Game of Thrones

[Ominous Gamer]

average GoT episode costs ~$6 million. I think you could find someway to beef up a fight scene here or there. Especially pivotal ones.

[Loki]

Agreed. I doubt a few extra millions would kill anybody.

[Flixy]

Compare that to the budget of an average feature film...

[Loki]

I imagine that actors in a high budget film get paid significantly more than the ones in this show.

Anyway, 10 episodes per season means $60 million, which isn't exactly pennies.

[Lewkowski]

I'd love to have big awesome battles but this show is amazing even without them. In the last decade I've been really happy with a lot of the shows/movies that have taken my favorite genre (fantasy/sci-fi) to the big screen.

[Wraith]

I imagine that actors in a high budget film get paid significantly more than the ones in this show.

Anyway, 10 episodes per season means $60 million, which isn't exactly pennies.

The Battle of King's Landing cost $15 million for the one episode. Game of Thrones is already a loss leader for the network, you should be able to understand why they don't want to spend that kind of money regularly.

[Loki]

The Battle of King's Landing cost $15 million for the one episode. Game of Thrones is already a loss leader for the network, you should be able to understand why they don't want to spend that kind of money regularly.

I think the Battle of King's Landing was poorly executed. There was no real sense of a general strategy or specific tactics being employed (beyond the gimmicky ones), just a constant free-for-all, with a deus-ex-machina ending (to be fair, the last part is from the book).

[Ominous Gamer]

Game of Thrones is already a loss leader for the network, you should be able to understand why they don't want to spend that kind of money regularly.

How do you figure a loss leader for a subscription service? The fact that it cost more than the other series? Wonder what kind of money the DVDs bring in. I know they dominate the charts on release and stay in relatively high demand while breaking all kinds of records.


I simply don't trust the math studios use. According to universal at least one Harry potter film is considered a net loss because of their accounting methods.

[Loki]

And I wonder how many subscriptions this show is single-handedly responsible for.

[Wraith]

How do you figure a loss leader for a subscription service? The fact that it cost more than the other series? Wonder what kind of money the DVDs bring in. I know they dominate the charts on release and stay in relatively high demand while breaking all kinds of records.

Something I read about the series a month or so ago. The cost is supposed to be wildly out of sync from the rest of their lineup, such that they're operating at a loss the times when GoT is on the air. I don't know if that's just for the one channel or their whole lineup, or if it takes into account DVD sales (I think SOP in Hollywoood is to not take into account DVD sales). They're justifying it by using it to drive subscriptions for the rest of the year.

edit: The point that the article was trying to make was that GoT is only financially viable due to the bundled subscription model; a lot of people only want the minimum that gets them GoT, but if they were able to actually get that HBO wouldn't be able to justify the cost of producing GoT.

[Ominous Gamer]

so instead GoT sets torrent records with every other episode

[Flixy]

I imagine that actors in a high budget film get paid significantly more than the ones in this show.

Anyway, 10 episodes per season means $60 million, which isn't exactly pennies.

Actors are not the biggest expenses, and for a 90 minute action film with a lot of cgi, some fighting, and multiple locations (which does actually reduce the cgi budget of course), 60 million would be considered low budget, yes. Moon, for example, was considered extreme low budget at 5 million, with less effects, one location, and a tiny cast..

..speaking of which, anyone got a spare 40k to help me fund the next film project we've got?

[Hazir]

And I wonder how many subscriptions this show is single-handedly responsible for.

Well, it's the reason why I have an HBO subscription. I know at least 2 other people who took out one the second it became legally possible.

[Hazir]

Something I read about the series a month or so ago. The cost is supposed to be wildly out of sync from the rest of their lineup, such that they're operating at a loss the times when GoT is on the air. I don't know if that's just for the one channel or their whole lineup, or if it takes into account DVD sales (I think SOP in Hollywoood is to not take into account DVD sales). They're justifying it by using it to drive subscriptions for the rest of the year.

edit: The point that the article was trying to make was that GoT is only financially viable due to the bundled subscription model; a lot of people only want the minimum that gets them GoT, but if they were able to actually get that HBO wouldn't be able to justify the cost of producing GoT.

That's not much different than what Netflix does when it throws 120m at House of Cards in order to keep people on their €7,99 a month drip.

P.S. about the battles; I don't have any affinity with battle scenes, so am really just fine with the amount of those in the series.

[Steely Glint]

I think the Battle of King's Landing was poorly executed. There was no real sense of a general strategy or specific tactics being employed (beyond the gimmicky ones), just a constant free-for-all, with a deus-ex-machina ending (to be fair, the last part is from the book).

It worked well visually and dramatically, but as a battle; yes. Apparently, Hollywood directors still think an ancient and medieval or battles consists of everyone pairing off to fight individual duels.

[Loki]

Spoiler:

Now the show is killing off more secondary characters than Martin. No complaints about tonight's episode (other than a lack of a coherent strategy in the fighting, unlike in the books).

[Steely Glint]

Well, I now care about the Night's Watch story line.

Not, you know, a lot, but I think that's still an improvement.

[Steely Glint]

[Loki]

[Hazir]

Well, I now care about the Night's Watch story line.

No, you know, a lot, but I think that's still an improvement.

There were 102 men in Castle black. Being chopped down at a rate of 4-5 a minute. How did the NW survive this massacre, much less win in the end ?

[Illusions]

There were 102 men in Castle black. Being chopped down at a rate of 4-5 a minute. How did the NW survive this massacre, much less win in the end ?

Spoiler:

Tormund Giantsbane had less men than the Night's Watch, and Mance Rayder's wildling/freefolk/giant army never managed to scale the walls successfully or break through the main gate/tunnel at the base of it. That and it did show that a lot of them died. Nearly all of the main group that was introduced with Jon Snow have been killed off, and its been mentioned that Mance is just going to regroup and try again since Tormund's group failed.

The only thing that got me was that you'd think they wouldn't bother trying to scale the wall with that huge pendulum style swinging death anchor that Mance should have known about, since he was previously been a member of the Night's Watch.

[Loki]

Spoiler:

This is mainly an issue with the book, but with an army of 100k and narrow chokepoints, shouldn't Mance try to attack as many different spots as possible instead of focusing on one? At the very least, he should be attacking all three castles simultaneously.

[Flixy]

Spoiler:

This is mainly an issue with the book, but with an army of 100k and narrow chokepoints, shouldn't Mance try to attack as many different spots as possible instead of focusing on one? At the very least, he should be attacking all three castles simultaneously.

Book Spoiler:

IIRC, he organized a faint attack on at least one of the other castles, possibly two, luring the main night's watch force to, if I remember correctly, bridge of skulls, leaving only two dozen or so crows, most of which weren't rangers, to defend (plus volunteers from the nearby town). In that case it makes sense to throw your main strength at castle black, I suppose, especially since the plan was for the raiders to simply open the door (and with only two dozen crows, that was a real possibility). It was only after a couple of days that the main night's watch force returned, at which point they sent out Jon rather than him choosing to (in fact, he was very reluctant IIRC).

[Loki]

Spoiler:

You should never assume that any given move will work, especially when you have such a huge advantage in manpower. Mance's problem is that you can only attack a castle with perhaps a few hundred people at a time. That means most of his army is doing nothing. If he attacks all three castles as once, he triples his chances of success. Hell, even if the main attack succeeds, it never hurts to have an insurance policy. Also, he really should have tried to get a few hundred raiders across the wall, not a few dozen. He had the man to spare. Meanwhile, if the raid doesn't succeed, he risks going home with absolutely nothing. An army of that size would probably starve in a few weeks, if that.

[Flixy]

book spoiler:

that is what he did in the books though, several hundred raiders killed at least a hundred of their best men, far away from castle black. Plus the gates at other places might be sealed with ice as far as we know, or have smaller gates. Plus, if the few dozen at Castle black held them off, the few hundred crows at at least one of the other castle probably would have had the same result. And until Stannis arrived, it seemed pretty certain they'd win, which is why Jon was sent on the sure to fail assassination mission.

At the very least that's a better strategy than the night watch holding an inspirational speech and waiting until the enemy crosses the walls before attacking them as in the show

[Loki]

Spoiler:

I still think the book doesn't address the real fact that the wildlings would starve to death if they didn't take over the wall pretty damn quickly.

[Flixy]

Spoiler:

Yeah, it's pretty vague on how a hundred thousand men army is fed in arctic lands to begin with.

[Loki]

Spoiler:

It's also unclear how they'd be able to feed 100k people once they crossed the wall either. They'd have to go through the entire north to King's Landing or Lannisport to get anywhere near that amount of food.

[Steely Glint]

It's also pretty unclear how anyone north of the Trident survives winters that last for years on end with medieval technology, or how those places still have a functioning ecosystems complete with mega-fauna.

[Loki]

They stock up on lots of grain. Baelish mentions that they have 5 years worth of grain at some point. Though I do wonder how anyone survives after that.