Quote

I feel like if we can use the combination of basically data-driven hunches and bet on really first-class talent to deliver the shows, that I think we could do as well as the networks do, who basically have a 75 to 80 percent failure rate for new shows anyway - even after all that development and pilot work.

As I start to think about what I want to do next, there are eight or nine networks I would be thrilled to work with. I remember developing at FX and the executives there telling me, 'We don't want to do shows that 20 million people kind of like; we want to do the show that 2 million people really like.' That's such a refreshing thing to hear.

A lot of shows fly under the radar for the first couple seasons and then become successful. It doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the success of the show or how much the network is behind it.

Networks don't want a show with a continuing story. There's no backend potential.

I actually think there's a potential, a crazy potential, that network TV could become something valuable and worthwhile, just because of fear on the part of the networks.

Networks can typically invest tens of millions of dollars in the development of a pilot. And if they put the show on the air and it fails, that's all lost money. There's no monetization of a broken series.

Network television is all talk. I think there should be visuals on a show, some sense of mystery to it, connections that don't add up.

I know that I'm a quirky guy, to say the least. I don't know how easy I am to cast for a network. It hasn't been because I haven't tried. But am I dying to be on a TV show? No.

You know how trends go with television. Next year, the networks might not be open to taking risks.

I really was interested in doing something for a premium channel like Showtime or HBO, just because you get to really let loose. I think they let their storylines go wherever they want, and it's really a special place to work.