Khal-a-bunga Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Not to mention that they also said 'seven or eight seasons' during one of their various interviews at the premiere of season four, which was a little over a week ago. Besides, once they see just how big this show can go with season four (which will then translate into massive ratings for the fifth season, since that seems to be the trend), I think committing to eight seasons (and contract renewals for all cast members who have been around since season one) will be the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 I think the real decider as to whether it'll be 7 or 8 is the result of contract renegotiations. I suspect most of the younger actors will have their contracts up after season 5 or 6... and with Clarke and Harington and such getting heat from Hollywood, they will likely become substantially more expensive (in relation to what they cost presently, as many of them were out of drama school or were new to acting all together), while Dinklage in particular is going to have a great deal of leverage as being the de facto star of the show. Ideally for the production, HBO enters successful contract negotiations after S5 wraps filming, and sees what it will cost them to do 7 vs. 8 seasons, and will decide firmly then. I won't be surprised if S6 opens with word of an absolute end date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sun Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 It is my understanding that cast contracts come with an option for season 7, while an 8th season will require a new contract all together. I may be wrong, but that is my understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Guardian Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 If David and Dan are uncertain about the final amount of seasons until Season 6, that would probably cause problems for them moving forward. Coming into AFFC and ADWD territory next season, they'd want to have a pretty clear indication of final numbers so that they can decide how to go ahead. Of course, we still have no idea what lies ahead in terms of the final two books, so they would probably still be able to expand the series if they wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Oh, there will be a dragons vs Others battle, the only thing is, that rather than it being a good vs evil battle, it shall be an evil vs worse evil war, where every Westerosian with a brain will wish for equal and mutually assured destruction of both sides, hopefully resulting in the end of magic, and a return of natural equilibrium. Who says that "natural equilibrium" means no magic? Magic has always existed in the world of ASIOAIF, the Others have always existed, and dragons have existed for a much, much longer time than not - and they only got almost extinct because of the idiocy of their human masters and the civil war that their human masters started, which resulted in dragons killing each other. As far as we know, magic in the world is natural equilibrium. And how would an extinction of a species mean "a return to natural equilibrium"? Furthermore, while we don't know enough about the Others to judge with certainty what they are like (which doesn't mean that humans wouldn't be right to kill them all, if they are all trying to kill humans - it's kill or be killed, that's OK with me), how are dragons "evil"? They are just dangerous big animals. But so are direwolves, and wolves, and lions etc. Are all big, predatory animals "evil" and should they all be killed off? Just like other big predatory animals, dragons aren't trying to kill all humans, they normally attack humans when provoked, or when their masters command them to, or when they feel that their master is in danger. They're not that different from direwolves; why aren't direwolves considered evil? Is it just because they belong to the Starks? Even dogs can be considered evil by that standard, they can also attack people when provoked/threatened or when their master commands them or when they feel their master is in danger. For that matter, if we're talking about destructive species, is there a more destructive species than humans? In real life and in ASOAIF. Most of the story so far, and the history we got as well, has been about humans being destructive and fighting and killing each other. Does that make humans evil, and should we hope for the story to end with humans mutually destroying each other, so that the "natural equilibrium" could be achieved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoIaF Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Who says that "natural equilibrium" means no magic? Magic has always existed in the world of ASIOAIF, the Others have always existed, and dragons have existed for a much, much longer time than not - and they only got almost extinct because of the idiocy of their human masters and the civil war that their human masters started, which resulted in dragons killing each other. As far as we know, magic in the world is natural equilibrium. And how would an extinction of a species mean "a return to natural equilibrium"? Furthermore, while we don't know enough about the Others to judge with certainty what they are like (which doesn't mean that humans wouldn't be right to kill them all, if they are all trying to kill humans - it's kill or be killed, that's OK with me), how are dragons "evil"? They are just dangerous big animals. But so are direwolves, and wolves, and lions etc. Are all big, predatory animals "evil" and should they all be killed off? Just like other big predatory animals, dragons aren't trying to kill all humans, they normally attack humans when provoked, or when their masters command them to, or when they feel that their master is in danger. They're not that different from direwolves; why aren't direwolves considered evil? Is it just because they belong to the Starks? Even dogs can be considered evil by that standard, they can also attack people when provoked/threatened or when their master commands them or when they feel their master is in danger. For that matter, if we're talking about destructive species, is there a more destructive species than humans? In real life and in ASOAIF. Most of the story so far, and the history we got as well, has been about humans being destructive and fighting and killing each other. Does that make humans evil, and should we hope for the story to end with humans mutually destroying each other, so that the "natural equilibrium" could be achieved? I was under the impression that magic is what has causes the instability in the seasons and thus why Westeros and the Planthos in general has been unable to modernize. If the magic would disappear wouldn't that allow the seasons to become stable? Or do you believe it's the instability of magic which causes the unstable season's and stabilizing that magic would allow for a normalization of the seasons? My first thought when D&D mention that the story really wasn't about an epic battle between good and evil was that the dragons would be used to destroy the Others and then the dragons would need to be destroy in order for the magic to die. However, I do see your point that the dragons aren't inherently more evil than and other beast such as the ones you mentioned above. But then it does make me wonder what the fight is really going to be about and what the final resolution would be. I'm curious, what do you think they were referring to when they were speaking about what the series is really about? How do you think it'll be resolved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.