web
counter
 

In This Image, Our Heroes Represent AMC And The Walking Dead Represents "The Walking Dead"

By Rob Payne | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (16)



pajibathewalkingdeadvsamc.jpg

I’m fairly certain I’ve mentioned my general frustration with season one of AMC’s adaptation of Robert Kirkman’s comic book The Walking Dead. But I don’t hate the show, or even dislike the show, I just think it has so much potential to be far better than it is. As a whole, the direction, make-up, effect, set artists capture the necessary tone and ambiance, and I dig heavily on Andrew Lincoln’s Rick Grimes, but the rest of it needs a lot of work. The acting and writing isn’t terrible, it could simply be better. I want the series to succeed. I want it to be the greatest show on Earth. At the moment, though, I question whether AMC wants the same thing.

When the series was immediately picked up by AMC for a second season, after the staggeringly good premiere episode directed by film professional Frank Darabont, it seemed like a good sign. I thought the fact that the pick-up meant thirteen episodes instead of another six, could definitely help alleviate issues that lead to my own criticisms (characters making obviously bad decisions being A#1). But Kim Masters’ piece at The Hollywood Reporter on AMC’s firing of showrunner Frank Darabont, rather than the initial reports that he stepped down, as well as budget cuts per episode, and the cast and crew feeling scared for their jobs… Well, none of it can be a good thing; definitely not creatively.

AMC’s actions are especially confounding when “The Walking Dead” is unquestionably the most successful original series in terms of ratings on the network. Considering that the network also owns the show outright, rather than in partnership with Lionsgate (ala “Mad Men”) or Sony Television (re: “Breaking Bad”), this also makes it their most profitable. Not to mention, they get a 30% tax subsidy from the state of Georgia for filming in/around Atlanta — which was supposed to go back into the “The Walking Dead” budget, according to Masters, but instead went directly into AMC’s books as revenue. Of course, the network has also had dust-ups with “Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad” showrunners and studios, eventually coming to amicable terms with both. As such, it strikes me that the zombie baby is getting the raw end of the deal, no matter how much money it makes for the circus’ ringmaster. Simply because it can’t fight back, yet.

It is important to keep in mind that the show’s budget was decided along with its pick-up back in November 2010, and everyone at “The Walking Dead” agreed to it. That is not an invalid point, but when the season finale had more viewers than the series premiere, it is not unreasonable for the parties to return to the negotiating table. Especially when the network has proven capable, if not willing, to do so in the past with other relatively less successful programs. Of course, when AMC’s head of original programming, Joel Stillerman, apparently says that (emphasis mine) “Ratings have no bearing on this conversation,” any argument Darabont, or new showrunner Glen Mazzara, might make is effectively cut off. What do you even say to something like that?

In my imagination, Frank Darabont heard those words and was stunned into silence, staring long and hard at the man across from him before throwing up his hands in disgust, and muttering, as he walked out of the room, “Then what the fuck is there to even fucking discuss?” A television show and its ratings have no bearing on one another? Since when? In terms of artistic quality, yes, of course, obviously. But in terms of finance, what else is there but ratings and the fat stacks of cash those ratings usually bring to the network that airs the TV show in question?

Insiders are saying that AMC is still figuring out how to handle their success in terms of original programming, as they’ve only been doing it since 2007. That may be true, but it’s an astoundingly flaccid reason. We’re talking about the basics of rewarding those who reward you — that’s what the entertainment business does. You only start shitting on people when they stop making you money, not when they’re just getting started. And you sure as hell don’t pull this:

“But this source says that AMC had its own ideas about how to make the show more cheaply. The show shoots for eight days per episode, and the network suggested that half should be indoors. ‘Four days inside and four days out? That’s not Walking Dead,’ says this insider. ‘This is not a show that takes place around the dinner table.’ That was just one of what this person describes as ‘silly notes’ from AMC. Couldn’t the audience hear the zombies sometimes and not see them, to save on makeup? The source says Darabont fought ‘a constant battle to keep the show big in scope and style.’”

Seriously, get it together, AMC. The last thing you want is a horde of “The Walking Dead” fandom salivating for your fetid flesh. When even its detractors are begging you to stop from pulling that trigger and blowing this promising show’s brains out, you know you’ve done a bad, bad thing.

Rob Payne also writes the indie comic The Unstoppable Force, co-hosts the internet radio show We’re Not Fanboys, and is only a zombie at work and on the Twitter @RobOfWar. He really does like “The Walking Dead” season one, just not as much as you. Or as much as the comic.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Make You A Sword Of Me: Coriolanus Trailer | Come, Children. Drink Your Nightmare Juice: Trade News To Make You Hate The Universe









Comments

Amen.

Posted by: Cindy at August 11, 2011 9:50 AM

Considering that the network also owns the show outright, rather than in partnership with Lionsgate (ala “Mad Men”) or Sony Television (re: “Breaking Bad”), this also makes it their most profitable

Do we actually know if it's the most profitable, though? Or how profitable it is? I can imagine it costs more to produce zombie hordes than RV meth labs. I don't know. I would just LOVE to see the books at AMC to figure out why they're nickel-and-diming their shows. I don't know enough about TV production to know what the real story is. It does seem like Matthew Weiner and Frank Darabont were kind of singularly-minded about their shows, and that's good, but of course it's not surprising then that the network might balk.

Posted by: The Wandering Parakeet at August 11, 2011 9:52 AM

*fuels up the the Murdertank, stocks the whiskey bar and loads the feotupult*

Seriously, AMC, we can fucks.

Posted by: admin at August 11, 2011 10:04 AM

Cant argue with anything you say Rob. But somehow I am not surprised. I just had doubts about this ever working on TV in the first place. The comic is so dark and gritty and just hellish that I never believed any network could go that far. AMC will make this cheaper, and more generic because thats what business people do, they try to appeal to the mass market and trim costs. We shall see.

Posted by: logan at August 11, 2011 10:19 AM

My wife and I really, really liked this show last season. Well I'm with admin...

*climbs in the Murdertank*

Posted by: Green Lantern at August 11, 2011 11:05 AM

[attaches a rope with a handle to murdertank]
[stands on skis 30 ft back]
[waits for ocean of blood]

I like the show. But y'know...we shouldn't waste gas.

Posted by: superasente at August 11, 2011 12:43 PM

My heart hurts.

Yeah, the worst thing in all this, as you noted above, is that the cast and crew are now stressed out, worried, unhappy... not conducive to doing one's best work.

Posted by: MM at August 11, 2011 2:13 PM

I was pissed off at the direction the first season took. It completely veered off from the graphic series that it's based on and went in its own world. In other words...they just took the name.

There are characters that should be dead that aren't. That are characters that never even existed in the series. There are incidents that never fucking happened.

Granted, Drew used to argue with me all the time that if you were a loyal fan of the graphic series that you should like to see things you weren't expecting. Instead of knowing everything that was going to happen you could expect a few surprises. I would like that...but going off the rails is something else entirely.

I bitched when I first heard it was going to be on AMC. I didn't think they had the chops for it. I thought someone like Starz or HBO should have picked it up. They wouldn't have to worry about the same things that AMC has to worry about. Mainly in what they can show.

Apparently I was right. Fuck you, AMC.

I will say though that if they follow the graphic series they'll have a much better chance of that "indoor" thing they were going for. For a large portion of the graphic series they are in one location. They're not constantly moving.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at August 11, 2011 4:28 PM

I don't care about adherence to the source material, but I do think the show is lacking in some of the ways you mentioned. After a great opening, the last two or three episodes were starting to lose me. That said, I still had hope for the show. All this, though, is not encouraging in the least. Get it together, AMC, for you are officially on notice. Ratings speak, but without quality, you won't be getting the ratings at all. Some other network can always make a zombie series of its own to supplant this one. With the way that television series come and go, another one could be as indistinguishable as any other body in the mass of shambling undead but without the missing limbs.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at August 11, 2011 5:59 PM

What AMC and the other networks out there don't understand is that viewers can and will walk away. It takes cable t.v. about a year to bring a series back on the year and in that time, I can easily forget all about that program.

If they don't give a fuck about quality programming, then I won't either. There's plenty of zombie enjoyment to be had elsewhere. I could either read about it or watch another movie, so fuck you AMC and your cheap ass ways. Zombieland 2 is on its way anyway.

Posted by: Candy at August 11, 2011 6:59 PM

@DeistBrawler
I concur. To be honest, while I was impressed with the way AMC adapted the source material (taking into consideration the constraints they are under), I knew they would screw the pooch on this one. I was actually hoping as such. My forecast is after AMC drowns this baby, Showtime or HBO will swing right in and snatch it up. I, for one, will continue to have faith that someway, somehow, the potential for such an amazing premise will be fully realized.
But really, AMC. Fuck you guys.

Posted by: E the B at August 11, 2011 7:21 PM

Y'know, I think there's something to be said for being surprised by the adaptation, like what they did in the premiere with the zombie girl and Morgan's wife. Those are two of the best moments in the series, including the comic book (though, some of that shit in the comic will probably never be topped on TV), and they could only have happened on the show. Comics generally don't have the time/space for that level of detailed storytelling, even in a book as open ended an meticulous as Robert Kirkman's. I don't even mind that some characters are still alive -- in fact, I would love the idea of the TV series being Kirkman's alternate history of the comic. That one thing that didn't happen, that completely throws a curve ball into the original story arc, now completely alters the course of events. I'm down with that. I'd love that. But season one didn't really play out that way. We got a cheap FXplosion instead of the powerful final image of the first graphic novel. All that nonsense with Merl leading up to what happens at the CDC, which both Kirkman and Frank Darabont have commented on as being as spur of the moment as it is in the actual series, just felt like a cop out.

Plus, they've all been rewritten as dumbasses. Even Rick, though I think Andrew Lincoln is perfect in the role. I dunno, I kind of wish I hadn't read the comic, because even though I think I meet the show on its level and judge it accordingly, there's always a little Carl Grimes in the back of my head saying, "That's wrong." If they're gonna deviate, at least make it as good as the comic.

I probably shouldn't write this long of a comment in my own post. It's probably super gauche.

Posted by: RobP at August 11, 2011 8:05 PM

I'm a financial controller for a network and can tell you that ratings don't equal revenue. And the bottom line in television production is revenue. Advertising, sponsorship, contra deals and product placement are what dictates a show's budget. AMC would have a revenue allocation deal for every original production on it's slate, and are clearly not prepared to bankroll TWD until it becomes profitable, which usually takes about 3 years.

Posted by: Sarz at August 11, 2011 8:27 PM

If ratings don't matter then why not just show a test pattern interspersed with commercials for 60 minutes?

Posted by: John W at August 11, 2011 9:32 PM

There may not be a line item on the budget that says "From Ratings: $X.xx" but don't they come into play at all when negotiating sales of advertising and everything else that does directly affect revenue?

This may sound naïve, but isn't saying "ratings have no bearing" on the conversation sort of like saying that customers have no bearing on the menu prices of a restaurant?

Posted by: Jordan at August 12, 2011 2:13 AM

Nice job dude, keep up the good work :)

Posted by: laure at September 14, 2011 1:22 PM