Uwe Boll Quotes

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'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.'

A government institution called the Finnish Film Foundation funds filmmaking there, and I wrote several screenplays but never got any money. They were sent back to me, and they said that they were too commercial for them.

People call me a movie star. If you're in the business, a movie star is someone who can make a film bankable. My name and $6 million will make a $6 million movie. I'm a working actor. Because I started late, I had a very short run as a leading man, and my films didn't make money in America.

The only difference from one $100 million budget film to another is which of the 12 box stars are getting $20 million to be in it.

You only have so much money to shoot a movie with.

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.

As far as acting in films, there is not much out there that is very interesting to do. The ones that are interesting to me are independent films and they have trouble raising money. With people putting their money into blockbusters, there is not much left for the independents.

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

A movie like House of the Dead with around $7 million budget or Alone in the Dark with around $16 million budget are much easier to make profit than the typical $50 million major motion picture.

That's a very odd notion because it involves seeing money up there on the screen - if something cost $5 million to make, they want to see that $5 million up there.

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

God help me if I ever do another movie with an explosion in it. If you see me in a movie where stuff is exploding you'll know I've lost all my money.

When I tried to get 'Stargate' made, I took it to every studio in Hollywood and every studio said, 'Sci-fi is dead. It's a dead genre. No one wants to see science fiction anymore.' And I had to go and raise the money independently to make that movie.

The only difference between working on a huge-budget film and a lesser-budget film, is the quality of lunch and dinner.

It's too expensive, that's the thing nobody wants to talk about. It is too expensive to make movies. That's not true, it is too expensive to market movies. Making movies is not.

When you do bigger films, the financiers take more risks.

I got paid 20 grand for my first film. And that's the lowest I ever got paid.

I think it's really odd, too, that the public is so privy to how much money the actors make and what movies cost. It seems to me to be beside the point. When I go to a movie I really don't want to think about the money. I want to see the story.

I turn up in Los Angeles every now and then, so I can get some big money films in order to finance my smaller money films.

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

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.

The good thing about feature films is that the budgets tend to scale.

The budget of 'Vada Chennai' is nearly Rs 60 crores.