A Quote by Roger Corman

I think the art film, or the auteur-driven film - and not only foreign, but domestic films following that path - can get a small share of the box office. And I think that small share may open up a little bit.
The problem with the British film industry is that it's really the American film industry, or a small branch of in lots of ways because of the common language. But it's great to see some individual voices still there. I think I probably gravitate towards a slightly more European, auteur model rather than the studio thing. I think it would be great if British films were a little bit more auteur driven.
I think the tools were always available, for decades and decades, to make your own film and be creative. I don't think people had to wait for YouTube to do this type of small project. YouTube, I think it's great. I have this idiotic satisfaction. And I think there's a bit of that in YouTube. You share, true, but it's centralized, and it's already sort of controlled. I'm more for something that's not a centralized medium. Like doing your own film and screening it yourself. You cannot control people doing that.
It's a myth that you'll know the box office result of any film. I don't think anybody can predict a film's fate accurately, otherwise nobody would make unsuccessful or flop films.
The box office in an arthouse film is always going to be small. We have to face this and overcome this.
To me, the box-office is basically the cost of film. If your film costs so much and your box-office is so much and a bit more, you are okay.
I am ably balancing big and small films. With every big film I do, I try to take up films that are high on content and small on budget.
I want to share what I have, and I'd rather share it with people that are a little bit more open-minded.
The effort always remains that my new film outdoes my last in terms of performance and gets better box office success. Box office is the sole reason why I do films.
I don't know if there's ever been a female-driven film or a male-driven film. I don't believe in that. I believe a film is a film - a movie can only work if everything about the film works.
I have never had the problem of finding a producer for my films. I think I am just lucky because my first film didn't do great box office business.
I think people are willing to take more of a risk on an indie film, about character, etc...but at the same time, when I work on projects that are substantially bigger, in a way they do feel small. Even though the catering is way better and we actually have someone shooting with real film.... The budgets are bigger but the story still feels small, like an indie film.
When you tell a film financier that you want to do a Shakespeare film, their face drops. Shakespeare films don't have a very wonderful history at the box office.
I did a small, small thing in Quiz Show, where I was really just a glorified extra. But, you know, New York actor, few days on a film set: Great! I was probably making subway fare on the play that I was doing at the time. I always think of The Underneath as the first film that I ever did.
So much of the downstream revenue is linked to that initial excitement, to how much revenue is produced in the domestic box office. For example, what we pay for a film three years later is highly correlated to how well it did in the box office.
There's only one barometer for the commercial success of a film and that's the box office. The obsession with box office doesn't annoy me. It's the main part of the business, if you get irritated with the main part then you're in trouble.
I hope I'm always lucky enough to be able to work in theater, TV, and big films and small films. I think there's advantages and disadvantages to all of them. The fact that this was a small film without much money and without much time made it rich in energy and momentum and drive when we were actually making it 'cause that's all you've got. You've just got the story and the people.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!