmmaking.
The success of the film should depend on its budget.
The film business has changed hugely. You seem to spend about 30 per cent of the time producing the films and 70 per cent talking about it.
No opposing quotes found.