Unless you're doing a feature piece, which is going to be longer, and you have more time to get into stuff.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Whenever you're adapting something that's a 12- or 14-hour read down to something that has to be around two hours, there's going to be some cuts.
I would rather make feature movies because, let's face it, you take more time. You take seven days to do a show, and you take three or four months to do a movie.
Whether you're a programmer or a seamstress, it's all about new techniques, simplifying old techniques, and consolidating steps. Making things go faster - but not worse.
When I was a student and rushing to finish a project, my gut instinct was usually to keep adding all kinds of features. It's a way of papering over the fact that you haven't quite nailed your concept yet.
In fashion, you need to present something new every six months, but it takes time to study things. Development is very important.
The cost of adding a feature isn't just the time it takes to code it. The cost also includes the addition of an obstacle to future expansion. The trick is to pick the features that don't fight each other.
When when my first feature opportunity came along, I wasn't prepared, but we did it in about 17 days.
It's not necessarily the amount of time you spend at practice that counts; it's what you put into the practice.
I am kind of being a little selective in what I do, so it takes a little bit longer, but it's worth it in the end.
Another time factor is output: proofing and printing. That is, getting your work out of the computer and onto paper and having it satisfy you. It can be time consuming and expensive.
No opposing quotes found.