The pace of television is very different from film.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
As a film director and as film actors, you get used to a certain rhythm that's slow. But with TV, it's hurry, hurry, hurry, hurry, hurry. It's a different pace.
I actually prefer film to TV, but I don't know why. I think there's just a different energy.
Cinema is so slow and boring compared to television.
I think film requires a lot more patience and concentration and each day you're keeping the entire picture in your head throughout a two to three month film shoot. Whereas TV, especially half hour, is like doing a play a week or live theater.
I think there are certain technical things about acting that change between working in film and television. Everything definitely slows down and we have more time in film.
Television has changed. Some feels like good old-fashioned TV, and some of it feels more filmic and more natural and more nuanced. I don't think there's any clear line any longer between film and TV.
I think that because television is shot on a really fast schedule, and it gets piped into your home on a smaller screen, it's much more about character and dialogue in a lot of cases than the movies are.
In some ways, you could argue, television is doing far more interesting work than the movies. It's more fulfilling.
Television moves fast, and you don't have the indulgences you have when you're shooting movies of so many takes because there are tight deadlines.
There's so little difference between television and features as far as you make the film. I mean, you have less money and it's a little quicker, but the concept is all on television.