The Walking Dead (AMC)

Discussion regarding other bands, movies, etc.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2322
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:28 pm

The Walking Dead (AMC)

#1 Post by Jasper » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:47 pm

Well, this show still sucks ass. It's got the gross-out factor down, but that's about it. The characters are wooden, the dialogue is amateurish, and the story lines are plodding and clumsy.

I was hoping for an improvement, since they fired just about every writer after last season, but it seems like the exact same people are writing it. This is what's supposed to pass for a season premier? It felt more like the shittiest episode of the season, plucked out from somewhere in the middle.

I want the entire story to shift to some other locations with completely different characters. I hate all of these people except the redneck guy.

Hard to believe that AMC is the same place that airs Mad Men and Breaking Bad.

Boooooo!
:jasper:

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7236
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#2 Post by Larry B. » Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:24 am

I've never seen this show, but I guess it's about zombies. Can you really expect more of something about ZOMBIES!?

ZOMBIES, dude.

"NRRGAAAAA, MUST FEEEED"

"OMGOMGOMGGGGGGGGGG RUUUUN!"

(2 weeks later)

And the Grammy for best script goes to... The Walking Dead!! For their "Nrrgaaaaa" masterpiece.

:confused:

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7236
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#3 Post by Larry B. » Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:26 am

"BLAAARGGGG! I SMELL BRAAAAAINSSSS"

(pointing a gun to the zombie's head) "Ha ha. You are dead man."

(loud bang)

[CUE APPLAUSE]
[END OF SEASON 2]

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7236
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#4 Post by Larry B. » Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:30 am

"OMG Jack!! Look! It's the living dead!"

"Shiver me timbers... but don't worry, Melissa. (charges bazooka) In 5 minutes they will be the leaving dead."

"Oh Jack..."

(they have sex while "to be continued..." appears on the screen)

[END OF SEASON 3]

User avatar
Xizen47
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#5 Post by Xizen47 » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:44 am

Show won't last much longer imo, Sundays episode was horrible,, 10 times worse than anything from season 1.

I had a feeling once Frank Darabont was let go it'd go downhill :sad:

User avatar
crater
Posts: 1183
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:09 pm
Location: west of Westeros
Contact:

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#6 Post by crater » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:47 am

It started out decent enough IMO and then sputtered towards the end.

The parts of the season premiere that I wasn't a fan of were the two extended Jesus monologues, the zombies sitting in the church pews, the multiple camera angles that had that damned Jesus statue hanging in the background and then closeups of the statues face. Everything that happened at the church was lame.

Also the entire deer scene had me :hs:

wally
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:33 am

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#7 Post by wally » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:50 am

fucking commercial break every 4.3 minutes was awesome too.

also if the electrical grid is down, how was the church bell ringing?
dumb.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 655
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:51 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#8 Post by thoreau » Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:16 am

wally wrote: also if the electrical grid is down, how was the church bell ringing?
dumb.
Duracell, man. :wink:

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2322
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:28 pm

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#9 Post by Jasper » Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:14 pm

Well...it was a step up from the premiere.

erotic cheeses
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:33 pm

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#10 Post by erotic cheeses » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:37 am

so it sucked so bad jasper you cam back for the second episode??

i actually kinda liked the first episode - had my heart beating fast and made me nervous when I sneaked out for "some fresh air" afterwards

UK version only had about 2 episodes in the entire thing

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2322
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:28 pm

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#11 Post by Jasper » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:59 am

Not only that, but I watched the entire first season. I've also seen every episode of True Blood. These are filler shows for me. They're junk food. Sunday is the only night I watch TV, and I like to see two shows. So right now it's Boardwalk Empire and Walking Dead. They're night and day in terms of quality, but I'm not above the junk food to fill out my night. :noclue:

erotic cheeses
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:33 pm

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#12 Post by erotic cheeses » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:22 pm

troo bood - fair point - stuck with this to the last - a truly awful show but watched every last one :lol:

erotic cheeses
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:33 pm

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#13 Post by erotic cheeses » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:23 pm

omg i just gone done a lol emoticon - first ever (now i feel dirty)

User avatar
Six7Six7
Posts: 6439
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:55 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#14 Post by Six7Six7 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:27 am

LOVE this show!

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2322
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:28 pm

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#15 Post by Jasper » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:14 am

I think it's so-so. It's entertaining enough that I watch it. It's pretty clear that their budget was cut for this season. This last episode was possibly the best. The ending was some heavy shit.

User avatar
Six7Six7
Posts: 6439
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:55 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#16 Post by Six7Six7 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:39 pm

haha alot of people have commented on the budget this year. Does anyone have proof of that? I mean why would AMC cut the budget on their highest rated show, which is even getting high marks from critics?

blackcoffee
Posts: 798
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:24 pm

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#17 Post by blackcoffee » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:53 pm

Am watching on my ipad when I travel for work and am also watching with my wife. :noclue: I still like the show. There have been a few good scares. My main criticism is that it's very formulaic in that they always have two of the actors waxing philosophical about the end of the world or whatever...i still like it though.

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2322
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:28 pm

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#18 Post by Jasper » Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:41 pm

Six7Six7 wrote:haha alot of people have commented on the budget this year. Does anyone have proof of that? I mean why would AMC cut the budget on their highest rated show, which is even getting high marks from critics?
Yes, it's a matter of record that the budget was cut for Walking Dead in favor of the most critically acclaimed show on AMC, which is Mad Men.

Going back to Breaking Bad, it's never been a huge money maker, but it's got a real cult following, and if you look on imdb, you'll see that it's rated by the public at 9.4, while Walking Dead is rated 8.7, so, yeah. Mad Men is rated 8.9, which is way too low, but it's held in higher regard by critics. Shows without much violence and zero killing don't get as high a rating from the young folk. AMC has other original shows as well, but I'm not gonna look them up.

I find Walking Dead worth watching, and the last episode was very strong, but put it next to Mad Men and Breaking Bad, two of the greatest shows ever created, and Walking Dead looks relatively weak, even though it makes money because it's got scary zombies.
"They're scared. They're on a zombie show. They are all really easy to kill off." That amazing quote is from The Hollywood Reporter’s Kim Masters’s fascinating investigation into the departure of Frank Darabont from The Walking Dead, an abrupt and unexpected parting-of-the-ways that Darabont has yet to publicly comment upon. “They” in this instance refers to The Walking Dead's cast, currently well into shooting the second season of the hit horror drama. Masters writes that Darabont was fired just three days after he appeared at a Comic-Con panel. On the Atlanta set, the cast was “summoned to a lunch meeting with AMC VP Scripted Programming Ben Davis,” who told them Darabont was out. Why? "This isn't working,” he said.

And “this” is this instance in all probability refers to money. Unlike HBO, which has a production budget in the 10-figures, AMC is a cash-poor basic cable entity that, against all odds, has three of the most talked-about series on the air: Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and The Walking Dead. Earlier this year, a public battle with Matthew Weiner resulted in a $30 million payday for the Mad Men series creator, meaning a lot less money for the other shows. That meant slashing. Walking Dead saw its per-episode budget cut by $650,000, while the network tried—unsuccessfully—to reduce the Breaking Bad Season 6 order from thirteen episodes to six.

But Mad Men, a cultural phenomenon and critical darling, is a relative flop compared to Walking Dead, pulling in 2.3 million viewers per episode versus the 5-to-6 million Walking Dead regularly drew. Even Breaking Bad eclipses Mad Men’s ratings, with an average 4.3 million viewers per episode. It’s as if AMC sent its eldest child to Harvard, then turned to its other two capable kids and said, “Sorry, guys, looks like it’s community college for you.”

Unlike Mad Men and Breaking Bad, AMC owns The Walking Dead outright. When it tried to screw over BrBa, studio Sony responded by shopping the show to FX; as if by magic, AMC came up with the dough for a full-season order. But full ownership gives the network final say over all staffing and budgetary considerations—so bye, bye, Darabont. The network has chosen to replace him with Glen Mazzara, a veteran of The Shield on FX and later HawthoRNe on TNT. Also still on board are Walking Dead comic creator Robert Kirkman and effects man Greg Nicotero. And the Season 2 trailer screened at Comic-Con impressed everyone, including us. But Darabont was still in charge when that footage was shot. So how will his departure affect the quality of the series? The network certainly doesn’t seem to be worried. Yet the thought of a season of Mad Men without Weiner behind the wheel is virtually unthinkable. We probably won’t know until we’re already well into the second season of Walking Dead, which premieres on October 16.

http://www.tv.com/news/is-mad-men-hurti ... ead-26474/

User avatar
Six7Six7
Posts: 6439
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:55 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#19 Post by Six7Six7 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:22 pm

Jasper wrote:
Six7Six7 wrote:haha alot of people have commented on the budget this year. Does anyone have proof of that? I mean why would AMC cut the budget on their highest rated show, which is even getting high marks from critics?
Yes, it's a matter of record that the budget was cut for Walking Dead in favor of the most critically acclaimed show on AMC, which is Mad Men.

Going back to Breaking Bad, it's never been a huge money maker, but it's got a real cult following, and if you look on imdb, you'll see that it's rated by the public at 9.4, while Walking Dead is rated 8.7, so, yeah. Mad Men is rated 8.9, which is way too low, but it's held in higher regard by critics. Shows without much violence and zero killing don't get as high a rating from the young folk. AMC has other original shows as well, but I'm not gonna look them up.

I find Walking Dead worth watching, and the last episode was very strong, but put it next to Mad Men and Breaking Bad, two of the greatest shows ever created, and Walking Dead looks relatively weak, even though it makes money because it's got scary zombies.
"They're scared. They're on a zombie show. They are all really easy to kill off." That amazing quote is from The Hollywood Reporter’s Kim Masters’s fascinating investigation into the departure of Frank Darabont from The Walking Dead, an abrupt and unexpected parting-of-the-ways that Darabont has yet to publicly comment upon. “They” in this instance refers to The Walking Dead's cast, currently well into shooting the second season of the hit horror drama. Masters writes that Darabont was fired just three days after he appeared at a Comic-Con panel. On the Atlanta set, the cast was “summoned to a lunch meeting with AMC VP Scripted Programming Ben Davis,” who told them Darabont was out. Why? "This isn't working,” he said.

And “this” is this instance in all probability refers to money. Unlike HBO, which has a production budget in the 10-figures, AMC is a cash-poor basic cable entity that, against all odds, has three of the most talked-about series on the air: Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and The Walking Dead. Earlier this year, a public battle with Matthew Weiner resulted in a $30 million payday for the Mad Men series creator, meaning a lot less money for the other shows. That meant slashing. Walking Dead saw its per-episode budget cut by $650,000, while the network tried—unsuccessfully—to reduce the Breaking Bad Season 6 order from thirteen episodes to six.

But Mad Men, a cultural phenomenon and critical darling, is a relative flop compared to Walking Dead, pulling in 2.3 million viewers per episode versus the 5-to-6 million Walking Dead regularly drew. Even Breaking Bad eclipses Mad Men’s ratings, with an average 4.3 million viewers per episode. It’s as if AMC sent its eldest child to Harvard, then turned to its other two capable kids and said, “Sorry, guys, looks like it’s community college for you.”

Unlike Mad Men and Breaking Bad, AMC owns The Walking Dead outright. When it tried to screw over BrBa, studio Sony responded by shopping the show to FX; as if by magic, AMC came up with the dough for a full-season order. But full ownership gives the network final say over all staffing and budgetary considerations—so bye, bye, Darabont. The network has chosen to replace him with Glen Mazzara, a veteran of The Shield on FX and later HawthoRNe on TNT. Also still on board are Walking Dead comic creator Robert Kirkman and effects man Greg Nicotero. And the Season 2 trailer screened at Comic-Con impressed everyone, including us. But Darabont was still in charge when that footage was shot. So how will his departure affect the quality of the series? The network certainly doesn’t seem to be worried. Yet the thought of a season of Mad Men without Weiner behind the wheel is virtually unthinkable. We probably won’t know until we’re already well into the second season of Walking Dead, which premieres on October 16.

http://www.tv.com/news/is-mad-men-hurti ... ead-26474/
That is fucking ridiculous.

I really don't understand why television operates the way it does. They slash budgets, move shows to different timeslots and different nights of the week, and basically put in their 2 cents where it doesn't belong. Then people stop watching as the quality goes down or they can't figure out what night it's on, then the channel cancels the show saying it just wasn't working out. If they would just fucking properly fund their good shows and leave them alone, they would get their money back and then some.

Shows way too often get canceled by season 3 when they easily could go 7 or 8 if left alone (which would mean they could also then go into syndication and make even MORE money). It can't be cheaper to produce 10 new failures in hopes of replacing one good show, than to just keep one good one on the air that brings in advertising dollars.

Ridiculous.

They wonder why people aren't tuning in, or why people steal, or why people play video games or watch movies on netflix instead. It's moves like this. Cut the budget on a great show and fucking bury it. Great.

Assholes

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2322
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:28 pm

Re: The Walking Dead (AMC)

#20 Post by Jasper » Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:10 am

Couldn't agree more, although it's pretty amazing that AMC has as many great current shows as HBO, and with so much less dough. You gotta give them some kind of credit for that. When push came to shove, and Breaking Bad was ready to jump ship, I think they probably felt like their backs were up against the wall. HBO, on the other hand, has canceled good shows without any satisfying reason. Carnivale's cancelleation was criminal. When Deadwood got cancelled, it was horrible, but it was also largely the fault of the series creator. Nevertheless, HBO promised to produce 2 or 3 Deadwood movies to give a satisfying conclusion, but when the threats of canceled subscriptions had subsided, they quietly dropped that pledge. Fuckers.

Post Reply