|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On May 24 2011 21:13 ZP wrote:Show nested quote +
Anyway, as someone already explained earlier, cable networks don't care that much about ratings to begin with, they just want you to pay for their channel.
So anyone downloading the show instead of paying for HBO (that is, if your country has HBO), is certainly not helping.
Not even remotely true. While yes HBO runs on subscriptions, it uses ratings as a way of gauging which shows attract enough attention to get people to subscribe. In the context of Game of Thrones, ratings means infinitely more than overall subs to HBO. If Game of Thrones had horrific ratings, HBO's conclusion would be: "This show is not attracting the interest of many people. It therefore is not encouraging people to stay subscribed." Conversely, when it has great ratings, HBO's conclusion is that Game of Thrones is worth producing because its large appeal relative to the total HBO subscriber base indicates that it will pull in (or at least retain) subscribers. When comparing the two, ratings mean dramatically more than the amount of subscriptions when talking about the future of a given program. In the context of GoT, subscriptions only matter if a scenario were to occur in where lack of subscriptions caused HBO to no longer be able to fund its shows. And no, a (something that would never happen anyways) massive spike in HBO subscriptions would not suddenly increase the budget for GoT. From a corporate perspective, GoT is a very successful product at the budget currently allocated for it. Spending more money on it (when it's already so successful at its current price point), is not a decision any corporate head would make. They would roll the additional money into other projects, or simply pure profit for HBO as a whole. TLDR: Ratings are the main thing that matters - 99% of people do not effect them. Additional subscriptions do not matter unless HBO is going to die - it's not.
You're missing the bigger picture.
Someone said downloading GoT instead of watching it on TV is hurting the show, you replied that for anyone who doesnt possess a Nielsen ratings box, it doesnt make any difference.
It does have some form of impact because if you download the show instead of paying for HBO, it's less revenue for them, that's all.
|
I was thinking about that... you'd die from an overheated brain, correct?
|
On May 25 2011 17:00 writer22816 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 15:41 RA wrote:
1. No swords in Vaes Dothrak, no blood spilling.
He not only disregarded the law for swords, he used it to threaten Dothraki khaleesi and her future child. Doesn't matter who he is after that or what deals he made.
2. Why did someone think that hot water hurt Daenerys? I watched episode many times and never saw a notion of that. Probably people who read the books; the book mentions that Dany always liked her bath scalding hot.
Well, it was subtle in the first episode: her handmaid says that the water is too hot, but Dany just steps into it very relaxed.
EDIT: to the guy above me. Only normal people die. Fire can't hurt a dragon and thus, however much Viserys claimed he was a dragon, he obviously isn't. The scene in the movies also gave it a slightly different connotation than I picked up from the books. In the books Dany's steady gain in self-esteem (coupled to her love of Drogo and the dothraki) until she is finally sick and tired of Viserys being a callous idiot. Drogo looks to her for confirmation that he should kill Viserys and she gives the go ahead (regardless of the family tie)
In the series it seems more as if she is testing Viserys: either he's never in any real danger. Or he's a flawed Tagaryen (like her father was) and his death is no big loss.
|
On May 25 2011 12:43 alypse wrote:
Just finished ep 6. Can someone explain to me why Drogo did not fulfill his end of the bargain? He made a deal with Viserys, promised to invade the seven kingdoms to take the crown back for him, but he hasn't done anything so far. In the end he killed Viserys. Is he waiting for his son to be born?
As far as Drogo was concerned, Daenerys was a gift and in return he would also give a gift, in his own time. You don't demand anything of a Khal and you certainly don't threaten his Khaleesi.
|
+ Show Spoiler [episode 7] +On May 25 2011 18:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 17:00 writer22816 wrote:On May 25 2011 15:41 RA wrote:
1. No swords in Vaes Dothrak, no blood spilling.
He not only disregarded the law for swords, he used it to threaten Dothraki khaleesi and her future child. Doesn't matter who he is after that or what deals he made.
2. Why did someone think that hot water hurt Daenerys? I watched episode many times and never saw a notion of that. Probably people who read the books; the book mentions that Dany always liked her bath scalding hot. EDIT: to the guy above me. Only normal people die. Fire can't hurt a dragon and thus, however much Viserys claimed he was a dragon, he obviously isn't. Maybe it's a genetic trait that isn't necessarily passed down to the descendants. I remember Cersei talked about how the Dragons would keep the bloodline pure just as she was with Jaime (yuck). I guess that's the only way to guarantee your descendants get the trait, but then you also might end up with madness; such as the Mad King and Joffree. So Daenerys was the only true dragon left anyway.
|
On May 25 2011 17:51 AndyJay wrote:
I was thinking about that... you'd die from an overheated brain, correct?
I imagine it would be hot enough to melt thru your skull into your brain.
|
+ Show Spoiler +The golden crown scene was okay imo.
I mean there is no need to split hairs about it being legit or not.
We all know the molten gold would melt away his head. Same as simple fire being able to melt the gold in the first place...
|
On May 25 2011 23:26 Klive5ive wrote:[spoiler=episode 7] Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 18:04 Acrofales wrote:On May 25 2011 17:00 writer22816 wrote:On May 25 2011 15:41 RA wrote:
1. No swords in Vaes Dothrak, no blood spilling.
He not only disregarded the law for swords, he used it to threaten Dothraki khaleesi and her future child. Doesn't matter who he is after that or what deals he made.
2. Why did someone think that hot water hurt Daenerys? I watched episode many times and never saw a notion of that. Probably people who read the books; the book mentions that Dany always liked her bath scalding hot. EDIT: to the guy above me. Only normal people die. Fire can't hurt a dragon and thus, however much Viserys claimed he was a dragon, he obviously isn't. Maybe it's a genetic trait that isn't necessarily passed down to the descendants.
GRRM obviously intended it that way and genetics in Westeros works the same as it does in our universe  Also shown by the fact that the dragons, coming from a very limited stock (Aegon the Conqueror brought three dragons, ridden by him and his sisters/wives), became weaker, smaller and more stunted through generations of inbreeding. The same obviously happened with the Tagaryens themselves.
I wouldn't call Joffrey mad, though. He is cruel, but I wouldn't call him mad. To build my case I would need to reveal spoilers, so if you want we can discuss it in the spoiler thread.
|
On May 25 2011 18:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 17:00 writer22816 wrote:On May 25 2011 15:41 RA wrote:
1. No swords in Vaes Dothrak, no blood spilling.
He not only disregarded the law for swords, he used it to threaten Dothraki khaleesi and her future child. Doesn't matter who he is after that or what deals he made.
2. Why did someone think that hot water hurt Daenerys? I watched episode many times and never saw a notion of that. Probably people who read the books; the book mentions that Dany always liked her bath scalding hot. Well, it was subtle in the first episode: her handmaid says that the water is too hot, but Dany just steps into it very relaxed.
It didn't seem relaxed at all. She stepped into the bath shortly after her brother semi-molesting her on the spot.
She steps and sinks into that bath with such an emotionless face that it always struck me more as if she was intentionally stepping into the hot water in the same way someone might hit his fist against a wall out of frustration.
I suppose you can consider it a sign of foreshadowing but:
Book 1
+ Show Spoiler +
User was warned for this post
|
User was unable to read the thread rules and was thus warned for this post
|
Can you guys stop posting book spoilers?
"* DO NOT POST BOOK SPOILERS OF ANY KIND IN THIS THREAD ANYMORE *"
|
On May 26 2011 00:49 Zuor wrote:
Can you guys stop posting book spoilers?
"* DO NOT POST BOOK SPOILERS OF ANY KIND IN THIS THREAD ANYMORE *"
off+ Show Spoiler +it really bothers u that much? They are spoilered, you dont need to read them, mods often check this thread, if they find it inappropiate they ll act. I think it's not inappropriate since it directly links to the discussion and it's clearly distinguished to not ruin any1's fun. You really shouldn't whine about it
|
On May 26 2011 01:08 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2011 00:49 Zuor wrote:
Can you guys stop posting book spoilers?
"* DO NOT POST BOOK SPOILERS OF ANY KIND IN THIS THREAD ANYMORE *" it really bothers u that much? They are spoilered, you dont need to read them, mods often check this thread, if they find it inappropiate they ll act. I think it's not inappropriate since it directly links to the discussion and it's clearly distinguished to not ruin any1's fun. You really shouldn't whine about it
I mean, just read the big bold red text at the top, it isn't that hard. You've got an entire thread now to discuss book spoilers.
|
On May 26 2011 01:08 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2011 00:49 Zuor wrote:
Can you guys stop posting book spoilers?
"* DO NOT POST BOOK SPOILERS OF ANY KIND IN THIS THREAD ANYMORE *" it really bothers u that much? They are spoilered, you dont need to read them, mods often check this thread, if they find it inappropiate they ll act. I think it's not inappropriate since it directly links to the discussion and it's clearly distinguished to not ruin any1's fun. You really shouldn't whine about it
if a red, bold mod note in all caps says no book spoilers, it probably means no book spoilers. hes not whining, he is legitimately complaining. just follow the rules and there is no problem.
|
On May 26 2011 01:13 Glull wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2011 01:08 Geo.Rion wrote:On May 26 2011 00:49 Zuor wrote:
Can you guys stop posting book spoilers?
"* DO NOT POST BOOK SPOILERS OF ANY KIND IN THIS THREAD ANYMORE *" it really bothers u that much? They are spoilered, you dont need to read them, mods often check this thread, if they find it inappropiate they ll act. I think it's not inappropriate since it directly links to the discussion and it's clearly distinguished to not ruin any1's fun. You really shouldn't whine about it if a red, bold mod note in all caps says no book spoilers, it probably means no book spoilers. hes not whining, he is legitimately complaining. just follow the rules and there is no problem.
OFF+ Show Spoiler +i did not even write any of the book spoilers, it just annoys me that someone complains about others giving backside info in a non-harmful way, when mods can very well do their duty on their own. But w/e this is off as well, so let's leave things here
|
On May 25 2011 17:12 lepape wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 21:13 ZP wrote:
Anyway, as someone already explained earlier, cable networks don't care that much about ratings to begin with, they just want you to pay for their channel.
So anyone downloading the show instead of paying for HBO (that is, if your country has HBO), is certainly not helping.
Not even remotely true. While yes HBO runs on subscriptions, it uses ratings as a way of gauging which shows attract enough attention to get people to subscribe. In the context of Game of Thrones, ratings means infinitely more than overall subs to HBO. If Game of Thrones had horrific ratings, HBO's conclusion would be: "This show is not attracting the interest of many people. It therefore is not encouraging people to stay subscribed." Conversely, when it has great ratings, HBO's conclusion is that Game of Thrones is worth producing because its large appeal relative to the total HBO subscriber base indicates that it will pull in (or at least retain) subscribers. When comparing the two, ratings mean dramatically more than the amount of subscriptions when talking about the future of a given program. In the context of GoT, subscriptions only matter if a scenario were to occur in where lack of subscriptions caused HBO to no longer be able to fund its shows. And no, a (something that would never happen anyways) massive spike in HBO subscriptions would not suddenly increase the budget for GoT. From a corporate perspective, GoT is a very successful product at the budget currently allocated for it. Spending more money on it (when it's already so successful at its current price point), is not a decision any corporate head would make. They would roll the additional money into other projects, or simply pure profit for HBO as a whole. TLDR: Ratings are the main thing that matters - 99% of people do not effect them. Additional subscriptions do not matter unless HBO is going to die - it's not. You're missing the bigger picture. Someone said downloading GoT instead of watching it on TV is hurting the show, you replied that for anyone who doesnt possess a Nielsen ratings box, it doesnt make any difference. It does have some form of impact because if you download the show instead of paying for HBO, it's less revenue for them, that's all.
Not advocating for downloading, but it's gotten to the point where television is outdated. The reality is someone has to pay for the shows however it's gotten to the point where anyone who has even tasted the convenience and on demand of downloading your favorite shows... I have a reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally hard time justifying $1000+ a year just to watch the same shows but on a time table with absurd amounts of commercials. I've been debating canceling my cable subscription for netflix+ other services after the hockey playoffs end... Just hoping television evolves into a better model.
BTW I suggest this to anyone, threaten to cancel your cable service every once and a while, you'll be surprised at the discounts you can get even if you stick with it. Just call up customer service and mention you would like to cancel and when they transfer you to some sales rep and he asks why, just mention you think it's expensive and exploring other options. You'll be surprised.
This weeks show... Wow. I know I'll read the books later, but right now, not having read the books, it creates this truly unique tension in a ton of the scenes. The final scene in last weeks was just insane. I was pleased at not having a clue where it was going or where it was going to end.
|
On May 26 2011 01:13 Glull wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2011 01:08 Geo.Rion wrote:On May 26 2011 00:49 Zuor wrote:
Can you guys stop posting book spoilers?
"* DO NOT POST BOOK SPOILERS OF ANY KIND IN THIS THREAD ANYMORE *" it really bothers u that much? They are spoilered, you dont need to read them, mods often check this thread, if they find it inappropiate they ll act. I think it's not inappropriate since it directly links to the discussion and it's clearly distinguished to not ruin any1's fun. You really shouldn't whine about it if a red, bold mod note in all caps says no book spoilers, it probably means no book spoilers. hes not whining, he is legitimately complaining. just follow the rules and there is no problem.
+ Show Spoiler [offtopic] +
If we were going wildly off the topic of episode 6 I would've advocated moving to the other thread (see my earlier post about things related to the crazyness of Lannisters or Tagaryens), but it is inevitable that people who have read the books and are watching the TV series come here to discuss it. The topic was originally that book spoilers be put in spoiler tags clearly marking the books. It was retarded people who could not keep to that rule that got the warning changed and I fully agree with that, but if you're going to nitpick about people CLEARLY marking spoilers with "book" tags and spoiling something that is going to happen in 2 or so episodes then you are seriously overreacting (or being a rule nazi for the sake of trolling).
|
I already read the books so the spoilers don't bother me, and I even enjoy discussion based on the book vs the show. That being said, I do think it is very hard to enforce a NO BOOK SPOILERS OF ANY KIND policy if the thread actually allows some "minor spoilers" to remain. What is minor to one person may not be so minor in another's eyes, and consistency in applying the rules can go a long way in enforcing them.
|
On May 26 2011 04:11 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2011 01:13 Glull wrote:On May 26 2011 01:08 Geo.Rion wrote:On May 26 2011 00:49 Zuor wrote:
Can you guys stop posting book spoilers?
"* DO NOT POST BOOK SPOILERS OF ANY KIND IN THIS THREAD ANYMORE *" it really bothers u that much? They are spoilered, you dont need to read them, mods often check this thread, if they find it inappropiate they ll act. I think it's not inappropriate since it directly links to the discussion and it's clearly distinguished to not ruin any1's fun. You really shouldn't whine about it if a red, bold mod note in all caps says no book spoilers, it probably means no book spoilers. hes not whining, he is legitimately complaining. just follow the rules and there is no problem. + Show Spoiler [offtopic] +
If we were going wildly off the topic of episode 6 I would've advocated moving to the other thread (see my earlier post about things related to the crazyness of Lannisters or Tagaryens), but it is inevitable that people who have read the books and are watching the TV series come here to discuss it. The topic was originally that book spoilers be put in spoiler tags clearly marking the books. It was retarded people who could not keep to that rule that got the warning changed and I fully agree with that, but if you're going to nitpick about people CLEARLY marking spoilers with "book" tags and spoiling something that is going to happen in 2 or so episodes then you are seriously overreacting (or being a rule nazi for the sake of trolling).
If you haven't read the books, you see a 'book 1 spoiler'. Than can either be something extremely small, some left out backstory that brings a little bit of insight into the discussion (which makes sense being in this topic) or it can be something big happening in future episodes (which should be the other topic).
Both cases get tagged as 'book 1 spoiler', GL HF with the lottery of opening them if you want some extra info about something small. And obviously, both scenarios happened a billion times in this thread.
If you have something tiny from the books that sheds some light on what happened until now in the series and it won't make an appearance in the show, spoiler+tag it appropriately and post it. If it's something big from future episodes, use the other thread. ezpzlmnsqz
|
Well, the argument about "sometimes spoiler tags are innocent" is really dumb. Spoiler tags are there for a reason. Sure, sometimes what's spoiled is only spoilery in a very minor way, but basically by clicking the tag you are saying "yes, I take the risk of having a major plot event spoiled".
+ Show Spoiler [harry potter] +
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
