|
SPOILER WARNING If you only watch the show, this thread will spoil you of future events in HBO's Game of Thrones. Thread contains discussion of all books of the series A Song of Ice and FireClick Here for the spoiler-free thread. |
I have a question: Why are there only 10 episodes per season?
Almost every other successful show tries to spread what little story they have over as many episodes as possible to milk more money from it. They often spam episodes (and sometimes even entire seasons) with fillers that do little to no contribution to the actual plot, just so they can make more money.
And then we have Game of Thrones were there surely is enough relevant plot to fill 16 episodes per season and they just don't do it. And I do not understand why. Wouldn't it just make them more money AND make an even better show? They should clearly make more money by producing more episodes. Once all the actors are gathered up and the equipment is there and the sets are built episodes 11-16 should only cost a fraction of the first episodes. While on the other hand the revenue should increase almost linearly.
And about the quality of the show, I think it would rather increase than get the story diluted. For this season Arya's training, the so far underwhelming Dorne storyline, Cercei's mismanagement and alcohol abuse, I feel like they all would have been better with more screen time. On top of that there are so many things from the books that are left out that should also work on screen.
So I really cannot understand the decision to stick with 10 epsodes per season.
|
It's a simple question of money. One episode of GoT costs a huge deal more than, say, one episode of Agents of Shield. I'm sure everyone would agree that having 16 episodes per season would be awesome, but then the show would cost way, way more, and the people making the show are already pretty much spending the entire year doing just the 10 episodes. So even without the money issue, 16 episodes would mean that we'd only get one season about every 2 years.
|
On May 28 2015 02:18 Jacenoob wrote:
I have a question: Why are there only 10 episodes per season?
Almost every other successful show tries to spread what little story they have over as many episodes as possible to milk more money from it. They often spam episodes (and sometimes even entire seasons) with fillers that do little to no contribution to the actual plot, just so they can make more money.
And then we have Game of Thrones were there surely is enough relevant plot to fill 16 episodes per season and they just don't do it. And I do not understand why. Wouldn't it just make them more money AND make an even better show? They should clearly make more money by producing more episodes. Once all the actors are gathered up and the equipment is there and the sets are built episodes 11-16 should only cost a fraction of the first episodes. While on the other hand the revenue should increase almost linearly.
And about the quality of the show, I think it would rather increase than get the story diluted. For this season Arya's training, the so far underwhelming Dorne storyline, Cercei's mismanagement and alcohol abuse, I feel like they all would have been better with more screen time. On top of that there are so many things from the books that are left out that should also work on screen.
So I really cannot understand the decision to stick with 10 epsodes per season.
They spend all their money on 10... as is they run out of money every season before they can finish all the visual shit they want to realize. Most series are running on one main character supported by 2-5 other important ones, and lots of throwaway roles. You dont really have to spend that much more on a few extra episodes, if you have an idea what that main character will do in them, cuz you already pay him, u already have the set, you already have the costumes. In GoT most subplots that are cut would require more actors, more sets and more costumes. And a lot more time and money.
As to why not spread the story further aside from monetary considerations, they are afraid viewers would lose interest, and just forget plotlines, which would result in scenes being boring for them. Even right now a huge portion of the viewers only care about a few characters, so they're reluctant to introduce other main ones, or dwell too deep in backstories of minor ones, rather they focus on fan favorites (lead or secondary), and the backstories/character buildip usually involve fight or sex scenes, or something like that, which has "shock" value
Not to say i agree with their policies, but that s pretty much why they do it.
|
On May 28 2015 02:18 Jacenoob wrote:
I have a question: Why are there only 10 episodes per season?
Almost every other successful show tries to spread what little story they have over as many episodes as possible to milk more money from it. They often spam episodes (and sometimes even entire seasons) with fillers that do little to no contribution to the actual plot, just so they can make more money.
And then we have Game of Thrones were there surely is enough relevant plot to fill 16 episodes per season and they just don't do it. And I do not understand why. Wouldn't it just make them more money AND make an even better show? They should clearly make more money by producing more episodes. Once all the actors are gathered up and the equipment is there and the sets are built episodes 11-16 should only cost a fraction of the first episodes. While on the other hand the revenue should increase almost linearly.
And about the quality of the show, I think it would rather increase than get the story diluted. For this season Arya's training, the so far underwhelming Dorne storyline, Cercei's mismanagement and alcohol abuse, I feel like they all would have been better with more screen time. On top of that there are so many things from the books that are left out that should also work on screen.
So I really cannot understand the decision to stick with 10 epsodes per season.
Pretty much all HBO shows are 10 episode seasons. I think part of it has to do with production costs. Many HBO shows cost a LOT to make (e.g. Rome, which was quite a successful series, was so expensive to make that it was cancelled after two seasons).
|
I am sure they have their reasons but so far I don't understand.
For the "It's a simple question of money" part - sure one episode costs a lot, but if you produce 16 episodes a time instead of 10 the average cost per episode should be lower right? That's the basic rule of mass production and I don't see why it wouldn't apply here. Let's say making 10 episodes costs 10 million dollars (just an example, I know it is actually much more), then 16 episodes would surely cost less than 16 million dollars right? Like12-13? Maybe I miss something but from a business standpoint I only see that they would get 60% more of a selling product for 20-30% more cost and that should be worth it.
I also doubt that people would lose interest in Game of Thrones. The show is incredibly hot right now and as long as they keep telling a good story it will stay that way. Maybe go with 12-14 episodes if they are really afraif of that.
|
The main business of HBO is not to sell single episodes, but to provide a subscription service.
Therefore, producing more episodes doesn't necessarily mean more profit.
|
Going from 10 episodes to 16 is quite a jump though.
Even 12 episodes would do the show a lot more justice. Two more hours would allow to cover more story, and would help flesh out the characters. Or bring more action. Or have plots that are overall less rushed.
I would be in the camp of 12 episodes seasons. I think it would fit GoT perfectly.
|
On May 28 2015 02:52 Jacenoob wrote:
I am sure they have their reasons but so far I don't understand.
For the "It's a simple question of money" part - sure one episode costs a lot, but if you produce 16 episodes a time instead of 10 the average cost per episode should be lower right? That's the basic rule of mass production and I don't see why it wouldn't apply here. Let's say making 10 episodes costs 10 million dollars (just an example, I know it is actually much more), then 16 episodes would surely cost less than 16 million dollars right? Like12-13? Maybe I miss something but from a business standpoint I only see that they would get 60% more of a selling product for 20-30% more cost and that should be worth it.
I also doubt that people would lose interest in Game of Thrones. The show is incredibly hot right now and as long as they keep telling a good story it will stay that way. Maybe go with 12-14 episodes if they are really afraif of that.
Sure, the costs of additional episodes don't rise in a linear fashion, but they still rise, and they rise by the millions, enough that even a single extra episode may or may not be worth it. You gotta set your limit somewhere, and HBO set it at 10. I've read the producers say somewhere that they'd rather have 12 episodes, but there's just not enough money for it. And, again, there's time to consider. It already takes the entire year to make the 10 episodes, it would take either more time to make more episodes, or it would require an even bigger crew, which in turn would mean even more money that needs to be spent.
|
On May 28 2015 02:55 helpman176 wrote:
The main business of HBO is not to sell single episodes, but to provide a subscription service.
Therefore, producing more episodes doesn't necessarily mean more profit.
Bingo!
At 10 episodes per year, GoT has gotten big enough to draw and keep many subscribers. Two to six more weeks (12-16 episodes) per year won't actually bring in very many more subscribers, but will still add quite a bit to the costs even with some economy of scale advantages.
And as for selling boxed sets, will they really be able to charge 20-60% more for 12-16 episodes as opposed to what they charge for 10 episodes? Some people would of course pay 20% more (or much more) for the series, but they'll likely already do that at 10 episodes and the last 2-6 don't really change their buying decisions.
|
Not from USA. So HBO does not run ads? Well that makes a lot more sense then, thanks. They still sell the series to other countries and they would get more money for selling more episodes but if the main revenue is the US market it makes sense. Though I still doubt that they would be unable to produce 12-16 episodes a year because of time reasons.
But yeah, 12 episodes sounds good. I think that last season and this season the quality suffered from the lack of time. Just some story that explains why Jaime/Bronn and the Sand Snakes meet and fight instead of them just randomly arriving there at the exact same time in the exact same place. Some more story to Doran. A bit more of Arya learning before the faces were revealed. Things in the North were done well but in Dorne and King's Landing everything seems rushed.
|
Even though all the economic reasons mentioned earlier are certainly correct, I want to believe there is more to it. I think it's often a creative or artistic choice to not delude the story by stretching it out too much. Most of the TV series I have really been impressed by has been in 8 or 10 episodes. Fargo, True Detective, and more recently Daredevil, all have relative short seasons. Heck, Sherlock only comes out with three episodes every other year, but the quality of each episode is phenomenal.
On the other hand some series start our really good with a short first season and then the network pushes for more episodes per season, and the quality goes down with it (this isn't really applicable to HBO qua their business model but I felt like ranting).
People are already arguing that GoT is going down in quality, and rightly so, but trying to make more in the same time isn't the answer to that :s
Edit: Coming from software engineering I was reminded of this: perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away
|
On May 28 2015 06:02 Vorenius wrote:
Even though all the economic reasons mentioned earlier are certainly correct, I want to believe there is more to it. I think it's often a creative or artistic choice to not delude the story by stretching it out too much. Most of the TV series I have really been impressed by has been in 8 or 10 episodes. Fargo, True Detective, and more recently Daredevil, all have relative short seasons. Heck, Sherlock only comes out with three episodes every other year, but the quality of each episode is phenomenal.
Well, there's always more than one reason for doing things, but the economical factor certainly is a big one. There is also a recent trend in high quality TV shows to focus on few, high quality episodes instead of many mediocre ones (like it used to be). Back in the days that was a terrible idea: Even if you would get twice as many viewers for a good 10 episode show versus a mediocre 22 episode show, you wouldn't make twice the amount of ad money from those 10 episodes. Not to mention that you don't get twice the viewership for twice the show quality, far from it. So, basically, the producers preferred many meh episodes over a few very good ones. Nowadays, though, with Netflix and HBO and the interwebs, quality is far more important. You pay Netflix or HBO on a monthly basis, no matter how many episodes they produce. So you want to deliver quality, not quantity.
But yeah, you're right, it's quite often certainly easier to produce a good show when you only have to fill 10 episodes, and not 22. Not every story has the depth of Game of Thrones.
Though Sherlock is a different thing altogether. That's the British guys, they've always produced very, very few episodes for most of their shows.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
So, what's the probability of Stannis returning to the wall? The show seems to be suggesting that Stannis needs to choose between (a) marching and losing (the "Stannis" approach), (b) sacrificing Shireen and winning (the "Melissandre" appraoch) and (c) returning to the wall and trying again after winter (the "Davos" approach).
At the same time, the preview material seen seems to suggest either (a) or (b) is going to be the outcome. In particular, (a) with Stannis losing again and retreating to the wall putting Mel in the right place to save Jon and leaving Shireen alive to make that happen. It could also serve as the point where Mel gives up on Stannis as Azor Ahai and coverts to team Jon.
|
On May 28 2015 11:32 Plexa wrote:
So, what's the probability of Stannis returning to the wall? The show seems to be suggesting that Stannis needs to choose between (a) marching and losing (the "Stannis" approach), (b) sacrificing Shireen and winning (the "Melissandre" appraoch) and (c) returning to the wall and trying again after winter (the "Davos" approach).
At the same time, the preview material seen seems to suggest either (a) or (b) is going to be the outcome. In particular, (a) with Stannis losing again and retreating to the wall putting Mel in the right place to save Jon and leaving Shireen alive to make that happen. It could also serve as the point where Mel gives up on Stannis as Azor Ahai and coverts to team Jon.
What would Stannis do in that scenario though? Just give up? His army wouldn't stay with him if he retreated.
|
What the fuck at the scenes they add.. all the storylines they have added/Messed with themselves lead to meaningless terrible action sequences or boobs. The bronn scene in the prison? What was the damn point of that? Or the fight in the gardens? Or killing of Barristan? The only storyline that remotely works is tbh Sansa's however it is something we have seen before with Joffrey.
They are kinda ruining the show tbh, even my girlfriend who has not read the books reacts to pretty much everything that they have added and thinks it's terrible and i have to sitt there and say "yeah wasn´t in the books..." the one thing i am remotely looking forward to is the fact that Daenarys and Tyrion have finally met which ofcourse hasn´t happened in the books yet. But overall huge letdown of a season so far with very little of the things they add panning out. And for gods sake we don't need a swordfight scene every 10 minutes, stop thinking less of your viewers HBO.
|
On May 28 2015 11:32 Plexa wrote:
So, what's the probability of Stannis returning to the wall? The show seems to be suggesting that Stannis needs to choose between (a) marching and losing (the "Stannis" approach), (b) sacrificing Shireen and winning (the "Melissandre" appraoch) and (c) returning to the wall and trying again after winter (the "Davos" approach).
At the same time, the preview material seen seems to suggest either (a) or (b) is going to be the outcome. In particular, (a) with Stannis losing again and retreating to the wall putting Mel in the right place to save Jon and leaving Shireen alive to make that happen. It could also serve as the point where Mel gives up on Stannis as Azor Ahai and coverts to team Jon.
Is scenario A necessarily going to happen like that? I doubt Stannis will choose B, as that doesn't fit his character, but maybe if he gets really desperate. C wouldn't be fun at all for the people watching, that also does not fit Stannis' character and then there's the huge battle that took so long to film.
I'm still hopeful for (a part of) the Northmen to take Stannis' side when he shows up, making a victory doable.
On May 28 2015 17:49 unkkz wrote:
What the fuck at the scenes they add.. all the storylines they have added/Messed with themselves lead to meaningless terrible action sequences or boobs. The bronn scene in the prison? What was the damn point of that? Or the fight in the gardens? Or killing of Barristan? The only storyline that remotely works is tbh Sansa's however it is something we have seen before with Joffrey.
They are kinda ruining the show tbh, even my girlfriend who has not read the books reacts to pretty much everything that they have added and thinks it's terrible and i have to sitt there and say "yeah wasn´t in the books..." the one thing i am remotely looking forward to is the fact that Daenarys and Tyrion have finally met which ofcourse hasn´t happened in the books yet. But overall huge letdown of a season so far with very little of the things they add panning out. And for gods sake we don't need a swordfight scene every 10 minutes, stop thinking less of your viewers HBO.
I agree, they kind of made a mess of the whole storyline in Dorne. I thought the first scene where they get found by those horsemen, where Jaime defeated one of them because his opponent's sword got stuck in his hand awesome, after that it went downhill very quickly. The rest of the show is still pretty good imo.
|
On May 28 2015 11:32 Plexa wrote:putting Mel in the right place to save Jon
Who says Jon gets saved in the new book? 
|
On May 28 2015 02:31 Conti wrote:
It's a simple question of money. One episode of GoT costs a huge deal more than, say, one episode of Agents of Shield. I'm sure everyone would agree that having 16 episodes per season would be awesome, but then the show would cost way, way more, and the people making the show are already pretty much spending the entire year doing just the 10 episodes. So even without the money issue, 16 episodes would mean that we'd only get one season about every 2 years.
Their production costs rival that of feature films. Look at all the historic locations they shoot on and how many teams they have shooting. It is ridiculous and stupid expensive.
On May 28 2015 02:52 Jacenoob wrote:
I am sure they have their reasons but so far I don't understand.
For the "It's a simple question of money" part - sure one episode costs a lot, but if you produce 16 episodes a time instead of 10 the average cost per episode should be lower right? That's the basic rule of mass production and I don't see why it wouldn't apply here. Let's say making 10 episodes costs 10 million dollars (just an example, I know it is actually much more), then 16 episodes would surely cost less than 16 million dollars right? Like12-13? Maybe I miss something but from a business standpoint I only see that they would get 60% more of a selling product for 20-30% more cost and that should be worth it.
I also doubt that people would lose interest in Game of Thrones. The show is incredibly hot right now and as long as they keep telling a good story it will stay that way. Maybe go with 12-14 episodes if they are really afraif of that.
We're talking about film and television here. I don't think you realize exactly how many people are involved in one production and the idea of consumerism doesn't apply here. Throw those business principles out the window because we're talking about a whole different can of worms where there are a lot more things in play. Don't even think about the return on an investment.
|
On May 28 2015 11:32 Plexa wrote:
So, what's the probability of Stannis returning to the wall? The show seems to be suggesting that Stannis needs to choose between (a) marching and losing (the "Stannis" approach), (b) sacrificing Shireen and winning (the "Melissandre" appraoch) and (c) returning to the wall and trying again after winter (the "Davos" approach).
At the same time, the preview material seen seems to suggest either (a) or (b) is going to be the outcome. In particular, (a) with Stannis losing again and retreating to the wall putting Mel in the right place to save Jon and leaving Shireen alive to make that happen. It could also serve as the point where Mel gives up on Stannis as Azor Ahai and coverts to team Jon.
At the end of ADWD Hosteen Frey enters the great hall of Winterfell with the body of little Walder. A fight breaks out between the Freys and House Manderly because Big Walder accuses the men from White Harbor (Manderlys men). Boltons and Freys have the alliance with the Lannisters after the Red Wedding and are named wardens of the north. But they can't rule the north without a Stark - which is why "Arya Stark" is married to Ramsey. However, "Arya" and Theon escape with the help of the washerwomen and Mance + Show Spoiler [TWOW spoilers] +and are brought to Stannis where Theon is reunited with Asha Greyjoy and "Arya" is sent with a woman to the wall to be reunited with Jon Snow (maybe to persuade him to become lord of winterfell, however he's a Direwolf now)
After the fight between Freys/Manderlys Roose Bolton orders everyone out into the waist-high snow to make the 3 day long ride to Stannis camp. Boltons are left in Winterfell with no Stark, Frey's will be massacred by Stannis + Manderly + Other northren families (North remembers the red wedding). Boltons will camp Winterfell with no alliances and will be sieged without hurry to secure it for Jon Stark / Goth Sansa / Skagos Rickon Stark or let in via secret entrances (same one used by the Hooded Man that recognized Theon) and take it that way. Theon growing up in Winterfell should know the ins and outs of the castle and can maybe bargain his knowledge for his life
|
On May 28 2015 23:50 Emon_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2015 11:32 Plexa wrote:
So, what's the probability of Stannis returning to the wall? The show seems to be suggesting that Stannis needs to choose between (a) marching and losing (the "Stannis" approach), (b) sacrificing Shireen and winning (the "Melissandre" appraoch) and (c) returning to the wall and trying again after winter (the "Davos" approach).
At the same time, the preview material seen seems to suggest either (a) or (b) is going to be the outcome. In particular, (a) with Stannis losing again and retreating to the wall putting Mel in the right place to save Jon and leaving Shireen alive to make that happen. It could also serve as the point where Mel gives up on Stannis as Azor Ahai and coverts to team Jon. At the end of ADWD Hosteen Frey enters the great hall of Winterfell with the body of little Walder. A fight breaks out between the Freys and House Manderly because Big Walder accuses the men from White Harbor (Manderlys men). Boltons and Freys have the alliance with the Lannisters after the Red Wedding and are named wardens of the north. But they can't rule the north without a Stark - which is why "Arya Stark" is married to Ramsey. However, "Arya" and Theon escape with the help of the washerwomen and Mance + Show Spoiler [TWOW spoilers] +and are brought to Stannis where Theon is reunited with Asha Greyjoy and "Arya" is sent with a woman to the wall to be reunited with Jon Snow (maybe to persuade him to become lord of winterfell, however he's a Direwolf now) so now Roose is without a Stark. Add to this that Walda Frey is pregnant and the child will likely inherit the Dreadfort instead of Ramsey (which is probably why Ramsey murdered Little Walder. Bolton/Frey relations aren't the best either) After the fight between Freys/Manderlys Roose Bolton orders everyone out into the waist-high snow to make the 3 day long ride to Stannis camp. Boltons are left in Winterfell with no Stark, Frey's will be massacred by Stannis + Manderly + Other northren families (North remembers the red wedding). Boltons will camp Winterfell with no alliances and will be sieged without hurry to secure it for Jon Stark / Goth Sansa / Skagos Rickon Stark or let in via secret entrances (same one used by the Hooded Man that recognized Theon) and take it that way. Theon growing up in Winterfell should know the ins and outs of the castle and can maybe bargain his knowledge for his life
Holy crap is that really going to happen or are you speculating? I hope you're right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
