To my mind, there are certain sorts of stories that insist on being told in a certain medium. For example, most Hitchcock would be rather dull as a short story or as a play but in film, it's full of suspense. Why? Because the details of what is revealed and in what order and at what pace is controlled by the director.
When I wrote my play, Bodily Function, I knew it had to be a play because it was essentially about the way in which language can be used as a weapon, as a means of trapping someone. Whenever language, or the way we speak to one another is the focus of what I'm after, I'm drawn toward the stage.
I feel TV combines elements of both film and theatre. Television is dialogue-driven, like theatre. But it is also quite visual and shows like "24" and "Lost" demonstrate how much can be told about character without dialgoue. The one thing that television has that neither theatre nor film can ever offer is longevity. When characters live over the length of several episodes and/or several seasons, the writer has the opportunity to explore their inner workings in ways not possible in under 3 hours of stage or screen time.
That's why, for me, all three media have unique appeal. I love the challenge of the economy of storytelling in film. I am also drawn naturally to telling stories and painting character through dialogue, so even my film work (as some of you will soon observe!) is far more dialogue-driven than your average film.
Seems to me, it could be fun to have the opportunity to live with characters for years, as do the writer/creators of television series. But, as yet, I haven't had that pleasure.
