What's interesting as a director, and even studio executives don't understand this, is that if you're directing a $200 million movie with six million people, it's the same as directing a $25,000 movie with three people. The director's job is, "You stand there and do that," or "This is the shot I want." The logistics change, but the job remains the same. And I enjoy the job.

I'm very lucky to have worked in the '70s. It's a different industry and distribution is in a state of flux. It's all different platforms, they're doing this video-on-demand thing and also playing the film theatrically. It's funny to me: In the States it's an arthouse movie.

Because of the cumbersome nature of filmmaking, it's only recently that it has become available to the masses, with digital equipment and laptop computers. You can now actually make a pretty serviceable movie for very little money by yourself.

It's not that I don't want to, it's just that there's no money in it. By that I mean the way the video business works now, the artist and the record label send out a song to a bunch of different directors and say, 'What would you do with this?' Then everyone has to come up with an idea and bid on it. For me, it's like, 'Hey, you want me to do it? Then pay me. I'm not auditioning for you.'

The idea of doing a children's film is different, but quite honestly I like doing anything - any genre. I've only made one Western, which was 'Three Amigos,' but I would love to make a serious Western. I'm just wide open.

After 'The Blues Brothers,' I wanted to do a good musical number with real dancers and shoot it correctly.

The field (of filmmaking) is suddenly sexy, ... so it's deluged with these wannabes who say 'I don't want to be a secret agent, I'll be a filmmaker.' I think a lot of people are really kind of naive.