EW Reveals 7 Season Plan

[Petyr Patter]

Keep in mind...

• The cost to make a Game of Thrones episode is already well above almost any other TV show. They film on location in multiple countries and require elaborate costumes, sets, and extras.
  
• The supernatural elements require CGI, which can be expensive. It is also time consuming and can get in the way of an annual release schedule.
  
• The cast is huge, and characters who will be written out are going to be replaced with new characters introduced.
  
• Two and a Half Men despite being a ratings juggernaut has manged to loose 1.5 out of its 2.5 titular characters. One to drugs, the other apparently to religion. Admittedly, this show continues, but is evidence that keeping a cast together takes more than money.
  
• The longer the show runs, the more of its cast it will lose, and not necessarily for money reasons. The actors who played Old Nan and Illyn Payne have already left the show due to terminal cases of cancer. They were easy to write around, but the show just lost something with not having Illyn Payne around for Jaime to train with. What happens when Peter Dinklage wants to spend more time with his family? Or Stephen J. Dillane decides its time to retire?
  
• HBO doesn't make its money from ratings, but from subscriptions and DVD sales. Both methods are being challenged by online content subscription models like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and others. Meaning, not even Game of Thrones can keep people paying the big bucks for cable and satellite TV when they can huge amounts of content (including original shows) for $20 a month.
  
• Game of Thrones is a big hit because they are following a story path laid out to them by a great writer using decades of experience and a willingness to challenge conventions to make his magnum opus. Meaning, HBO can't make things up as they go along. Stray to far from the Martin's work, and suddenly what makes the show compelling is gone. I call this "Heroes syndrome." Admittedly, Heroes continued to eek out seasons, but most people think the world would be a better place if they were never made.
  

None of this is proof that HBO is done after 7 seasons, but rather evidence that ratings aren't going to be enough to keep the show going.

[Abaddon]

Proof positive that putting bullet points in your post doesn't make your points any smarter...

- Game of Thrones is HBO's biggest show since The Sopranos and it is likely their #1 internationally. The DVDs and BluRays are selling like gangbusters. The show is making them an enormous amount of money. They have said this repeatedly.

- Again, it's making them an enormous amount of money.

- So? The show has been doing that since S1, and it's done nothing but grow in the ratings every year.

- What? I have no idea what your point is here.

- Nonsense. The show can and has lost/recast a handful of minor characters, true. But these are professional actors. And GoT takes very little time for the actors to shoot, as evidenced by the the fact that all of the main cast are in movies and other TV shots, doing theater, etc. There's no evidence to suggest that any of the main cast are going anywhere, unless they are written out of the show.

- Once again, GoT is making HBO an enormous amount of money.

- Nothing indicates that the show is going to lose steam any time soon. Again, you make a pointless comparison to a completely different show.

It's quite possible and even likely the show will end after seven seasons, although I still hold out hope for an eighth. However, you haven't given any evidence of anything. Just a lot of (mostly uninformed) speculation and poor comparisons.

[TaenaOfMyr]

I don't know if that's for sure. I think Kings Landing clearly won't get into TWOW in Season 5, and its been by far the central location of the show. And Jon/The Wall probably won't get there either. Those two locations alone take up an awful lot of the show, and are probably enough for Graves to say that the show won't get in TWOW in Season 5, when in reality he just means that the main stories won't. I think its very likely that some of the other stories will have to get into the start of TWOW by the last few episodes of next season, particularly Bran, Arya, and Sansa.

Jaime could get TWOW, but only if they hustle him out Kings Landing early on. If he doesn't leave until the 3rd or 4th episode, then miss an episode or two with travel, have two episodes with siege, miss an episode, that takes him to the end of the season, where it can snow in Riverrun in the final episode and then have Brienne meet him.

The number of characters in Kings Landing is heavily reduced by the time we get to AFFC, with Tyrion, Tywin, Littlefinger, Joffrey, Shae and Varys all gone. Jaime and Olenna leave early in the book as well, pretty much reducing it (from a main character standpoint anyway) to Cersei and Margery. I don't think they'll have any problem getting through the end of ADWD for Kings Landing by the end of season 5 (perhaps slightly past, although not much). And I say this as someone who considers the Cersei storyline the best part of AFFC/ADWD. I think they can do a fairly good job with it without having to butcher it. In fact they've already started leaning in that direction this season, by starting to build the Cersei - Qyburn relationship and amping up Cersei's evilness (having the food meant for the poor go to the kennel instead).

[kn1tt3r]

Even without Graves's comment about not going out of the books in season 5, I wouldn't have expected any TWOW material until season 6. I mean, they probably COULD do it, but there's really no need, and if possible they're going to avoid it.

Almost any arc has a sufficient material to stick to the books. Even if some characters won't have a whole lot to do (Dany mostly in political struggles, Bran and Arya mostly learning stuff, Theon mostly hanging around in Winterfell), other storylines are quite packed (Tyrion, Cersei). AND there are of course (pontentially) completely new storylines in Dorne and on the Iron Islands, which require screentime and therefore TAKE away screentime from Dany or Bran.

So yeah, I think they'll manage it to not touch TWOW in season 5, just by shifting focus a bit away from some characters, concentrating on others, and introducing new ones. I won't even be surprised if Tyrion won't reach Meereen for the Daznak's Pit scebe (he's not really needed there), especially if they cut Penny (i.e. no jousting).

[Ran]

Re: cost of Game of Thrones, True Blood is said to cost... $50-$60 million a year to produce. GoT is probably nearer the $65 million mark. It's a large amount of money, but it's not an enormously greater amount of money.

Rome cost $100 million in its first season, and while HBO did cancel it after the second season, they regretted it because DVD sales proved very strong after the fact.

I think Game of Thrones is far more lucrative at this point than that show, so in all honesty I don't know if HBO would blanch at the idea of a $100 million final season.

Not that contract renegotiations would add $30 million to the bottom line. A Google around suggests that increased salaries for the actors and key crew members would maybe push it to $75-$80 million area, give or take.

[Ser Desmond Wine's Bane]

I suspect the additional could easily be absorbed by increased CGI usage with the anticipated multiple Other, Dragon and KL destruction shots.

[Ran]

Blackwater added about $2 million to the typical cost of an episode. So yeah, imagine a final season needing, say, 3 Blackwater-level extravaganzas and you could see another $6+ million just on the visual and practical effects side, plus shooting with lots of extras and so on.

It's hard to imagine the show being capable of costing $100 million, but if they were willing to spend that much on Rome (correction: that was $122 million, inflation-adjusted; the reason for the cost, BTW, was that they decided for authenticity and filmed in and around Rome... one of the most expensive places to film in the world), I don't really see the issue. Yes, the first season of Rome was a co-production with the BBC, but again, there's the whole lucrativeness side of things. Merchandising and licensing has been enormous, and the show's far more widely known than Rome ever was.

Final season, whenever it's going to be, is going to have a lot of money thrown its way.

[Fez]

The number of characters in Kings Landing is heavily reduced by the time we get to AFFC, with Tyrion, Tywin, Littlefinger, Joffrey, Shae and Varys all gone. Jaime and Olenna leave early in the book as well, pretty much reducing it (from a main character standpoint anyway) to Cersei and Margery. I don't think they'll have any problem getting through the end of ADWD for Kings Landing by the end of season 5 (perhaps slightly past, although not much). And I say this as someone who considers the Cersei storyline the best part of AFFC/ADWD. I think they can do a fairly good job with it without having to butcher it. In fact they've already started leaning in that direction this season, by starting to build the Cersei - Qyburn relationship and amping up Cersei's evilness (having the food meant for the poor go to the kennel instead).

Oh I don't disagree that KL can easily get through AFFC/ADWD in S5, I just don't think it'll enter TWOW for them. There's fewer characters, but enough needs to happen that getting through it all in 7 or 8 episodes and entering TWOW territory seems way too fast. Particularly considering the heavy lifting that needs to get some of the other stories to roughly the same place. I think the most important goal for S5 should be to have Dany and all the characters that reach Mereen ready to enter TWOW by the end of the season (if not during the season with the battle of fire). It should be doable, but it'll take time away from other places, like KL.

[Ingelheim]

Blackwater added about $2 million to the typical cost of an episode. So yeah, imagine a final season needing, say, 3 Blackwater-level extravaganzas and you could see another $6+ million just on the visual and practical effects side, plus shooting with lots of extras and so on.

It's hard to imagine the show being capable of costing $100 million, but if they were willing to spend that much on Rome (correction: that was $122 million, inflation-adjusted; the reason for the cost, BTW, was that they decided for authenticity and filmed in and around Rome... one of the most expensive places to film in the world), I don't really see the issue. Yes, the first season of Rome was a co-production with the BBC, but again, there's the whole lucrativeness side of things. Merchandising and licensing has been enormous, and the show's far more widely known than Rome ever was.

Final season, whenever it's going to be, is going to have a lot of money thrown its way.

This.

[Calibandar]

FYI, Benioff was just quoted last week, again, stating that 7 seasons is the end.

That final 7th season is undoubtedly going to be very spectacular and stuffed to the brim with story.

[Newstar]

I am surprised that, assuming that Alex Graves is correct about Season 5 only covering the published books, that the showrunners won't split the two battles (of fire and of ice) between Seasons 5 and 6, to ease the strain on the budget.

The argument over seven seasons vs. eight seasons is looking increasingly academic, considering that Alex Graves has seemingly confirmed that the published books will be exhausted by the end of Season 5. Even if there are eight seasons, there's no way that ADOS will be published in time. At this rate, I'm not even sure TWOW will be published by the spring of 2016, when Season 6 will begin airing.

[Faint]

Besides the Battle of Meereen, which might serve as the ninth episode of the fifth season, I think the other storylines will not venture into The Winds of Winter material before the sixth season with the possible exception of Bran and Sansa (who, between them, have six total chapters since the end of A Storm of Swords).

And even in the case of Bran and Sansa, although Benioff and Weiss do not have much material to plot for them over the course of the fifth season, they might simply have them missing from many episodes at a time rather than advancing their story. I say that because the very fact that Bran and Sansa have so few chapters since A Storm of Swords strikes me as a little suspicious. I obviously do not know how their stories play out in The Winds of Winter, but it is possible that the reason they have not featured as much lately is that they will be joining other storylines and those storylines had to catch up to them first. In other words, the narrative structure might preclude Bran and Sansa from going ahead of the other characters even if they do not have much material to cover beforehand.

[Frumpus]

My own guess is that they will severely trim the Dornish, Ironborn and Aegon storylines. I've even floated the possibility before that they might simply do away with Aegon and the Golden Company.

I've always said that all three would be cut, also Quentyn is likely on the chopping block as well.

They've never mentioned any of the Ironborn uncles not even once on the show in four seasons, which is a very telling sign.

[Khal-a-bunga]

I've always said that all three would be cut, also Quentyn is likely on the chopping block as well.

They've never mentioned any of the Ironborn uncles not even once on the show in four seasons, which is a very telling sign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT2LAXLshTA

[Werthead]

GoT is probably nearer the $65 million mark.

Season 1 was $60 million, Season 2 was +15%, which takes it up to $69 million. Season 3 was either the same or maybe slightly higher. Season 4 is definitely notably more, so they're easily north of $70 million right now. They might hold it (apart from inflation) for Season 5, but I can see it going up again after that.

It's hard to imagine the show being capable of costing $100 million, but if they were willing to spend that much on Rome (correction: that was $122 million, inflation-adjusted; the reason for the cost, BTW, was that they decided for authenticity and filmed in and around Rome... one of the most expensive places to film in the world), I don't really see the issue. Yes, the first season of Rome was a co-production with the BBC

Spending $100 million on Rome did cost them elsewhere; they had problems budgeting for other shows and other shows paid the price for it (there seems to be some truth in the story that Rome's budget ate into the money available for Deadwood's final and cancelled season, contributing to that clusterfuck situation). Also, both seasons were a co-production with the BBC, who made up 15% of the budget each season (so it was actually $85 million for Season 1 from HBO's own money, unadjusted); the cancellation was partly driven by the BBC's withdrawal after their initial two-season contract, so HBO would have had to have made up the money for Season 3 onwards by themselves. As you say, they later said they could have done this and made a profit, but at the time they deemed it too risky.

HBO in 2014 is of course not HBO in 2007, and GoT's success is much larger than Rome or Deadwood's, particularly the overseas foreign sales deal which means HBO gets about 50% of each season pre-funded before they even spend a dime. That's good news as it means that HBO is spending less money upfront on GoT than they even did on The Wire or True Blood. That's also bad news if HBO have already factored that into their budgets and a budget rise means they have to choose between GoT and two or three other, cheaper-but-still-successful shows. If you're in business and you're making a profit, but half the profit you did the previous year, you don't celebrate the profit, you question why the potential loss in revenue has taken place.

As for the rise in actor's prices, you're talking multiple actors on the show who might be moved to ask for $500,000-$1 million per episode (for the likes of Clarke and Harington, that depends on how their movies and other projects go; Harington's not off to a great start so far; Dinklage would quite easily be able to command $1 million by the final season though). You're thus looking at a $5-10 million rise each season per actor who gets that deal. That could get out of control quite easily. I'm sure everyone remembers Friends which ended its final season on a totally insane $7 million per episode (for a half-hour sitcom!) due to the cast costs alone, which is why it had to end regardless of the fact it was the biggest thing on TV in the world at the time.

Even at seven seasons, before they get into the full-one mega-negotiations, exercising the seventh season option is still going to raise costs considerably.

To put it another way, look at the ludicrous amounts of money the Disney Marvel movies are making, and then look into how much the lead actors are paid and how Robert Downey Junior had to fight to make sure that people like Hemsworth, Johansson and Evans got a reasonable amount of money (compared to the budget of the films and what he was on, anyway) for The Avengers and its sequel, and how Marvel will frequently say they can recast anyone, even Iron Man, as a negotiating tactic. If they're playing games over the money on those films, which are giant money-printing machines, then it would be short-sighted to think GoT, where the margins are much tighter, cannot suffer the same problems.

[Miryana]

And even in the case of Bran and Sansa, although Benioff and Weiss do not have much material to plot for them over the course of the fifth season, they might simply have them missing from many episodes at a time rather than advancing their story.

From a practical point of view, what does being a regular cast member mean? If you're a regular, is it in your contract that you have to appear in X number of episodes, or does it just mean that you have to be available when the showrunners need you even if it's one or two episodes out of ten? If the showrunners planned to have only a couple of appearances by Sansa and Bran in season 5, would they have to renegotiate their contracts? Would they have to be renegotiated again when their stories became more prominent in season 6?

Barristan skipped a season but he wasn't a regular; Theon was a more important character and he got six episodes of new material in season 3 even though the books jumped straight to Reek. IMO, the alternatives seem to be a single appearance that is a preview of the next season's arc (Stoneheart's probable return in 4x10), skipping a season (Barristan) or getting material that is either new or consists of scenes that are spread out over the season but nonetheless keeps the character as a relatively constant presence (Theon and Bran in season 3). My prediction is that season 5 Sansa and Bran will be in the third category: Sansa's story with the lords can be boosted with extra scheming and they can come up with training scenes for Bran.

[Ran]

Werthead,

Remember S2 had an extra $2 million for Blackwater. Like I said, nearer to $65 million. I don't think there's any evidence at all that this season is "notably more" expensive.

Anna Paquin, Stephen Moyer, and Alexander Skarsgård hit $275,000 per episode this last season, and that's a show that has had up through now a very similar trajectory, cultural zeitgeist, and even licensing for several seasons. They started at $75,000 when the show started. TV Guide reports Headey and Dinklage earn $150,000 per episode presently.

No one's going to get $1,000,000+ an episode, as Gandolfini did for The Sopranos, not least because it's a much bigger ensemble. If you take them from $150k to $800,000, you're going to have to be ready for the entire cast salary to quadruple just because people will use that huge payday for leverage to get theirs, too, and at that point I suspect you would indeed blow past $100 million and I'm not certain that that would work as far as HBO is concerned, even with the upside. Which means everyone kind of loses out.

Much likelier we'll end the show with someone earning $500,000 an episode, certainly. But $1,000,000? No.

Calibandar,

The quote from "last week" must be the more recent EW interview? I've already noted that publication date does not equal interview date. Try and pin down when the interview was actually done with some explicit statement to when it happened. We know all prior "firm season 7" interviews came from September or thereabouts. That interview seems like an outlier, so I'd recommend investigating where the quote actually dates from rather than assuming anything from it.

[Moondancer]

FYI, Benioff was just quoted last week, again, stating that 7 seasons is the end.

That final 7th season is undoubtedly going to be very spectacular and stuffed to the brim with story.

Link, please?

[Faint]

As for the rise in actor's prices, you're talking multiple actors on the show who might be moved to ask for $500,000-$1 million per episode (for the likes of Clarke and Harington, that depends on how their movies and other projects go; Harington's not off to a great start so far; Dinklage would quite easily be able to command $1 million by the final season though). You're thus looking at a $5-10 million rise each season per actor who gets that deal. That could get out of control quite easily. I'm sure everyone remembers Friends which ended its final season on a totally insane $7 million per episode (for a half-hour sitcom!) due to the cast costs alone, which is why it had to end regardless of the fact it was the biggest thing on TV in the world at the time.

Considering that Jon Hamm makes less than $300,000 per episode and Bryan Cranston was pulling in slightly less than $250,000 when Breaking Bad ended, I don't know if it will take quite so much to bring Dinklage, Harington and Clarke back (i.e., $25-30 million per season) but it would be expensive regardless. I imagine it would be closer to a third of that total.

The Friends example is also not all that comparable given that it was a network show during a time when a network show like Friends could air to 25 million live viewers. To give some perspective, in 1998, NBC offered Jerry Seinfeld over $100 million dollars for one more season of Seinfeld, which didn't even account for the rest of the cast and everything else. Fact is, network television is a different beast from a subscription service like HBO, and even more so back when Friends and Seinfeld were on the air.

[Werthead]

Remember S2 had an extra $2 million for Blackwater

Included in the 15% or not? Because if it's not, then the budget was $69 million, minimum, and possibly $71 million if that was on top.

The only figure anyone at HBO has ever given with regards to GoT was $60 million for Season 1. Benioff and Weiss said Season 2 had 15% more, so the maths are pretty straightforward. I've never seen or heard the figure $65 million given with regards for GoT.

I don't think there's any evidence at all that this season is "notably more" expensive.

Benioff and Weiss said they had to go to HBO cap-in-hand to ask for even more money for this season over the previous two seasons because of Episode 9, which is even bigger than Blackwater, so yes, this season has a higher budget than the previous two.

that's a show that has had up through now a very similar trajectory, cultural zeitgeist, and even licensing for several seasons

True Blood's cultural zeitgeist never approached what GoT had from at least last season onwards. Maybe in the USA, but outside of it, it is very obscure compared to GoT (especially after TB's first season, which was the only one that got anything close to regular good reviews). In the UK GoT has always had a much higher profile, despite True Blood airing on a mainstream channel that everyone can get and GoT on a minority satellite one.

Considering that Jon Hamm makes less than $300,000 per episode and Bryan Cranston was pulling in slightly less than $250,000 when Breaking Bad ended, I don't know if it will take quite so much to bring Dinklage, Harington and Clarke back (i.e., $25-30 million per season) but it would be expensive regardless. I imagine it would be closer to a third of that total.

Mad Men is finishing with seven seasons (so it's in the 6+1 zone) and Breaking Bad finished after five, so neither got to the Season 8 renegotiation Zone of Terror.