Jump to content

Netflix's new epic drama - 'Marco Polo'


AncalagonTheBlack

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...