Everyone on 'The Goonies' and everyone on 'Lord Of The Rings' knew that we were a part of something that was going to be big.
The stuff I'm passionate about is what I write; it isn't multi-million-dollar franchise movies.
The system is not really particularly amenable to filmmakers who write and direct their own work. It's much more about the studio already having a property that has a marketable concept and then hiring the director on board.
The film industry is run by multinational media conglomerates and they have their perspective on what they need from their product. That's why we live in an era where you see reboots and sequels and remakes and prequels, all these old presents are re-wrapped and offered up as new gifts.
'Saw' really was like a student film for me; we expected it to go straight to video. I never expected anyone to see that film, and then it becomes one of the most successful horror franchises.
The movies have got more corporate, they're making fewer movies in general, and those they are making are all $200-$300m tent-pole releases that eat up all the oxygen.
I'm just trying to think what other sequels there were. There was the James Bond movies and not many. I think sequels have become a recent idea of franchising.
There have been so many 'James Bond' movies, 'Spiderman' films, 'Mission Impossible' series, etc. Is there any difference in the basic story? Yet, each time there's a release, people are excited.
I'm truly excited to be a part of two successful franchises - 'Yamla Pagla Deewana Phir Se' and now 'Housefull 4.'
I like the idea of R-rated franchises.
I have grown up watching franchise-based movies like 'Star Wars' and read 'Amar Chitra Katha' and had aspired to do cinema like that.
I think what 'Saw' did was really open up a huge branch of lots of these other movies that ultimately retroactively gave the first 'Saw' somewhat of a negative reputation.
I'm not contractually obligated to sequels on anything.
Getting a movie made is a miracle... because the studios are only interested in making 'The Avengers.'
I read certain articles about how all of the new filmmakers are immediately being given massive tentpoles, and there's a lot of original movies that we have now lost as a result of this. I don't want to call it a fad because I think it's a good thing. I think the movies are better as a result.
The comic book industry has turned into the wellspring for all of these movies that are all based on the comic books.
I'm not a huge fan of prequels and sequels and the cynical rush to make money on the back of books by other writers who are now dead.
The major studios don't differ very much from one another as they all operate under essentially the same principles and pressure.
When you do films that have multiple sequels, you develop a character for a film.
I don't want to direct a Marvel movie. I don't care about those mythologies.
You've got Marvel films, sequels, franchise movies, so much noise out there. You're trying to brand your entertainment. The musical is its own brand.
The reason why Hollywood cranks out so many sequels and adaptations is because the audience is so overwhelmed with choices, the only way to get them in the theater is to give them something familiar.
They're getting more and more experience on what to expect, and the Hellboy audience is such a faithful and fanatic audience as I am, and you have to really be very open about what you do.
The world has obviously changed in terms of the way filmmakers and actors and writers often look at their own careers. They all seem to want to include in their own process - along with some of their iconic and franchise-driven movies.
The landscape of cinema is not original. Not to say there aren't great movies being made, but it's much easier for studios to make movies that have built-in audiences. So it's all remakes, adaptations, a lot of remakes of adaptations.
