paultagonist, on 09 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:
DarthJoe8, on 04 January 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:
Basikboy, on 04 January 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:
AMC has already cutdown their budget for this show and I have heard it may happen again.
Any links?
It's the reason Frank Darabont got fired, it's been known for a while now I guess. AMC wanted the same kind of gripping story and special effects but with less money AND TWICE AS MANY EPISODES. I'll never understand that: if you have a hit show, you should put MORE money into it, not less, right? It's the thing that made you more profit than usual. All so some fat cat CEOs can put more wealth in their pockets?
Here's the first link I found, by googling "budget cuts walking dead":
http://screenrant.co...amc-aco-127783/
Here's some highlights:
Even though The Walking Dead proved to be a hit – and it is the only series that AMC owns completely – the network had already announced to the producers that they would not only be cutting the budget of the series from $3.4 million to $2.7 million, but that they would also want 13 episodes produced instead of 6 episodes that made up its first season. To make matters worse, AMC also told the producers that the 30% tax credit that the series receives from filming in Georgia would go directly to the network, and not make up for some of the money that was taken out of the production budget.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened – and Darabont wasn’t too happy about it. Known as a man who fights for what he believes in, a confrontation between AMC and The Walking Dead producers occurred. With the head of original programming for AMC, Joel Stillerman, sticking to the cut budget, the network than began to overstep their bounds and attempt to tell Darabont how to produce the series.
Even with record ratings on their side, Darabont would repeatedly enter meetings with Stillerman where he would simply say, “Ratings have no bearing on this conversation.” With rumors persisting that he has poor relationships with most of AMC’s series creators, insiders have begun to say that “Joel [Stillerman] thinks he is responsible for the success of shows on AMC, and not the creators.”
Instead of long, sprawling outdoor scenes, the network wanted the second season of The Walking Dead to occur 50% outdoors and 50% indoors (indoors being cheaper to film). Another note asked whether or not the audience had to always see the zombies – couldn’t they simply hear them sometimes.
They then fired Darabont AFTER he appeared at Comic-Con, knowing full well they were going to fire him BEFORE he went to Comic-Con. They wanted his famous face to be there representing TWD at Comic-Con even though they knew he wasn't going to be a part of Season 2.
If this was true, the long, tedious farm episodes make a whole lot more sense now, as a cost (and quality) cutting measure.
Am I the only one that's thinking we're gonna get another dose of the same in the third season? I know that the comic was a lot about the interaction between the characters (I've read them all so far), but it wasn't ONLY about that, and looking back at season 2, except for a few memorable moments it was mostly a zombie soap opera, and not a very good one at that, what with flat characters (Shane, Carl), ones whose character was all over the place (Dale, Rick) , didn't get enough attention (Glenn) and a few good exceptions (Darryl, Hershel). And of course Lori, who seems to exist only to piss you off.
................ 
................
I'm pretty sure during that scene Lori had me saying out loud something like "Oh shut it, you silly cow!" 
Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
Back to top