A Quote by Keenen Ivory Wayans

I prefer the smaller budget versus the bigger budget because the mentality that goes along with big budget filmmaking doesn't really suit me; the mind-set that money is the answer.
Everything that I've done so far has had a bigger budget than the last, but I've never ever felt the benefit of the bigger budget because the ideas always exceed the budget.
The size of the budget doesn't make that much of a difference because the kind of issues I have on a low budget film I I have on a big budget film as well, but they're just much bigger.
The size of the budget doesn't make that much of a difference because the kind of issues I have on a low budget film I have on a big budget film as well, but they're just much bigger.
The bigger the budget, the less an audience is trusted, and that's the difference between a big-budget film and a small-budget film.
When you raise the budget, you make creative compromises. The higher the budget goes, the more cuts in your movie happen. When people talk about how movies are watered down, that's a direct reflection of money and budget. The less money you spend; the more risks you can take. That doesn't mean it will be successful, but at least you can try different stuff. The higher your budget is, the less you can do that.
The bigger the budget, the more you can afford to compromise with Mother Nature. The smaller the budget, the more you're like, "Okay, well, we have to do this, but how can we afford to do it." That's when you have to get really creative on the business side, as far as making compromises.
It can have an enormous effect because big budget movies can have big budget perks, and small budget movies have no perks, but what is the driving force, of course, is the script, and your part in it.
I am very grateful that the Russian budget has a yearly budget for film. And usually this budget goes to "auteur" cinema, which actually needs this support and which indeed contributes to creating "national culture".
And I like being able to go back and forth, and I don't really care if it's a small budget or big budget or studio or independent, as long as it's got a story that's compelling and there's enough money to make the picture.
The whole reason one wants to do lower budget films is because the lower the budget, the bigger the ideas, the bigger the themes, the more interesting the art.
I feel that your ambitions should always exceed the budget. That no matter what budget you're doing, you should be dreaming bigger than the budget you have, and then it's a matter of reigning it in to the reality. You try to make things count.
Small films, made on shoe-string budget work in big centres, and for that a substantial amount of budget should be set aside for marketing.
This is a wrong notion that I work in big budget films. Infact, usually low budget films are offered to me, they come and say it's a good story but they don't have the money.
So it [3D] is something I'm still learning, it's fresh, so if the budget allows I'll do it again and just see how far it goes because it's the frontier, it's more interesting. It's still expensive, the projection system can be annoying sometimes, it's not really regulated or perfected yet, so it's still expensive. If I do a lower budget I'll just do 2D, but if the budget allows I think I'll try 3D.
What's amazing to me? General Electric has a bigger budget for - special interest budget than all of the oil companies combined, and yet nobody says anything.
There shouldn't be budget problems. There is so much money that goes untapped. If every athlete gave 5% of what they earned, there wouldn't be any budget problems.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!