Films must all have the same structure. All of this to guarantee box office bonanza, which of course it never does, but that's another discussion entirely.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think when any one kind of film does well, it creates a precedent and paves the way for more like it.
I think films are bigger than structure.
Unfortunately, overall, movies are a conglomerate. People buy and sell people in this business, which can get really ugly.
The core of the movie business remains intact and it's not descending in scope. Studios want movies that are bigger than ever.
The effort always remains that my new film outdoes my last in terms of performance and gets better box office success. Box office is the sole reason why I do films.
To me, the box-office is basically the cost of film. If your film costs so much and your box-office is so much and a bit more, you are okay.
I was slightly disheartened when three of my films didn't work at the box-office. But the silver lining is that people did appreciate my work in those films. Had my performance gone unnoticed, I would've been in big trouble then.
Here's the thing about movies, all movies end up on television. That's their life. Whether you like it or not, I don't care how much money you spend on it, or how big or broad the film is, or who the actors are in it, eventually it's all coming out of the box.
Films work due to scripts, characters, and what you see on screen.
The big-budget blockbuster is becoming one of the most dependable forms of filmmaking.
No opposing quotes found.