[Ciren]

http://www.examiner....estead-revealed

By the sounds of it, they won't be going to the prison first after all, but rather led to Woodburry by Michonne. Interesting.

Thoughts?

[Goat]

Hm. It's possible they go to Woodbury first, yeah.  That would at least get the Governor screen time early in the season, which was something folks seemed to be wondering about since it doesn't appear to be the natural point where he'd enter the picture.  That might be their tweak to make it happen.

[Ansceniiiic]

I doubt that the group will be going to Woodbury first, that's just speculative talk by the writer without any legitimate information.

[Hunter97]

Well I was personally hoping that season 3 would start off with michonne being the center of attention so this is good news

[Ryan_Dead]

I like this idea actually. I think its cool that we and the group along with Michonne get to see what WoodBury is like. If they all go there it could possibly bring some action too, with Woodbury being surronded by walkers and all. Either way, if they go to Woodbury first or the prison I'll be happy

[Marcuslloydak]

I think this would be awesome. If like, they all got held captive and had to escape as a group. I think it would be an adrenaline filled episode! However, I think the woman who wrote this didn't do her research so she's probably inadvertently wrote it wrong. I mean, "benevolent dictator"?

[Ciren]

Marcuslloydak said:

I think this would be awesome. If like, they all got held captive and had to escape as a group. I think it would be an adrenaline filled episode! However, I think the woman who wrote this didn't do her research so she's probably inadvertently wrote it wrong. I mean, "benevolent dictator"?

Yeah, I didn't think about it after I read it, but like Ansceniiiic said, she's just speculating. She wrote it like it's all official though which I guess fooled me...

I still don't think it would be a bad idea though. It would introduce us to the Governor right away and show us what they have planned for him and Woodburry, and given how the variances between the show and comic seem to be dissipating or are planning to dissipate, we'll get to see what changes have been made early on rather than wait mid-season or so.

Intriguing to think that Michonne would lead the group to Woodburry. This would mean that she's already been there for a while and knows what the Governor and town is like. Now given all that she and the Guv go through in the comic, that defintely seems a bit different.

[JHDixon]

I think that would be good to see them go to Woodburry first, i mean it could teach the group that you just can't trust some people. A.k.a The Gov. But i really can't wait until they arrive at the prison, the things Kirkman and Darabont can do it would be amazing to see it on the screen. But that said if they do go to Woodburry first i hope they don't intend to stick to the part of the comics where

Spoiler

ricks gets his fucking hand cut off.

[Ciren]

JHDixon said:

the things Kirkman and Darabont can do it would be amazing to see it on the screen. But that said if they do go to Woodburry first i hope they don't intend to stick to the part of the comics where

Spoiler

ricks gets his fucking hand cut off.

Darabont was fired/let go/quit a while back, you know that right?

and

*Comic Spoiler*

Spoiler

I don't see them cutting off his hand.

[JHDixon]

Ciren, on 08 April 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Darabont was fired/let go/quit a while back, you know that right?

and

*Comic Spoiler*

Spoiler

I don't see them cutting off his hand.

No way! I never knew that, thanks for filling me in though man. But do you know the reason why he was fired or quit? He is a genius that man.

Yeah hopefully they don't, wouldn't do the show justice for me.

[Ciren]

JHDixon said:

No way! I never knew that, thanks for filling me in though man. But do you know the reason why he was fired or quit? He is a genius that man.

http://www.hollywood...ed-fired-221449

[Tynerra]

JHDixon, on 08 April 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

No way! I never knew that, thanks for filling me in though man. But do you know the reason why he was fired or quit? He is a genius that man.

Yeah hopefully they don't, wouldn't do the show justice for me.

Darabont left the show's production between seasons 1 and 2. It was concurrent with the show's budget cuts. There has been a lot of speculation about why/how he left, but there is enough information out and about to put a few things together: Darabont's vision for season 2 was radically different from what we got. It also would've cost more. For me, that has always been central to what happened. His vision for the show and what the production was budgeted by AMC wasn't going to mesh. Whether he left or was asked to leave is almost irrevelant more than a year after the fact - to me anyway.

[Serenity@sea]

Tynerra, on 08 April 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Darabont left the show's production between seasons 1 and 2. It was concurrent with the show's budget cuts. There has been a lot of speculation about why/how he left, but there is enough information out and about to put a few things together: Darabont's vision for season 2 was radically different from what we got. It also would've cost more. For me, that has always been central to what happened. His vision for the show and what the production was budgeted by AMC wasn't going to mesh. Whether he left or was asked to leave is almost irrevelant more than a year after the fact - to me anyway.

I thought it was during season 2 that he was fired/left. I believe he presided over the first half of Season 2 and his vision was too large and costly for AMC. I believe that is why there was a hiatus and Season 2 was shown in two parts.

Edited by Serenity@sea, 08 April 2012 - 06:20 PM.

[Tynerra]

Thanks for the link, Ciren!

Quote

Sources say last fall, even before the first episode of the show had aired, AMC let it be known that it would effectively slash the show's second-season budget per episode by about $650,000, from $3.4 million to $2.75 million. AMC cut the budget and pocketed a tax credit previously applied to the show. An AMC source says the size of the cut cited by sources is "grossly inflated" and that the second-season budget represents a more typical and sustainable number for a basic cable show.

Sad, but true. In show business, like any other business...it is about money.


That discussion almost sidetracked me from the original topic.

That article by Phillips reads like a press release. I wouldn't waste a lot of time trying to guess much from its contents. The reason being, that we've known from Mazarra and Kirkman for awhile that the survivors will be in pretty much the same place for the majority of seasons 3 & 4.

Shooting schedules don't always fall within a linear timeframe with how the shows are edited together in the end. Some scenes are shot out-of-sequence, others left on the editing room floor...

...but that said, I'm excited to see what the show's creative team puts together for season 3. Where they pick the story up and take it - prison or Woodbury...maybe even both simultaneously - I'm sure will be both interesting and intense.

[Tynerra]

Serenity@sea, on 08 April 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

I thought it was during season 2 that he was fired/left. I believe he presided over the first half of Season 2 and his vision was too large and costly for AMC. I believe that is why there was a hiatus and Season 2 was shown in two parts.

Good point, Serenity! Darabont was involved in the planning and mapping of the story for season 2...but not much of the production. I found this at Screen Rant:

Quote

Thankfully, Darabont, Mazzara and the rest of the writing crew had pretty much mapped out the entirety of season 2 – with around eight of the season’s twelve episodes completely scripted. Mazzara will also potentially benefit from a midseason hiatus (for eleven weeks) after episode 7 that could help cleanse everyone’s pallets.

The announcement of Darabont's departure came three days following his appearance at Comic Con and the date fell within the month of July. At that point, according to a couple of sources, the cast and crew had been in Atlanta working on season 2 for about a month.

Darabont had outlined much - if not most of season 2...but to my knowledge, it has never been made public how closely that outline was followed. I wonder if some of the episodes where some have said they felt the show drag in the first half of season two were 'edit' points if you will, where the new creative team was starting to change the plot trajectory.

At any rate, the midseason hiatus was, according to the production staff, always planned and was not an after-shock of Darabont's departure.

[JHDixon]

He is a fantastic artist Darabont, but none the less it doesn't matter the show is still going strong and getting better and better each time i watch it.

[Tynerra]

JHDixon, on 09 April 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

He is a fantastic artist Darabont, but none the less it doesn't matter the show is still going strong and getting better and better each time i watch it.

I agree! Darabont had a fantastic vision and a real 'feel' for the world that Kirkman created. He translated it to the screen brilliantly.

I agree, too, that the show has held its own and gotten better through season two.

I really think season three is going to be a roller-coaster ride!

[JHDixon]

Tynerra, on 09 April 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

I agree! Darabont had a fantastic vision and a real 'feel' for the world that Kirkman created. He translated it to the screen brilliantly.

I agree, too, that the show has held its own and gotten better through season two.

I really think season three is going to be a roller-coaster ride!

Most defiantly I agree 100%. Season will be absolutely fantastic, the things that these group of creative minds can do will be magical.

[Serenity@sea]

Tynerra, on 08 April 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

Good point, Serenity! Darabont was involved in the planning and mapping of the story for season 2...but not much of the production. I found this at Screen Rant:



The announcement of Darabont's departure came three days following his appearance at Comic Con and the date fell within the month of July. At that point, according to a couple of sources, the cast and crew had been in Atlanta working on season 2 for about a month.

Darabont had outlined much - if not most of season 2...but to my knowledge, it has never been made public how closely that outline was followed. I wonder if some of the episodes where some have said they felt the show drag in the first half of season two were 'edit' points if you will, where the new creative team was starting to change the plot trajectory.

At any rate, the mid season hiatus was, according to the production staff, always planned and was not an after-shock of Darabont's departure.

I guess my opinion on the mid season hiatus is due to behind the scenes politics are mere speculation on my part. It just seems so convenient. Also, I take most press releases and interviews with a grain of salt.

I thought this interview with Mazzara was interesting. He basically says that budget cuts had nothing to do Darabont leaving.

http://slumz.boxden....g-dead-1702459/

Edited by Serenity@sea, 09 April 2012 - 03:59 PM.

[Major Tom]

Going to Woodbury first would definitely work but I just don't buy it.

I tend to think that this is based on one writer's ill-informed impression of the plot line. I wonder if she is intimately familiar with TWD, or just a casual observer, drawing incorrect conclusions.

It would be an interesting divergence from the plot as we know it. so I am not disagreeing out of stubborn  attachment to the story I know. I simply think that showing the prison the way they did in the finale would be a dumb mistake, if they plan to leave the prison undiscovered for 2-3 episodes*. It would be totally throwing away a very dramatic image, never mine quite confusing for a large percentage of the viewers.

" Uhh, wonder why they  showed that big prison looking building? Oh well, forget that."  

*I say 2-3 because the Woodbury excursion will take at least that long unless they drastically alter the story and get them in and out in one episode.

[undeadhero]

what major said i dont think they would of showed the prison like that i think they will goto the prison first i dont know much about the prison or woodberry because i dont read the comics but i think the prison will be first and then woodberry because of what i have heard about the comics.

[Shane-Walsh]

They might find the town first then go to to prison, or they'll go to the prison first, and head there for supplies.

[Tynerra]

Serenity@sea, on 09 April 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

I guess my opinion on the mid season hiatus is due to behind the scenes politics are mere speculation on my part. It just seems so convenient. Also, I take most press releases and interviews with a grain of salt.

I thought this interview with Mazzara was interesting. He basically says that budget cuts had nothing to do Darabont leaving.

http://slumz.boxden....g-dead-1702459/

Ewww...good article! Thanks for the link Serenity!!

I always have a very difficult time 'reading' Mazzara...whether in print or an interview situation like Talking Dead. Like the answer he gave "...but the idea that there was a budgetary crisis that was AMC’s fault is completely inaccurate.” That can read in different ways. Is it accurate that there was a budgetary crisis that wasn't AMC's fault? As in, AMC is a business that expects to earn a certain return on its investment, so it cut the budget back, took the tax incentives to the bottom line and that doesn't present fault. It is reality and one that many on the creative side often have difficulty dealing with. (I've experienced that first hand myself.)

But there were far too many hushed whispers that blended together into a subtle roar from the creative side (production crew and cast - always anonymous, of course) that something went very awry. There was a rule that I found from NBC's Saturday Night Live creator Loren Michaels about 'the creative' versus 'the business.' It can be found in detail in the last portion of Bill Carter's last book about late night TV when Conan O'Brien left the Tonight Show after just seven months. In short, when he quit SNL,  Michaels thought that he was making a business decision that was based on creative concerns. But the network suit across the desk basically told him, "...you had a contract to produce a show that was to be 'X' minutes long, it would air at 'X' time and any one of hundreds of points. But nowhere in that contract did it state that the show had to be...'good.' That it was, was just a bonus for the network. You quit and walk away, the network will still be here, the show will stay on the air...maybe it gets better...probably worse. It'll get progressively worse until the network cancels it and move on to something else. The only thing that changes in that equation is that you (Michaels) will be gone, have no creative control and won't make any money or have a chance to save it from getting bad."  In other words, Michaels was the one that really cared whether the show was any good or not...the network was a business that was there to make money - on that show or another one.

It eventually registered with Michaels. No one can say what exactly happened with AMC and Darabont. Personally, I think both sides have handled the situation with incredible class. Darabont has endured in almost complete silence, maintaining a producer's credit (and earning money) throughout the second season. AMC hasn't trashed Darabont anywhere that I can find...at least not "on-the-record."

The only thing that can be truly said about that is that there was a difference somewhere between the network and Darabont. Since we've found where Frank was credited with mapping out quite a bit of Season 2 - although some of his visions were rejected - i.e. the second season opener splitting from the group to follow the story of the soldier/walker in the tank that Rick killed -  it seems fair to assume (being careful to follow the caution when we assume rule) that storyline in the near-term might well have not been the impetus for Darabont's departure...was it the money? Or how it was to be spent? It could have been any one of a hundred different things. Could the departure, just a month into shooting the next season have forced a break in the season? Did Darabont not want Sophia to come ambling out of the barn? Who knows?

But in the end, that suit at NBC back in '79 still has a point...AMC is still there, the show goes on and, we the fans can be thankful that a creative group of people in front of the camera and behind it maintained the show and gave us viewers an interesting season filled with character development, intense moments, and action.

I would have been interested to see where Darabont's vision took the characters and show, but we'll never know if that vision would have presented a dramatic improvement over what was - after all, Mazzara credits Darabont with at least the first eight episodes of season two - although for the life of me, I just don't see how they got that far in shooting after just a month back on set.

In the end, the Darabont debate (for me) is kind of the same as the discussion of how the apocalypse came about. No one with inside knowledge seems to be talking...if/and when they do, will the answers be satisfactory...and so on. In TV production, it gets toxic to look at it through that lens.

Just like I know you are, I'm just looking forward to seeing what twists and turns that creative team comes up with for seasons three and four...whether that starts at Woodbury or the prison.

Edited by Tynerra, 10 April 2012 - 01:18 AM.

[gracie lou]

Tynerra, on 10 April 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

I would have been interested to see where Darabont's vision took the characters and show, but we'll never know if that vision would have presented a dramatic improvement over what was - after all, Mazzara credits Darabont with at least the first eight episodes of season two - although for the life of me, I just don't see how they got that far in shooting after just a month back on set.

They weren't that far into shooting. I believe they had just finished shooting Ep 4 (which ended up being Ep 3, after 1&2 were combined) before SDCC. I'm sure the rest of the first half of S2 was pretty much written, though.

When people talk about the whole Darabont/Mazzara thing, nobody ever mentions how Darabont was planning on handing over the reigns after S1, anyway. When he decided to stay, iirc, Chic Eglee left the show since I think he was the one who was supposed to take over. I suppose Frank would still be involved in some fashion, but I'm not exactly sure how much or how little. Just something I thought of...

[Serenity@sea]

Tynerra, on 10 April 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

Ewww...good article! Thanks for the link Serenity!!

I always have a very difficult time 'reading' Mazzara...whether in print or an interview situation like Talking Dead. Like the answer he gave "...but the idea that there was a budgetary crisis that was AMC’s fault is completely inaccurate.” That can read in different ways. Is it accurate that there was a budgetary crisis that wasn't AMC's fault? As in, AMC is a business that expects to earn a certain return on its investment, so it cut the budget back, took the tax incentives to the bottom line and that doesn't present fault. It is reality and one that many on the creative side often have difficulty dealing with. (I've experienced that first hand myself.)

But there were far too many hushed whispers that blended together into a subtle roar from the creative side (production crew and cast - always anonymous, of course) that something went very awry. There was a rule that I found from NBC's Saturday Night Live creator Loren Michaels about 'the creative' versus 'the business.' It can be found in detail in the last portion of Bill Carter's last book about late night TV when Conan O'Brien left the Tonight Show after just seven months. In short, when he quit SNL,  Michaels thought that he was making a business decision that was based on creative concerns. But the network suit across the desk basically told him, "...you had a contract to produce a show that was to be 'X' minutes long, it would air at 'X' time and any one of hundreds of points. But nowhere in that contract did it state that the show had to be...'good.' That it was, was just a bonus for the network. You quit and walk away, the network will still be here, the show will stay on the air...maybe it gets better...probably worse. It'll get progressively worse until the network cancels it and move on to something else. The only thing that changes in that equation is that you (Michaels) will be gone, have no creative control and won't make any money or have a chance to save it from getting bad."  In other words, Michaels was the one that really cared whether the show was any good or not...the network was a business that was there to make money - on that show or another one.

It eventually registered with Michaels. No one can say what exactly happened with AMC and Darabont. Personally, I think both sides have handled the situation with incredible class. Darabont has endured in almost complete silence, maintaining a producer's credit (and earning money) throughout the second season. AMC hasn't trashed Darabont anywhere that I can find...at least not "on-the-record."

The only thing that can be truly said about that is that there was a difference somewhere between the network and Darabont. Since we've found where Frank was credited with mapping out quite a bit of Season 2 - although some of his visions were rejected - i.e. the second season opener splitting from the group to follow the story of the soldier/walker in the tank that Rick killed -  it seems fair to assume (being careful to follow the caution when we assume rule) that storyline in the near-term might well have not been the impetus for Darabont's departure...was it the money? Or how it was to be spent? It could have been any one of a hundred different things. Could the departure, just a month into shooting the next season have forced a break in the season? Did Darabont not want Sophia to come ambling out of the barn? Who knows?

But in the end, that suit at NBC back in '79 still has a point...AMC is still there, the show goes on and, we the fans can be thankful that a creative group of people in front of the camera and behind it maintained the show and gave us viewers an interesting season filled with character development, intense moments, and action.

I would have been interested to see where Darabont's vision took the characters and show, but we'll never know if that vision would have presented a dramatic improvement over what was - after all, Mazzara credits Darabont with at least the first eight episodes of season two - although for the life of me, I just don't see how they got that far in shooting after just a month back on set.

In the end, the Darabont debate (for me) is kind of the same as the discussion of how the apocalypse came about. No one with inside knowledge seems to be talking...if/and when they do, will the answers be satisfactory...and so on. In TV production, it gets toxic to look at it through that lens.

Just like I know you are, I'm just looking forward to seeing what twists and turns that creative team comes up with for seasons three and four...whether that starts at Woodbury or the prison.

As usual, I appreciate your insights. Your knowledge of the industry seems to go  much deeper than just reading some books or interviews.


One thing that I found interesting, is that Mazzara stated that they write the episodes simultaneously rather than sequentially. That he learned that from Frank. So, that would explain why they had enough material for the first half of Season 2 even though they weren't that far into filming.

I get what you are saying about "reading" Mazzara. There are times when I think he had "Randalitis" (by that, I mean the character Randal on TWD, who just started rambling and tried to give the answer that he thought that person wanted to hear). Sometimes, when he talks about the "virus", I want to say, "Stop!, You are not doing the show any favors because you are just confusing more viewers." LOL


This, IMO, is one of his better interviews and talks about the writing of the show.

http://scifimafia.co...e-walking-dead/

Edited by Serenity@sea, 10 April 2012 - 02:24 AM.