Sajid Nadiadwala Quotes

Let's face it, making movies is all risk. Most of the time, batting average-wise, the reward does not outweigh the risk.

Hollywood executives believe that money is both the be-all and end-all to the moviemaking process.

If you want your film to be instantly green-lit, your first approach is not to go to a relatively unknown English actor. They're not going to throw millions of dollars at you for that.

It's sad when you say a $30 million film is an inexpensive film, but it is.

If I give five flops, I won't get a job. You have to perform at the box office when you are at the top. No one is running a charity here. People are putting huge amounts of money to make movies, and they want the films to be successful. They have invested money in you, so it is your duty to make sure the film does well.

Everything's a risk, by the way, these days. Every film you make is a risk. There's no guarantee.

Well, the studios don't really want to take those risks right off the bat. They'll take the risk after they've seen the finished product and say oh yeah we want that. This is a great film but they are hesitant to take the risk when you just see it on paper.

The major studios are by and large banks, and they give you what is by and large a loan to make a movie. Like banks, they want their money back plus.

Film is the most expensive, highest risk industry in the world.

And in movies you must be a gambler. To produce films is to gamble.

It costs a lot of money to release a movie. What you'd call art-house movies - movies that don't have big stars or big budgets - they're very hard for distributors to get behind 'em and take chances.

People are very reluctant to invest unless they know it's going to be a sure thing, and let's face it: film is never a sure thing.

The movie business is a big gamble.

The only pitch I have to movie people is the same as this one: Just give me $8 million. I'm not telling you what it's about and I'm not telling you who's in it.

I'm really tired of making these huge, over-$100 million movies where they literally mean life and death for a studio. It's really rough making these expensive movies. Everyone is hysterical.

You come out of drama school and do theatre and are interested in creative endeavour, then you drift into TV and movies and realise that artistic endeavour needs to balance with financial success. There's no point spending millions on a movie that doesn't make any money, because the people producing it won't make another one.

There's a long history of people who spent that $300,000 on their first film and weren't quite ready, and then they never did it again 'cause they were out of synch with where they were, and they would never raise that money again.

I have been working on one film at a time. One film recovers a little cost and that helps me move on to the next one.

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

Filmmaking involves a lot of money and hard work, which should not be wasted, though nobody knows which film will be a hit.

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

I am choosing films only to entertain people, but at the same time, if someone is putting their money into my films, I want that person to make money.

The problem is some of our riskier films just don't make as much money. But if you only make films that will just be commercially successful, then you can also sink yourself as a studio.

Even after I had just done Twilight, which made $400 million at the worldwide box office, I could not get financing for three or four projects that I really loved and I thought people would love because they didn't fit some studio or investor's model of thinking, "This will definitely make money." It's a business and a film does potentially cost millions of dollars, and they have to think that they're going to get their money back somehow.

You read a lot about movies with budgets of $25 to 30 million. Hell, if a studio can piss away that kind of money, why not let 'em piss on me?