A Quote by Marti Noxon

If you made a movie of 'Sharp Objects,' chances are that it would be a smaller film, but as a TV show, it can reach a lot of people. — © Marti Noxon
If you made a movie of 'Sharp Objects,' chances are that it would be a smaller film, but as a TV show, it can reach a lot of people.
'The Sopranos,' for instance, is arguably the best cable show of all time. They could have made a movie, but that show ended so perfectly, it would almost be a disadvantage to make a movie like that. Then again, if you made a 'Sopranos' movie, people would be lined around the block to go see it.
I would define independent film as a movie that is not financed by any of the smaller film companies. Because then, those are movies that in all likelihood are made without stars. And then they have to rely just on the material.
I'm very grateful for work especially in film industry. It's highly competitive and there are a lot of people standing behind me jumping at the opportunity to only do one thing, like one movie or one TV show or one episode.
TV show's really quick. You're in, you're out. A film usually takes a lot longer. However, a voiceover is very much like TV in the sense that it's really quick. For example, I did the movie Planes in one day.
I'm quite loud. When I was in film and TV, people were always saying, 'Oh Kelly, make it smaller, make it smaller.'
I would make the movie industry more like the television industry. TV is more material driven. In TV, you can break new stars. TV can take more chances.
There are a lot of people out there who offer roles to actors because they'll elevate their movie to a place the movie would never reach.
I'd love to do movies and be on TV. But I think if I transitioned into TV/film completely, I would really miss singing and dancing. It would be ideal to be cast in a movie musical!
I think when I got drawn to film, I didn't know it was a business. I mean, like most filmmakers, I probably saw more films than a lot of people when I was a kid. But I watched them on TV as well. I was no purist about it. I spent lots of time in movie theaters, but I also watched a lot of films on TV.
I learned that getting a movie made in Hollywood is a near impossibility, and the process can be a wild adventure. TV is a lot more consistently productive - no offense to the beautiful world of feature film.
On another level this film talks about that. We had tremendous freedom while making this film. We never thought about marketing. It wasn't a film made to sell merchandise or products or to reach millions of people around the world. It was a film made to say what I really felt.
Filming a movie is different from a TV show because film is a lot quicker, you get to see the character progress and grow all in one script, and in television, you wait for a weekly update on each character.
Like, if you are a celebrity, then anyone will let you be in a film or on a TV show, and if you're an actor, chances are if you are successful, you are becoming a celebrity.
What's frustrating to me is when, on a low-budget movie, people don't take chances. A big-budget movie, that script's your bible; nobody's going to risk going off the page. But when you're doing a very low-budget film, why not take some chances, intellectually, artistically?
There's a lot of different parts to me, so it makes total sense to me that I would do a big TV show or studio movie and then do a free comedy show the next day. They both feel equally important to me.
It [TV] is the cancer of film. It's why people can't be educated to film. In the late '60s, we expected to see a movie or two every week and be stimulated, excited and inspired. And we did. Every week after week. Antonioni, Goddard, Truffaut - this endless list of people. And then comes television and home video. I know how to work exactly for the big screen, but it doesn't matter what I think about the art of movie-making versus TV.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!