Jason Blum Quotes

I'm trying to develop an approach to putting out a movie in wide release that makes some kind of economic sense for the filmmakers and the people that have a participation in the movie.

I think, it's important to understand how to release a film.

The movies have a way of seeping out there over time. We don't put them in 2,000 theaters. It wouldn't work that way.

Filmmakers need to realize that their job isn't done when they lock picture. We must see our films through.

Anytime you make a movie, the goal is a wide theatrical release, with the right distributor.

Every film may not be appropriate for a theatrical release, and the theatrical business is not a very good business for anybody except the distributor.

I would love to do a big studio movie, just because they're going to put the money into distributing it. A lot of times you do these little movies, you love them and they never get seen by anyone.

The fact is, it's hard to release movies.

Once Miramax gets involved, if they like your movie, there's a big machine that gets involved.

Ironically, it's easier to raise the money to make the film than it is to have the film find wide distribution.

Every four or five films we've made a film that has gone on TV first. It's quite nice to tap into the TV audience, but it is nice to see it on the big screen too.

I'm sure many more people saw 'Hush' in the first weekend it was on Netflix than saw 'Oculus' in theatres.

I've learnt that there's absolutely no difference in Telugu and Hindi industries. Everything is almost identical. The only difference is that Hindi films have a wider release.

For a broad, star-powered picture like 'The Interview,' a big-tent release in 2,000 to 3,000 theaters is the top choice for a movie studio like Sony Pictures. It's the difference between a $1 million and a $10 million box office total.

There has been a stigma around letting movies be seen on home screens on the same day as theatrical screens. Universal said they were going to do it with 'Tower Heist,' but they backed off when challenged by the theater owners. I understand where the theater owners are coming from on big studio movies.

I cannot work fast enough. I cannot cope fast enough, really. And just releasing a film is hard.

When you work on a movie, you just have no idea how it's going to come out; you hope it's good, but you don't really know, and you don't see it until about six or nine months afterward, and I saw it and was pretty pleased.

When the movie starts playing on TV and DVD, that's when you really see what the movie is.

Before, it was just about making the films - and now it's releasing them. Which is a steep learning curve.

Some movies get rushed out right after you make them and I'm not always happy with that.

To have a film in America means precisely nothing if you don't have a distributor who stands behind it.

It's easy to get a theatrical release that shows in one theater for a week. But there's no advertising, and no one sees the movie. It's hard to get a real theatrical release. The distribution of independent films is, to me, extraordinarily frustrating.

Why should a filmmaker turn over the irreplaceable asset, the movie, to a distribution center?

I learned some big lessons on my first film, a horror film which was never released in the U.S., even though we sold it to Harvey Weinstein for a lot of money.

We make a lot of movies that I don't think merit a wide release. We have this label called Tilt, and we have the movies come out on that, and that's fine. But it shocks me when, having done this a few times, when I really believe a movie should get a wide release, and I struggle to get it released. That does surprise me.