The worst thing that can happen is when you have gone weeks and months into elaborate sequences and the storyline of the film changes and you find out they don't need it. Sometimes you don't shoot those sequences, or they have been shot and then get edited out of the sequence you've shot gets changed and needs to be redone. That can be hard. It's not heartbreaking, but you do tend to think, "Och, all that work and effort." But that's filming, you know? You put all of these modular things into the pot, and sometimes they don't all get used.

The more we can put the camera in a better place, the more we can take the audience on a more extreme journey with that character.

The way that you have cut the film, you can take the audience out of the action if it becomes evident that there is a stunt double doing it rather than the actor. I'd rather stay with the character and the story point behind the fight, rather than cutting to a wide angle of the fight.

Everything today is such a massive visual show. It's very rare to get a film where the characters are raw and real - and you can take people back to where they are watching live cinema. With character-driven action. Not visual-driven action.

If a movie makes money, then it's a success.

I've always been very strong minded on character-based fights and character-based action. If you take the character out of the action and you just shoot it as an action sequence, the audience starts to lose connection.

The last thing you want is an injured actor. That, or having to use a stuntman too much.