Critics should help people see for themselves; they should never try to define things, or impose their own explanations, though I admit that if... a critic's explanations serve to increase the general obscurity, that's all to the good.
As a viewer, I decide when I see the promo of a film whether I want to watch it or not. No amount of marketing can convince me otherwise.
What's cool about YouTube, unlike TV, is that there isn't that competition element. I mean, you could make it into that, as there's obviously numbers involved, but people are free to watch whoever they want.
The filmmaker is not telling you what to think.
Clearly the success of the Netflix model, releasing the entire season of 'House of Cards' at once, proved one thing: The audience wants the control. They want the freedom. If they want to binge as they've been doing on 'House of Cards' and lots of other shows, we should let them binge.
Whenever you finish an artwork and the viewer comes and views it, at that moment you've given up control.
Viewers can determine what they want to watch and what they don't want to watch.
The combination of cheaper and more widespread broadband and increased mobile usage is turning us all into independent viewers.
What I don't like so much is people who - how do you say this? - who make judgments over the genre of reality like it's television from the devil, and that's something that I don't like because I think everybody should watch what they like. It's a free world. It's a form of democracy. If you like it, watch. If you don't like it, don't watch.
