Television theatre, as is implied in its name, should rely on adaptations of scripts written for the theatre.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I'd say there's more of a difference between a play and movie to TV than there is between TV and movies. But there's something involved in the repetition of things that require something different from me in order to sign onto a script.
All of my scripts are based on other people's novels. Generally, I consider myself as one who writes for theatre. I do not see film work as a continuation of writing for theatre. It is more of an interruption of the writing process.
I think television scripts have become really intriguing and well-done. And writers have stopped drawing any actual line between film and television they used to never cross.
The modern economics of the theater is such that we write plays with fewer and fewer characters.
Most adaptations of plays I hate, because they don't envision something as cinema at all, you know?
I love TV, don't get me wrong. But with film, you're just banging out this one product, and you're not waiting on another script. You have your script. It's great in that way. It's as close to theater as you can get.
Writing for television is completely different from movie scriptwriting. A movie is all about the director's vision, but television is a writer's medium.
The movie adaptations of stage musicals that I've seen, without exception, in my opinion don't work. A lot of people would disagree with me.
Movies are not scripts - movies are films; they're not books, they're not the theatre.
Theater is so precious about each word - not that it's a bad thing, but you definitely never stray from the script.