A Quote by Joel Edgerton

I have an issue with the commercial aspect of moviemaking: I don't see why a movie can't make a lot of money and also be good. — © Joel Edgerton
I have an issue with the commercial aspect of moviemaking: I don't see why a movie can't make a lot of money and also be good.
It's kinda crazy to say, but the way Jay [Duplass] and I stay afloat, because we don't make particularly commercial fare that makes a lot of money, is that we make things cheaply and we make things small. We would kind of be afraid to go make a $100 million movie because you have to do certain things to it to have it make its money back.
A million pounds sounds like a lot of money now that I'm saying it. But in terms of moviemaking, it's not a lot of money. And yet you can see what can be done with that, with the talent of a great cinematographer and great director and actors.
A good movie is a movie that you could see over and over again, not a movie that wins a Oscar, or a movie that makes a lot of money. It's a movie that you personally can watch over and over again. That, to me, is a measure of a good movie.
I never make a movie for awards consideration. I will use the hope of getting an Academy Award a) to honor the people who work so hard and also b) it's the greatest Good Housekeeping seal in the world. It's the greatest brand. It's as good as Louis Vuitton and Dior in the world of moviemaking. It's the Super Bowl.
Where is the Scarlett Johansson superhero movie? I don't understand it, why is it taking so long for this? This woman clearly shows that people want to go see her in the movies. ‘Lucy,’ didn't it beat ‘Hercules’ by a lot opening weekend, when it was made for a lot less? She shows that she kicks ass, she's a great actress. ‘Under the Skin’ is an incredible film, and why are we still waiting for a go-ahead on a superhero movie starring Scarlett Johansson? To me, it's a no-brainer. You want to make money, put Scarlett Johansson in a superhero movie!
Creative differences are legendary in this movie business, so we're really not exploring the creative-difference aspect as opposed to the money aspect, or the fact that something can come up in a movie and literally put the whole movie on the line, and this is where producers have to earn their keep.
There's a lot of money in selling marijuana. If you can do it legally, that's good. Why should all the criminals make the money? This is what people are thinking. If it's happening, if it's going to be legal, let's tax it and regulate it, like we do with everything else and make some money off this. I think that's one reason why people are talking this a little more seriously.
The movie business is not about the money. Of course, you need money to make the movie. If you have a small budget, adapt yourself. Having $200 million dollars doesn't ensure that you're definitely going to make a good movie. There's so many examples that prove that.
If you're producing a movie you're involved in every aspect of the movie and that can be daunting and then going and doing a movie where you're just an actor for hire, and you can kind of sit back and giggle where you can see somebody sitting over there wasting time and wasting money.
I figured, when I make a movie, especially earlier in my career, one thing I was going to make sure was that the movie doesn't cost a lot and that it has potential to make a lot of money. That's how you get respect in Hollywood.
You see I don't like to be really too commercial about things but in this business you've just got to be commercial otherwise the films don't make money and you don't make films and as a long as a commodity is selling it's silly to kill it dead.
I have respect for those who make money at art and do it well and smartly, because that commercial aspect keeps the world going and running, in a sense.
I grew up on movie sets, I'm comfortable on sets. A movie set is like a circus. I don't understand why moviemaking has to be such an insane environment.
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 have wasted the greater part of my life looking for money and trying to get along, trying to make my work from this terribly expensive paintbox, which is a movie. And I've spent too much energy on things that have nothing to do with making a movie. It's about two percent moviemaking and ninety-eight percent hustling. It's no way to spend a life.
I never understood using Kickstarter for commercial purposes. If you want to raise money for commercial purposes, I think you should give someone a dividend. They make money, then you make money. It should be an investment, whereas I think Kickstarter's true purpose is raising money for things that are in and of themselves justifying.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!