We have filmmakers who make films with some kind of responsibility and take cinema seriously like Shyam Benegal, Govind Nihalani, Prakash Jha. But now these people also take stars... Without stars they cannot work.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I had a big problem working with stars, because they are too expensive and have too many demands. Their names help you raise the money to make the movie, but then they demand close-ups. They change things. You end up doing things at their service instead of servicing the film.
Movie stars have careers - actors work, and then they don't work, and then they work again.
There are certain stars who are not actors. I don't want to be that type.
As far as the filmmaking process is concerned, stars are essentially worthless - and absolutely essential.
The reason I prefer working with established actors and stars is because they are more popular, and the film reaches out to more people and do well in terms of numbers, too.
Isn't that the definition of a star? Someone who can get a film made?
It's nice that established and emerging stars agree to appear in ambitious low-budget films. Such pro-bono work gives the movie a higher profile and the actors a potentially more distinguished resume.
If you work with big stars, then they become the lead actors. It's not that I don't want to do films with big stars, but I would rather do the films where I get the title roles.
Ultimately, making movies, if you don't have a big star, it's hard to do. Or if it's not a star director.
People behave differently to TV stars and film stars; it's to do with the scale of the medium. Film stars get hushed awe, TV stars get slapped on the back. Neither is good for you. Famous people don't hear the word 'no' enough.
No opposing quotes found.