Quotes About Viewer

Ultimately, you have to meet a realistic setting on screen with some imagination as a viewer, as that is what creates a story.

Without sounding defensive, I would say that sometimes TV critics assume that after a few episodes the writers 'finally understand the characters,' and as a writer I often feel that what really has happened is that the viewer has gotten to know the characters. It's a natural process.

My stupid ambition is to make a film that's not like any other - one that has its own kind of logic and hooks viewers without making them think too much. It's a film I'd love to see, one in which after 10 minutes the audience isn't able to predict the whole thing.

We're going to try to create some programs that are going to generate viewer interest and appointment viewing. We still will have news on Headline News.

I love Vines. You make this 6.4-second drama, and you can reach 6 million viewer, and make people laugh. I find it so fabulous.

What makes these loglines complete and effective? Two things: imagination and intrigue. They summarize the movie in a way that a viewer can imagine the story, and they do so with enough intrigue that they make the reader want to watch the film.

There is no pleasure in being duped by the text into a helpless viewer, but there is considerable pleasure in selectively viewing the text for points of identification and distance, in controlling one's relationship with the represented characters in the light of one's own social and psychological context.

An artist can have an intention, but the viewer has their own subjective experience.

In fact, my entire childhood consisted of looking at photographs in which the viewer sees the ball behind the line, looking through the goal net, and the poor goalkeeper in front of the net.

I knew interpreting the emotional subtext in the speech and apperance of real humans was completely different from interpreting it in shows and serials. (For one thing, the shows and serials were trying to communicate with the viewer. As far as I could tell, real humans usually didn't know what the hell they were doing.)

The news was once a placid ritual designed to amp down the viewer's political reflex.

Films that are entertainments give simple answers but I think that's ultimately more cynical, as it denies the viewer room to think. If there are more answers at the end, then surely it is a richer experience.

The apologists for the medium claim that all sorts of interesting information is provided by television. This is true, but as it is much easier to produce programs that titillate rather than elevate the viewer, what most people watch is unlikely to help in developing the self.

Watching movies today is a passive experience, and there is little demand on the viewer's imagination.

The historian, predisposed to verbal evidence, who reads about rather than looks at objects, becomes dependent upon secondhand impressions and is helpless when critics disagree or interpose their own extraneous judgments between the work and the viewer.