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.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
So much of selling a film in the industry is about creating a fulcrum where all the pressure comes to bear, and something seems suddenly valuable and approved by an audience. It's amazing how people could pick up tons of films on the cheap, but they don't because they wait until everything is laid out for them.
Once a film costs a certain amount of money, things have to round off.
For the most part, studio movies have huge budgets. They don't do anything under 30 to 40 million. When you have that much money at stake, you have so many people breathing down your neck.
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.
I feel the film companies should pay for proper advertising to see that the movie will sell, instead of putting it on our backs.
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.
My taste in films doesn't lead financers to think they are going to make a zillion dollars.
Nowadays the big Hollywood studios only make about three movies a year, and they cost about $200 million each. There's no room for error in that, and not a lot of room, I would think, for free expression.
Ironically, it's easier to raise the money to make the film than it is to have the film find wide distribution.
The success of the film should depend on its budget.