Amala Paul Quotes

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.

Not all of our movies work, but we take shots, and we're able to do that because we really stick to low budgets.

Basically, movies come down to economics, and they're always too expensive. From a producer's point of view, an actor is either going to make him money or save him money.

When a movie is about to come out on its initial debut, there are a lot of people involved - the financiers, the studio and the producers and also, many times, the foreign distributors. So it is a time of tremendous pressure and uncertainty.

Anybody who understands how a movie gets made understands that a deep-pockets player is not going to make a movie that has anything defamatory in it without protections.

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 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.

I guess, you make a big studio film, you spend a lot of money on it and you hope people go see it. It's really risky.

When a film company is in the red they come to me. Always it is the same.

It seems there's a sliding scale between the money they spend on a movie and its creativity.

The fact is, it's hard to release movies.

In big movies, interests are not aligned between those above the line and the financier, because above the line gets paid whether the movie works or not. The financier only makes money if the movie works, and that fundamentally sets up a contentious relationship.

I have a real kind of fundamental philosophical belief that movies are better if everyone gets paid when they work, and if they don't work, the people who worked on them make a little bit of money, and the people who finance them, they lose, but they don't lose too much. I believe that that creates better work.

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.

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

Nobody loses money on my movies. I make them cheap.

It's great to make strong, powerful films, but in terms of people wanting to finance them, it's also very difficult.

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

My second film 'Johnny Gaddar' got delayed because of financial reasons. The film was taken over by another production house and in the process we lost a year.

It's hard for me to worry about the studios losing money. I'm not very sympathetic to their money problems, because they certainly haven't been sympathetic to mine.

Our role as producers is mainly limited to borrowing money from friends when we run short of cash.

A big part of the equation for 'Winter's Bone' was making it for so little that we owe nobody. We had a guaranteed loan and were able to pay it back.

It is always wonderful to have a theatrical release; lot of filmmakers desire that.

The cost of building large airships can be prohibitive. The entry barrier is considerable and could be a show-stopper for large-scale projects.

Borrowing isn't inherently bad; it depends a lot on what the debt is financing.