Television The Walking Dead

Jippy said:
Maybe, but for such a big budget production it seemed a bit glaring. I am normally rubbish at picking up on these things- I know there are a whole bunch of websites where people nitpick about this stuff.
Not a bad opener all in all I thought- bit odd when the kid was approaching the deer, but the crossbow action is cool. If they do make a computer game version, it has serious potential. Loved Left 4 Dead.
Click to expand...

How big of a budget is it really? It's cable tv and they've been fighting with AMC recently because of budget cuts. I'd imagine all the writing staff firings have something to do with that as well. With Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and The Walking Dead, AMC has three big hits on their hands and they're having trouble keeping all three of them happy.

That said, The Walking Dead season 2 premier set the cable tv ratings record for the 18-49 demographic. I would hope that brings in a significant bump in advertising revenue.
 
jveezy said:
How big of a budget is it really? It's cable tv and they've been fighting with AMC recently because of budget cuts. I'd imagine all the writing staff firings have something to do with that as well. With Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and The Walking Dead, AMC has three big hits on their hands and they're having trouble keeping all three of them happy.

That said, The Walking Dead season 2 premier set the cable tv ratings record for the 18-49 demographic. I would hope that brings in a significant bump in advertising revenue.
Click to expand...

I guess I am looking at it from a UK perspective- when you hear what the Friends guys and Two and Half Men were earning per episode, it is is way out of kilter with goes on in the UK.

This seems to support what you say.

'Walking Dead' budget cuts caused by new 'Mad Men' deal? - The Walking Dead News - US TV - Digital Spy

That said, surely Mad Men's only real cost is its actors- Walking Dead has massive special effects costs, but maybe cheaper actors.
 
Walking Dead probably thrives on all the zombie extras are probably doing it for free. So many people out there that do this for free to be seen on TV for a few seconds in zombie makeup.
 
Fair enough and they do it in huge numbers, but surely the make-up costs a bit and, call me naive here, but if they weren't really shooting in a city centre Atlanta bloc, which surely they would have had to pay a stack to the council for, then the CGI must have cost a few quid?
 
Jippy said:
I guess I am looking at it from a UK perspective- when you hear what the Friends guys and Two and Half Men were earning per episode, it is is way out of kilter with goes on in the UK.

This seems to support what you say.

'Walking Dead' budget cuts caused by new 'Mad Men' deal? - The Walking Dead News - US TV - Digital Spy

That said, surely Mad Men's only real cost is its actors- Walking Dead has massive special effects costs, but maybe cheaper actors.
Click to expand...

I'd agree on that last count, though I haven't watched Mad Men (plan on doing so some day though).

Friends and Two and a Half Men got huge ratings on network tv and have been around for a long time. We're talking about double the viewers that The Walking Dead got in its record breaking season 2 premier consistently for 5+ years. Traditionally cable tv has always had fewer viewers due to the fact that people have to pay for a subscription to get it while network tv is available for free over the air. It'd be similar to people in the UK not having to pay a tv license fee and getting BBC with commercials but in a country of 300 million people.

That said everything is changing with tv over the internet and that includes the way ratings are calculated. Also factoring in is services like Netflix that let people that have never watch a show before catch up quickly. The entire season 1 of Walking Dead is on there and I know quite a few people that quickly watched all six episodes before this season started. A bunch of people are doing the same with Breaking Bad, now that the show has so much buzz after it's stellar fourth season. Now less people are going to decide not to watch a show because they're afraid they won't understand what's going on. It seems like more and more of the best shows on tv are showing up on cable nowadays, so the gap in funding isn't as big as it used to be (HBO being the most glaring exception to that, but they charge $20 a month for a subscription).
 
jveezy said:
I'd agree on that last count, though I haven't watched Mad Men (plan on doing so some day though).

Friends and Two and a Half Men got huge ratings on network tv and have been around for a long time. We're talking about double the viewers that The Walking Dead got in its record breaking season 2 premier consistently for 5+ years. Traditionally cable tv has always had fewer viewers due to the fact that people have to pay for a subscription to get it while network tv is available for free over the air. It'd be similar to people in the UK not having to pay a tv license fee and getting BBC with commercials but in a country of 300 million people.

That said everything is changing with tv over the internet and that includes the way ratings are calculated. Also factoring in is services like Netflix that let people that have never watch a show before catch up quickly. The entire season 1 of Walking Dead is on there and I know quite a few people that quickly watched all six episodes before this season started. A bunch of people are doing the same with Breaking Bad, now that the show has so much buzz after it's stellar fourth season. Now less people are going to decide not to watch a show because they're afraid they won't understand what's going on. It seems like more and more of the best shows on tv are showing up on cable nowadays, so the gap in funding isn't as big as it used to be (HBO being the most glaring exception to that, but they charge $20 a month for a subscription).
Click to expand...

Dunno how it is in the US, but generally here something successful on satellite, eg Walking Dead or The Wire, is snapped up by terrestrial- I guess that makes them a lot in licensing.
I suppose another factor is the rise of the DVD boxset- I have two back to back work dinners next week and although I could just Sky+ it, a lot of people will just wait and buy the boxset- for a lot of people it is hard to commit to watching a long series.
Hell though, you pay $20 a month for 'cable'? I pay £55 a month for 'satellite'- ie the full package- movies, sport and broadband. You get a better deal than us!
 
Jippy said:
Dunno how it is in the US, but generally here something successful on satellite, eg Walking Dead or The Wire, is snapped up by terrestrial- I guess that makes them a lot in licensing.
I suppose another factor is the rise of the DVD boxset- I have two back to back work dinners next week and although I could just Sky+ it, a lot of people will just wait and buy the boxset- for a lot of people it is hard to commit to watching a long series.
Hell though, you pay $20 a month for 'cable'? I pay £55 a month for 'satellite'- ie the full package- movies, sport and broadband. You get a better deal than us!
Click to expand...

No the HBO package alone costs $20 a month (HBO, HBO2, HBO Family and a few more that I'm forgetting). So even though they have far fewer subscribers, they can devote a good chunk of that money to the production of their shows. That's why we get gems like The Wire and The Sopranos from them even though they don't get many viewers. What we pay for our full packages is comparable to what you pay for the full package.

Syndication is a big part of eventual revenue, but ratings are the immediate indication that helps keep the show on the air to begin with. Some shows here don't make it past the first episode because ratings come in and hardly anybody bothered watching. So it never gets a chance to be farmed out to other places before it gets axed. If it survives that first season, then it gets a chance to sell DVDs and syndicate worldwide and on reruns in the States and verify to the networks that they made the right decision to renew it for another season.

To bring it back on topic, The Walking Dead was only renewed for a third season after the premier came back with such good numbers. When the shows do that, it's an easy decision for the network. If the numbers stay consistently good, advertisers will want to pay a lot more and they'll get a bigger budget to work with next year.
 
jveezy said:
No the HBO package alone costs $20 a month (HBO, HBO2, HBO Family and a few more that I'm forgetting). So even though they have far fewer subscribers, they can devote a good chunk of that money to the production of their shows. That's why we get gems like The Wire and The Sopranos from them even though they don't get many viewers. What we pay for our full packages is comparable to what you pay for the full package.

Syndication is a big part of eventual revenue, but ratings are the immediate indication that helps keep the show on the air to begin with. Some shows here don't make it past the first episode because ratings come in and hardly anybody bothered watching. So it never gets a chance to be farmed out to other places before it gets axed. If it survives that first season, then it gets a chance to sell DVDs and syndicate worldwide and on reruns in the States and verify to the networks that they made the right decision to renew it for another season.

To bring it back on topic, The Walking Dead was only renewed for a third season after the premier came back with such good numbers. When the shows do that, it's an easy decision for the network. If the numbers stay consistently good, advertisers will want to pay a lot more and they'll get a bigger budget to work with next year.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand in the US you are pretty brutal about killing off underperforming series pretty quick. Understandable I guess if you are paying so much.
The TV/movie thing has certainly changed significantly over the last few years- the actors willing to do TV work has ratcheted up markedly. We got a new channel over here recently -'Sky Atlantic'- and must admit I cannot be arsed to watch the likes of Blue Bloods.

Didn't know that the Walking Dead had got a third series. Good news in a way, but want to see how the second pans out first.
 
What does anyone reckon of ep 2? OK again, but not brilliant. I wouldn't want to be trapped with that fat guy mind...:nervous: Why didn't they save a few flares ffs.
 
Jippy said:
What does anyone reckon of ep 2? OK again, but not brilliant. I wouldn't want to be trapped with that fat guy mind...:nervous: Why didn't they save a few flares ffs.
Click to expand...

Because saving a few flares and having an escape plan doesn't cause a cliffhanger ending. I thought it was alright, the plots seem like nothing I didn't play/come up with with my friends when I was a kid to be honest so I find that a bit disappointing. Still worth watching though, even if the writing does seem a little lazy at times.
 
That'sHernandez said:
Because saving a few flares and having an escape plan doesn't cause a cliffhanger ending. I thought it was alright, the plots seem like nothing I didn't play/come up with with my friends when I was a kid to be honest so I find that a bit disappointing. Still worth watching though, even if the writing does seem a little lazy at times.
Click to expand...

I'll admit I'm enjoying it too despite the plot holes. I definitely enjoyed episode 3 as well.

Ep 3 Spoilers

Shane's turn was a bit too obvious and while I liked the way they framed the episode, I think it would've been more powerful if they had just played it straight from beginning to end (though keeping the flashback at the end) instead of getting cute and throwing the ending up front. By the time he got out of the truck alone it wasn't too hard to guess that he fecked the other guy over, especially after the very beginning of the episode.

I like that they're showing more and more Daryl though. I'll be interested to see what happens when Meryl inevitably reappears.
 
niMic said:
Good/decent episode. I am liking where this is going, as opposed to season 1.
Click to expand...

I dunno, the ending for season 1 was a bit naff. Could do with a bit more crossbow action.
 
why is it that all the sudden, the walkers can run/jog/powerwalk at a fast pace? In the 1st season they just walked and dragged their feet. The ones in the school were moving around pretty fast!
 
choiboyx012 said:
why is it that all the sudden, the walkers can run/jog/powerwalk at a fast pace? In the 1st season they just walked and dragged their feet. The ones in the school were moving around pretty fast!
Click to expand...

Rly?

Thinking back to season 1, the first episode, there were zombies just trudging in the city, then they see mr Ranger on his horse and they all come crashing at him at great speed. Can't recall seeing some being fast and others sticking to walking.
 
How depressing was that. I've said it before but I don't want the walking dead to be an extremely depressing series. You can tell stories of times of tragedy while keeping the audience watching by focusing on relationships etc, but at the moment it seems like everything is going to shit with no positives.

But it was a very good episode I thought.
 
I finally got around to start watching this show. I have finished the first four episodes. It has been meh so far. At least the action so far has kept me interested.
 
I reckon Merle has been fecking zombies. He'll come back into the show with mysterious VD and ask for his drugs back.
 
RDCR07 said:
I finally got around to start watching this show. I have finished the first four episodes. It has been meh so far. At least the action so far has kept me interested.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Season 2 is just as bad. Season 1 Ep. 1 was promising, but it's gone down hill ever since. However, much like HIMYM, I've already invested a lot of time in the show so I will probably keep watching even though it's a bit shit. The characters are just so vanilla it's unreal.

Also I hope the Sheriff's wife dies soon, she's annoying.
 
rcoobc said:
How depressing was that. I've said it before but I don't want the walking dead to be an extremely depressing series. You can tell stories of times of tragedy while keeping the audience watching by focusing on relationships etc, but at the moment it seems like everything is going to shit with no positives.

But it was a very good episode I thought.
Click to expand...

To be fair... how many positives are there in a zombie apocalypse?
 
Why is nobody wearing lots of leather and weird costume accessories? I mean FFS, that old bastard in the RV looks like he's on a fecking fishing trip.

It's the apocalypse...get some leather and chains going.
 
Well I am all caught up now. The second season is definitely better but still I really don't see where they are getting with this show.

Shane is starting to look a little dangerous. Sheriff is the one who needs to be worried but I guess he still does not know about the affair. And when they showed the scar on his head when Shane was shaving his head, I thought he was scratched by the zombie when he hanging outside that window.
 
I really like the show but the cringeworthy factor is starting to get to me. Some of the dialogue between characters is just hard to watch. Like when the young lad woke up, and the first thing he says is "mom..the deer, it was so pretty"..Jesus Christ, give me a break. And as for the main guy still wearing his stupid fecking police shirt and cowboy hat..I don't even know where to start with him. The lad with the arrows is the coolest character in it by a mile.
 
To the people who watched the third episode, if you guys had been in that situation, would you all have done what Shane did?
 
Nope, I wouldn't have even gone to save annoying little deer-faggot boy. I'd have taken off with that suicidal blonde and fecked her into next year.
 
Grinner said:
Nope, I wouldn't have even gone to save annoying little deer-faggot boy. I'd have taken off with that suicidal blonde and fecked her into next year.
Click to expand...

I meant in that particular situation where you are injured and he can't run due to his size and the zombies are closing in. Would you kill him just to save yourself or will you continue to keep him alive and try something else?
 
Anyone seen the new episode yet? The Cherokee Rose?

The Sheriff's wife is in big trouble now. She HAS to come clean based on what happened in the last scene. She is fecked.
 
Watched the first 3 of Season 2 so far. I'm quite enjoying it.

At least they're back out in the open and vulnerable again as opposed to being holed up in that fortress at the end of Season 1.

Could definitely do with a few more interesting characters though and killing off all the dead wood (pretty much everyone except Daryl, good cop/bad cop, suicide sister).
 
CassiusClaymore said:
Watched the first 3 of Season 2 so far. I'm quite enjoying it.

At least they're back out in the open and vulnerable again as opposed to being holed up in that fortress at the end of Season 1.

Could definitely do with a few more interesting characters though and killing off all the dead wood (pretty much everyone except Daryl, good cop/bad cop, suicide sister).
Click to expand...

I like the old guy, he always offers a different view on it all, which I find interesting. I thought yesterday's episode was absolute dogshit though.

Edit: If you're not as far as I am don't read the spoiler, Cassius

I'm getting tired of that Andrea bitch being so emotional, your sister is dead so get over it and stop trying to prove yourself worthy of something no one is particularly denying you of. The Darryl stuff also riled me, he's easily the best character there is and my favourite and now they're adding in all these hallucinations of his racist brother, if he turns out like his brother I'll stop watching the show because Darryl really is the only character who makes the show gripping to watch.

Basically nothing happened in the episode apart from the end, where we find out the family who own the farm are keeping a bunch of zombies locked up, if the plot continues to move so slowly I may stop wasting my time on it.
 
This getting tedious very fast now. Scrap that, it has gotten tedious now.

Let's get it straight, I have no problem with slow moving dramas. I loved the "fly" episode of Breaking Bad as much as I did with the action filled "one minute". But for slow moving drama, you need good acting, great drama and dialogues. Here though you have at most couple of good actors, tedious drama of a women torn between 2 men and some other non sense which is not unique in anyway. All the good and great dramas of our time like Wire, Sopranos, BB were on a different level to this show and could pull off episodes at even slower pace.

The USP of this show is the zombie stuff and fast paced action is what that is going to make it succeed. The recent two episodes have been horse shit.

- I was cringing throwing the whole daryl injury sequence in last episode. Accomplished very little and was very amateur stuff IMO

- The pregancy stuff is too soap-opera'ish

- I could not bring myself to care even an iota for the missing girl mystery they way they have handled it. It might as well have been a mystery on LOST.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.