Nope, a lot of fans had the same reaction in the beginning of Season 2. Can't remember which episode it was where that perceptin began to change, but the season definitely had a slow feel to its start. But it's all good - hang in there and enjoy the other episodes, there are some wows along the way and the season ender is terrific.

BTW, season three, according to Matt and the actors, is noticeably faster paced.

Welcome Beezer82....

I find your comments and impressions very interesting, particularly since you're a "newcomer to Mad Men," and are thus having a different viewer experience (from me) in that you're getting to watch -- with fresh eyes--two seasons in a compressed time period.

Since I can't go back and experience "Mad Men" that way, I appreciate your expressing your thoughts on how Season 2 is coming across to you.

I recall that Matt Weiner had said in the past that S2 (would be; is) "different" from S1 -- and many of the commenters on this site have pointed that out-- some even addressing the pacing and "feel" of the show changing, as you are noticing.

I don't recall many, if any, have said that it affected them negatively, however. Maybe that's because of the long time lapse-- (for the viewers "in it" from Season 1)-- between our "absorbing" Season 1, waiting anxiously for Season 2, "cogitating and speculating" all the while....And given that different experience/involvement level, maybe long-term viewers didn't notice...or, "were prepared for" a change in pace. I don't know...I'm just speculating. Another thought: maybe the faster pace which annoys you is Matthew Weiner's way of echoing the "faster paced world" that is being ushered in?

I'm not clear as to what you mean by "...the dialogue now seems to be overrun by metaphor...."

As to your feeling that there's "no concern as to whether the characters remain intact"-- you may have a valid point (and I may be "to close to or too involved with the show to see it). But MW has said (I believe) all along that we could expect to see different sides to the characters....and maybe the writers want to show how "a changing world" affects people's lives -- and that they can't realistically remain static as life moves on, they get older, have different experiences, etc

Your views are thought-provoking, and maybe sometime I will indulge in a marathon where I watch both S1 and S2 consecutively, without an intervening 8 months. (And then maybe I would be "jarred" by the difference in the 2 seasons also).

As to your comment that: "...the product placement has gone over the top into camp" --without an example, I can't comment. I haven't focused as much on the "advertising details" of the show at this point; others might speak to that.

I have never noticed over-the-top "product placement". Matt and his crew pay excruciating attention to period detail, including 60s brand name items. After all Don's marketing products - either promoting new items or re-imagining existing products to better sell them. So naturally there will be references to Popsicles or Mohawk Airlines or others things, and there will be the sponsors items in the Draper household and in the office, not generics.

A quick look around my own kitchen and I see Arnold bread, Palmolive dish detergent, Clorox wipes and a Hamilton Beach blender. As someone who grew up in the era, I do not remember many of what we'd today call generic or store brands. One bought Campbell soup, Welch's grape jelly, Peter Pan peanut butter (later Jif), Heinz or Hunt's ketchup/catsup, Kelloggs or Post cereals, French's mustard and Wonder bread. There were regional brands for pastas and sauces, hot dogs other than Oscar Mayer like Nathan's or Hoffman Hots, and pizza, when you could find it, was made in mom and pop stores.

How many episodes of season 2 did you see? I don't remember anyone thinking the first episodes were fast paced. On the contrary I remember a lot of "is this going anywhere..?"

Also the product placement, mentioning a brand name is not always a product placement. Besides it would look pretty silly if SC only carried products that had been discontinued.

Also I have no idea what you mean by the characters "staying in tact." I don't think they did anything out of characters. Please bring an example so I can get over defensive.

Hi Beezer82!
Welcome. I am a little confused about your statement about product placement? Mad Men is all about the world of advertising and products.
And, I enjoy seeing brands I grew up with.

I do understand your dismay with some of the story lines. I could have done without the "Hotel California" jet setters. That was a little out there.

One thing I have learned about MM is that every story in every episode has a link that I often don't find out about until a later episode. Maybe that is what keeps Maddicts like me hooked...

Enjoy Season 3!

By product placement, I assume you mean when advertisers pay to have certain products and services inserted into a show? Well, guess what. There have only been two "official" instances of product placement throughout the entire series. In S1, I believe the product was Jack Daniels, and in S2, the product was Heineken. All the other products are just...part of the script. None of the advertisers granted permission, paid, and in the first season, were even aware their products got mentioned until after the show aired. None of the companies -- not Lucky Strike, Right Guard, Maytag, Playtex, Cadillac, Bethlehem Steele, American Airlines, Utz Potato Chips, Kodak, etc. -- had anything to do with their placement in the show AT ALL. Do you really think American Airlines would have allowed the Mad Men producers to use their brand in a show about an airplane crash?

The reason for this is that Matthew Weiner doesn't want to be told how, when, or where to use the products. This gives the producers so much more leeway because they don't have to display the products a certain way, provide a positive spin, spend too much time with the products, or even try to sell them in a certain way. For a comparison, see if you can find episodes of Trust Me to view. Their use of product placement is much more obvious and intrusive. With Mad Men, the products are introduced and used in a way similar to how we use them in real life. It's just...matter of fact. There's no positive or negative slant, the labels aren't always fully visible. Matt Weiner can incorporate them into the story any way he wants.

By product placement, I assume you mean when advertisers pay to have certain products and services inserted into a show? Well, guess what. There have only been two "official" instances of product placement throughout the entire series. In S1, I believe the product was Jack Daniels, and in S2, the product was Heineken. All the other products are just...part of the script. None of the advertisers granted permission, paid, and in the first season, were even aware their products got mentioned until after the show aired. None of the companies -- not Lucky Strike, Right Guard, Maytag, Playtex, Cadillac, Bethlehem Steele, American Airlines, Utz Potato Chips, Kodak, etc. -- had anything to do with their placement in the show AT ALL. Do you really think American Airlines would have allowed the Mad Men producers to use their brand in a show about an airplane crash?

The reason for this is that Matthew Weiner doesn't want to be told how, when, or where to use the products. This gives the producers so much more leeway because they don't have to display the products a certain way, provide a positive spin, spend too much time with the products, or even try to sell them in a certain way. For a comparison, see if you can find episodes of Trust Me to view. Their use of product placement is much more obvious and intrusive. With Mad Men, the products are introduced and used in a way similar to how we use them in real life. It's just...matter of fact. There's no positive or negative slant, the labels aren't always fully visible. Matt Weiner can incorporate them into the story any way he wants.

I thought I saw some BMW's ads, didn't I?

Rewatch Season 1, watch Season 2 all the way through, and if you still don't "get" the brilliance of S2, don't bother trying to watch Season 3. The show is obviously not going to be for you. there have been shows over the years that the critics raved about that I never "got" or enjoyed. It just happens. Don't sweat it.

Uh Grin & BearIt: That is simply not true. MadMen had to get permission from each of the companies that are referenced in the show. I work at Xerox and our Xerox webpage had a big splash about Mad Men when the Xerox machine was being introduced on the show. The article also went into detail about how the show producers contacted HQ and PR about getting an actual machine to use, etc etc. Do you honestly think American Airlines would be used in a plane crash scenario and their PR people would just shrug it off to those pesky TV people? Not in a million....

Beezer - I'm a huge MM fan, but I do agree with some of the dialogue in Season 2 being either nonsense or unnecessary. Some of the stuff said had nothing to do with anything. And some characters too - like the Smitty team. No reason to bring them back, especially the one who spoke unintelligibly.

@Laurie B.

I think they get the okays after the fact. I remember being at a panel with Matthew Weiner (after Season 2 began airing), and someone asked if he got the companies' permission or if they had paid for placement on the show. He said no because he didn't want them dictating how to use the products, then he joked about it being easier to ask forgiveness rather than permission. So I stand corrected about his getting clearance to use the products, but I maintain that he doesn't do it beforehand. I can't see that he would, since that would open up the likelihood for all kinds of spoilers. Besides, I think most companies would relish the chance of getting "mentioned" on Mad Men -- regardless of how they were mentioned -- especially if they didn't have to pay for it.

I got into MM about midway through S1 and had catching up to do then. I did, and waited with nervousness to find out whether S2 would even be produced. Thrilled when it was announced, I waited with much anticipation. I wasn't disappointed with S2 other than a few details here and there (ie: Freddie's "accident" isn't the same kind of seizure alcoholics have, which is grand mal, not petit mal which is what was portrayed). I didn't really notice it being dramatically different, other than things changing and moving along, which is what life does. That said, I adapt well to change if the quality doesn't suffer. I don't think it does in S2. I found bits and pieces in S1 to be a little hard to believe, and I put S2 on par with S1 for that, and still better than any other show ever. Ever.

As for brand placement... this is advertising! Not having brand all over the place, as every housewife would have then (and often now) would be like watching the old show Dallas and expecting them to not talk about the oil business. Part of what I loved about Dallas was the business aspect in addition to the sex and drama - the wheels and deals. This is a dimension of MM that I also love, and for me, not just some vehicle (excuse) to bring in new characters. It's the thrill of the chase, but also the branding itself is Americana.

The Smitty team is the future. There are lots and lots of reasons for them to be on the show, including Peggy and Sal. Without them, we wouldn't see how set in their ways some of the other characters are. This show is greatly about the roles we all fill, and what part of the world's expectations we fit into, and if we fit into our own expectations. Would Bob Dylan have come up without these two? Would Peggy's new haircut have meant as much? If Smitty saying "What, you've never met a gay guy in advertising" in front of Sal doesn't mean anything, then maybe it's time to go back and watch through both seasons again.

Beezre82, it might be time to step back and take a breather before blitzing S2. There are subtleties in each epi that are very profound, but need to be digested. There are some moment coming up that are hard to stomach, but shocking and real. The season ends in painful and bizarre catharsis. It's deeply moving, but you've got to be in the mood for it.