Under showrunner Glen Mazzara's direction, The Walking Dead has become the most watched basic cable drama telecast in history.
As the third season races towards its finale, I caught up with the Writer's Guild of America (WGA) Award-nominated talent to talk about the logic of death, the rise of the showrunner (and the fall of Dan Harmon), and how running a hospital prepared him to run the biggest phenomeon on television.
WARNING: If you're not up to date with Season 3, there be spoilers ahead.
Hey, Glen. You dropped another great episode ['I Ain't A Judas'] this week. You must have been happy with how it turned out?
Yes, I was! You know, we spent a lot of time building to that episode, where Andrea finally connects with the rest of the group, and I think the audience had a lot of expectations about how that was going to go. But given what each character's dealing with, I thought the episode made a lot of sense. It was a good character piece. I was happy with the way it came together.
You mentioned Andrea, and there's so much speculation out there about her role on the show. Do you take notice of internet chatter; do you read reviews or forums?
I do! I do! I'm very interested in how the material went over with the audience. I think it's hysterical that people debate these things the way they do; it's a lot of fun to read that. A lot of people have very strong reactions, both positively and negatively, to every episode.
It doesn't affect how we write the show. The show is completely shot and edited and in the can by now. We're further down the road, and the creative team for Season 4 has already put together those scripts. So it doesn't affect how we tell the story, but it's always fun to see how things are received.
You got a big reaction when you killed Axel last week. As a case study, can you take us through the process that led to Axel's death? Why did someone have to die in that episode, at that moment, and why did it have to be Axel?
Excellent question. First of all, let's think about the timeline. Glenn and Maggie are kidnapped, and later that day, Michonne arrives and says, 'you need to rescue your friends'. So Rick and those guys arrive at night, and over the course of that night, they shoot up Woodbury, and they free Daryl in the wee hours of the morning. So you have about three episodes playing over two days. So The Governor's attack is like a day and a half after that, right? So he attacks pretty quickly. People watching it are saying, 'oh, it feels like it's a week later'. No. It's been about 15 hours when he goes to attack.
When The Governor shows up, he's not there to invade the prison or launch a major attack, he just wants to send a message to these people. And as he's doing that, he will look ineffectual if it does not result in a death. You know, we want to have a big gun battle, but he's not invading, so he's just going to snipe at somebody, and that's going to result in a death. Otherwise he looks completely impotent.
Now the question is, whose death? To be very honest, I didn't want to kill off any of the major characters. We obviously didn't want to kill Rick. Carol was on the chopping block, but I didn't want to kill Carol, because we have a story coming up with her. We looked at the possibility of killing Beth. I don't think that actor knows that. You know, I love Emily Kinney. But I felt that would have had too big an impact on the group. It would have just devastated poor Herschel. It would have taken him down a path I didn't want for the rest of the season. And we were already dealing with Maggie's feelings about her sexual assault by The Governor, so we didn't want to complicate that with mourning for her sister.
We talked about killing Carl in that episode! We really did... unfortunately, you know, by the process of elimination, we got to Axel. Now I like Lew Temple's performance of Axel very, very much, and we were just starting to find that character and develop him in a way that we loved. And we probably could have had more stories with him. But The Governor was the main character in that piece. We needed to make sure he was not ineffectual. Because otherwise he's not a bad guy that could possibly take out our guys. So that was really important.
Do you feel any regret about losing out on those stories you could have told with Axel? Do you have to weigh up the value of those stories versus the value of building up The Governor?
You do! You do. And there are other things coming where the story breaks a certain way to service The Governor or Rick. Those are the main characters. You have to service those main characters. But I have to think about those choices. If the show ever falls into a rhythm in which characters are being saved just because we like those characters, then it's going to feel artificial. It's not going to feel riveting and thrilling and unpredictable every week. You have to make these tough choices.
One of the things I love about the portrayal of The Governor in the show is that he comes across as more of a gentleman than his comic book counterpart. It's easier to believe this guy could swindle people and lead people. Was that something David Morrissey brought to the role, or was that a deliberate decision on your part?
That was a decision on my part. I really did not want The Governor to be an arch-villain. I wanted to see a person develop into this character. My motto for The Governor was that he's a man who's narcissistic enough that he believes this apocalypse is about him. That this is thrusting him onto the world stage, and that a thousand years from now, when humanity survives and kids are studying history books, his name will stand out like Augustus Ceasar or Charlemagne or some other great historical figure who kept the lights on during a dark age. I thought that was very interesting. I had not seen that character before, someone with a sense of history about him.
So I spoke with David about that, and David was interested in playing that character. He did not want to play an arch-villain. And if you look at what [Walking Dead creator Robert] Kirkman's done, Kirkman actually introduced that character as an arch-villain in the comic book, and then went back in novels, after the character had been killed off in the comic book, and filled in his back story to show how the character developed. So even Kirkman sensed that arc is an interesting one, he just went back to it after the comic book material was realised. So that's an interesting character. I think all of us wonder how The Governor can commit such atrocities, and I had a very strong perspective about that going in.
When it comes to these characters' story arcs — not so much Axel, but the more prominent characters — do you feel like you have to follow the blueprint laid down by the comics, to an extent? Even if you get there different ways, is it important you get to the same places? Or is the show a completely different beast?
I think the show has been a completely different beast. Now, what happens to it in Season 4, since I've left the show, is up to the creative team that's in place. But I believe you have to take liberties with the material, because part of the nature of that comic book is that it is so unpredictable. You want to play with audience expectations, and sometimes give it to them in a surprising way. Sometimes you don't want to give it to them, you want to withhold it, which leads to some frustration for a lot of the comic book readers. But, you know, there's about 100,000 people who read that comic book, and there's 11,000,000 people watching the show. So I think a lot of the decisions we've made have found a wider audience.
So to be faithful to the spirit of the comic, you have to be unfaithful to the letter of the comic.
That's been my approach, yes.
What's your working relationship been like with Robert Kirkman? Are you privy to what's coming up in the comic; does he have much of a say about what's coming up in the show?
Well, Robert's an executive producer on the show. He's in the writers' room. So all the material we've developed has been with his blessing. He's been a full creative participant, so he's fully involved in the development of this material. As far as the comic book goes, no, he keeps that separate. We don't discuss it. One time he slipped with a spoiler about a major death in issue 100, and all the writers were sort of upset. 'Don't tell us! We want it to be a surprise!' They didn't want to know that. So the comic book is very, very different from the show, and he writes it on his own. We have no participation in that.
You've been the showrunner for the past two seasons, and it seems like the profile of the showrunner in television has never been higher. Obviously Frank Darabont brought a high profile to Season One; you can also look at a show like Community and the outrage of fans after Dan Harmon's departure. Do you think the higher profile of the showrunner is a good thing?
I think so! You know, the showrunner provides the vision for the show. I think the showrunner deserves it! They're driving the creative vision of the show. So even though it is a collaborative medium, the showrunner is the equivalent of the director of a feature film. That's the person who shepherds the work through the entire process. Showrunners dedicate themselves to the shows. We're involved in all aspects of the show, both creative and production-wise. We're responsible for budgets, schedules, wardrobe, casting... there's no aspect of the show that I'm not involved in, that I don't approach from a position of authority. You're approving hair styles, you're approving wardrobe, you're approving props, you're approving this and that. The directors are the ones who are rotating through the system. So I think that's fair.
I think if you look at a show like Community, that was certainly a show that was Dan Harmon's voice. It's a demonstrably different show without him. That's what we get paid for as showrunners, to add our voices to the show. Darabont had one particular voice, I have another. And the fans see that! The fans recognise that. That is recognition of the dedication of a lot of men and women who pour their hearts and souls into these works.
You mentioned budgets. You were the Logistics Manager for the Emergency Department at NYU Medical Centre, going back a long way, and you completed a $1 million renovation project for $450,000. How did that ability to manage a budget prepare you for this career?
You know, it's funny. You're the first person to ask me about that particular project, and it's a lot of the same social skills I use as a showrunner. My approach – and this sounds simple – is that work gets done by the people who actually do the work. OK? So, for example, it's not necessarily about talking to the higher ups in an organisation. You have to get down on the ground level.
When we're shooting a scene, and there are questions about who's carrying what gun, the props guy calls me and will say, 'well, the script says this, but I think they wouldn't carry this gun'. And because he's the expert who's on the ground, I defer to him, and I will change the script. Because that will make it more accurate, and he knows what he's talking about. You see what I'm saying?
Yeah.
So when I was doing that project in a hospital, I went around to the carpenters, the movers, the painters, the people on the ground... the grunts who actually do the work and get no recognition for it. And you work alongside those people. When I'm running a show, I know the people who are working on the show. Of course, I'm in a position of authority, but you also want to rely on the cast and the crew and the people who are as close to the production as possible and trust them. Let them communicate to you, and hear their problems.
That sort of management style, I think, has been very successful for me. It's about listening to the people who are closest to the production and to the problems, and letting them feel invested and offer solutions. I'm not the kind of person who's a top-down boss who just makes proclamations from on high. That's not effective. That's not my management style at all.
I think we've probably only got time for one more question. In a way, serial television with multiple authors is like improv, in the sense that you have to say 'yes' to what the last guy has laid down. You have to roll with it. Do you plan to wrap your storylines up in a neat little bow at the end of this season, or do you have some bombshells you're planning to drop on the next guy?
Well, the next guy, Scott Gimple, has been involved for a while. And Robert Kirkman and Gale Anne Hurd and Greg Nicotero, the creative team, were all producers on Season 3. So there's no material there that is surprising to them. They were involved in developing that material. That being said, listen... the season finale will be a bombshell, as you say. We wouldn't be The Walking Dead if we didn't push the storytelling every week.
So those folks have their work cut out for them, you know? Hopefully the ratings will hold for this season and at the end of my run they'll be in a position to have a successful Season 4. We'll see what happens.
We can't wait to see the rest of this season play out. Thanks for taking the time today.
I appreciate it. Thank you so much.
Glen Mazarra is in Australia for The TV Writers Studio seminars in Melbourne and Sydney.
The Walking Dead Season 3 premieres every Tuesday at 8:30pm AEDT on FX, exclusively on FOXTEL, less than 33 hours after US audiences.
