As a reader and as a viewer, usually when I watch a movie, I'm caught up enough in the movie that I'm not breaking it down to the details anyway.
Literature is the art of writing something that will be read twice; journalism what will be grasped at once.
If the movie is quiet I generally feel the audience is busy. That's when they're working.
You have to surrender less when you see a film than when you go and see something live.
If you're not engaged in the writing and it doesn't grab you then you just don't want to do it.
There is a lot of good television out there, stuff that is better for you than 'Stranger Things,' that, critically, people would be like, 'This is an important show,' but I would press you to find a show that's more watchable. That's hard to do.
Whatever I'm throwing out there in my work, you either catch that detail because you're ready to catch it, but if you're not, that's OK - you're still being entertained.
The older I get, the more interesting the part has to be. Bobby Knight is extremely interesting.
I want an audience that's passionate, that can be engaged.
I prefer film. I think it moves slower, it gives you a chance to kind of get a feel for things. Sometimes TV moves so fast that you don't even remember what you've done.
I think you can lose yourself more easily in a film than in the theater.
To me, a good film is one that can keep me engaged for two hours.
Video games just can't compare with the variety and intensity of reading.
Communicators need to figure out how well do they engage people, and they should not talk one word longer than people are engaged.
I always felt like, if I started feeling stale, my audience is probably feeling it before me.
I like the ability to engage intellectually with someone. I get so bored so quickly, so if you can't keep me interested, then I'm out.
I don't particularly want to go to a film to make me think, though I want it to be about something.
But I'm the worst sort of gamer because I don't stick to things and I don't really care about winning. It's the same with sports and stuff like that. If it's too difficult I'll stop.
I love radio! I think radio, done right, can have more influence and have a greater connection with people and be more deeply meaningful than another medium like TV, which is on all the time and you're paying attention to it half the time.
When you're on TV, you come into people's homes. In theater and film, they go to you - to the temple of the cinema or theater. And it's very different.
When fans know they are being rewarded, they are more engaged.
We have already noticed the difference in the attitude of a spectator and of an agent or participant. The former is indifferent to what is going on; one result is just as good as another, since each is just something to look at. The latter is bound up with what is going on; its outcome makes a difference to him.
The thing about radio is that it's got an intimate feel. What I like is that you don't have to give it your full attention - you can still do something else that the same time, whereas TV is all-enveloping: you have to sit there and pay attention to it, and give yourself over to it. You have to surrender to it, but you don't with radio.
I think audiences can feel when they're being served a filler episode.
