Robbie Coltrane Quotes

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

The big-budget blockbuster is becoming one of the most dependable forms of filmmaking.

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.

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

No studio in Hollywood wanted 'Cold Mountain.' None. No one wanted 'Ripley,' no one wanted 'The English Patient.' That tells you there isn't really an appetite for ambitious movie-making out there.

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

People always ask why I don't make independent movies. I do make independent movies - I just make them at Sony and Paramount.

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.

The trouble with movies as a business is that it's an art, and the trouble with movies as art is that it's a business.

Independent films, for the most part, to me, are not so independent. They often feel like people auditioning for a big commercial career. They often do not have independent spirit to them.

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.

The movie business is very much like that: people in authority making purely emotional decisions instead of interesting rational ones.

It's hard to get movie studios to pay a lot of money for movies that don't have robots or explosions.

If you look at film, distribution is pre-bought. If you've paid for the distribution, you say, 'I have to make sure it's a film that gets enough butts in the seats.' I think that's the problem: It becomes prohibitively expensive, and you can't develop films for a smaller amount of money.

Because making movies is such an expensive endeavor, other media such as books and comics have long been a more feasible way to experiment with truly new ideas.

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.

After I do a big movie I get offered big movies. But I always do the weirdest indie.

The one benefit of having done all kinds of movies as an actor is, you learn the pros and cons of being tempted to do a really big movie because it costs a lot of money.

But what's interesting is now - and not only in horror, but across the board - the studios basically only make B pictures with A budgets. That's the biggest difference.

The movies have got more corporate, they're making fewer movies in general, and those they are making are all $200-$300m tent-pole releases that eat up all the oxygen.

From now on, I approach the cinema as a business woman.

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.

I've never been that much of a money guy. I'm more of a film guy, and most of the money I've made is in defense of trying to keep creative control of my movies.

You have to make millions on Friday night, because there are another 600 films waiting behind you, with explosions and everything.

I make movies for grownups. When Hollywood starts making them again, I'll start acting in them again.