Rhea Chakraborty Quotes

It costs a lot of money to release a movie. What you'd call art-house movies - movies that don't have big stars or big budgets - they're very hard for distributors to get behind 'em and take chances.

Film is the most expensive, highest risk industry in the world.

We make movies for the cineplex. They're designed for wide release. They're designed to be seen by a lot of people and eventually make money.

I think that, oftentimes, what people say is, 'We need an actress who'll be able to greenlight a movie,' and my counterargument to that is always that, when it comes to a teen movie, you have very few people who can greenlight a movie.

Movies are an expensive business.

What do you spend $200 million on, with a film? I can't wrap my brain around that one.

A movie like House of the Dead with around $7 million budget or Alone in the Dark with around $16 million budget are much easier to make profit than the typical $50 million major motion picture.

If you look at film, distribution is pre-bought. If you've paid for the distribution, you say, 'I have to make sure it's a film that gets enough butts in the seats.' I think that's the problem: It becomes prohibitively expensive, and you can't develop films for a smaller amount of money.

The long and short of it is that I am now in a position in England to green light movies, and that's really excellent - not high-budget movies, but movies none the less.

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.

Quite honestly, it's too tough to get your movies made and then also to get out there and sell them.

Movies are getting more and more expensive to distribute. You need a lot of money to get people into theaters.

I use to watch like maybe three or four movies, five days out of the week. I was a movie buff, but I really didn't know what it was like behind the scenes, or the whole political process of it.

When American producers see my film, they think that I had a big budget to do it, like 23 million. But in fact I had 10 percent of that budget. I did 'Mars et Avril' for only 2.3 million.

Here's the thing about movies, all movies end up on television. That's their life. Whether you like it or not, I don't care how much money you spend on it, or how big or broad the film is, or who the actors are in it, eventually it's all coming out of the box.

Just selling through a movie theater is not ever going to be a viable way to make money back on a movie anymore.

Trying to convince Warner Bros. to make a $30 million 'Veronica Mars' movie just wasn't going to happen, for understandable reasons.

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.

Big studio comedies are such a headache.

The fact is, it's hard to release movies.

It's a good time to be making movies, despite the cynicism people have about Hollywood.

I think the movie industry has to pay attention that we need to make good quality films, or we are never going to get the business back.

I can make a movie for $5M, which used to be a routinely low, independent movie, but there's no such thing as that any more.

The film business has changed hugely. You seem to spend about 30 per cent of the time producing the films and 70 per cent talking about it.

I think to do a proper independent movie, in my experience, it takes 22 or 23 days to shoot. That was 'Party Girl' or 'House of Yes.' But now with the digital camera, the budgets have gotten smaller, and the days have gotten shorter.