We cut a few corners and brought the picture in under budget by $25,000, so Paramount let us go back to Boston with a small crew to shoot some additional footage.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The marketing costs are insane now. So even if you've got a picture like 'Flipped' which cost under $14 million, or $13.5 million, you're still going to spend on an national basis, if you release with a good national release, you're still going to spend, you know, $30-$40 million.
Well, we are not doing that film actually. At least I am not at the moment, but we are making an effort to get it done; I don't know whether we'll get the financing for it. The old story we had it, it fell out of place and this and that.
I'd be absolutely happy to go back and make a smaller picture. I never want my choices to be dictated by budget. That's one of the reasons why I take so much pride in being able to make films for $2 and a paper clip - because I can always get my hands on $2 and a paper clip. I never have to ask for permission for that.
People in Hollywood are going make pictures where ever it's the least expensive to make them.
We shot ten minutes of the movie, and now we're looking for completion funds.
In movies, images cost - if you want a big image, it takes more money.
I came to New York with $500 and I had to live on that, but thankfully I was taken up by photographers quickly.
We had two cameras, so they could turn it on and shoot as much as we wanted. You don't have to worry about wasting money on film. A lot more takes are possible.
The model today is that as much as 70 percent of the financing of the picture would come from overseas. Now we're beginning to run out of suckers, because there are not that many people overseas who are willing to put up more than half the money for a movie.
This one, even though it called for San Francisco, I think they wanted to initially shoot part of the film up here, you know get the exteriors and then go back to L.A. We really fought to get it up here and I think Paramount was really pleased.