Kurt Sutter's tweets slam "Mad Men's" Weiner

Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:43am EDT

Related Topics

Brent Lang

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - In further evidence that Kurt Sutter might want to think before he tweets, the "Sons of Anarchy" creator set the blogosphere a-rumblin' by slamming "Mad Men" maestro Matthew Weiner this week.

Weiner may be responsible for AMC's lavishly praised 1960s drama, but Sutter claims the television auteur is single-handedly bringing down the cable network by gobbling up all the money for his show.

In the process, Sutter claims that Weiner hogged money that would have been used to produce Frank Darabont's "The Walking Dead" and Vince Gilligan's "Breaking Bad." To hear Sutter tell it, that forced Darabont out the door and has led to a tense negotiation between Gilligan and the network over a fifth season of his meth-maker drama.

"why darabont got fired - weiner. he held AMC hostage, broke their bank, budgets were slashed, shit rolled down hill onto gilligan and frank," Sutter tweeted.

He added: "no one else wants to f---ing say it, but the greed of mad men is killing the other two best shows on tv -- breaking bad and walking dead."

The notoriously outspoken Sutter didn't offer up how he came by all of this purloined intelligence about the intricacies of AMC's finances and intra-familial struggles. His show, after all, appears on FX, not AMC.

Sutter went on to claim that he had no beef with Weiner, but past tweets indicate otherwise. In March, during a re-negotiation standoff between the "Mad Man" creator and AMC over whether he would cut cost and the run time of episodes, the FX series producer had some choice tweets for Weiner.

"You can't ask a network for 10 million, then bitch when they want to expand their ad revenue source," Sutter tweeted. "Whore or saint, pick one."

For what it's worth, AMC president Charlie Collier told TheWrap recently that the "Mad Men" deal has nothing to do with negotiations over other shows.

"Nothing could be further from the truth," he said.

FILED UNDER:
Comments (0)
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.