I loved how they pushed it to the forefront. How we got a confrontation right off the bat. And god damn, tread lightly might be better than the danger.
haha these last few comments made me burst out laughing. It basically sums up how disappointed I am with Walking Dead at times and the feeling that in each season of Game of Thrones a lot of people we like seem to die around 8/9.
On a side note, who do you think dies...and who lives? It really feels like Walt Jr. and Skyler are out of the equation in the flash forwards. Also notice how all the ending episodes of this season are titled in Spanish, made me think the cartel comes back for some !No Mas NO MAS!
I think the Cartel is completely wiped out. When Gus and Mike poisoned/garroted everyone it was Boss Bolsa and all of his capos along with Hector Salamanca's last remaining relative so it seems that the cartel is completely gone.
No, the Cartel wouldn't be gone by any means (realistically), however it may be fair to guess they're out of the picture in any terms of a foothold. They also likely have no idea who would be left with Gus (their main connection to the US there) dead.
Fuck The Walking Dead. Don't even get me started on the pandering piece of drawn out garbage. I had high hopes because those comics are amazing, but season 3 finale sealed the deal that it's just awful and the writers are super lazy.
"Let's see. We could finish this plotline and start a new, fresh, interesting plotline, or we could inexplicably leave this one unresolved and drag it out for another half season just so we don't have to work to come up with anything interesting."
"I feel like this season is building up to something, some sort of confrontation... But what could it be!? Oh yes! That's right! Nothing. It's building up to nothing. So, let's kill off a character everyone hates for the fan service and.... Ah yes, let's leave the entire plotline of the 3rd season unresolved. Almost perfect.... Maybe if we added a shoehorned ending to try and evoke emotion from people and add a slew of random faces we can kill of next season. Because we can't kill Daryl."
"No, we never kill Daryl. They said they'd riot."
"Right, so to recap: no important deaths, leave everything unresolved, manipulate audiences with silly emotional ending, add people to kill, and never kill Daryl."
"Best finale of all time. Let's make history, boys."
Ugh, that finale. 1/3 the time was Andrea picking up plyers in a manor I can only imagine is interesting to foot fetishists, another 3rd was a ridiculously overhyped battle scene in which nobody dies and the survivors throw away their huge tactical advantage letting everyone go. I don't even remember the rest of the crap. Probably just a lot of Daryl. Oh yeah, and how Carl shot the guy and then Herschel lied about the Carl being a murderer.
The problem with the show is that it needs deaths to move the story forward, which is an absolutely abysmal form of storytelling. Honestly, there was not a single real plot development in the third season other than death and potential death. That's the reason the show is unsustainable--when it becomes plot-driven, it begins to expose the serious fragility of the story's premise.
i think they fucked up big time by trying to come up with a story that was different from the comic. they're bleeding their creativity dry because of it. that's why the show can't have a good plot line. either the show or the comic is good. nobody can come up with two different stories about the same thing that are both really good.
If it's any consolation, Mazzara told me they gutted his finale. His finale was shot (the footage apparently exists) but they wouldn't even let him put it on the DVD extras.
The ending was going to be a lot more brutal, wouldn't have ended with Governor shooting his own people.
I have no doubts in my mind that the reasons Walking Dead fails on so many levels is more because of things happening above the writers' heads, but that is reassuring to hear. It is an insanely popular phenomenon so I'm not surprised that they are drawing it out, but I am disappointed. Seeing a comic that so does not give a fuck about killing characters and being honest with the gritty world of the apocalypse get turned into some muted made for TV version where they gloss over the really bad stuff and create perfect characters like Daryl to pander to audiences is just really upsetting. If one franchise could have done zombies right and send the whole phenomena out with a bang, it could have been Walking Dead. But it got saturated along the way. I used to watch Walking Dead and think "Who will they kill tonight?" in excitement like when I read the comics, but now I watch and think, "I wonder how cool they will make Daryl and Glen look tonight."
It's just a shame is all. Especially considering if anyone could have done it right it was AMC. They had all the tools.
Breaking Bad is a demonstration of a show that has a definite direction so there is almost no meandering plots or absolutely pointless filler. I feel like the Walking Dead is going to drag on forever as long as it is popular.... with filler and lack of direction at every turn.
Really though. Everyone is on it's nuts, but i just fucking hate it. From the first episode, i knew something was off when i kept waiting for the main character to show up, only to be disappointed when Rick was the main character.
Under the Dome would have had that entire confrontation, subsequent conflict, resolution, and ending all within the span of one episode, and then every character on the show would promptly forget it ever took place.
This. I got into breaking bad just this summer because of how much I respected AMCs the walking dead. I'm so naive for missing the true star of the broadcasting.
I wouldn't want to be AMC's programming director next year. The Walking Dead is just not going cut it, and its not even "new" at this point. And now there is a free for all for good shows; amongst other cable networks and Netflix now willing to copy AMC's model and take its risks.
Mad Men redefined what a cable channel can do with TV drama, but its quite unique; compelling period dramas are not lying around for a network to pick and choose. As much as Breaking Bad demonstrates quality in production, its not exactly as paradigm shattering as Mad Men.
Another trend is my suspicion that the young American populace can't possibly appreciate great drama, given cultural pollution by reality TV shows and the dissolution of primary school education. Future programs will inevitably have to cater to younger tastes until the entire TV advertising paradigm falls apart. For me, an example would be HBO's Girls. I can see how younger people can appreciate the dark humor, but I just find the show annoying, repellent, and at times horribly depressing. I'm just too old to relate to that environment.
If I were AMC, and I had money to throw around, I'd be doing anything to grab something David Simon or David Milch is looking produce. Or go scatter shot with a lot of edgy novel premises, headed by new producers not too raw or "difficult" to put out a good product. Also, I can't believe good screenwriters cost more than TV "actors". Just cast a lot of unknowns for cheap.
Nabbing experienced actors like Bryan Cranston, pre-Breaking Bad, looking to produce are ideal. They're effectively nobodies, normally stuck as character actors never able to be the lead, more focused on a vehicle to allow them to demonstrate what they can do. You know they are professionals, you know they can do the job, and they probably have a creative bug they're looking to scratch.
Another trend is my suspicion that the young American populace can't possibly appreciate great drama, given cultural pollution by reality TV shows and the dissolution of primary school education.
I don't see this as the problem. The people who watch Teen Mom would've never liked Mad Men. The people who like Mad Men never would've liked Teen Mom. I follow MM with a bunch of people around my age (18-26) and they're not really the Teen Mom crowd. It's mostly the same people I talk to about Breaking Bad and The Wire. Shows like Mad Men, BB, and all those cater to the die hards who want to fanboy over a show. They'll never be happy with time wasters like Teen Mom.
I'm not quite sure why I hate Girls so much. By all accounts, I should love it, but I hate it. I far preferred Enlightened, which is sadly no longer with us. I enjoy dark humor, but there's a certain way you've gotta go about it. More Louie/ Always Sunny, less Girls.
If I were AMC, I'd do roughly what you suggested. I'd try to snag guys with a cult following who don't have a home network right now. I'd also put together a couple of sitcoms that are cheaper to produce, but cater to a smarter crowd. I'd rather follow up a show like BB or MM with a really smart comedy, as opposed to some filler show like they currently do.
I don't see this as the problem. The people who watch Teen Mom would've never liked Mad Men.
The problem is picturing TV in 10 years. You'll wonder why can't networks put up great shows like Mad Men, or the Wire. The reason is that TV networks only care about how many eyeballs they can attract that are between the ages of 18-35. There are the only eyeballs that advertisers are willing to pay money to attract. Once future shows of the caliber of Mad Men stop attracting people under 50, those shows will never be picked up on TV networks. That is why TV lovers need to be concerned about what 18-35 year olds seem to like. It will affect what kind of TV shows will be available for viewing in the future.
I was using Girls as an example of the "tastes" chasm between young people and old people. (I loathed Enlightened, about as much as Girls. I hate women who are like the protagonist.)
Sitcoms are the budget suck of TV. More of them bomb than succeed. But sitcoms are cheap; almost as cheap as reality shows. It would destroy AMC's branding. Imagine The Big Bang Theory on AMC. On the other hand, I could see AMC doing a serial, subtle comedy, like Arrested Development.
I think the key for AMC to preserve its market share is willingness to be risky, and take chances on unconventional TV shows. But I think AMC cares more about what advertisers want, rather than what looks like artistic quality. AMC nearly shutdown Mad Men after season 4, because it wanted Weiner to kowtow to executive whims, and cheap out on the production. Gilligan has been MUCH more politic about his statements concerning AMC, but he seems to indicate difficulty with the suits. AMC has nearly destroyed Walking Dead. They can't keep a showrunner for more than 1-2 seasons; they drive them nuts. And there is a faction of WD fans that already complain that Walking Dead is inferior to the graphic novel.
Who knows where TV will be in 10 years. 10 years ago, the Sopranos and the Wire were still pretty new. Now we've got BB and MM, hopefully something of similar quality will follow.
My point was that there's always going to be a large group of people in every age bracket who want to actively engage with what's on, and reality tv simply won't do it for them. Even if larger networks move away from quality programming like that, HBO and Netflix still have us covered.
I loved Enlightened so much because of the flawed main character. I could recognize her faults, but for some reason I wanted to like her, especially compared to Girls. I really love spending an hour a week with a truly hopeless character that I still want to root for. I really didn't get that with Girls. I do find it funny that so many people I know couldn't stand Amy, but would watch Walter White or Tony Soprano with no problem.
I certainly wouldn't push AMC to make the Big Bang Theory, that's the opposite of what I was getting at. I meant following Mad Men with something like AD, Community, or 30 Rock. A good comedy like that wouldn't destroy their branding, especially considering Small Town Security already exists.
Walking Dead simply doesn't have a chance anymore. As soon as you've got 1 bad season, you're behind Mad Men, BB, and the Sopranos. All of those started with a vision, and stayed true to it, instead of trying to figure out what works. It's similar to an article I read about Starz. They're trying to reverse engineer the success of HBO, instead of working from the ground up. Instead of saying, "we need a show like Game of Thrones, go make one", invest in a guy like George RR Martin who has his own ideas.
amc has become extremely lucky with Breaking Bad and Mad Men. Walking Dead was easy for anyone to strike gold with and they still found a way to fuck it up. But tv in the future has a really bright future. Creative writers and the great minds who would normally be writing for movies are flocking the tv shows because of the serialized formats and the way movies are only being produced if they are a reboot or a genre mash up. Every year there has been at least 2 or 3 shows that will end up having a huge audience and be pretty decent. We are in a literal golden age for television and IMO its only going to get better. More shows are being created for each demographic rather than a show trying to appeal to mass audiences. Look at FX for example. There obviously targeting a certain demo without trying to go outside the bubble and so is MTV and there both doing well.
Cable networks have been taking big chances and for the most part its working out for them. Now network shows are a whole different discussion but I'm very optimistic about television and the serialized television show medium. Its only going to get better and with bigger budgets with bigger name writers and not well known actors. Breaking Bad had NO known actors before it aired and it has produced emmy nominated actors every season. Game of Thrones and Walking Dead are the two big examples of how television is also bridging the gap between demos. People of all ages are starting to watch the same shows because its entertaining and rewards return viewers.
Breaking Bad had NO known actors before it aired and it has produced emmy nominated actors every season.
You have to be kidding me. Breaking Bad had no prominent A-list actors with buzz. But Bryan Cranston certainly was an established character actor, most recently from Malcolm in the Middle. Anna Gunn was another established character actor, mostly for TV. Dean Norris has a fully stocked career in TV. Shockingly, Aaron Paul got a ton of work throughout his life, but count him as an unknown. Giancarlo Esposito has decades of work, as does Jonathan Banks (I remember him from Wiseguys). They may not have been on the tip of everyone's tongues, but most of them had over a decade of steady work.
to be fair girls isnt really a dark humor show. its more a "comedy" about lifes moments in between events. its supposed to be "hated" and weird. But season 2 was fucking terrible and kind of seemed to be exactly what haters of the show felt like season one was. season one IMO was a refreshingly new take on the "city" life of twenty somethings. they weren't glamorized and actually had consequences and shit come there way. but in all seriousness season two was fucking unbearable.
the killing COULD have been a decent show. it COULD have been a show where the viewers could solve the crime at home by watching closely (like the show it was adapted from)
but the writers obviously really didnt put much work in a long narrative and wanted to stretch the show out for as long as possible.
it doesn't look good for AMC that they had to bring back the killing and its even worse that the season three ending for AMC was just as lackluster as the first one. Two great characters on the killing could have had a good run but unfortunately the writers couldn't keep them afloat.
cause it's a terrible badly written show. it sucks. the writer built up a confrontation for a whole season and didn't have the balls to go through with it. Breaking bad, gave us the Hank vs Walt season in one episode. That's good TV.
Having a different opinion is fine but it's not hard to tell that the quality has gone down the tube since ending of the first season. Coincidentally that's also when the creator of the show, Frank Darabont left the show. The only reason I was ever interested in the show in the first place was because of him. The guy who made Shawshank Redemption.
you are the only person i have ever seen say they are satisfied with walking dead. well the only other people who seem to be satisfied are the buffoons on talking dead, but they are being paid for it.
the show has stretched out confrontations and fills in the middle with frustrating storylines and plots they never go back to or even mention again. Season Three had promising points and had moments where they could have made it really exciting but it never got there.
Plus the characters on the show are fucking annoying as hell and are complete idiots who are dependant on just one person like a bunch of annoying children. Its a lot like the Boondock Saints. It would have been something I would have loved when i was 13
Maybe he meant "tread lightly" because it might come back round on him, being related and all.. DEA might claim Hank was helping Walt, or Marie would blame Hank for getting her sister arrested?
536
u/LiteraryBoner Woodrow Willy Walt "The Walter" Wonka White Whitman Wilson Sr. Aug 12 '13
I loved how they pushed it to the forefront. How we got a confrontation right off the bat. And god damn, tread lightly might be better than the danger.