Kirkman Refutes Criticism Over Mazzara's "Walking Dead" Exit

[CBR News]

Robert Kirkman responds via Twitter to criticism over Glen Mazzara's "Walking Dead" exit, stating "Sons of Anarchy" showrunner Kurt Sutter is speaking on "things he knows nothing about."


Full article here.

[Phil Clark]

Whenever you get people outside of a particular situation commenting on the situation as vehemently as Sutter did, it can make for a difficult situation. Kirkman, Mazzara and AMC all seem to be taking the high road (whether that is the case or not) and are stating that this was a mutual decision on the part of all parties involved. There is seemingly (from what I have seen so far) no animosity between those closest involved in the parting of ways. People who weren't there and don't know first hand what actually happened should stay out of it and let those who were there and do know first hand what happened set the tone of the coverage of this news.

Doing otherwise just shines a negative light on the person stirring things up.

[Alex]

Whenever you get people outside of a particular situation commenting on the situation as vehemently as Sutter did, it can make for a difficult situation. Kirkman, Mazzara and AMC all seem to be taking the high road (whether that is the case or not) and are stating that this was a mutual decision on the part of all parties involved. There is seemingly (from what I have seen so far) no animosity between those closest involved in the parting of ways. People who weren't there and don't know first hand what actually happened should stay out of it and let those who were there and do know first hand what happened set the tone of the coverage of this news.

Doing otherwise just shines a negative light on the person stirring things up.

IT suggests Kirkman may have wanted him gone due to his vision of the series going forward.
If it was Kirkman, i can only assume Mazzara didn't want to retread stories as much as Kirkman likes doing, so he want's to go with someone who doesn't like doing new things.

[SJNeal]

It's Kirkman's creation - he should be exerting "a high level of control"!

[Ottmeister X]

It's Kirkman's creation - he should be exerting "a high level of control"!

Agreed. Kirkman hasn't done anything yet that would lessen the confidence I have about the quality of the show going forward.

[Phil Clark]

IT suggests Kirkman may have wanted him gone due to his vision of the series going forward.
If it was Kirkman, i can only assume Mazzara didn't want to retread stories as much as Kirkman likes doing, so he want's to go with someone who doesn't like doing new things.

The bolded and underlined items are examples of what I have a problem with. In order:

"IT" meaning the linked article? It is doubtful that the writer of the article was privy to the actually decision or discussion leading to Mazzara's departure. So it is hearsay.

"suggests" and "may" are soft words used when actual facts are not present.

"If"... Do I really need to go on about that?

"Assume"? Assuming only leads to mis-information. The old saying goes "When you assume you make an ass out of u and me" and it usually holds true.

As such, I stand by my original assertion. Don't comment on hearsay. Comment instead on the evidence presented, and that is that this is an amicable split according to all parties involved in the decision. People often prefer there to be a deeper reason behind these kinds of things, but sometimes it is what all involved parties say it is, and nothing more.

[Alex]

Yell at news bot for posting it then.

[Leocomix]

It's Kirkman's creation - he should be exerting "a high level of control"!

Yes. This.

[Tobias March]

Yes. This.

Not.....necessarily. As it is a work of adaptation, there may be aspects of the comic that do not suit transfer to the show. Comics are not glorified storyboards after all, each medium has its strengths and presumably the showrunner is more conscious of the advantages of television writing than the comic creator.

Still Phil's point stands, it is no use speculating on what may or may not have occurred without more information. At present it looks like a friend of Mazzara's is frustrated on his behalf and speaking out of emotion.

EDIT: Season three was a massive improvement though. Are we too stingy to credit Mazzara for that?

[verslibre]

EDIT: Season three was a massive improvement though. Are we too stingy to credit Mazzara for that?

The first half of S3 kicked ass. If Mazzara's responsible for what I watched, he shouldn't be going anywhere.

[Libaax]

If Kirkman big if kicked out Mazzara its okay with me. Sometimes the show is too predictable tv show and it can improve much more.

[blackdragon6]

The first half of S3 kicked ass. If Mazzara's responsible for what I watched, he shouldn't be going anywhere.

^this...but i still agree kirkman has a right to see the show go how he wants it too.

[MagSeven]

I'm hoping the hubbub with Moore and this new deal with Mazzara are mutually exclusive and not a telling pattern. I love Kirkman's writing and the show and from his editory responses he seems like a really decent dude. I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I just really hope we don't find out he's a bastard later. That would be super disappointing.

EDIT- Congrats Charlie Adlard on your milestone! You have set the tone for the book. Even some of my favorite artists couldn't hold a candle to what you do on the book. Great work! Here's to the next 100!

[Phil Clark]

Not.....necessarily. As it is a work of adaptation, there may be aspects of the comic that do not suit transfer to the show. Comics are not glorified storyboards after all, each medium has its strengths and presumably the showrunner is more conscious of the advantages of television writing than the comic creator.

I think that may be selling Kirkman a bit short. It assumes that Kirkman specifically and comics writers in general are incapable of making necessary changes to stories they have written for the comics so that they would work in a movie or TV series. The two skills are not mutually exclusive. And it seems as if Kirkman is not only willing to change things up, but indeed quite excited by the prospect. He is getting the chance on the TV series to fix what he would have done differently on the comic had he had any inclination that it was going to run this long.

EDIT: Season three was a massive improvement though. Are we too stingy to credit Mazzara for that?

No one is suggesting anything either way about Mazzaras contribution to season 3. As he was the show runner for the majority of the season, and the season has been markedly better than season two, it would be doing him a disservice to not acknowledge his contribution to that improvement.