A Quote by Natalie Dormer

I'm glad that cinema is catching up to what television has known for a while: That three-dimensional, complex women get an audience engaged as much as the men. — © Natalie Dormer
I'm glad that cinema is catching up to what television has known for a while: That three-dimensional, complex women get an audience engaged as much as the men.
Three-dimensional, complex women get an audience engaged as much as the men. I’m a feminist in the true sense of the word. It’s about equality.
I continue to be known as a guy that plays really complex, three-dimensional characters.
We all know that television is better for women as they get into their 40s. You could be more three-dimensional, not just the wife or the mother.
The beauty of 'The Hunger Games' and also 'Game of Thrones,' in fairness, both projects have really complex, three-dimensional, contradictory, strong women... The writing of female characters is extraordinary and equal to the men.
It's very limited what women who look like me can do on television. You don't often see 'my type' on television unless she's a sidekick - certainly not a three-dimensional series regular who is pertinent to the plot.
It's true that in a lot of western feminist movements, you see women working singularly from men. Suffragettes and the women's rights movement in the 60s here, but when I think of the Islamic feminist movement, I think of a lot of men who are very much standing with the women. It really feels like in equal numbers. Women are catching up in the field because we were not given access to knowledge and encouraged into these studies and so these men are helping us and empowering us. They are men of conscience who are fed up with this assumption that they're entitled.
Television's so quick, and there's so many other fun elements to it, but you don't get such good scripts and the time to really make much more three dimensional characters.
You don't want the men to be written in a three-dimensional way and the women, not.
One thing you don't get to see too often on regular WWE television is the men and women interacting. The women have their storylines, and the men have theirs, and there's not too much overlap.
I am glad to see that men are getting their rights, but I want women to get theirs, and while the water is stirring, I will step into the pool.
I don't really follow television so much, but in the old days there was a certain way TV was, and it wasn't really like cinema. I don't know how many ways it was different or the same, but it was not quite like cinema. Now, cinema can happen on television.
Roles written for women are so much more complex on television. The film world is becoming quite flimsy for women.
If a shadow is a two-dimensional projection of the three-dimensional world, then the three-dimensional world as we know it is the projection of the four-dimensional Universe.
I don't think you can be successful in television without appealing to women. I don't think it's possible. I think that men like women. It doesn't really matter what they do - they love anything. But women don't necessarily like every woman, so I think that's a challenge to get the female audience to not only relate to you but also like you.
. . . I felt that making her one-dimensional would be an insult to the audience, and also not as interesting. All destructive people have an inner side to them, and the more three-dimentional your characters are on screen the more compassion you can open up in an audience . . .. To me, that involves the audience more, it stimulates them and asks more of them.
Genes are effectively one-dimensional. If you write down the sequence of A, C, G and T, that's kind of what you need to know about that gene. But proteins are three-dimensional. They have to be because we are three-dimensional, and we're made of those proteins. Otherwise we'd all sort of be linear, unimaginably weird creatures.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!