Terry Zwigoff Quotes

I think you get in trouble if you make experimental big studio films.

My good films were independent and my bad films were not.

I'm not averse to being in big commercial films.

It's nice that established and emerging stars agree to appear in ambitious low-budget films. Such pro-bono work gives the movie a higher profile and the actors a potentially more distinguished resume.

I want to do one or two commercial films, but also want to do off-beat movies.

No studio picks up the phone after seeing 'Dogtooth' and goes, like, 'We have the next superhero movie.' Though if one did, that would be an interesting studio to work with.

Personally, I don't think the film and television industries are run as well as they used to be. Oh sure, we've got great digital effects now but... where are the visionaries?

We're going to see a very, very commercial kind of picture-making.

You create a work of art. You do not know whether it will get public sanction. Sometimes outstanding films do no business, and sometimes films which are not so good work.

A lot of dumb pictures have made a lot of money, but that doesn't mean they're going to be anything cinema students will revel over in the future.

On the first movie we got good reviews, but we were still dealing with genre stuff. It's going away. Judge the movie - is it a good one or a bad one? We know we made a great movie and it's being judged for just being a good film.

You've got these big studio films and these tiny independent films now. It's very much either/or. With the independent films, it's always a beautiful risk - it might never be seen. With the studio films, you're conforming to the formula of what's always been in place.

I'd just as soon do a big-budget movie as an independent one.

Blockbusters run the mainstream industry. We may never again have a decade like the 1970s, when directors were able to find such freedom.

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.

The movies I made early on may not have been great, but they were all commercially successful.

I wanted to make a film as an artist, and it's going to have to find an audience, you know. I don't know how big the audience will be.

In our benighted age, when films about amusement park rides and electronic fidgets scoop the honours, perhaps Hollywood redux is the best we can hope for.

I'd like to enter in and out of that big budget world, rather than staying in it. It's not the case that the bigger the film, the better it is.

There were a lot of people dreaming about making films, and they would finance maybe 6 films a year. Because they were funded by the government, the films sort-of had to deal with serious social issues - and, as a result, nobody went to see those films.

The network shows have this very commercial voice that you have to adhere to, and the cable shows, it's kind of like winning the lottery. The independent film world is a world you can actually get to. You can get the under-a-million-dollar film by finding a good cast and financing.

Who says that big-budget films are safer than mid-range films? In terms of return on investment, I'd rather have 'Sling Blade' and 'Shine' than 'Volcano.'

I don't want to be 'box-office girl,' but I don't want to be 'that indie girl' either.

The gritty indie films are a lot rarer than the films that aspire to fill multiplexes.

I rarely see one of the 'summer blockbuster' movies. I'd like to see a stronger focus on smaller, smarter movies.