You can muscle your way to the top as long as you’re part of the production, which I am. I’m knitted into the money, so it’s very hard to extricate me from the decision-making dynamic.
If I’d been offered ‘Spider-Man,’ I probably would have done it. I don’t think it’s bad to go and do those things.
If you judge everything by how photographically real it looks, then you’re missing out on a lot of what art is about and what communication is. There are ambiguities in life, and that should be reflected in art, cinema, and storytelling, I think.
You really have to be careful with the clues you lay into the film – if they’re too heavy-handed, or you’ve pandered to a slightly stupider audience, then you’ve spoiled it for the people who are even slightly smart.
‘Doctor Who’ is pretty dark, I think. Generally it’s dark; it’s always been dark.
The whole idea of genre and categorising films is a critic’s construct. For me, I just try and make stories and see where they go, but there’s nothing wrong with horror; there’s nothing wrong with romantic comedies.
The only genre I have any problem with is musicals, but that’s just my own tastes it’s nothing to do with the films.
There’s no way you can shoot low-budget stuff on lots of locations. It’s just a practicality thing because every time you move, it costs time and money.
The things that inspire people to think are what keeps a film alive.
The reality of any location in Britain being used in a TV program of a film is that something bad is going to happen! That’s the nature of drama. Most of the things that get made or basically grisly detective shows about murders, accidents or medical dramas.
I think CGI is interesting, but it’s too expensive and limiting in terms of what you can do shot-by-shot.