Edwin Catmull Quotes

The problem is some of our riskier films just don't make as much money. But if you only make films that will just be commercially successful, then you can also sink yourself as a studio.

I want a certificate that allows me to make as big a box office as possible.

Britain is famous for being great at inventing and poor at commercializing.

Well, it's so cheesy to say but you can't find a comedy director who makes movies for critics. When a movie does $580 million worldwide, I'm not saying that proves anything except people were enjoying the experience.

My taste in films doesn't lead financers to think they are going to make a zillion dollars.

I think it would be a good thing in the creative community if there was less embarrassment of this word 'commercial' because that's how you make a business.

I think everybody involved in a movie thinks about the box office. It's the 'biz' part of showbiz.

Why should you have to atone for making big movies?

You're creating new things in movies and people are going to steal them.

Theater is dangerously open to repetition. It's exciting when you hit on a new way.

We all know the dangers of sequels. Lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place too often, and I think you've got to move beyond it, go the extra mile and have the courage not to just repeat the first one.

I would love it if my films made a lot of money, and may I say that 'The Yards' is the only one that's lost money.

There's real peril in trying to repeat yourself, and apply rules that applied to something else to a new project.

The only way you can continue to make artistic films is to make an occasional one of those. They kind of keep your marketability going to the extent that people will employ you.

You have to be in movies that make money to be offered work. Basically that's the equation. There's no real way around that. That said, you don't ever make decisions solely for that reason.

When you make a movie outside the system and it's successful critically or a moderate financial success, you usually have to go back into the system and make a big hit.

The studios don't seem to foster good writing. They're not so interested in that, but they're more interested in what worked most recently. They're definitely very serious about making money, and that's not a wrong thing, but you don't have to make money the same way all the time.

I've been lucky between 'Buffy,' 'Angel,' 'Alias,' and then 'Lost.' The thing they all have in common is that they were all fearless. They were not afraid to be different and try something different. Even if you didn't know that it was going to work, just try to do something new and fresh.

Well, that's the secret of commerciality, a simple style and you stick with it.

Studios, to cut through the clutter, want recognisable titles. But that does not excuse you, as a writer, from having an original story.

People are going to copy your product if you build great stuff. Just because Yahoo has a search box doesn't make it Google.

When I am making a sequel, it needs to be different from what you have already seen. Yet, it needs to maintain a certain discipline so that people still associate it with the prequel.

Sure, you can do something frothy and ridiculous, but you should probably be confident that it's going to be a sure-fire hit. Then it's sensible, because it enables you to make smaller movies. But if you make something frothy and ridiculous that doesn't work, it's not worth it.

Hollywood looks backwards and tries to repeat. And we really try not to do that. We don't always succeed, but I really think that what we try and do is different.

I would say the main thing is, don't just copy yourself, which is what a lot of sequels do. And in some cases, it works. Like James Bond movies. But James Bond is a different type of character.