Peter Dinklage Quotes

I think what good television does well is that it shows characters evolving.

I think often times on Joss Whedon's shows he can make you hate a character for a period and then love the character. He does it effortlessly.

Usually when you have a sequel, the character always stays the same and that's true basically of 'Rocky III,' 'IV' and 'V.' He didn't really change.

In film, because you know where the ending is, characters can change, but in television, you substitute revelation for change, and that can be hard to pull off.

There is always that thought that you might get stuck with a character. But there's always the notion that every character is always evolving.

Characters can become boring. That's what's tricky about television. It goes on and on - you're playing this same character for five seasons and it gets easy to fall into just walking on the set and assuming you know how to play a scene.

I've often said the reader knows every bit as much about Thorne as I do. When I created him for 'Sleepyhead,' I was determined he should be a character who would develop, book by book, change and grow as we all do, and who - crucially - would be unpredictable.

One pleasure of working on a trilogy is watching characters warp and grow over time.

The thing that intrigued me about 'Breaking Bad' from day one was the idea of taking a character and transforming him.

At the heart of every story is conflict - whether external or internal, make it a good one, and remember that this problem is going to shape your character, leaving her forever changed.

I tend to relate to a character in terms of the arc: what's interesting is where he starts versus where he ends up.

I think everybody goes through changes, and the same should be said for fictional characters, especially ones that you follow on television.

Every actor wants to have a character that changes, that has some kind of movement, that gets from point A to point B, that doesn't just supply one note.

I like books that have razor-sharp plotting that snaps and moves along. It's not about the main character being different at the end. I don't want my main character to be different in the end. I still want him committed to his ideas, to be steadfast, true and loyal.

I'm trying to make all the characters change and grow, or regress.

In TV, you may think your character's one thing for two episodes, and then the third episode it could be something different.

There are so few shows that are willing to take risks with their characters in the way that 'Homeland' does. And yet, the audience still comes back and loves those characters.

Well, I don't think characters change. I think they become more revealed. I don't think you really can change a character on a show.

Novels demand a certain complexity of narrative and scope, so it's necessary for the characters to change.

If you change a character too much, the audience falls out of love with the character, but characters need to evolve and grow over the years.

For me, one thing I love is having an arc for a character.

I like a character that is still alive and is necessarily thinking, and either grows or diminishes or whatever.

Watching something like 'Orange is the New Black' - the development of the characters is amazing. Or 'Breaking Bad' or 'Mad Men' - those shows went on for so long. You become so invested in those characters, and I think that's a pretty magic thing.

I care more, and I think readers do also, for characters in a state of transformation.

The Duffers like that; they like watching their characters grow.