Billy Crudup Quotes

I feel the film companies should pay for proper advertising to see that the movie will sell, instead of putting it on our backs.

Ninety-five percent of the time when I run a contest I've purchased the giveaway prizes with advertising money.

We made the joke when we screened 'Bucket List' that there was 100% desire to see amongst our demographic with a 40% ability to get them to see it.

There's a vast difference between marketing a movie and the movie itself. You try to cast as wide and broad a net as possible.

For me, I don't even like to promote my films but I have to because it's in the fine print of my contract.

I'm hoping that word-of-mouth on the film - people seeing it and liking it - that that will drive more people to the theaters, because I haven't seen the billboards or the posters or anything.

If advertisers spent the same amount of money on improving their products as they do on advertising then they wouldn't have to advertise them.

Across the board, Australian films need to have a lot more money spent on selling them.

'Jaws' was the first A-list picture that was released like an exploitation picture. They made a lot of money with that picture because they could save a lot of money on advertising. Instead of having a full-page ad in 'The New York Times' for one theater, they had it for 100 theaters.

You spend so much to buy these media net stories or full page ads to build perception... you can rather save this money and put it in the making or marketing of the film.

I don't think it is wrong when you - when an actor goes and sells his film. I mean, it's salesmanship; you got to tell the world what you have. You got to tell them, 'These are my wares; please see how do you like them. If you like to buy them, please buy them.' There's nothing wrong in that.

People often accuse me of being serious. Have I played serious roles in 'Honeymoon Travels' and 'Sankat City?' It is just that after the films were made, producers did not have money to bombard it all over the place.

If you don't have a basic spend on marketing, there is no point releasing the film in theatres.

Basically, the big studios and companies distributing your movie just take a big cut of profit for making posters.

Going after any movie there is a lot of competition to try and get it.

I'm a believer in screening movies early, and using the movie itself to help sell the movie. If you can't do that, I feel like you shouldn't be releasing the movie.

It's unfortunate that it's not realistic that you can get people to come to a movie theater not knowing anything about the movie.

You can make films, and often, they get released on four screens in the U.K. Although it's been interesting and good for you, if no one's seen it, what's the point?

Commercial hit films such as 'Bajrangi Bhaijaan,' 'Talaash,' and 'Kick' had big superstars to sell them; that may not have been the case if it were just me.

Film budgets are huge. They can afford to promote each and every song in their album.

I'm not a huge spender. Sometimes when you pay a lot, you're paying for the company's advertising. It feels ridiculous to pay for a name.

I shattered the notion that a movie had to be advertised with realistic elements from the story.

Attention spans are so limited and ticket prices so high. We're anyway in a business of manipulating emotions. But each film needs to be positioned truthfully so that people don't feel cheated.

We do not see it because we can not afford to-because the truth is too explosive.

Remakes, in general, are a result of necessity being the mother of invention. They can't open movies consistently and break through the advertising clutter that's out there.