Large-budget movies start to lose focus on the story and the actors, and it becomes purely about the visual, or CGI, or framing with the cranes, or whatever it may be.

I love to write, so I think writing would be the next natural step. And if I'm making something that I'm writing, it would also probably make sense to be a producer and have some creative input from that perspective as well. Eventually, I do want to direct, but I want to get comfortable in those two jobs first. I want to dip my foot into this pool before I dive in I guess.

I play drums and guitar, I snowboard, I do martial arts and acrobatics. I go to the movies every Friday.

On film, it's really nice to see that transformation from the beginning, reading the script, to know where he starts and where he ends, and be able to plan for that.

I do play the guitar, and I can sing, but just enough to carry a tune.

With every character you play you're always trying to put facets of yourself into those characters. I think Asher, at the beginning of The Giver, when he's goofy and a little bit of a rule-breaker, a little bit of a jokester, I align with him. But then he kind of transforms throughout the movie and becomes someone I don't necessarily relate to. I relate to Adam McCormick's sensitivity. He's more quiet and introverted, and I definitely have those moments as well.

There were obvious budgetary and time constraint differences. With Jamie Marks is Dead, we were operating on a pretty small finance level. So it was definitely run-and-gun, 16-hour days, every day. I would come back, and I was so exhausted I would fall asleep in my clothes. Obviously, with The Giver we had a little bit more time to take the full three months. So that was different, but in both there was still a creative environment, and by that I mean that it was still collaborative, performance was still valued, and it wasn't lost in the money.