Cass McCombs Quotes

What do you spend $200 million on, with a film? I can't wrap my brain around that one.

Now while the German money is over for Hollywood, I still have $80 million to make movies, and we will have two things coming up: less major movies and the price for actors will go down.

It is extremely difficult to get movies that cost more than $40 million to be made these days.

I can make a movie for $5M, which used to be a routinely low, independent movie, but there's no such thing as that any more.

I made 'Super' for $3 million, and that was filmed in 24 days. And that $3 million dollars went to a lot of things other than what shows up on screen. Once you get done with the unions and everything else, that's just, like, the basic cost of what you can make a movie for.

For context, the budget of Don Jon is about half the budget of (500) Days of Summer. And (500) Days of Summer is about a third of the budget of the lowest-budget movies produced at a major studio.

Film is the cheapest part of the movie making process. The expense is the 100-man crew and the financing and everything.

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.

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.

The movies I usually do are maybe three or four weeks because they don't have a lot of money.

Movies, obviously, are a little more lucrative. The initial paycheck is better.

Movies are just ridiculously expensive.

In the history of pop music, a lot of great records cost an enormous amount of money. There used to be a time where people that had means to experiment would do it, you know?

Economically, it's more expensive to make movies. I hope digital movies change that.

Coming from the industry and maintaining contacts with producers and directors, I am very well aware that costs associated with movie production are a major factor in determining where films get made.

Just getting movies made is difficult because it takes a lot of money; I mean, it costs more money to make one movie than most bands will spend on every single record of their entire career; it's a huge undertaking.

I'm telling you, man, after I did 'Land of the Dead,' which Mark Canton produced, Universal picked it up, and I had to use stars. I didn't think I needed stars - Dennis Hopper was in it. I loved him. We hung out. I loved him, but his cigar budget was more than we paid for the entire budget of 'Night of the Living Dead.'

Film-making, in itself, is such a risky, costly-yet-uncertain business that despite being wealthy, 90 percent of people don't become producers.

I do believe that there are some films that cannot be made without stars.

I think that, oftentimes, what people say is, 'We need an actress who'll be able to greenlight a movie,' and my counterargument to that is always that, when it comes to a teen movie, you have very few people who can greenlight a movie.

I've seen it happen with other directors. Sometimes there's a period where, if they're lucky, they get the financing where they can make two films in a year.

At the end of the day, there is a lot of money that gets put into films.

Every product demands a certain budget and with the kind of setup that we have brought together for 'Housefull 2,' there has to be certain expenditure involved.

Vada Chennai 2' needs a big budget.

There is no real kind of specific genre of cost of movies.