View Full Version : Walking Dead: AMC dismisses Darabont over cost cutting furor

August 11th, 2011, 09:01 PM
/shakes head


"In the 18-to-49 demo, it chalked up the biggest number ever for any drama on basic cable."


"What remains a central mystery, even to those closely involved, is what triggered AMC's move to fire Darabont. As noted, AMC's decision to cut the budget dated to the previous fall, when the network instructed Darabont to produce 13 episodes for a second season, up from six for the first season, for less money. Not only would the show get a lower budget, but AMC also decided that Walking Dead would no longer reap the benefit of a 30 percent tax credit per episode that came with filming in Georgia. Now the network was going to hold on to that money."

"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."

/soooo the same brain dead cost cutting at sy fy has spread to AMC? Lets take a well rated show and cheapen it...that should help...right?


I predict much more holds on books I will place at the local library...rather than suffer any of this pablum. As it is I double pay for AMC...in cable fees and suffering through advertisements. It seems it is too much to ask for some quality feature programming. Why not just go ahead and become full Idiocracy and show "Ow My Balls!"?

/grumble /grumble /rabblerabble

Admiral Mappalazarou
August 11th, 2011, 10:33 PM
I knew when I read that season two was headed to the countryside that it sounded a little suspicious. I really hope the new season holds up because season one was fantastic. The only part of the show they could have cut down (had they needed to) was the laboratory in the final two episodes. Maybe they would have kept more money if they had laid back on all of the high tech gizmo's and all of that lighting.

Back on topic though, it's going to be interesting how they do 13 episodes with less of a budget. Season two's looking awful bleak in content atm.

August 12th, 2011, 05:50 AM

August 12th, 2011, 12:39 PM
You can also thank Mad Men for the lower production cost

Angela V
August 12th, 2011, 01:21 PM
Weird. I'd rather have another 6 episode season than a 13 episode season with a reduced budget. I hope AMC isn't going to wreck this show by their odd choices.

August 12th, 2011, 01:53 PM
You can also thank Mad Men for the lower production cost
AMC isn't hurting so badly for money that one show is adversely affecting another's budget in any meaningful way.

August 12th, 2011, 02:35 PM
Read this


August 12th, 2011, 03:39 PM
Kurt Sutter works for FX, not AMC.

August 12th, 2011, 03:41 PM
Kurt Sutter works for FX, not AMC.

But what he is saying makes sense & a lot of people agree with him. The fingers are being pointed at Matt Weiner & rightfully so

August 12th, 2011, 03:48 PM
It doesn't matter what "makes sense" through the eyes of perception that isn't informed by all the facts, nor does it matter that the nebulous 'people' like what he has to say.

We don't have all the facts, and to all appearances right now, it's AMC messing with the show. To pass blame on other shows is simply unfounded (not to mention vaguely libellous) gossip.

August 12th, 2011, 04:01 PM
AMC will have to say something eventually. Otherwise Mad Men will be the only show AMC has left & people will refuse to work with AMC if this gets around some more

August 12th, 2011, 04:58 PM
-Insert offensive word here- these greedy pigs.

The Mighty 6 platoon
August 12th, 2011, 06:01 PM
AMC isn't hurting so badly for money that one show is adversely affecting another's budget in any meaningful way.

It's not hard to put two and two together and work out that after AMC sign an expensive contract for Mad Men, they suddenly suffer money problems. Let's be clear, The Walking Dead was not the only show threatened with budget cuts, so was Breaking Bad, and it only escaped because AMC don't own the rights to the show, and the show runners threatened to go to another network. AMC do own the rights to The Walking Dead, hence they can cut the budget, and fire anyone, eg Frank Darabont, who protests.

Either AMC is hurting for money or they have gone insane, because they are cutting the budget of their biggest ratings winer, which gets twice the ratings of Mad Men or Breaking Bad.

August 12th, 2011, 06:09 PM
It's not like the contract with Matthew Weiner was up-front. It was a 2+ year contract.

The Mighty 6 platoon
August 12th, 2011, 06:51 PM
It's not like the contract with Matthew Weiner was up-front. It was a 2+ year contract.

That still gives them a bigger budget, per year. AMC let themsleves get bullied into a bad deal, they signed this big new contract for Mad Men, because they didn't want to lose the show to another network. But they forgot the knock on effect it would have on their other shows.

Or perhaps they didn't care, and just figured that because they own the rights to the Walking Dead they could happily use it as a whipping boy. Either way it has truly been screwed over, not just by Mad Men, but by Breaking Bad as well. Because AMC doesn't own the rights to Breaking Bad either, they rejected the budget cuts AMC asked of them, and demanded the budget for a full season of 13 eps, rather than 6 as originally planned. I don't actually blame Vince Gilligan, the show runner from Breaking Bad for this, he didn't ask for this, and he's just protecting his show from being screwed over, but it means that the Walking Dead now has to accommodate cuts that would have been shared with Breaking Bad as well.

August 13th, 2011, 02:18 AM
I don't blame the showrunner for Mad Men for this mess because he did what a good showrunner should do - fight to get the best deal for his show. Nor do I blame the showrunner of Breaking Bad for protecting that show's interests.

Hell, Frank Darabont tried to do the same for The Walking Dead. Unfortunately, he didn't have the leverage that the other 2 showrunners had, since AMC owns TWD and not the others, which is probably why he was fired.

No, the source of this mess should be placed where it belongs - on the shoulders of the AMC execs and not on the showrunners whose only "crime" is that they want to protect their shows and their people.

October 16th, 2011, 05:16 AM
Walking Dead Producer Gale Anne Hurd on Losing Frank Darabont and What’s in Store for Season Two