Salafi Stannis Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Well, looks like I'm gonna be the first one on this thread to say it. I like this show. Tis awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 I like it as well, though I could really use less harem scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Me too. Nowhere near as bad as the reviews are making out. Though, I have to agree on the blind martial-arts instructor. That's just bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 But they are correct in that he goal is, at least in part, to tap in to some of that sweet GoT money. It's only GoT money in the sense that that's what the journalists are focused on today. No one accuses The Borgias or Vikings of aiming for GoT money. They're aiming for historical drama money and the international audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 It's only GoT money in the sense that that's what the journalists are focused on today. No one accuses The Borgias or Vikings of aiming for GoT money. They're aiming for historical drama money and the international audience. People do bring up GOT when Vikings is talked about, even though that, Borgia and Marco are period dramas, and GOT is hard core fantasy. Dragons and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 It's only GoT money in the sense that that's what the journalists are focused on today. No one accuses The Borgias or Vikings of aiming for GoT money. They're aiming for historical drama money and the international audience. People totally accuse Vikings of trying to jump on the GoT bandwagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 I just watched the first two episodes and I'm really liking it. Yes, coulda done without those stupid drugged out orgy scenes -- especially as this was a long time before the opium era of China. Also the fighting of a woman naked, could really done without. Probably this was written and shot before the backlash that's going on about these matters as gratuitous bs that a lot of viewers could do without. This is only two episodes watched, but it's hard not to suspicion that somebodies somehow leaned / paid hard on some peoples to trash Marco Polo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 People totally accuse Vikings of trying to jump on the GoT bandwagon. They sure do. And Borgias started before got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 People do bring up GOT when Vikings is talked about, even though that, Borgia and Marco are period dramas, and GOT is hard core fantasy. Dragons and all. People totally accuse Vikings of trying to jump on the GoT bandwagon. I stand corrected. In my defense...um, I dislike that too? They sure do. And Borgias started before got. Right around the same time actually. Camelot started earlier, but I recall it also being compared, but that was like for like, not "who my readers have heard of" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 I stand corrected. In my defense...um, I dislike that too?No fault, GOT has just become a hipster kind of thing for some people anything good with sword play has to be coping it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Right around the same time actually. Camelot started earlier, but I recall it also being compared, but that was like for like, not "who my readers have heard of" Man I wish that show did not get cancelled, lucky enough the maker of that got to do Vikings though, so a silver lining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Man I wish that show did not get cancelled, lucky enough the maker of that got to do Vikings though, so a silver lining. I never got that deep into it. So my main impression of the show is that its Arthur was a shit. I don't recall if he was actually a shit or if I am just shallow, but there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Game of Thrones is just a Rome ripoff anyway :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Chronology (history) is our friend: Rome (2005-2007 was cancelled by HBO. The third season that Rome did not get would have been the same season that Showtime kicked off The Tudors 2007-2010), which was massively popular. Tudors's popularity, along with the slower start into large viewership of Showtime's Spartacus (2010-2013), gave Showtime a more competitive edge, pushing HBO comprehension that Rome's cancellation had been a totally stupid decision. They'd lost their own popular violence plus naked plus costumes while peoples were eatin' it with multiple spoons. So -- they trumped: Got (2011 - ), possessing a fanatic and loyal fan base. Rome had been too expensive they'd thought? Well they followed with this faux historic fantasy series which is even more so. But it has violence, female degradation -- NAKED female degradation -- plus that exoticism (history being a different country; they do things differently there) -- and HUGE TRUMP, dragons. As for Camelot (2011), was so awful that why Michael Hirst who was such a mover for The Tudors was involved at all seems a mystery. But everybody wanted him after the success of The Tudors, and he didn't have to DO anything, just cash checks as "creator" and an "executive producer" -- if I'm remembering correctly, Hirst never wrote a line of a script for Camelot, unlike he did for Tudors -- of what might have been another franchi$e, but was absolute failure. Unlike Vikings (2013 - ), for which Hirst is also responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 So -- they trumped: Got (2011 - ), possessing a fanatic and loyal fan base. Rome had been too expensive they'd thought? Well they followed with this faux historic fantasy series which is even more so. But it has violence, female degradation -- NAKED female degradation -- plus that exoticism (history being a different country; they do things differently there) -- and HUGE TRUMP, dragons. Was it really though? I'm pretty certain that the first season of GoT was much cheaper than Rome and then the awards and reception made the show basically bulletproof, so the budget swelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Was it really though? I'm pretty certain that the first season of GoT was much cheaper than Rome and then the awards and reception made the show basically bulletproof, so the budget swelled. I think that's right. As far as I know, GoT budget numbers have never been fully publicly released, but the show cost something around $50-60 million for its first season, got a 15% budget increase for the second season, and unknown increases for each season thereafter. Although supposedly its fifth season cost more than Marco Polo's first, which was $90 million. So its way up there now. By contrast, season one of Rome was $110 million, with HBO contributing $85 million and the BBC the rest. I don't know the budget for season two, but it was entirely HBO. And this was back in 2004-2005 (with the initial agreement put in place in 2002), there's been some inflation since then. I think one of the things that frustrated HBO was that there was no need for Rome to be as expensive as it was, but the production made a lot of cost-prohibitive decisions, like actually filming in Italy (which is absurdly expensive to do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 OK -- stand corrected then, on the comparative budgets of Rome and Got. :) At least the chronology is correct! Chronology, i.e. dates, are my best friend(s). :) Here's an interview with Benjamin Wong, who plays Marco Polo's Kublai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 The best thing about this show is that for all Marco's adventuring in Kublai's actor stole the show for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliskin Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 So -- they trumped: Got (2011 - ), possessing a fanatic and loyal fan base. Actually, GoT is one of the reasons Rome got cancelled. They couldn't afford two shows of the same more or less productions values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Actually, GoT is one of the reasons Rome got cancelled. They couldn't afford two shows of the same more or less productions values. The same production values? Compared to GoT, Rome looks like a cheap Australian soap opera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.