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 I was a kid going into the movies, you weren't force-fed information everywhere you looked about what the movie was going to be.
One of the nice things about licensing music to movies or advertisements is you can reach a lot of people who normally wouldn't hear music.
Films that are easy to sell happen to be the worst films. Look at the poster for 'Wrath of the Titans' and 'John Carter': they're exactly the same. You could switch titles.
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.
In the olden days, of course, cigarette companies would pay to have their product advertised in movies and to have actors smoke cigarettes.[Ronald Reagan used to do it.]
What do you spend $200 million on, with a film? I can't wrap my brain around that one.
The reality is that every movie is a new business. Nobody says, 'Hey, let's go down to the Pantages Theater, I hear a Warner Brothers picture is playing there.' Or, 'Let's go to this theater, I hear the film came in on budget.' It'd be ridiculous.
Sometimes I have chosen to see films just by their posters.
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.
I absolutely loathe adverts. I won't go into the cinema until 20 minutes after the film is due to start because there are so many.
You could go out with a camcorder tomorrow and make a movie with virtually no money, but promoting a tiny low-budget movie costs $20 million. And the money they spend on the big movies is astronomical.
If you're not grown up enough to understand that a trailer is not done by the director, then fine. Judge the movie from the trailer.
