Has AMC Gone Full Retard?

[ajzepp]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50767

 

I really don't understand what I've been hearing about this cable network lately. First I read something about how they were looking for other networks interested in taking Breaking Bad off of their hands, and now this? Seriously, maybe I'm alone in this, but I don't recall even ever WATCHING this damn channel until these two shows came about. I remember having to try and figure out if I even HAD AMC on my Dish Network, let alone what channel it was on. Now they have the best show on TV and arguably the hottest new show on TV and instead of capitalizing on these commodities they just insist on endlessly fuggin with 'em. I don't get this at all...

[Fingon]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50767

 

I really don't understand what I've been hearing about this cable network lately. First I read something about how they were looking for other networks interested in taking Breaking Bad off of their hands, and now this? Seriously, maybe I'm alone in this, but I don't recall even ever WATCHING this damn channel until these two shows came about. I remember having to try and figure out if I even HAD AMC on my Dish Network, let alone what channel it was on. Now they have the best show on TV and arguably the hottest new show on TV and instead of capitalizing on these commodities they just insist on endlessly fuggin with 'em. I don't get this at all...

Firing Darabont was stupid, but the Walking Dead wasn't exactly a great series. The entire writing staff was fired, and I think the subject matter of the series elevated it beyond its mediocre script.

 

It's a good show, but no where near the best new show on TV.

[CosmicBills]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50767

 

I really don't understand what I've been hearing about this cable network lately. First I read something about how they were looking for other networks interested in taking Breaking Bad off of their hands, and now this? Seriously, maybe I'm alone in this, but I don't recall even ever WATCHING this damn channel until these two shows came about. I remember having to try and figure out if I even HAD AMC on my Dish Network, let alone what channel it was on. Now they have the best show on TV and arguably the hottest new show on TV and instead of capitalizing on these commodities they just insist on endlessly fuggin with 'em. I don't get this at all...

It's not as simple as that article makes it sound. My take (which is all speculation based on things I hear around town, I have NO inside knowledge):

 

Breaking Bad isn't going anywhere -- it's all a negotiating stand. Sony (the studio who owns it) threatens to take the show elsewhere to get more money for themselves (and Gilligan) but also because Gilligan wants to end the show next season. This tactic is Sony's way of getting that language into the contract deal so that AMC can't just continue the show with another show runner. Gilligan and Sony are just taking a stand to protect his creative interests. But it'll get resolved and stay on AMC.

 

Mad Men is the real issue. Weiner wants a boatload of cash. He wants to be paid like the show is on a broadcast network instead of a small basic cable station, which AMC is. AMC wants to keep Mad Man and is going to do whatever it takes to do so. But AMC does not have the deep pockets of an NBC, ABC, FOX or even CBS. Not even close. Some speculate Frank was standing up for his show's cast and crew by refusing AMC's request to slash the budget. A move Frank (reportedly) saw as being undertaken entirely to free up more cash for Weiner. (stuff here)

 

The truth of the matter is probably somewhere in between. AMC has exploded due to their ability to find and cultivate groundbreaking television in ways that other basic cable networks haven't before. Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, The Killing and even Rubicon though it was canceled, are shows you'd find on HBO 10 years ago. AMC took a shot on these shows and it paid off huge. But the downside (from a writing standpoint) of being on a channel like AMC is that even if your show becomes a critical darling you're just never going to see the same kind of pay day you'd get on a broadcast channel. There's just not enough money. But when these creators hit the end of their deals (like Weiner) and it's time to renegotiate, they expect to be paid like a Dick Wolf or Chuck Lorre, or JJ, etc.

 

Frank is a feature guy. He's one of my favorite writers in this town, but he's not going to compromise his show regardless of the financial realities of the network he chose. I applaud him for that. But he also should have expected this ... (if that's how it really happened that is).

Edited August 12, 2011 by tgreg99

[Buftex]

It's not as simple as that article makes it sound. My take (which is all speculation based on things I hear around town, I have NO inside knowledge):

 

Breaking Bad isn't going anywhere -- it's all a negotiating stand. Sony (the studio who owns it) threatens to take the show elsewhere to get more money for themselves (and Gilligan) but also because Gilligan wants to end the show next season. This tactic is Sony's way of getting that language into the contract deal so that AMC can't just continue the show with another show runner. Gilligan and Sony are just taking a stand to protect his creative interests. But it'll get resolved and stay on AMC.

 

Mad Men is the real issue. Weiner wants a boatload of cash. He wants to be paid like the show is on a broadcast network instead of a small basic cable station, which AMC is. AMC wants to keep Mad Man and is going to do whatever it takes to do so. But AMC does not have the deep pockets of an NBC, ABC, FOX or even CBS. Not even close. Some speculate Frank was standing up for his show's cast and crew by refusing AMC's request to slash the budget. A move Frank (reportedly) saw as being undertaken entirely to free up more cash for Weiner. (stuff here)

 

The truth of the matter is probably somewhere in between. AMC has exploded due to their ability to find and cultivate groundbreaking television in ways that other basic cable networks haven't before. Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, The Killing and even Rubicon though it was canceled, are shows you'd find on HBO 10 years ago. AMC took a shot on these shows and it paid off huge. But the downside (from a writing standpoint) of being on a channel like AMC is that even if your show becomes a critical darling you're just never going to see the same kind of pay day you'd get on a broadcast channel. There's just not enough money. But when these creators hit the end of their deals (like Weiner) and it's time to renegotiate, they expect to be paid like a Dick Wolf or Chuck Lorre, or JJ, etc.

 

Frank is a feature guy. He's one of my favorite writers in this town, but he's not going to compromise his show regardless of the financial realities of the network he chose. I applaud him for that. But he also should have expected this ... (if that's how it really happened that is).

 

Possibly the worst tv show I have ever allowed myself to get lured in to...

Edited August 12, 2011 by Buftex

[CosmicBills]

Possibly the worst tv show I have ever allowed myself to get lured in to...

I haven't seen it yet ... I probably will pass.

[Dr. Fong]

Even worse they've cut the budget for the show. How the hell do you have the hottest show on cable and decide to cut the show? This is a Wilson-esque decision.

[bbb]

When they renewed that and had that ending that everybody in the world hated is when AMC went "full retard."

[CosmicBills]

Even worse they've cut the budget for the show. How the hell do you have the hottest show on cable and decide to cut the show? This is a Wilson-esque decision.

Playing Devil's Advocate here ...

 

AMC has always said they treated the 6 ep run of the show as one extended pilot. You always have the most money (and time) to shoot your pilot. Then, when/if the show gets picked up, the budget is always lower than what you got for the pilot. LOST for example was a 20 million dollar pilot -- they did not spend 20 million per episode (or even 10 since the pilot was a 2 hour pilot). It's the same with every show. There was no way AMC was going to spend the same per episode in season 2 while doubling the episode order from 6 to 13.

 

That's their stance.

 

The real question is if they cut the budget by MORE than Frank and Hurd expected due to Weiner's ongoing negotiations ... if that's the case, then it's really a crappy thing. But it all goes back to the fact that it's a basic cable network with limited funds compared to pay cable and especially compared to broadcast networks.

[ajzepp]

 

 

It's a good show, but no where near the best new show on TV.

 

That would be why I referred to it as "arguably the hottest show"...not the best show.

 

Playing Devil's Advocate here ...

 

AMC has always said they treated the 6 ep run of the show as one extended pilot. You always have the most money (and time) to shoot your pilot. Then, when/if the show gets picked up, the budget is always lower than what you got for the pilot. LOST for example was a 20 million dollar pilot -- they did not spend 20 million per episode (or even 10 since the pilot was a 2 hour pilot). It's the same with every show. There was no way AMC was going to spend the same per episode in season 2 while doubling the episode order from 6 to 13.

 

That's their stance.

 

The real question is if they cut the budget by MORE than Frank and Hurd expected due to Weiner's ongoing negotiations ... if that's the case, then it's really a crappy thing. But it all goes back to the fact that it's a basic cable network with limited funds compared to pay cable and especially compared to broadcast networks.

 

This is why I always enjoy when you chime in on topics like this...I know you always put out the disclaimer that you have no "insider" knowledge, but I learn a lot about the inner workings of this stuff from your posts

 

What role would ad revenue play in terms of the budget for the show? I would think ad time would go up in cost exponentially when you have a hot show, particularly one that has grabbed hold of the 18-49 y.o. demographic?

[Dr. Fong]

Playing Devil's Advocate here ...

 

AMC has always said they treated the 6 ep run of the show as one extended pilot. You always have the most money (and time) to shoot your pilot. Then, when/if the show gets picked up, the budget is always lower than what you got for the pilot. LOST for example was a 20 million dollar pilot -- they did not spend 20 million per episode (or even 10 since the pilot was a 2 hour pilot). It's the same with every show. There was no way AMC was going to spend the same per episode in season 2 while doubling the episode order from 6 to 13.

 

That's their stance.

 

The real question is if they cut the budget by MORE than Frank and Hurd expected due to Weiner's ongoing negotiations ... if that's the case, then it's really a crappy thing. But it all goes back to the fact that it's a basic cable network with limited funds compared to pay cable and especially compared to broadcast networks.

 

I get what you're saying and appreciate such a well informed reply. I just think when you have a TV show like Walking Dead the normal rules of TV shouldn't necessarily apply. There is an established fanbase that will support the show by buying products like DVDs. I hope I'm wrong, but it just feels like this season is setting up to be a disaster.

[ajzepp]

Even worse they've cut the budget for the show. How the hell do you have the hottest show on cable and decide to cut the show? This is a Wilson-esque decision.

 

It made no sense to me either. If you have a hot show, you milk the HELL out of it. You use it to bring in new viewers to your channel and promote the other shows you have to offer. You charge more for ad time. You make lunch boxes with Walking Dead zombies all over the thing. It's like AMC lucked into getting a date with the hot chick and started peeing down their leg.

[ieatcrayonz]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50767

 

I really don't understand what I've been hearing about this cable network lately. First I read something about how they were looking for other networks interested in taking Breaking Bad off of their hands, and now this? Seriously, maybe I'm alone in this, but I don't recall even ever WATCHING this damn channel until these two shows came about. I remember having to try and figure out if I even HAD AMC on my Dish Network, let alone what channel it was on. Now they have the best show on TV and arguably the hottest new show on TV and instead of capitalizing on these commodities they just insist on endlessly fuggin with 'em. I don't get this at all...

 

I agree that none of this makes sense.

 

Actually I didn't read your post but I can tell you're mad by the title of the thread.

 

Anyway, do something about it instead of just whining. You should do an expose and air it on your web show.

[ajzepp]

I agree that none of this makes sense.

 

Actually I didn't read your post but I can tell you're mad by the title of the thread.

 

Anyway, do something about it instead of just whining. You should do an expose and air it on your web show.

 

Apparently you do not realize the power of my whining. My endless whining got the US Soccer Federation to replace their ineffective coach with the one of the most credible coaches in the world!

[CosmicBills]

That would be why I referred to it as "arguably the hottest show"...not the best show.

 

This is why I always enjoy when you chime in on topics like this...I know you always put out the disclaimer that you have no "insider" knowledge, but I learn a lot about the inner workings of this stuff from your posts

 

What role would ad revenue play in terms of the budget for the show? I would think ad time would go up in cost exponentially when you have a hot show, particularly one that has grabbed hold of the 18-49 y.o. demographic?

 

Anytime! I'm a nerd about this business. I'm still learning it though so by no means am I an expert.

 

The ad revenue plays a role I'm sure, but even though these shows are doing very well (especially WD), the numbers they drive in are still tiny in comparison to some of the networks. So the ad buys on AMC are smaller ... that could always change as AMC grows its audience. But the jump from season 1 to season 2 would probably have already been calculated into the networks "best case business plan" for the show. Meaning they wouldn't want to up the budget. But that's total speculation. All of my budget experience has been on the other side of things. I've worked on a few pilots and seen how the budgets are built from the show's side, but never how the network builds theirs.

 

I get what you're saying and appreciate such a well informed reply. I just think when you have a TV show like Walking Dead the normal rules of TV shouldn't necessarily apply. There is an established fanbase that will support the show by buying products like DVDs. I hope I'm wrong, but it just feels like this season is setting up to be a disaster.

 

Hey, I agree 100% with you. I'm on the creative side, so I'm the one who is trying to get the networks and studios to to believe in the show/movie. I firmly believe that if you have a good story and a talented bunch of people working on it (which a show like the Walking Dead has, as does Breaking Bad and Mad Men -- I've worked with a few from those shows who are just mind blowingly talented mo fos) that the audience will be there provided the network allows them to do it right. And there are a lot of people on the network side who believe that too and fight hard for it.

 

But not everyone thinks that. Sometimes it forces you to be more creative and inventive though ... but if they don't meet you at least half way it becomes almost impossible. I have no idea if WD is at that point. But I gotta believe that the show will still end up doing pretty well. I think there's talent left there even with Frank gone (and I'm a huge fan of his).

 

 

It made no sense to me either. If you have a hot show, you milk the HELL out of it. You use it to bring in new viewers to your channel and promote the other shows you have to offer. You charge more for ad time. You make lunch boxes with Walking Dead zombies all over the thing. It's like AMC lucked into getting a date with the hot chick and started peeing down their leg.

 

The problem is that AMC doesn't share those profits alone (if any of them). Again, this is an area where I'm less familiar with the specifics of how the rights are done in these sorts of deals but ... the way it normally works is:

 

Pilots are bought by a studio first (Fox, Sony, Warner Brothers etc). The studio provides the budget for the pilot. The studio then sells the pilot to the networks who air it. That's how sometimes you get shows that are done by Disney but are aired on Fox or FX or NBC (which is Universal) rather than ABC. Now, I have NO idea who owns the merchandising rights or the DVD rights but I'd imagine it'd be the studio. Or at least the studio would get the largest cut of that pie with the production company and producers getting a chunk as well. The networks, I think, get almost all of their revenues from ad sales. Which is why every network orders somewhere between 5-10 pilots a year (sometimes more -- after all, their investment is FAR less up front than the studios) and then only a handful of them actually make it to air. They watch the pilots (which the studios and production companies make and assume all the risk on -- normally) then pick the ones they think will sell the most ads.

 

That's where the dilemma comes. The studio is always on the show's side of things because they make money from syndication, merch and all that stuff. But the network has a different agenda because their profits come from a different spot.

Edited August 13, 2011 by tgreg99

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

I keep meaning to watch Walking Dead.. is it any good?

[Fingon]

That would be why I referred to it as "arguably the hottest show"...not the best show.

 

 

 

Maybe ratings wise, but that's debatable. Critically it doesn't even come close.

[ajzepp]

Maybe ratings wise, but that's debatable. Critically it doesn't even come close.

 

From Wikipedia.org

 

"Critical reception

 

The series has received universal acclaim. The first season scored 82 out of 100 on Metacritic based on 25 reviews.[41] Nancy deWolf Smith from The Wall Street Journal said that the "pilot episode [is] so good that it has hooked even a zombie hater like me." She said that what made the show so good was that it feels real and looks cinematic.[42] Heather Havrilesky of Salon.com included the show on their list of 9 new TV shows to not miss, giving it a grade of "A", with the author saying "A film-quality drama series about zombies? Somebody pinch me!"[43]

[edit]

 

Ratings

 

The pilot received 5.3 million viewers, making it the most-watched premiere episode of any AMC television series[44] The first season finale received 6 million viewers, a series high; with 4 million viewers in the 18–49 demographic, making it the most watched basic cable series for the demographic.[45]

 

In the United Kingdom, it premiered one week after it did in the United States, on November 5, 2010 on cable channel, FX. The premiere had 579,000 viewers, almost double for any other show on FX that week. The viewership dipped during the season then rose to 522,000 viewers for the final episode.[46] The terrestrial premiere on Channel 5 on April 10, 2011, averaged 1.46 million viewers.[47]

[edit]

 

Awards and nominations

 

The Walking Dead was nominated for Best New Series for the 2011 Writers Guild of America Awards.[48] It was nominated for Best Television Series Drama at the 68th Golden Globe Awards.[3] It was also named during the American Film Institute Awards 2010 as one of the top 10 television programs of 2010.[49] For the 2011 Saturn Awards, the series received six nominations—for Best Television Presentation, Andrew Lincoln for Best Actor in Television, Sarah Wayne Callies for Best Actress on Television, Steven Yeun for Best Supporting Actor in Television, Laurie Holden for Best Supporting Actress in Television, and Noah Emmerich for Best Guest Starring Role in Television.[50] The series was nominated for Best Drama Series at the inaugural 1st Critics' Choice Television Awards.[51] The pilot episode "Days Gone Bye" is nominated for three awards for the 63rd Primetime Emmy Awards—Outstanding Prosthetic Makeup for a Series, Miniseries, Movie or a Special; Outstanding Sound Editing for a Series and Outstanding Special Visual Effects for a Series.[52]"

 

I keep meaning to watch Walking Dead.. is it any good?

 

I've never been huge into the Zombie genre, but this show has really captured my attention. I'd say it's worth a look for sure.

[Buftex]

I keep meaning to watch Walking Dead.. is it any good?

 

Like AJ said, I am not into the genre at all...I started recording it for a friend of mine at wokr. I got into it...but I will say, I don't know how long it would sustain my interest..another season, yes...if it went on for a few years, I am not sure...

[TheMadCap]

Like AJ said, I am not into the genre at all...I started recording it for a friend of mine at wokr. I got into it...but I will say, I don't know how long it would sustain my interest..another season, yes...if it went on for a few years, I am not sure...

 

 

I don't know how many of you who enjoy this show have bothered to check out the source material, but if the writers plan to go down the same roads with respect to the story (and it appears they are, at least for season 2) then all I can say is hold onto your seats! There were many, manu times while reading the books that I said, "HOLY ****, they didn't really just do that?

 

The key to this show, and where ballnumbing dreck like "falling skies" fails is that TWD is more about how people react to disasters and the walking dead themseleves are a backdrop to what is going on. In "falling skies" the characters are just not that interesting and there is no emotional attachment...

Edited August 14, 2011 by TheMadCap

[HopsGuy]

My $0.02: AMC went public last month. Speaking from my own limit experience, having to answer quarterly to shareholders can change the culture of any business. That can be VERY bad when it comes to creative folks, who (IMHO) are best left to their own devices.