You can shoot a film in New York without seeing the Empire State Building. Or Starbucks... although the latter is much less realistic.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If movies are set in New York, they really should be shot in New York.
It's an odd thing to go to New York to shoot a movie that is set in Indiana.
I really fight hard to make things film where they're supposed to be filmed. If something is supposed to be in New York, then it has to be in New York.
It is possible to work out of New York on film and television and still not lose your connection to theater.
I love filming in New York. I love New York movies, too. I just like it when people can take New York and make it their own, because there are so many different New Yorks.
There are some times when you make films and you travel places, and the take that people in the business have is that the worst way to see a city is to shoot there, because you work these long 12, 13 and 14-hour days, and you go home to the hotel, you eat, and you pass out.
I see a New York that is once again the empire state.
If you want to see theater you go to New York.
In my view, the only way to see a film remains the way the filmmaker intended: inside a large movie theater with great sound and pristine picture.
Well, it's a little harder in New York. It's not as forgiving to a film crew. You hold up a bunch of New Yorkers who can't cross the street, they're not going to take it well. Southern California? They'll wait. It's cool man. In New York, they're like, 'Are you kidding me? I gotta get to work.'
No opposing quotes found.