5 ms·

You pretty much wrote what I was going to say. AMC hit it's Golden Age of TV programming with that trio, but clearly have shown that they have issues with the

by colmvp 13y ago

You pretty much wrote what I was going to say. AMC hit it's Golden Age of TV programming with that trio, but clearly have shown that they have issues with the handling of heavy creative talent, what with the issues that Weiner and Gilligan have publicly had, and the volatility of the showrunner position on the Walking Dead. (which subsequently also resulted in one of the actors leaving the show). On top of that, they expanded the number of episodes of S4 while reducing the budget per episode. And of course, milked the coverage of these shows with vacuous Talking Bad/Talking Dead. I wouldn't be surprised if talented writers avoided that network like the plague.

mjolk 13y ago
>which subsequently also resulted in one of the actors leaving the show Which actor is this?
- insteadof 13y ago
  Jon Bernthal. Whose character was already outliving what the creators were planning.
jcampbell1 13y ago
AMC is also in a tough spot. They don't have the revenue to support the creative folks properly. The long lag between great content and an increase in the affiliate fee, makes the financials tricky. The death of DVD sales is not helping much either, as there is less to promise on the backend. I think AMC gets $.35 per subscriber compared to ~$5 for ESPN. It is going take decades of hit shows before AMC is paid the $1-2 they actually deserve.
- latj 13y ago
  Hopefully eventually its a la carte. I'd pay $2/mo for AMC. I dont need the ESPN. The problem though is there sister channels. IFC is good but I could leave the rest.
  - MikeCapone 13y ago
    That is what John Malone thinks will happen (de-bundling). http://www.cnbc.com/id/100637283 http://www.cnbc.com/id/100637283
  - s_q_b 13y ago
    My bet is that TV-over-IP eats the market before de-bundling occurs. In terms of cost, distribution, quality, and ease-of-use, digital downloads beat cable every time. The only piece of the puzzle networks still own is content production. With House Of Cards and Arrested Development, Netflix made a strong entry into the TV-making club, and struck the first blow against that monopoly. In my view, we're two innovations away from internet tv for the masses: independent content production that can rival the networks for quality, and an easy-to-use streaming box to supply it. The latter is easily possible with technology on the market right now (Roku, Apple TV, etc.), and the former seems all but inevitable.
    - mason55 13y ago
      The tough part about that for the networks is building out the infrastructure and giving up all the free advertising that the cable companies give them. By packaging their content as a standalone service, a la HBO Go, they've now given up being bundled in tiers with other networks. And they've got to build out their own delivery networks & apps. Or... they can join up with groups of other networks, create a service that advertises and bundles networks together and takes care of all the infrastructure. Shit. We just built cable again.
      - s_q_b 13y ago
        Or a series of third parties can compete to offer the infrastructure, which is just a CDN tied to a small computer with an HDMI out, and the former networks and new production houses can offer their programming on one, some, or all of them.
        mason55 13y ago
        BTW this is one reason net neutrality is so important. If we're going to start rebuilding existing services over dumb lines (IP) then it's imperative that we maintain competition. The big problem with cable right now is that it's an oligopoly (monopoly in many places). By separating the infrastructure from the content delivery we can hopefully avoid many of the issues people currently have with cable. If we allow Verizon to charge an extra $50 to carry any non-Verizon-based "TV show bundle" then we really will be right back in the cable boat. It's pretty amazing though that Moto wants $800 for a cable box and Western Digital can sell the same thing for $150. Shows what competition gets you.

by colmvp 13y ago

mjolk 13y ago

>which subsequently also resulted in one of the actors leaving the show Which actor is this?

insteadof 13y ago
Jon Bernthal. Whose character was already outliving what the creators were planning.

jcampbell1 13y ago

AMC is also in a tough spot. They don't have the revenue to support the creative folks properly. The long lag between great content and an increase in the affiliate fee, makes the financials tricky. The death of DVD sales is not helping much either, as there is less to promise on the backend. I think AMC gets $.35 per subscriber compared to ~$5 for ESPN. It is going take decades of hit shows before AMC is paid the $1-2 they actually deserve.

latj 13y ago
Hopefully eventually its a la carte. I'd pay $2/mo for AMC. I dont need the ESPN. The problem though is there sister channels. IFC is good but I could leave the rest.
- MikeCapone 13y ago
  That is what John Malone thinks will happen (de-bundling). http://www.cnbc.com/id/100637283 http://www.cnbc.com/id/100637283
- s_q_b 13y ago
  My bet is that TV-over-IP eats the market before de-bundling occurs. In terms of cost, distribution, quality, and ease-of-use, digital downloads beat cable every time. The only piece of the puzzle networks still own is content production. With House Of Cards and Arrested Development, Netflix made a strong entry into the TV-making club, and struck the first blow against that monopoly. In my view, we're two innovations away from internet tv for the masses: independent content production that can rival the networks for quality, and an easy-to-use streaming box to supply it. The latter is easily possible with technology on the market right now (Roku, Apple TV, etc.), and the former seems all but inevitable.
  - mason55 13y ago
    The tough part about that for the networks is building out the infrastructure and giving up all the free advertising that the cable companies give them. By packaging their content as a standalone service, a la HBO Go, they've now given up being bundled in tiers with other networks. And they've got to build out their own delivery networks & apps. Or... they can join up with groups of other networks, create a service that advertises and bundles networks together and takes care of all the infrastructure. Shit. We just built cable again.
    - s_q_b 13y ago
      Or a series of third parties can compete to offer the infrastructure, which is just a CDN tied to a small computer with an HDMI out, and the former networks and new production houses can offer their programming on one, some, or all of them.
      - mason55 13y ago
        BTW this is one reason net neutrality is so important. If we're going to start rebuilding existing services over dumb lines (IP) then it's imperative that we maintain competition. The big problem with cable right now is that it's an oligopoly (monopoly in many places). By separating the infrastructure from the content delivery we can hopefully avoid many of the issues people currently have with cable. If we allow Verizon to charge an extra $50 to carry any non-Verizon-based "TV show bundle" then we really will be right back in the cable boat. It's pretty amazing though that Moto wants $800 for a cable box and Western Digital can sell the same thing for $150. Shows what competition gets you.