Josh Radnor Quotes

The difference between film and TV is the pace. You don't have the leisure of time in television.

The only thing I can ever do is make a film that I can respond to. I could not make a romantic comedy for college girls. I wouldn't know how that works.

Hollywood films are alienating to the spectator because they use too much dialogue, too much explication and leave no space for the viewer. They depress me.

Hollywood has cracked emotions very well with animation, and that is where India will eventually cover because it is an emotional country, and we just want a right story to tell, which will stir the right emotions with the audience.

A lot of my favorite movies come from nuggets of truth.

When you are working on a movie, you have to ensure that the journey of characters ends in two hours.

In films, I do programming I can never do in television. I have fun. Both mediums are content-led, but they are so diverse in their psychology that they cannot have a meeting point.

Live action movies are someone else's story. With animation, audiences can't think that. Their guards are down.

Some things that work in a comic don't work in a film, and vice versa.

It all comes down to what is best for those particular genres, and if you believe in the stories that you're telling and the characters that you like that you want to tell those stories with, you can pretty much apply it to any genre.

With 'Girls,' Marnie was a slow burn; she shifted over time. With 'Get Out,' I was suddenly faced with the pressure that, like, I need an audience to know Rose deeply within 15 minutes, within a couple scenes. And that's not something I've ever done before.

I think you can achieve things in television that you can't achieve on film, and I think we managed to do a lot of that in the first season of 'Lost.'

Film as a medium, like a novel as a medium, possesses a unique ability to communicate. Film is capable of communicating in a way that no other medium can, and I would say the same for the novel.

I don't really make movies with an intention other than asking myself, 'Do I love the character, and do I love the story?'

A great director is someone who makes you feel like you're moving forward.

Some of the storytelling we did in 'Battlestar Galactica,' to graft that onto 'Star Trek,' it would have required changing the entire format of the show and, really, a different taste of the show.

It's funny: the reason I did 'Beautiful Creatures' was the same reason I did everything else - even though it was a genre film and existed at a more studio level, the script and the characters were so well written.

Every director knows it is his job to be manipulative. When you make an edit, you are trying to manipulate.

I'm not a big fan of there being voiceovers in movies. I really prefer it when the film tells it story.

I was swept by the narrative structure of film... you can create a world, you can destroy it, you can do what you want with it and serve it to people just the way you like.

Obviously, a theatrical masterpiece needs more than a plot; many television shows are nothing but plot, and it is doubtful that they will stand the test of time. But I also don't think that making fun of plot or acting like we're all somehow 'above' structure is such a good idea.

What I want to impart on any movie I work on is I want to make it entertaining. That's what I feel I do.

My position was that the film begins with the first frame and that the film should be doing a job at that point.

When I was making short films for the TV show 'Naalaya Iyakunar,' I wasn't just competing but making films that I could potentially show at international festivals.

As a filmmaker, I don't want to limit myself to one kind of movie. After 'Headhunters,' I went to Hollywood and read a lot of scripts: lots of action thrillers and heist movies, and superhero films.