James Buchanan Quotes

Now in a way, money is money, and if it's going to increase our audience, that's fine.

As a producer or financier, you are going to go where you get the best bang for your buck.

I put £150,000 into the stage production of Grease and have got back £1.5 million so far. It has been a fantastic success.

It's hard to make a movie that's very expensive and not be thinking of the results all the time.

I've invested a couple million into touring, and that's paid off.

When there wasn't any money involved, for all intents and purposes, nobody gave a damn. But now the land, supposedly worthless, is seen for what it really is: an incredibly valuable asset.

I hope that my investment into Atomico will become my best financial investment to date.

From that moment on, the newspaper became a highly lucrative investment for those with a talent for making money or for publishers wanting to gain a fortune.

Profits in business always depend on the rate of interest: the higher the interest, the higher the rate of profit required.

It's a sin to have your films not to make money.

Spending $1 for a brand new house would feel very, very good. Spending $1,000 for a ham sandwich would feel very, very bad. Spending $19,000 for a small family car would feel, well, more or less right. But as with physical pain, fiscal pain can depend on the individual, and everyone has a different threshold.

In the U.K., there's absolutely no money for television. So you can do pretty much whatever you want. They're not losing money on any of the shows, so they'll give you a lot of creative freedom. In the United States, there are millions and millions of dollars at stake, so they need a sure formula.

Producers are not gamblers. They want a good return on their investment.

In order to have the next generation of modems, you would need to pour in even more R&D spending. We came to the conclusion that we're going to have a tough time to really see that we are going to succeed in the modems business.

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

There is no free lunch, so if you're playing with the big train set - on big movies - it's a lot of money they're entrusting you with, and you have to get that money back for them. I don't take that responsibility lightly.

We can still do a stop motion feature for about one-third of what it costs Pixar or DreamWorks or Blue Sky to make a feature. But nobody is interested in a film that cost $50 to 60 million with the potential to do $120 million. They want to risk big money to make huge money.

It is dead wrong about necessary surplus of winnings over losings.

Ideally, I want my films to work because I want the people who have invested their money to get back their investment and make profits too.

I always make sure my film benefits my producer and earns him a profit.

I think caring too much about the economics starts affecting the creative aspect of the film. That is a dangerous process for a filmmaker. He should make his film without having to worry about how much it has cost or how much it will be sold for.

Money is always a motivating factor, but money has never been my driving force. In my first fight, I paid the promoter in order for me to fight. I was in the hole 300 bucks for that. Money has always been a byproduct of me doing something I love.

Every film is made for a commercial purpose - to earn money at the box-office.

Price is what you pay, but value, as Warren Buffett has observed, is what you get.

I don't want to make a 100 hundred million dollar movie I have no stake in.