A Quote by David Cross

As for Tenacious D, of course it could work as a full length movie; all it requires is a great writer and great director with an ability to think outside of conventional film comedy.
I booked a horror film called 'Where the Devil Hides.' It's... you know, a horror film. But it was the first full-length movie I'd ever done, and it got me my visa, and I could start work.
With a director it's all about the work; I'd work with a great director over - you know, I'm not the kind of actor who that doesn't go, 'I want to play this role.' It's more like, 'I want to work with this director,' regardless of what the role is because if it's a good director, you'll probably find a good role because it's a decent film. But a mediocre director will always make a mediocre movie.
I have to say that whatever decisions I make, I really do think that movie making is a director's medium. They are the people that ultimately shape the film, and a director can take great material and turn it into garbage if they are not capable of making a good movie.
I don't care about being remembered. I'm not a wonderful writer or anything. This should be reserved for people who really did something great. I think it's a mistake to consider the movie director as if they were great artists.
Science is actually, I think, a very creative venture. It requires thinking outside of the box. It requires an ability to be open to new experiences and an ability to change course in the middle, try a different path, or go about things in a new way.
There's this message to comedians in particular, that you shouldn't write it, and a television writer should write it. And that's a prevailing conventional wisdom that I think is really wrong. That's not to say that television writers aren't great, but I think that the belief that some comedy writer's going to be able to capture your voice is naive.
Ask anyone who makes a full-length movie that's shown in the art world if they'd rather have a career as a film director or as an artist. Invariably, they'd rather be known as a film director, because that's what they are. But there's not really a system of independent distribution anymore that allows for that, and so the art world has kind of become all-enveloping. It's absorbed all of these disciplines that don't have a home anymore.
Richard Lester is a wonderful director, a great comedy director, of course.
It would be great to make a movie that had the style of a great '30s film or a movie of David's Lynch or some other director I love that could also make money, because that would say to the corporation, "Yes, you can make money and still do art." But it's tricky.
I've always thought Ed Burns was a profoundly underrated actor. He's a great director, obviously. A great director/writer. But I think he's a stunning actor, too.
There is a director for a reason, because a director knows what's best for the movie. You just give your director as much as you can to work with, and hopefully, the decisions they make are going to be great.
We can find a great sector or business, but we're investing so early that unless there's this tenacious grit, determination, resourcefulness, ability to evolve, it won't work.
I want to work with Sriram Raghavan, Imtiaz Ali, Karan Johar, and, of course, any other director who is offering a great role to play in a film.
I think Jesse Eisenberg is such a great writer. He was a great director and really tough.
You can have an amazing director and terrible script, and the film's not going to be great. But if you have the most incredible script and an okay director, you could still get a really good film.
If you have a script that's not great, if you have a great director, you can make a great movie, but if you have a great script with a director who's not good, never are you going to have a good movie.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!