Henry Selick Quotes

Basically, movies come down to economics, and they're always too expensive. From a producer's point of view, an actor is either going to make him money or save him money.

It seems there's a sliding scale between the money they spend on a movie and its creativity.

As a producer or financier, you are going to go where you get the best bang for your buck.

In the U.K., there's absolutely no money for television. So you can do pretty much whatever you want. They're not losing money on any of the shows, so they'll give you a lot of creative freedom. In the United States, there are millions and millions of dollars at stake, so they need a sure formula.

Now in a way, money is money, and if it's going to increase our audience, that's fine.

The more people's money you take to do something, the more inputs you get.

If I give five flops, I won't get a job. You have to perform at the box office when you are at the top. No one is running a charity here. People are putting huge amounts of money to make movies, and they want the films to be successful. They have invested money in you, so it is your duty to make sure the film does well.

It's a sin to have your films not to make money.

Once a film costs a certain amount of money, things have to round off.

That's a very odd notion because it involves seeing money up there on the screen - if something cost $5 million to make, they want to see that $5 million up there.

If someone doesn't believe enough in your product to put money in to it, then you should rethink how good the product is.

You have to spend a lot to make a lot. It's not like I'm sitting on top of a pile of money.

I don't see me doing $100 million films because $100 million films, the very nature of them, you need to offend as few people as possible just to make your money back.

The lower the cost of the film, the more you can experiment.

In order to have the next generation of modems, you would need to pour in even more R&D spending. We came to the conclusion that we're going to have a tough time to really see that we are going to succeed in the modems business.

Hollywood executives believe that money is both the be-all and end-all to the moviemaking process.

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.

The key, I think, from a business point of view, is to learn how to be efficient in making a record that's not too expensive, so that you're not going crazy spending tons of money making a product that might not ever return that money.

There is no free lunch, so if you're playing with the big train set - on big movies - it's a lot of money they're entrusting you with, and you have to get that money back for them. I don't take that responsibility lightly.

Money would be no object when compared with the value of the acquisition.

We have so many films that we can fit into the slate a year, and we spend $100 million on those films in order to make $400 million dollars. We don't spend $20 million in hopes of eking out $40 million.

'Radio' was made at a budget of Rs 6 crore. Thankfully, the money invested in making the film was recovered through music.

When you're spending $200 million on a movie, you need to make $400 million to break even. It's a spectacle.

Disney had made such a great deal of money on Snow White that the banks gave him the go-ahead on the next three films. But he was heavily dependent on the foreign market.

I suspect that we might actually start selling some records with these artists in about 10 years. Some the people who invested, they're a little tight-because it's a lot of money to start up a company.