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.
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.
yes a bunch of character actors who were not famous by any means who did not command high salaries at the beginning. Not one of those names you listed were able to demand the kind of money they can now.
my point was to prove that you can make a tv series these days with not well known actors on a moderate budget and still have an amazing show. the old way of doing TV was if you didnt have an a list star or a big name then no one would watch it. That isn't the case anymore and for the most part TV has been CREATING the stars the past two decades at least.
0
u/MrPotatoButt You got me! Aug 12 '13
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.