[Ed Peletier]

I would imagine what drives any show to be successful is its ability to attract prospective advertisers. To do this they have to get their viewership up. TWD is not having any trouble with this.

Part of the problem is, in at least my view, is that it is a tough show to have product placement. They did manage to do it with Hyandai. So far I have not seen them discover a huge cache of Pepsi or Coca Cola. Maybe because those compaines aren't really looking to be a part of it.

With that said, It would have a cheapened feel to me if they were wandering after the prisons came upon another group that had to ability to keep things cold and was able to "offer" Rick an ice cold Pepsi.

Hold that thought, I am getting thirsty!!!!!

Back, I am in Kinko's, Had to grab a coke.

Anyways, imagine how much you would want something ice cold if you were a year+ in TWD universe.

Spoiler

Season 1 where the women were talking about what they missed.

Also, the Saviours if they are as large as they are in the comic might still retain this luxury.

But Coca Cola and Pepsi also distribute bottled water. They could easily come across a truck loaded with Desani or Aquafina and you have product placement that actually makes sense. Not to mention they can stick around as long as they want because Rick can refill those plastic bottles.

[Logan5]

It is hard to tell why networks do the things they do. TWD is a crazy popular show, you would think they would do anything and everything to make it look and feel as real as possible. Yet Woodbury looked so cheap to me. I still think back when the Sci Fi channel killed off FarScape. It was very popular and I believe their highest rated show at the time, making them tons of money. Yet their excuse, as I recall, was the show was just too expensive.

Perhaps what they really meant was, we can't give as much money to the stockholders. They were making a nice profit off the show, just not as much as they felt they deserved. Maybe there is a "profit line" and that once a show crosses that line (meaning the profits have dropped below a pre-decided number) it is no longer worth the expense no matter how well it is doing ratings wise.

Or maybe they just have a monkey throwing darts to make these types of decisions

Logan

[gracie lou]

It is hard to tell why networks do the things they do. TWD is a crazy popular show, you would think they would do anything and everything to make it look and feel as real as possible. Yet Woodbury looked so cheap to me. I still think back when the Sci Fi channel killed off FarScape. It was very popular and I believe their highest rated show at the time, making them tons of money. Yet their excuse, as I recall, was the show was just too expensive.

Perhaps what they really meant was, we can't give as much money to the stockholders. They were making a nice profit off the show, just not as much as they felt they deserved. Maybe there is a "profit line" and that once a show crosses that line (meaning the profits have dropped below a pre-decided number) it is no longer worth the expense no matter how well it is doing ratings wise.

Or maybe they just have a monkey throwing darts to make these types of decisions

Logan

What do you mean about Woodbury looking cheap? I think the only building that they built was the governor's house. The rest of the town looks pretty much like it does in real life. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.

[stickoffury412]

I agree with Gracie in a sense that Woodbury itself doesn't look cheap because its an actual town not a set

But to me the feel of Woodbury overall is what was cheap. Not the town itself

[Deadpelican]

Well, its kinda simple really.... Mad Men is already on its what..uhmm...5th? 6th season already? Plus, its already won a lot of awards ---Emmys, Globes etc...so it has "proven" itself as a series and still has considerable following.

And...as far as I know, unlike TWD or GoT is very much an "original" tv show, not based on comics and/or book (which makes it a bit more "sophisticated" to tell the story or too "complicated" to catch up on the series --which further explains why it gets two hours. The "drama" is in the dialogue- it cant be "fast and dirty").

While TWD and GoT, are already widely known ....so they're much "easier" to follow even if you havent read the comics/book or you've just watch it for the first time (just throw in a zombie attack/ extreme violence and and the audience is happy to watch next week's episode). Also, it'll probably be harder to stretch the plot story-wise (as it may just complicate stuff later on) ...

and C'mon .....would we really want a two-hour stretch of the Prison gang and/or Woodbury's grumpy old people "talking amongst themselves"?!? Its already "boring" enough as it is. TWD is simply or should really be an action/suspense kind of show --- danger lurking at every turn (of the pages, so to speak ---that's why TWD was/is still a hit comic series). Unfortunately, this has NOT been the case with most of the episodes on TWD tv (with the exception of Prey and This Sorrowful Life ---and we all know what eventually happened to the characters that were on those episodes). But if turns out action-pack/suspense-filled..then a 2-hour episode would just be too long. It doesn't need more time...it needs more,,,"cliff-hangers"! or....

Spoiler

booby-tramps!!!

Eh... I really don't know what "Mad Men's" ratings are, but adding new characters who run around looking like this, in nearly every episode well... that usually signals that a show is in a state of decline and resorting to cheap/ desperate measures to save flagging ratings.

Not that I'm complaining but it seems to be true.

Walking Dead is a healthy mixture of drama and action/ suspense, or at least I think so. Some people complain that Mazzara turned season three into a Michael Bay movie, but I didn't really see it that way. Each season has had hits and misses but even at its worst, TWD has been very good.

The 'old people' of Woodbury is yet another weird fixation that people have developed that I really don't understand. Yeah there were some old people getting off the bus but it wasn't a geriatric ward.

[detartrated]

Eh... I really don't know what "Mad Men's" ratings are, but adding new characters who run around looking like this, in nearly every episode well... that usually signals that a show is in a state of decline and resorting to cheap/ desperate measures to save flagging ratings.

Not that I'm complaining but it seems to be true.

Walking Dead is a healthy mixture of drama and action/ suspense, or at least I think so. Some people complain that Mazzara turned season three into a Michael Bay movie, but I didn't really see it that way. Each season has had hits and misses but even at its worst, TWD has been very good.

The 'old people' of Woodbury is yet another weird fixation that people have developed that I really don't understand. Yeah there were some old people getting off the bus but it wasn't a geriatric ward.

I'm glad you brought it up -- "the ratings game" (which can easily be Googled up) And since, both shows are on AMC (which the original thread title highlights) we can make an "apples to apples/oranges to oranges" comparison at least on that aspect, here are the numbers: 2009's Mad Men (Season 3): 87% and 2012's The Walkind Dead (Season 3): 82% both by Metacritic and the same season to really make a good comparison). Now if we go by Season premiere (date/year) which is 2012 (hey maybe audience/critics preferences have significantly changed somewhat) then we have to take compare it to 2012 Mad Men's Season 5 ratings...which turns out to be...(drum rolls):

Spoiler

Mad Men (Season 5): 88% -- wtf?!? talk about consistency

Now for Mad Men's "state of decline"....er, I must admit that personally I'm not that "watchful" of it anymore (mainly because tbh, for a cabletv show, they don't really have enough pictures of this.... I get my fill watching Spartacus on Starz)....still, your statement does not compute in light of this article: 'Mad Men' Season 5 premiere delivers ratings record (Dammit! the friggin viewership increased after the last season?!?)


Granted, TWD is a "far cry" from MM (whose strong point are in the dialogue)...and that I think is the "problem" with TWD (in particular Season 3) ---the "crying/so much talking part", its starting to become, in your words: "a healthy mixture of drama and action/ suspense:" ---er, uhmmm...what?!? Personally, I don't want a "healthy mixture" of drama and suspense/action....I want more of a unadulterated, no-holds barred, shocking, jarring wtf-moments...or at least, an always impending sense of doom amongst the characters...something which the comics would not really be able to put across unlike on tv...but sadly or surprisingly it seems to do more. We can only wish they'd bring in Michael Bay....after, the Season 3 finale...they might really have to.,,,(or at least a Jon Favreau like what they did on Revolution --which is really a show more comparable to TWD than MM)

[Logan5]

I agree with Gracie in a sense that Woodbury itself doesn't look cheap because its an actual town not a set

But to me the feel of Woodbury overall is what was cheap. Not the town itself

Yes, Woodbury is a town, but as a set for a TV show it felt cheap, I don't think just because it is a real town means it automatically makes a good set for a movie or TV. But yes more specifically the overall feel was cheap.

Logan

[Deadpelican]

I'm glad you brought it up -- "the ratings game" (which can easily be Googled up) And since, both shows are on AMC (which the original thread title highlights) we can make an "apples to apples/oranges to oranges" comparison at least on that aspect, here are the numbers: 2009's Mad Men (Season 3): 87% and 2012's The Walkind Dead (Season 3): 82% both by Metacritic and the same season to really make a good comparison). Now if we go by Season premiere (date/year) which is 2012 (hey maybe audience/critics preferences have significantly changed somewhat) then we have to take compare it to 2012 Mad Men's Season 5 ratings...which turns out to be...(drum rolls):

Spoiler

Mad Men (Season 5): 88%-- wtf?!? talk about consistency

Now for Mad Men's "state of decline"....er, I must admit that personally I'm not that "watchful" of it anymore (mainly because tbh, for a cabletv show, they don't really have enough pictures of this.... I get my fill watching Spartacus on Starz)....still, your statement does not compute in light of this article: 'Mad Men' Season 5 premiere delivers ratings record (Dammit! the friggin viewership increased after the last season?!?)


Granted, TWD is a "far cry" from MM (whose strong point are in the dialogue)...and that I think is the "problem" with TWD (in particular Season 3) ---the "crying/so much talking part", its starting to become, in your words: "a healthy mixture of drama and action/ suspense:" ---er, uhmmm...what?!? Personally, I don't want a "healthy mixture" of drama and suspense/action....I want more of a unadulterated, no-holds barred, shocking, jarring wtf-moments...or at least, an always impending sense of doom amongst the characters...something which the comics would not really be able to put across unlike on tv...but sadly or surprisingly it seems to do more. We can only wish they'd bring in Michael Bay....after, the Season 3 finale...they might really have to.,,,(or at least a Jon Favreau like what they did on Revolution --which is really a show more comparable to TWD than MM)

I could have just as easily looked up the metacritic page- if I had been talking about ratings among critics.

I wasn't.

I was talking about viewership.

By "ratings game" I mean how many viewers the show draws in.

And yes, I know how to use Google and yes it turns out that the season 6 premiere was down by 100k viewers.

THAT is what I mean by a "series in decline."

Jessica Pare half-naked is nice, but it's happening so damn much I started to wonder what was really going on and, lo and behold, their numbers are declining.

That's not to say it's a horrendous show. It's still entertaining and 3.4 million viewers is certainly respectable, but nowhere close to Walking Dead's numbers. or Game of Throne's.

[detartrated]

Eh... I really don't know what "Mad Men's" ratings are, but adding new characters who run around looking like this, in nearly every episode well... that usually signals that a show is in a state of decline and resorting to cheap/ desperate measures to save flagging ratings.

I could have just as easily looked up the metacritic page- if I had been talking about ratings among critics.

I wasn't.

I was talking about viewership.

By "ratings game" I mean how many viewers the show draws in.

And yes, I know how to use Google and yes it turns out that the season 6 premiere was down by 100k viewers.

THAT is what I mean by a "series in decline."

Jessica Pare half-naked is nice, but it's happening so damn much I started to wonder what was really going on and, lo and behold, their numbers are declining.

That's not to say it's a horrendous show. It's still entertaining and 3.4 million viewers is certainly respectable, but nowhere close to Walking Dead's numbers. or Game of Throne's.

Well, you did say "ratings" in your initial reply post which to me is really more about whether a show is "good or bad or just meh" -- more qualifiable than quantifiable that's why I quoted a "critic's page" but if you were really referring to "viewership" (i mean viewers can still watch a show even if it sucks right?) then of course shows like TWD and Game of Thrones will almost always win hands-down (it'd be shocking if they don't) because they already have the built-in audience from the comics and book followings (that's why people will always watch the show probably just to see if they're expectations of their favorite "book' gets their "inner fan" satisfied) -- in fact, whether they actually "like the show or not" it doesn't really matter -- unconsciously (or subconsciously) they'll still watch it coz...you know...it's the frickin Walking Dead!

As for Mad Men, it set in an era where probably more than half of the viewers weren't born yet ---and yet, their viewership has steadily increased each season as well as its ratings. So..."it turns out that the season 6 premiere was down by 100k viewers" but then so what? "only 100k" didnt watch it anymore? that's not so dramatic when you consider that: a) it's already on its 6th season...(it's really quite "old" for a tv show -- some pun intended) it just came off from a 17-month break (I didnt even know there was a 6th season)... and c) it was up against the The Game of Thrones! (hello? GoT got midgets, dragons, witches, zombies (uh-oh) and occassionally fully naked women sexing up the midget!!!(double uh-oh).

[Deadpelican]

(i mean viewers can still watch a show even if it sucks right?)

Viewership/ audience numbers are absolute.

Critical praise is relative and largely meaningless.

People in this forum can't say enough about how bad Walking Dead season three is, but critics praise it.

[detartrated]

Viewership/ audience numbers are absolute.

Critical praise is relative and largely meaningless.

People in this forum can't say enough about how bad Walking Dead season three is, but critics praise it.

I dunno about "absolute" and much more when you say "meaningless" ...but I'm glad you used the same critic site (metacritic.com) to compare "ratings" between I TWD and MM (at least there is this one source of reference). However, I'm not sure TWD would really want to go up against Mad Men in the critic's "ratings game" (those who will look it up further will see my point). If you all do, I think this will fairly answer why AMC is perceived to be "devoting" less to its "Ratings (in terms of number of viewers) Giant". Simply put, TWD should at this point (Season 3), already have gotten "higher" critic rating numbers, instead its kinda "stuck" in the lower 80's (for the record AMC's Mad Men has not gone below "85" after its 2nd season)....but then of course, critical praise is largely "meaningless" right? Yeah, tell that to AMC and the people that watch the Emmys and the Golden Globes.

Finally, I dunno about who or why "People in this forum can't say enough about how bad Walking Dead season three is".....Personally, I don't think it was "all that bad" but you are right when we've got people here who seem to have weird fixations, or in your own words: "The 'old people' of Woodbury is yet another weird fixation that people have developed that I really don't understand" -- then things are not "developing" that well for TWD in Season3....worse, they're most likely gonna carry it over to Season 4.

Thank god we still have Shumpert!!!!

[stickoffury412]

Season three was not horrible. It just wasn't as good as season 1 and 2 a lot of people will complain about the season after because the previous sets a high bar. People complained about season twos slow pacing but I enjoyed season two.

There are always pros and cons to shows like this and there will be some seasons that were better or worse than others but I don't think this season has left me questioning if I will join in next season, it just has me less excited than I was for the beggining of season 3, hopefully the comic con preview will re -excite us all

[Serenity@sea]

Season three was not horrible. It just wasn't as good as season 1 and 2 a lot of people will complain about the season after because the previous sets a high bar. People complained about season twos slow pacing but I enjoyed season two.

There are always pros and cons to shows like this and there will be some seasons that were better or worse than others but I don't think this season has left me questioning if I will join in next season, it just has me less excited than I was for the beggining of season 3, hopefully the comic con preview will re -excite us all

Yep, you get the Stanley nod of approval for your post.

[stickoffury412]

Yay! Thanks Serenity

[realityman]

AMC went "all-in" with Mad Men prior to TWD becoming the big hit that it is. I remember reading about Jon Hamm's and Matt Weiner's massive contract extensions just as the Walking Dead's first season was premiering. I guess you can't blame them, because Mad Men was getting them lots of publicity and attention. (although nothing near the scale of TWD).

I think the takeaway is that AMC did not think TWD was going to be the success that it is. Nor did they expect Mad Men's success to stagnant the way it has. Now they are in a situation where their biggest show is underfunded, and their other show is overfunded. They actually cut Darabont's budget repeatedly despite the show exceeding expectations.. which led to his departure.

If i had to guess.. i would say Mad Men's budget far far far exceeds what The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad are being given right now. Totally ridiculous..

[d2daybreak]

Viewership/ audience numbers are absolute. Critical praise is relative and largely meaningless. People in this forum can't say enough about how bad Walking Dead season three is, but critics praise it.

That appears to be critic feedback for the S3 premiere and not all of S3. Many people here praised the premiere too and still list in their top 3 episodes of the season, if not the top episode. Would those same critics rate the season as a whole as high as they did the premiere episode? I doubt it.

[Deadpelican]

That appears to be critic feedback for the S3 premiere and not all of S3. Many people here praised the premiere too and still list in their top 3 episodes of the season, if not the top episode. Would those same critics rate the season as a whole as high as they did the premiere episode? I doubt it.

That post was a response to what detartrated posted.

He posted the metacritic page for "Mad Men Season 3" and I posted the exact same thing for "Walking Dead Season 3."

The URL's are nearly identical.