Which reminds me of the other screenplay I'll probably never get around to... X-Men Evolution The premise being a chronicle of all of the mutations that didn't really prove to be advantageous. The ability to transform into a zombie was what triggered this memory, but I was also inspired by this:
30 of the 44 cast members are only in one episode, 3 for two episodes and 1 for three. Gonna be a blood-bath. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3743822/fullcredits/
And I disliked the practice just as much then. To me, 10 or 12 episodes is the minimum that a season should be. Yes, I know the UK has had short "series" for decades, but I dislike the trend of US shows moving toward that model. I don't think a season can build momentum if it's that short. Sure, it can be good, but it's more like a mini-series. I prefer a more traditional-length TV season. Just my opinion.
I miss the days of old where we had around 25 episodes per season of a show. That way if it only made it 3 seasons at least you had 75 episodes you could watch on DVD later.
So do I, Mike. The argument is always brought up that with fewer episodes per season there's so much less filler which leads to more "quality" episodes. In my experience, I find that there are just as many "meh" episodes in a short season as in a long one, so I disagree that short=quality. Bottom line is it's just cheaper to do a short season, and it frees up the stars to go off and do other projects since they're not tied up shooting as long. Short seasons are just a cop-out.
A perfect example is the original "Star Trek". Only on for three years, yet a total of 79 episodes aired during that three years. And in the 60's, when I was a teenager, most shows had that many episodes ( and had only about three months of summer reruns before the new season began). I miss those days too........
My guess is that the title refers to the band Fear, i.e. Fear: The Walking Dead. Perhaps we'll discover that Lee Ving and Philo Cramer were patients 0 and 1 of the epidemic.
The old format of longer seasons works for shows that don't have an over-arching story, or if they do, only deal with it every few episodes (like The X-Files). For serialized shows like The Walking Dead, I don't think longer seasons would be beneficial. It didn't work out so well for Lost when it was 24 episodes (or however many), which then pretty much started the trend of serialized shows having half seasons with less filler.
Many shows in the early years of television had upwards of 40 episodes per season. I have the Restless Gun complete series from 57-59, just two seasons, but 78 episodes!
Unless they created the first zombie in order to efficiently kill off the human race. I believe it's all ruled by budgets as well. I can't dispute that networks like the BBC do magnificent shows with 10 or 12-show seasons, but they're crippled by budget cuts and all kinds of problems. I generally think the answer is to spend lots of money and hire more writers, but I concede there are producers like Julian Fellowes, who insist on writing and/or overseeing all the shows themselves to guarantee top quality and 100% creative control.
Looks great http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-et-hc-fear-the-walking-dead-20150710-story.html
