CBR: New Details Emerge On Darabont's "Walking Dead" Exit

[CBR News]

The firing of show-runner and executive producer Frank Darabont from AMC's hit "Walking Dead" TV show has raised many questions, and new details point to financial fights at the heart of the change.


Full article here (http://comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=33832).

[the goddamn batman]

dunnow hat to say about this.

AMC are definitely slashing budgets on their shows, and that's a shame. some of the most well made TV running.

[fanboyspodcast]

I'm sorry but 3 hit shows...The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, and Mad Men...and I'm hearing the same thing from each production...NO appreciation from AMC as the channel's CEO works to cut budgets, kill creative avenues, and basically work against the creative minds who helped build the ratings of this TCM wannabe.

What a shame that the tool in charge is going to end up destroying each of these shows!

Someone needs to sit down with Mathew Weiner, Vince Gilligan, and Frank Darabont and take their side before all these series get turned into typical network under-produced eye candy.

[Another Aaron]

I bought the DVD set for season one about a month ago and was planning on having 2 or 3 friends over in the next week to introduce it to them so they'd be caught up for season 2.

Now I don't even know if it's worth bothering. To be honest, I'm wondering if *I* should stop watching it now just to avoid the whole "Firefly" anguish later.

[batGRRRl4ever]

I'm sorry but 3 hit shows...The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, and Mad Men...and I'm hearing the same thing from each production...NO appreciation from AMC as the channel's CEO works to cut budgets, kill creative avenues, and basically work against the creative minds who helped build the ratings of this TCM wannabe.

What a shame that the tool in charge is going to end up destroying each of these shows!

Someone needs to sit down with Mathew Weiner, Vince Gilligan, and Frank Darabont and take their side before all these series get turned into typical network under-produced eye candy.

So they say that Darabont is "notoriously a pain in the ass" who is known for "taking a feature-film approach to television." Yet it was specifically that feature-film approach in the first episode of season one that had everyone both talking and watching, myself included. I remember thinking to myself how, "Wow, this comes across like an actual movie in terms of quality, not just some dreck tv show like Lost."

When you rush actors on a show that requires such intensively inner psychological turmoil the quality WILL suffer. Maybe in drips at first but it will happen.

This reminds me of how Sci-Fi channel (now lamely 'sy-fi') used to have the incredible Farscape as the channel's signature show, and even renewed for a two-year deal, but then reneged at the end of the first year of the renew and cancelled the show out of budget concerns.

When are these network bigwig idiots in charge of sci-fi/fantasy/horror shows going to realize that these types of shows require either CGI or physical special effects to WORK. And that means $$$. I now have this dreadful feeling that we might only see 2-3 zombies maybe every OTHER episode as our survivors hole up in secluded farms longterm and it turns into a zombie inspired weekly drama ONLY about various soap opera plots that would be better seen on Desperate Housewives.

[jyeager11]

I see everyone saying "Networks need to stop being cheap" and should give us the big-screen quality we deserve.

Why? It's NOT the big screen. Who is going to give the studio the money to afford that? You guys? Are you willing to donate to the studio so they give you the quality you want? Of course not.

You're no different than the studio itself. How many of you drive BMWs? You all want the best but don't want to pay top dollar for it. You end up buying what you can afford.

That's what the studios are doing.

The internet has affected ad revenue like you can't possibly imagine. It killed the music industry, it's killing the movie industry, and it's going to kill the TV industry.

How do these studios make their money when half the people watching their shows downloaded them off torrents, with all of the ads stripped out? THOSE ADS PAID FOR MAKING THE SHOW.

The same people who then complain that the studios are slashing their budgets.

Don't you think the studio would RATHER have a big-screen quality show under their belt than a low budget one? Of course they would. But if they spend more than they'll make, why are they in business in the first place?

If it cost you more money to GET to work than you got back every 2 weeks, would YOU keep working there?

THINK, people. It's easy to ask studios to spend money that isn't yours. It's THEIRS. And if they thought they'd make it back by spending more, they would. They have people working for them crunching the numbers every which way possible. People who went to school and studied this stuff. People who know more about it than the audience.

The internet is going to affect the bottom line of every type of business that can be found on it. Music, movies, TV... if we could download food, the restaurant business would be next. Thankfully for them, we can't.

All of us are responsible for it. And no, I'm not saying we should all stop. I know I won't. There's too much money involved.

I will, however, stop complaining that the people I'm stealing from aren't spending more to entertain me.

There are limits to even *my* arrogance and narcissism.

How about you guys?

[ian33407]

@bat: couldn't have said better.

Frankly, let the producers hit the wall. Some of these kind will end being replaced, and that would do no harm for the public and certainly not the quality of the shows.

A guy fired because he takes his work at heart, c'mon...At last, we know these are words coming from true assholes..

[batGRRRl4ever]

I see everyone saying "Networks need to stop being cheap" and should give us the big-screen quality we deserve.

You're no different than the studio itself. How many of you drive BMWs? You all want the best but don't want to pay top dollar for it. You end up buying what you can afford.

I will, however, stop complaining that the people I'm stealing from aren't spending more to entertain me.

There are limits to even *my* arrogance and narcissism.

How about you guys?

Funny, I know I'M not stealing as I pay for my cable for my tv thank you very much. So I'm NOT part of the problem, I guess it's those admittedly like yourself who admit to stealing via torrent, etc. And there is nothing wrong with wanting quality on tv. When I was younger there was a LOT more quality programming on, not like today where over half of all programming is cheaply made "reality" garbage.

I EXPECT good acting and a return on my investment for scripted tv on the outrageous amounts I pay for cable for 15 sports channels I never wanted and heaps of reality shows about celebrities with NO talent like the Kardashians who exist to be party girls.

But I guess it's the people who admit to stealing to watch scripted shows and who also admit they aren't going to stop who are affecting the overall quality of shows like The Walking Dead.

Thanks a lot, NOT.

[devildinosaur]

Well, if the show tanks--AMC will have made an enormous mistake. Season 1 was so, so good.

[jyeager11]

But I guess it's the people who admit to stealing to watch scripted shows and who also admit they aren't going to stop who are affecting the overall quality of shows like The Walking Dead.

I certainly aspire to be as perfect as you, who claims never to have downloaded a show, movie, or mp3 song in their life.

Not that I believe you for a minute, but let's say I did... how many of the people in this discussion who agree with your viewpoint do you think are as flawless as you claim to be?

Shouldn't you be berating them as well, or do you save the hypocrisy only for those who disagree with you on internet message boards?

[Paul McEnery]

I see everyone saying "Networks need to stop being cheap" and should give us the big-screen quality we deserve.

Why? It's NOT the big screen. Who is going to give the studio the money to afford that? You guys? Are you willing to donate to the studio so they give you the quality you want? Of course not.

Don't talk rot.

All of these shows are/were profitable.

The problem the studio heads have is a) greed; and b) control.

That's all this is.

[Michael P]

It killed the music industry

Then I must be imagining all these singles and albums that get released every week.

[jyeager11]

It's amazing how knowledgeable everyone here is about what goes on in everyone else's back yard.

Gotta love internet message boards. :) I'll leave you all to your anti-establishment whining.

Y'all are right, everyone else is wrong. My apologies to everyone here. Especially the guy who said the internet didn't hurt the music industry. That guy in particular is a genius.

[edhopper]

Then I must be imagining all these singles and albums that get released every week.

And barely make the money it takes to produce them, or lose money.
Look at the numbers on the billboard chart today and ten years ago.

A lot of indies release comics that never make a dime too.

[Deep_Sleeper]

I see everyone saying "Networks need to stop being cheap" and should give us the big-screen quality we deserve.

Why? It's NOT the big screen. Who is going to give the studio the money to afford that? You guys? Are you willing to donate to the studio so they give you the quality you want? Of course not.

You're no different than the studio itself. How many of you drive BMWs? You all want the best but don't want to pay top dollar for it. You end up buying what you can afford.

That's what the studios are doing.

The internet has affected ad revenue like you can't possibly imagine. It killed the music industry, it's killing the movie industry, and it's going to kill the TV industry.

How do these studios make their money when half the people watching their shows downloaded them off torrents, with all of the ads stripped out? THOSE ADS PAID FOR MAKING THE SHOW.

The same people who then complain that the studios are slashing their budgets.

Don't you think the studio would RATHER have a big-screen quality show under their belt than a low budget one? Of course they would. But if they spend more than they'll make, why are they in business in the first place?

If it cost you more money to GET to work than you got back every 2 weeks, would YOU keep working there?

THINK, people. It's easy to ask studios to spend money that isn't yours. It's THEIRS. And if they thought they'd make it back by spending more, they would. They have people working for them crunching the numbers every which way possible. People who went to school and studied this stuff. People who know more about it than the audience.

The internet is going to affect the bottom line of every type of business that can be found on it. Music, movies, TV... if we could download food, the restaurant business would be next. Thankfully for them, we can't.

All of us are responsible for it. And no, I'm not saying we should all stop. I know I won't. There's too much money involved.

I will, however, stop complaining that the people I'm stealing from aren't spending more to entertain me.

There are limits to even *my* arrogance and narcissism.

How about you guys?

I have to agree with a lot of this. I'm sure a lot of people are raving crazy about how awful it is that certain industries cut budget and hike up prices, without looking at why certain things happen.

I'm a big comic fan. I buy comics in trade formats. I can't support monthlies anymore. For a few reasons, I don't think it's a great format, but I also understand why certain concessions need to be made.

If the production budget of the Walking Dead causes you to not like the show anymore, I say stop watching it. Don't waste your time hoping it'll turn around.

Yeah, it still sucks to this day that Fox cancelled Firefly. If it was still airing, I'd watch it every week. What I can't get annoyed about is that I didn't watch the show when it came on the air. I didn't really watch a lot of TV shows when it was on the air and the TV shows I did keep up with, it was hard to because my work schedule didn't allow for it.

I caught up with Firefly years later because of the sheer amount of out-pouring of love for the show and how much I enjoyed watching Buffy and Angel on TV (at this point, I actually became more involved with TV shows).

I think some people who complain (keep in mind some) are not accepting personal responsibilities. If you're watching the show through torrents or downloads, stop complaining. If you aren't watching the show, stop complaining. If you think the production of the show is going to affect the product, don't support it and stop complaining.

[jyeager11]

I have to agree with a lot of this. I'm sure a lot of people are raving crazy about how awful it is that certain industries cut budget and hike up prices, without looking at why certain things happen.

I'm a big comic fan. I buy comics in trade formats. I can't support monthlies anymore. For a few reasons, I don't think it's a great format, but I also understand why certain concessions need to be made.

If the production budget of the Walking Dead causes you to not like the show anymore, I say stop watching it. Don't waste your time hoping it'll turn around.

Yeah, it still sucks to this day that Fox cancelled Firefly. If it was still airing, I'd watch it every week. What I can't get annoyed about is that I didn't watch the show when it came on the air. I didn't really watch a lot of TV shows when it was on the air and the TV shows I did keep up with, it was hard to because my work schedule didn't allow for it.

I caught up with Firefly years later because of the sheer amount of out-pouring of love for the show and how much I enjoyed watching Buffy and Angel on TV (at this point, I actually became more involved with TV shows).

I think some people who complain (keep in mind some) are not accepting personal responsibilities. If you're watching the show through torrents or downloads, stop complaining. If you aren't watching the show, stop complaining. If you think the production of the show is going to affect the product, don't support it and stop complaining.

Exactly.

What kills me is that people actually convinced themselves that the reason TV show production values aren't *always* movie-quality is strictly studio greed.

Read what they're writing here. It can't possibly be because it's not profitable to do it that way... it WOULD be. Everyone here knows that. Everyone here knows exactly how much it costs to make these things, and how much money they make through advertising. It's amazing the facts and figures anonymous internet debaters seem to have in their possession. I envy them.

By the whiners' own admission, this was one of the rare TV shows that had movie-quality production. Meaning it had never been done before, or almost never. Meaning it was *always* profitable, but studio greed kept it from happening. For the last 50 years, studio greed kept EVERYONE from producing a single TV series of movie-quality production.

That's their logic.

It's like arguing with handicapped snails. Maybe you'll have better luck with them than I did.

[the goddamn batman]

I like catching flies with honey.

[Sighphi]

I see everyone saying "Networks need to stop being cheap" and should give us the big-screen quality we deserve.

Why? It's NOT the big screen. Who is going to give the studio the money to afford that? You guys? Are you willing to donate to the studio so they give you the quality you want? Of course not.

You're no different than the studio itself. How many of you drive BMWs? You all want the best but don't want to pay top dollar for it. You end up buying what you can afford.

That's what the studios are doing.

The internet has affected ad revenue like you can't possibly imagine. It killed the music industry, it's killing the movie industry, and it's going to kill the TV industry.

How do these studios make their money when half the people watching their shows downloaded them off torrents, with all of the ads stripped out? THOSE ADS PAID FOR MAKING THE SHOW.

The same people who then complain that the studios are slashing their budgets.

Don't you think the studio would RATHER have a big-screen quality show under their belt than a low budget one? Of course they would. But if they spend more than they'll make, why are they in business in the first place?

If it cost you more money to GET to work than you got back every 2 weeks, would YOU keep working there?

THINK, people. It's easy to ask studios to spend money that isn't yours. It's THEIRS. And if they thought they'd make it back by spending more, they would. They have people working for them crunching the numbers every which way possible. People who went to school and studied this stuff. People who know more about it than the audience.

The internet is going to affect the bottom line of every type of business that can be found on it. Music, movies, TV... if we could download food, the restaurant business would be next. Thankfully for them, we can't.

All of us are responsible for it. And no, I'm not saying we should all stop. I know I won't. There's too much money involved.

I will, however, stop complaining that the people I'm stealing from aren't spending more to entertain me.

There are limits to even *my* arrogance and narcissism.

How about you guys?


When the series debuted to huge numbers – 5.3 to 6 million viewers tuned in for each episode, making the series one of the most successful basic cable shows ever –

People ARE watching the show on TV.
Stop making up stuff.

This is season 2 that is in the process of being made and they are cutting costs instead of raising them to bring MORE people in. Season 2... not 3, or 4, or 5.... TWO! The show PROVED to be a success and the first thing they do is hurt it. Sorry but this time around is all on them.

[carabas]

Then I must be imagining all these singles and albums that get released every week.From where I'm standing the problem is that 20-25 years ago they largely stopped producing anything remotely deserving of the label 'music'...

[MagSeven]

I see everyone saying "Networks need to stop being cheap" and should give us the big-screen quality we deserve.

Why? It's NOT the big screen. Who is going to give the studio the money to afford that? You guys? Are you willing to donate to the studio so they give you the quality you want? Of course not.

You're no different than the studio itself. How many of you drive BMWs? You all want the best but don't want to pay top dollar for it. You end up buying what you can afford.

That's what the studios are doing.

The internet has affected ad revenue like you can't possibly imagine. It killed the music industry, it's killing the movie industry, and it's going to kill the TV industry.

How do these studios make their money when half the people watching their shows downloaded them off torrents, with all of the ads stripped out? THOSE ADS PAID FOR MAKING THE SHOW.

The same people who then complain that the studios are slashing their budgets.

Don't you think the studio would RATHER have a big-screen quality show under their belt than a low budget one? Of course they would. But if they spend more than they'll make, why are they in business in the first place?

If it cost you more money to GET to work than you got back every 2 weeks, would YOU keep working there?

THINK, people. It's easy to ask studios to spend money that isn't yours. It's THEIRS. And if they thought they'd make it back by spending more, they would. They have people working for them crunching the numbers every which way possible. People who went to school and studied this stuff. People who know more about it than the audience.

The internet is going to affect the bottom line of every type of business that can be found on it. Music, movies, TV... if we could download food, the restaurant business would be next. Thankfully for them, we can't.

All of us are responsible for it. And no, I'm not saying we should all stop. I know I won't. There's too much money involved.

I will, however, stop complaining that the people I'm stealing from aren't spending more to entertain me.

There are limits to even *my* arrogance and narcissism.

How about you guys?

I think this argument would hold a lot more weight if these shows weren't on a PAID basic cable channel that still plays advertisements and didn't have massively successful ratings and DVD sales.

[batGRRRl4ever]

I certainly aspire to be as perfect as you, who claims never to have downloaded a show, movie, or mp3 song in their life.

Not that I believe you for a minute, but let's say I did... how many of the people in this discussion who agree with your viewpoint do you think are as flawless as you claim to be?

Shouldn't you be berating them as well, or do you save the hypocrisy only for those who disagree with you on internet message boards?

Oh my, for most people, including myself, not stealing is one of the most basic of good morals. I've never stolen anything in my life and never would because it's wrong. That isn't being pious as you claimed, it's basic civility and basic good moral character.


This is season 2 that is in the process of being made and they are cutting costs instead of raising them to bring MORE people in. Season 2... not 3, or 4, or 5.... TWO! The show PROVED to be a success and the first thing they do is hurt it. Sorry but this time around is all on them.

Exactly, that's how you build both a show and network. You don't cap it in the kneecaps after it successfully gets out of the running gate. With a show that had such an incredible opening and tv, magazine, and online buzz specifically because everyone was talking about the fact that the program had motion picture quality, you don't then make CUTS in the very quality that attracted MILLIONS of first viewers!

I dread to think that the characters will now be on some backwoods lot and simply run around in circles in the woods episode after episode, and to make it cheaper we will only see tree branches get shaken to indicate zombie movement, etc.

The head of AMC sounds like a true idiot. You can't make something from nothing and you can't make something grow unless you nurture it, PERIOD.

[TradePaperbackTraitor]

What smells fishy is that they support an unknown commodity at $3.5 million an episode and now that you know it's a huge hit and will have an even larger audience for season two, you suddenly want to trim episode costs down a million? I think it's leverage. Having The Green Mile guy in charge of your product was necessary to sell it before it hit the network but now that the fan base is built in, as a studio exec you feel you can put anyone in charge and get more dollars and control.

[the goddamn batman]

From where I'm standing the problem is that 20-25 years ago they largely stopped producing anything remotely deserving of the label 'music'...

that's the dumbest thing I've read all week. congrats!

[verslibre]

Darabont's departure was said to be a shocking turn for the cast and crew, although fans of the series shouldn't expect to hear that publicly any time soon. As Mazzara and Kirkman continue to draft scripts for "The Walking Dead's" currently filming second season, the network has reportedly come down hard on talent to keep quiet in the press until the show is ready to bow again in October.

AMC must be oblivious to this thing called the InterWebs. LOL!

[dupersuper]

Then I must be imagining all these singles and albums that get released every week.

Cool: the music industry's a zombie! Maybe it'll get a cameo.


I think some people who complain (keep in mind some) are not accepting personal responsibilities. If you're watching the show through torrents or downloads, stop complaining. If you aren't watching the show, stop complaining. If you think the production of the show is going to affect the product, don't support it and stop complaining.

If you're watching it on TV but don't have a Nealson box...


Oh my, for most people, including myself, not stealing is one of the most basic of good morals. I've never stolen anything in my life and never would because it's wrong. That isn't being pious as you claimed, it's basic civility and basic good moral character.


So, before the internet, if your friend had taped a show on a VHS cassette and invited you over to watch it, you'd say no? Or yes, as long as they promised not to fast forward through commercials? You never msade a mix tape? Accepted one?

[MagSeven]

that's the dumbest thing I've read all week. congrats!

Nah. That's not dumb, that's an opinion. I agree with him somewhat. 75% of all the stuff on my phone/mp3 player is from the 90s and before. I like a few newer bands, but listening to top 40 radio makes me feel out of touch, old, confused and scared sometimes.

[MagSeven]

If you're watching it on TV but don't have a Nealson box...



So much THIS. The old Nielsen box rating system is faulty and antiquated. If networks actually rely on them and not some hidden apps in newer tv's it's no wonder awesome shows get cancelled and filler/background noise lives on.

[Predator]

I read an article on Syfy's news site last week that Matt Weiner (creator of Mad Men) recently got his contract renewed for 10 million a season and the caveat that Mad Men's budget not be cut. Wouldn't that be a contributing factor in all this as well?

[jesse_custer]

Nah. That's not dumb, that's an opinion. I agree with him somewhat.

It's an uniformed opinion. I'm sorry, but the world didn't go to shit to the point where nobody is producing good music anymore. If anything, you're selling the artform short, and that's fucking depressing.

[the goddamn batman]

^this.


Nah. That's not dumb, that's an opinion. I agree with him somewhat. 75% of all the stuff on my phone/mp3 player is from the 90s and before. I like a few newer bands, but listening to top 40 radio makes me feel out of touch, old, confused and scared sometimes.

if all you listen to is top 40 then you were already listening to shit music 25 years ago. sorry.

there's a myriad of amazing music out there, in fact, almost even more so now that the major labels are hurting. independents are releasing the music they want to release.

Imagine if In Utero was released how Kurt wanted it instead of the Geffen remixed version we got...

but this is a total thread digression.

[Eric D.]

AMC better get their shit together or Breaking Bad's going to walk.

Hell, after what they offered, - I would take my ball elsewhere.

AMC only offers 6-8 episodes for the 5th season of what is arguably the best television show airing right now, -- f/x offers 20 episodes, THEN they say ok, -we'll give you 13 again...

...I'd still take my ball and go elsewhere, -F/X would be a good fit, and they'd likely increase viewing audience, as well.



http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2011/08/04/amc-comments-on-walking-dead-budget-cuts-possibly-losing-breaking-bad



AMC is also in the midst of heated negotiations with Sony over the rights to the fifth and possibly final season of the Emmy Award winning Breaking Bad. After AMC offered only 6 - 8 episodes for the fifth season, Sony began shopping the show to other networks such as FX who were willing to go as high as ordering 20 episodes. Apparently AMC has boosted their offer back to the standard 13 episodes in fear of losing the acclaimed but expensive crime drama. Episodes for the show run around $3.2 million per episode.AMC is also in the midst of heated negotiations with Sony over the rights to the fifth and possibly final season of the Emmy Award winning Breaking Bad. After AMC offered only 6 - 8 episodes for the fifth season, Sony began shopping the show to other networks such as FX who were willing to go as high as ordering 20 episodes. Apparently AMC has boosted their offer back to the standard 13 episodes in fear of losing the acclaimed but expensive crime drama. Episodes for the show run around $3.2 million per episode.

[the goddamn batman]

6-8?! Fuck that.

[Another Aaron]

6-8? Oh my God, they've gone insane.

If their thinking has gone that far off the rails the whole channel is doomed.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

AMC has to learn the golden fucking rule of TV. You have to spend $$$$ to make money. If they wanna see a network that basically lost that and wanted to run a flea market type network , look no further than NBC . The once proud peacock had its network president lose his fucking mind in cost cutting moves.

One of the funniest debacles was the Jay Leno , 5 nights a week deal which had NBC execs claiming "We are saving so much money unlike CBS which is spending a lot to be #1."

True story ... they actually bragged about how they were saving so much money and how others were competing to get viewers. CBS who were winning the network deal as usual had one exec I believe responded by saying "Someone needs to tell them , the more we spend , the better the AD dollars we attract."

If AMC is that dumb to wanna be a NBC , and compete for near last place ...go ahead. But shows like Breaking Bad , Walking Dead and others won't stay . They will go where greener pastures are. Your reputation will take a hit too. Many producers yanked pilots from NBC then.

[Jared]

Breaking Bad costs 3.2 million an episode?! WTF? I'm sure Cranston is getting very well paid, but he must surely be a producer on it by now. The show looks great, yeah, but it's set New Mexico, not Middle Earth or Zombieland. What are they spending that money on?

[batGRRRl4ever]

Here's a link to HuffPo that shows more news as to all the firings and cuts being had at The Walking Dead: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/12/kurt-sutter-sons-of-anarchy-matthew-weiner-amc_n_925201.html

So it turns out that it is Mad Men that is sucking any extra budgets for both Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead. I find Mad Men incredibly boring, the plotlines are glacial in how fast they move, and all people do is sit & talk while sucking on cigarettes. The past two seasons haven't done that great and The Walking Dead brought in higher numbers.

AMC needs to realize that whichever show brings in the most people to a fledgling network is the new baby. Mad Men isn't cutting the mustard in that regard but both TWD & BB are. And besides MM only has one or two more seasons in it before it's finally done, but who'd know as the show moves at such a slow and boring pace.

I'm starting to think both BB and TWD would be wise to start shopping for another network that will let them retain the creative juices that have enabled both shows to be so good so far. It will be painful to see The Walking Dead suffer in quality after such an incredible first season.

[Redem]

So it turns out that it is Mad Men that is sucking any extra budgets for both Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead. I find Mad Men incredibly boring, the plotlines are glacial in how fast they move, and all people do is sit & talk while sucking on cigarettes. The past two seasons haven't done that great and The Walking Dead brought in higher numbers.

I'm suprise that a talkie drama about advertising set in the 60's can be more expansive than the zombie tv show (then again its a period piece)

[SUPERECWFAN1]

As one poster said , once a new show comes along and does the biggest numbers for the network... it gets the special treatment. Its cared for and taken care of. Because its the new #1 show.

What we seem to be getting is a network that really now seems to ...regret this show in a way. That they seem to be thinking , ya know...its just a zombie show and the critics love Mad Men . Its what brought us to the dance anyhow.

Its dumb thinking honestly and if AMC starts getting labeled as a cheap network , many won't bring projects there. They will go to HBO , FX and other networks to do shows.

[Darrell D.]

Man, Kurt Sutter's Twitter is pretty awesome on this:
http://twitter.com/#!/sutterink/status/101681799540912128



darabont reacted strongly to slashed budgets. he made mistakes, he was fired. no creative in town will trust AMC to back up their artists.

Breaking Bad would fit in fine on F/X.

[batGRRRl4ever]

As one poster said , once a new show comes along and does the biggest numbers for the network... it gets the special treatment. Its cared for and taken care of. Because its the new #1 show.

What we seem to be getting is a network that really now seems to ...regret this show in a way. That they seem to be thinking , ya know...its just a zombie show and the critics love Mad Men . Its what brought us to the dance anyhow.

Its dumb thinking honestly and if AMC starts getting labeled as a cheap network , many won't bring projects there. They will go to HBO , FX and other networks to do shows.

The FACT is that a number of people have said the past two seasons of Mad Men weren't up to par. Another fact is that the first short season of The Walking Dead did BETTER than Mad Men's numbers. Another fact is that Mad Men only has a few seasons more to go (how it can keep going is a mystery to me as I find the show so BORING) while The Walking Dead is just getting started. AMC isn't going to HAVE Mad Men as their 'signature show' for much longer so need to invest in the only other two programs they got, both of which are receiving raves as of this point.

This reminds me of SyFy and how they put some $$$ into Farscape and lo and behold their channel was suddenly on the map. Then they decided they didn't like the cost and cancelled it, and with the exception of Battlestar Galactica everything they've done since has been really CHEAP & BADLY written DRECK. NO ONE talks about this channel anymore as all they put on is EXTREMELY low budget garbage. AMC is starting on the path of the same formula to make themselves irrelevant again in a few more years.

[Jared]

Kurt Sutter, creator of Son of Anarchy, blasted Mad Men's Matt Weiner, saying his greed is hurting AMC's other shows.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/08/11/kurt-sutter-mad-men-greed-hurting-breaking-bad-and-walking-dead/100220/

[Cyke]

Breaking Bad would fit in fine on F/X.

Y'know, for a while I honestly thought Breaking Bad really was on F/X.

[anilbangkok]

Kurt Sutter, creator of Son of Anarchy, blasted Mad Men's Matt Weiner, saying his greed is hurting AMC's other shows.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/08/11/kurt-sutter-mad-men-greed-hurting-breaking-bad-and-walking-dead/100220/

kurt Sutter is Crazy!!! but he maybe right.

[TradePaperbackTraitor]

I'm suprise that a talkie drama about advertising set in the 60's can be more expansive than the zombie tv show (then again its a period piece)

I bet the actor salaries are starting to get out of control. A lot of people on Mad Men are getting famous, not just Jon Hamm.

I agree with those who say Breaking Bad and Walking Dead are better series than Mad Men. I like MM too, but it has started to get a little boring in recent years. I'd rather watching BB or WD.

[batGRRRl4ever]

Mad Men series premier = 900 thousand
Walking Dead premier = 5 MILLION
A difference of 4.1 million viewers

Mad Men season finale = 2.4 million
Walking Dead season finale = 6 MILLION
A difference of 3.6 million viewers

AMC seems completely incapable of doing basic network math. Higher numbers of viewers equals higher ad revenue dollars. The Walking Dead is OBVIOUSLY the new baby for this network but AMC is sacrificing it's quality in preference for Mad Men that's nothing but 60's rat-pack imagery with little qualitative substance that also moves at a glacial snail's pace.

Breaking news: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/14/breaking-bad-to-stay-on-amc_n_926790.html
Breaking Bad has made a deal to stay with AMC for 16 more final episodes that will probably get broken up into two seasons. That still leaves The Walking Dead, the show averaging in it's first season 4 million more viewers than Mad Men, without it's show runner in Frank Darabont. The damage has been done along with still existing budget cuts for AMC's MOST watched show last year.

[Sighphi]

Well, Mad Men has picked up a lot of awards along the way so..... i guess they get a little cushion. But, yeah, cutting down WD when it blew up the spot ON the second season is dumb.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

A decade ago Viacom had basically decided to change TNN (The Nashville Network) to "The National Network". The move was to increase viewers and move the network from tractor pulls and country music to more male type shows.

Well the 1st thing TNN executives did was sign Extreme Championship Wrestling to Friday Nights at 9pm. The move unknown to ECW and us fans at home was TNN testing the waters to try and get WWF rights a year later in 2000.

Promises were made to ECW and Paul Heyman. If the show did really well , then TNN would promote it better and push the product. Of course this was basic lip service because TNN and Viacom had no intentions of ever promoting the product in a serious way.

Heyman realized within 2 months that TNN was more intent on promoting its shit show "ROLLERJAM" and "ROCK N BOWL" . They spent thousands...and thousands of dollars to promote shitty fucking shows no one seemed to care about. Hell after ECW would do a 1.2 as an example , Rollerjam would come on and do a 0.4 or 0.5 .

You would think a show your barely promoting is doing a 1.2 cable rating so , promote it. NOPE... instead they wanted more promotion for the shit shows. Heyman decided he would promote them all right. He would totally fucking kill them off with a heel guy named Don Callis posing as a TNN exec.

The funniest spots were a couple thousand fans chanting "Fuck Rollerjam" after the Cyrus character would tell fans to stay tuned to watch ROLLERJAM.

Rollerjam limped a few more months after ECW was pushed off the network for WWF . But in the end you had to laugh at the foolish network antics. Viacom could have had 2 highly rated shows airing on their network. But they wanted to kill the one they 1st put on and use it to advertise its own shitty shows.

[noh-varr]

I don't quite understand the Mad Men hate over the last few pages here, the show runner did the same thing both Darabont and the creators of Breaking Bad want to do, not get their budget massively cut for no real reason, since all the shows are making AMC money. Mad Men was just the first one to cut a deal is all, since it has been sitting in limbo the longest. Also it was recently discussed that AMC was wanting Mad Men to last another three seasons while the creator wanted it to be finished within the next season or two and give it a proper ending. Which I appreciate and fully agree with, the best dramas have a proper finish, and both Mad Men and Breaking Bad deserve as much. The biggest reason Darabont and the Walking Dead got screwed over is because AMC completely owns the show! Mad Men is owned by Lions Gate and Breaking Bad is a Sony product, they have leverage to shop around and a real studio behind them, while Walking Dead has the same people who are trying to cut their budget!

Walking Dead does deserve at the very LEAST the same budget per episode as last season, especially since AMC demanded that they add episodes to the season. It is simply that someone at AMC is wanting to earn more money without spending the money needed for top quality product. The issue is more with AMC itself and not with the other shows on the network.

Walking Dead will suffer from this decision. There is even rumors that the cast and crew may try to stage some kind of protest over all of this. No matter what I am sure morale is low right now, and they are still filming, so I expect the latter part of the season to dip in quality. Which may end up with me quitting the show completely, the season finale from last year already made me waver a bit, another drop in things may just be the final nail.