Things Looking Really Bad for Walking Dead

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheBrew

If anything, I think this does not bode well for the third season (if it happens), but I think the 2nd season will still be good since Darabont has been involved in most of it anyways.
 
Jay

Jay

Still, you'd think a show that is on the up and up, one of the most highly anticipated shows of the year would be doing far better than this mess since the first season ended. I think AMC should sell the show to another capable network before they fuck up the show completely before permanent damage is done.

I'm apprehensive now on how be and even more so NEXT season, if there's even going to be one... this show beats all records on 18-49 group... why are they doing this? Poor management.

Can you just imagine this show with pro's who give a shit that handle it on a network with a budget like HBO? I hope they are watching and licking their chops.

This is almost as bad as the Firefly fiasco.

Just let the man do his fucken job and make you rich.
 
T

TheBrew

I don't doubt that it is a massive screwup on AMC's part. You don't mess with success.

Still I will take two great seasons of Walking Dead vs. no seasons.
 
Frank

Frank

I'm guessing the budget problems mostly stem from the cost of keeping Mad Men's showrunner on AMC. All of AMC's other shows are paying his bill.
 
Gryfter

Gryfter

It sounds like this is fallout from the big raise and two season commitment AMC just gave MadMen. Evidently both Breaking Bad and Walking Dead are suffering because of it. Smacks of gross mis-management on AMC's part. They have three of the top shows on TV and it seems like they are throwing away two to save one. Sad.
 
Espy

Espy

Silly AMC. Gotta spend money to make money.

However, other wisdom sez, "Mo' money, mo' problems" so...
 
Covar

Covar

Couldn't bring myself to watch the last episode after each episode got exponentially worse from the previous.

That said it's my understanding that while Mad Men is an Emmy magnet and widely known, Walking Dead is a) owned by AMC and b) By far the biggest ratings hit they ever had. Why would you sabotage that for a lesser show?
 
P

Philosopher B.

I'm sorry. It's all my fault, on account of the universe hates me. That's why they gave an AMC show I don't watch hella bucks, while pooping at the two I do. :-(
 
Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

Being good usually costs money.

Walking Dead didn't get ratings because it was as good as Mad Men or Breaking Bad (it is not).

They probably figure (correctly) that not many of those millions that watch care who runs the show or how good it is. They're gonna still get their zombies.
 
Frank

Frank

Mad Men isn't as good as Breaking Bad is either, it didn't stop them from trying to halve the next season.
 
Tress

Tress

At a glance, it would appear AMC is taking a big risk with its only huge commercial success. Mad Men and Breaking Bad are Emmy magnets that average 2.3 million and 4.3 million viewers, respectively. But Walking Dead, based on a series of graphic novels, attracted an astonishing 5.3 million viewers when it premiered on Halloween. The season finale in December drew more than 6 million viewers. In the 18-to-49 demo, it chalked up the biggest number ever for any drama on basic cable.
Click to expand...
So of course you would cut the budget. And if next year's episodes perform poorly, they'll blame the cast and/or Darabont's departure (while never acknowledging that they chased him off).
 
P

Philosopher B.

Charlie is correct, in that there are much tighter shows than Walking Dead. The acting alone, compared to something like Breaking Bad, with Aaron Paul, Bryan Cranston, and Bob fucking Odenkirk ... not a patch.

On the other hand ...

Charlie Don't Surf said:
They're gonna still get their zombies.
Click to expand...
Not if they're kept offscreen to save on makeup costs! It's those pesky outside scenes and hordes of undead that are apparently breaking the budget.

Whatever way you slice it, it's bloody stupid to cut the budget of your record-breaking show. The best way to keep a formula winning for you is to not drop trou and squeeze out a Cleveland fucking steamer on it.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Between this and SyFy cancelling Eureka (the only watchable thing on the fucking network), it's becoming apparent that Hollywood has lost interest in making great content and is more interested in cutting costs to impress shareholders.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

AshburnerX said:
Between this and SyFy cancelling Eureka (the only watchable thing on the fucking network), it's becoming apparent that Hollywood has lost interest in making great content and is more interested in cutting costs to impress shareholders.
Click to expand...
And even that only works briefly once the reason for the money-making vanishes due to those cut costs.

But these days, it's a lot like politicians. They're gonna die anyway; why make the money last?
 
fade

fade

Staff member
Cheer up guys, I'm sure they will put a nice reality show on to replace it. Because...those...are...so...enter..taining. *VOMIT*
 
Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

ThatNickGuy said:
WHAT?! When!? How?! They JUST released another episode like last week or the week before!
Click to expand...
There was literally less than a week between the head of the network saying "we have full faith in this show and airing next season" and them outright cancelling it without even that shorter final season.
 
checkeredhat

checkeredhat

I agree that the acting in Walking Dead is not great for the most part. I do think that there are a few exceptions and notable performances among all the completely overacting that, come on, you expect from the zombie genre anyway. But by and large, yeah, Not exactly amazing.
I will also agree that the writing took a nosedive, with the last few episodes being especially disappointing.

But the acting wasn't outright atrocious, or even close to that, it was by and large enjoyable, if not believable. And the writing staff acknowledged the problems there, and many of the writers responsible got sacked, if I recall.

Either way, slashing the budget doesn't solve these problems, it only hurts the one area that EVERYONE can agree Walking Dead did a great job with- the visuals. You think that the slahsed budget is going to come out of the actors' pockets or the writers'? Or is it going to come out of special effects, location fees and the pay of the hundreds of extras?

Dumb, dumb move.

As for sacking the director, there must be more to the story than that, or I'm just dumbfounded.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Charlie Don't Surf said:
There was literally less than a week between the head of the network saying "we have full faith in this show and airing next season" and them outright cancelling it without even that shorter final season.
Click to expand...
It's still getting the 2012 season, as it's completing production and they wouldn't waste the canned footage. From the press release, it seems like they are just going to ax one or two of the originally planned episodes and turn those into a finale. That being said, all they really need to do if they want a finale is get Carter and Alice married and explain just WTF Dr. Barlowe and her friends have wanted for 5 seasons. The first is easy enough but the second is going to be hard to pull off.
 
Frank

Frank

I think what bothers me most is all this isn't done to make another show better or anything. All these cuts are to pay to keep Mad Men hopefully at the same level. They just agreed to the creator's ludicrous pay demands. So that show stays the same, the others suffer for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top