Seriously, though: studios need money. That’s absolutely true. They need to make a profit. They HAVE to at least break even. But no one with real ambition is going to actually make a movie for money. If that’s their prime motivation, I doubt that they are going to get very far.

I’m in the process of writing a script right now, but I’m not doing it for money. I’m doing it to prove myself. I’m doing it because I believe that this is something I’m suppose to do. To tell the truth, I’ve hardly given money a second thought.

Exactly! Well said! You can’t really blame a studio for continuing to try and rake in guaranteed cash, but how often have we seen lousy, rushed, and ill-concieved sequels made purely for the sake of the dollar? For me, it ruins the feel and integrity of previous films and the franchise as a whole when they pump out a piece of garbage to try and squeeze out a little more profit. Nothing wrong with a sequel or a remake as long as it at least TRIES to maintain what made the original film a classic in the first place. Doesn’t have to be word-for-word, doesn’t have to avoid taking liberties to expand the story, but it should at least keep the originals in mind by honoring them with a well-thought-out and fan-rewarding film.

Just my thoughts…anyone agree or disagree or can tell me something I’m missing??

What do you think of a film like The Fall (directed by Tarsem Singh) which Singh spent all of his own money on it because he said he NEEDED to make the film not for monetary reasons but for artistic ones. I remember him even saying during the commentary, “I’m poor but I’m happy like a pig in shit.”

You have said that you think Matthew Mcconaughey is an underrated actor. He is not a bad actor he just repeatedly does bad movies. He gets paid yes but that seems to be all he cares about.

Do you think there is a difference between the way Matthew Mcconaughey picks a role and the way Leonardo Dicaprio or Russel Crowe picks one? Who ends up in better movies? Do you think it makes a difference when money isn’t the only concern?

While I agree with most of your points, I’d say that Michael Bay probably does have the ambition to thrill and entertain, and make films which are ‘spectacular’. You can see that he genuinely enjoys the types of films he makes.

A more fair example would be the types of directors and studios who have no particular vision, and churn out schlock. The makers of The Ernest-goes-to-_____ and Air-bud movies for example.

for young film makers who dream of becoming full time directors
the odds of you actually making a living from film making are not great. If money is your main motivation then there are much easier ways to go about making money then to spend your life in the incredibly soul destroying profession of film making. You have to have a much bigger motivation than making money. there are so many struggling actors and directors out there who really do make some huge sacrifices because they love what it is they are chasing. They love to act or to tell stories first and foremost. If they are able to make a living from it all the better but their main motivation is not that one day they may become millionaires.

I mean john you just made a film. Did you make it to make money or because you would like to tell stories through film?
what was your main driving force?
Love of film or a love of money?

What do you think John?