[Mesnick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rabbitman

Completely different shows and company and situation, but something this reminded me of.

Way back when, when the US basic cable channel AMC was airing Mad Men, Breaking Bad and Walking Dead all at the same time, there was a bit of a controversy about AMC massively slashing the budget for Walking Dead and running out the creative staff.

At the time all three shows were big, but Walking Dead was massive and was the biggest show on TV. Breaking Bad and Mad Men were more prestige type things but Walking Dead was prestigious and a cash cow. (Massively oversimplifying here). It was really weird that the budget would be cut for the biggest show on the network and the budgets would be left alone for the comparatively smaller ones.

Turns out there was a whole bunch of behind the scenes business reasons for it: AMC wholly owned walking dead, while it was licensing out from another studio for the other two shows. Anyway, my point with this tangent is that it?s not unheard of for a big money maker show to get nickel and dimed, while money is lavished on a smaller show. Is it 100% relevant to this situation? Probably not, but I just like to share.

I can also remember the DC superhero shows from the CW. The most popular were Arrow and The Flash (the latter was for some time the most viewed show on the channel), but at the same time, they were significantly less spent on them than on Supergirl and Black Lightning. And also than Stargirl and "Superman and Lois", but in their case HBO MAX throws money. And the reason is that popular shows already had a regular audience who would continue to watch, albeit laughing at ridiculous costumes, cheap special effects and stupid plot (screenwriters also cost money), while a lesser-known series had to work hard to keep viewers attention. .