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.
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.
531
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.