I'm interested in how small the world really is, and this notion that what happens in one place affects someone else.

In the shows I've done serialized storytelling with, there are big open questions, but you like every episode to be identifiable as what it is. It's also very important that each season is identifiable. There's usually some big thing that you're trying to wrap up. There are big bows that you're trying to tie, by the end of the season, that you would do anyway because it's just good storytelling to tie those things up.

You can very often start a new season with a lot more viewers than you had, leaving off the season before. It's a chance to pull the show into a train station, stop the train, and let all these new viewers on, so you can tell a new story. In some ways, a second season is a chance to tell a brand new story that you can wrap up, at the end of it.

Even the most loyal viewers of a show would only watch one out of three episodes. As someone who made television, I always found that hard to believe because you want to believe people who love your show are watching every episode, but statistically it was true that people who considered themselves the most loyal viewers were only watching one out of three.

I really enjoy the pastiche storytelling of watching separate stories slowly collide with one another. The audience gets to participate in trying to guess and decipher how one story will connect with another.

All you have to do is do a little bit of research and a floodgate of material comes your way.

The depth of talent in Israel is just spectacular. I was very excited by it because when you cast in LA, you tend to see a lot of the same faces on lists for various parts.