I've been reading an interview with Alan Moore, writer of Watchmen, the soon to be released film adaptation of one of my favourite comics, and at some point he says the following:
"If you haven't got any money, you're going to need lots and lots of imagination. Which is why you'll get brilliant movies by people working upon a shoestring, like the early John Waters movies. People are pushed into innovation by the restrictions of their budget. The opposite is true if they have $100 million, say, pulling a figure out of the air, to spend upon their film, then they somehow don't see the need for giving it a decent story or decent storytelling. It seems like those values just go completely out the window. There's an inverse relationship there"
I've been saying that for years. It's always nice to have an opinion or trend you've spotted reaffirmed by someone you try to take creative inspiration from.
If you think about it, it's true of almost anything. Any film franchise for example that is an original IP in the first instance and has to struggle with funding but later gets a massive budget produces what I call "the Matrix affect". The first film will be very good; the following films will be missing something, despite the huge budget.
I'm fairly certain this applies to anything. You don't try as hard if you have more money because there's no point. Contractors working on government projects for example have a tendency to go over budget and over deadlines because they see their funding as being unlimited and it inevitably leads to sloppy results.
Maybe I should apply this logic to my own life and ask for my pay to be cut.