Mad Men Season 5 in 2012, with or without Matthew Weiner

[taviow]

AMC declared they’re moving forward with Mad Men — with or without creator Matthew Weiner.

“AMC has officially authorized production of season 5 of Mad Men, triggering our option with Lionsgate (Mad Men‘s production company),” the network said in a statement. “While we are getting a later start than in years past due to ongoing, key non-cast negotiations, Mad Men will be back for a fifth season in early 2012.”

Sources confirm the network has offered Weiner a whopping $30 million to continue as showrunner on the acclaimed series. Yet Weiner has been holding out, with reports saying he objects to network demands to cut costs and further monetize the show. AMC’s reportedly hoping to add a couple more minutes of commercials and product placement, and is considering ditching two series regulars.

Seems like the show is in trouble.

 

[StardogChampion]

It'll go downhill. Like when Sorkin left The West Wing.

 

[Yuri]

sometimes i hate rich people and their ****ing rich people problems. **** you, rich people, if your argument about how rich you should get stops one of the best shows from continuing, i will ****ing hate you forever you ****ing ****s

 

[Lucid]

And so it begins.
Entire cast will be replaced by young and sexy teenagers who complain about their underage pregnancies and such.

 

[No Limit]

This blows, had no idea any of this was going on and I was expecting Mad Men this summer. AMC is really starting to piss me off lately.

 

[Krynn72]

sometimes i hate rich people and their ****ing rich people problems. **** you, rich people, if your argument about how rich you should get stops one of the best shows from continuing, i will ****ing hate you forever you ****ing ****s

That doesn't sound like what is happening though. It sounds like AMC is whoring the show out to product placements and etc, and he doesnt want that to happen.

 

[Yorick]

Yet Weiner has been holding out, with reports saying he objects to network demands to cut costs and further monetize the show.

AMC’s reportedly hoping to add a couple more minutes of commercials and product placement, and is considering ditching two series regulars.

So, he doesn't want more commercials or the show to have product placement. But he also doesn't want costs to be cut. YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

 

[sixteenth]

Yea. I was listening to Jon Hamm on Comedy Death Ray Radio a few weeks back and he was saying that the series was, basically, in limbo. He said that the cast hasn't filmed anything Mad Men related in over a year.

I think it'll be fine without Weiner, though.

 

[No Limit]

So, he doesn't want more commercials or the show to have product placement. But he also doesn't want costs to be cut. YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

But are they really losing money on this series? I don't know how the tv show business works but with this being one of the best shows on TV I doubt they aren't already cashing in on it.

 

[knut]

So, he doesn't want more commercials or the show to have product placement. But he also doesn't want costs to be cut. YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

the wire had it both ways. they cut out all the crap and aired episodes at an hour long straight, and the only product placement in that show is, basically, sandwiches, donuts, crab and baltimore beer bought from local corner shops and supermarkets, and even they aren't bolstered around on show.

basically the wire is pretty perfect but you all know that already, right?





right?

 

[Notqonfused]

This is dumb, why would you add commercials to a show about advertising. You would think it wouldn't be hard to have in show product placements that would be the same as having more commercials. if this show loses any more cast members or Weiner it is done. Period. I can understand wanting to make a profit off of the shows on their channel, but why take a giant shit on the show that made AMC more than just a cable movie channel. Without Mad Men there would be no Breaking Bad or Walking Dead and AMC would just be TCM in color.

 

[Krynn72]

the wire had it both ways. they cut out all the crap and aired episodes at an hour long straight, and the only product placement in that show is, basically, sandwiches, donuts, crab and baltimore beer bought from local corner shops and supermarkets, and even they aren't bolstered around on show.

basically the wire is pretty perfect but you all know that already, right?





right?

You know that The Wire was an HBO show, which is a premium channel that you must subscribe to, right?






right?

 

[Yuri]

That doesn't sound like what is happening though. It sounds like AMC is whoring the show out to product placements and etc, and he doesnt want that to happen.

i was talking about the AMC dicks, not weiner. although it seems like weiner isnt' helping

 

[taviow]

So, he doesn't want more commercials or the show to have product placement. But he also doesn't want costs to be cut. YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Actually the show already has a lot of integrated product placement (Heineken, American Airlines, Gillette, Clearasil, Maidenform...).

 

[Escaep]

I have seasons one through three on DVD that I really need to start watching.

 

[knut]

You know that The Wire was an HBO show, which is a premium channel that you must subscribe to, right?






right?

i figured AMC was the same. i'm not from the US, i have no idea the in's and out's of your broadcasting. hell, i don't even know ours anymore, i barely watch anything actually broadcasted anymore. /shrug

 

[Krynn72]

I can see how you could think that. The production values of AMC's shows are so much higher than that of most other standard cable shows. For awhile after Boardwalk Empire came out, I kept thinking it was an HBO show.

I'm kinda worried about this money grubbing from AMC though. Not a good sign.

 

[taviow]

For awhile after Boardwalk Empire came out, I kept thinking it was an HBO show.

Wait what? Boardwalk Empire is an HBO show...

I'm kinda worried about this money grubbing from AMC though. Not a good sign.

AMC is a fairly big network now, and they aim to get even successful. That's why they canceled Rubicon and why they aim to make a bigger profit from Mad Men, one of their most expensive shows. While Rubicon's ratings were just about the same as those of Breaking Bad and Mad Men when they first aired, they were simply not enough for this new and highly profitable AMC. I suppose they're no longer focusing on the quality of their shows. They didn't even care to give Rubicon a chance as they would have in the past.

 

[Krynn72]

Yeah, I mixed it up again. But thats exactly my point haha. The quality of AMC's shows (that I've seen) is almost as good as HBO's.

 

[taviow]

A good article about what's going on right now.

The argument in favor of Wiener (hee hee) is simple: Mad Men is considered by many to be the best show on television right now and is a podium hog at awards shows. Mad Men is also a cultural phenomenon that put AMC on the map and arguably made the cable channel what it is today. Think about it: where would AMC be without Mad Men? More so than other shows, Mad Men is an artistic endeavor, and the three points AMC is trying to implement are in direct conflict with Wiener's creative vision.

The argument for AMC is also simple: $30 million dollars!? That would make Wiener basic cable's highest-paid showrunner. Product placement isn't out of the norm anymore (and would be pretty easy to integrate given that the show is about advertising), and two fewer minutes of Mad Men would still give Mad Men one of the longest runtimes per hour (most one-hour programs clock in at 43-44 minutes per hour. Mad Men is current in the 47-48 minute range). Add that to the fact that Mad Men isn't even the network's biggest hit (The Walking Dead, in its first season, averaged over 5 million viewers, Mad Men, in season four, was just under 3 million), and you can see why AMC is hesitant to pay out all that cash.

Once again though someone fails to note the show already features integrated product placement. God damn.