Time mag wants GoT to happen!

[Upjumped]

James Poniewozik, the TV critic at Time magazine, put up a great blog post raving about ASOIAF (which he just recently read) and basically begging HBO to make this into a series. Yay!

http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/07/06/h...pe-great-drama/

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Good man.

Seriously though, getting an endorsement from this guy cant be bad.

[Frank Stark]

There is certainly a golden opportunity here for HBO: quality fantasy on tv. For grown-ups. Not Merlin, not <insert first-run syndication show here>, not Roar (cast led by a very young Heath Ledger). Of course, I, like the Time writer, am horribly biased.

If the pilot stinks, the show won't get picked up. As long as it doesn't stink, and there's enough marketing aimed at the adults and decision makers of the households (who decide whether or not to subscribe to HBO; I think at least minimal effort needs to be made to distinguish the series from typical, more family-friendly fantasy), seems like it should be gold.

Edit to ask: it's not enough just to have the show on HBO to prove it's not family friendly, is it?

[Frank Stark]

The more I think about it, the more worried I am about picking up a possible 2nd season order... I mean, will HBO keep track of new subscribers based on what new shows started up, and give that show credit? What is it that they are looking for from ratings? I have a hard time thinking that many new HBO subscribers will come to the show who aren't already familiar with the series (maybe it's just me though; you could slam me with Hung and True Blood marketing till the end of time, but I'm still to subscribing to a pay channel without Game of Thrones on it). So is the key making sure existing subscribers tune in?

I know this has been discussed before. HBO wants emmy nominations and subscribers. The former will be gravy for Game of Thrones, IMHO, I'm not banking on it. For the latter, I'm just worried that you won't get new subscribers outside of people who already know the series.

[Halfhand]

Good stuff. The more support in the main stream press Thrones gets, the better I like it's chances of getting picked up.

There was also this tweet by Maureen Ryan, TV critic for the Chicago Tribune. And, of course, Matt Roush of TV Guide Magazine has been vocal in his support for the project since it was first announced.

[Brude]

Well, they look at new sign-ups but they also look at actual ratings because it gives them a gague as to how much a series is responsible for retaining viewership.

Also, general buzz and such are important...it's not as cut and dry as rating = advertising dollars, but there is a method to how they figure how effective it is.

Then there's DVD sales and now iTunes downloads (which HBO finally does), which is a major revenue stream for them. You can't estimate that revenue until it happens, and that means you'll be well into production on Season 2 before you know.

I suspect HBO will give this series an initial commitment of 2-3 years if it goes through...but the size of 2nd and 3rd season budgets might be contingent on how well the first season goes over. That's how I'd do it if I were them.

[The Wedge]

Then there's DVD sales and now iTunes downloads (which HBO finally does), which is a major revenue stream for them. You can't estimate that revenue until it happens, and that means you'll be well into production on Season 2 before you know.

I'm not much of an iTunes user, so help me out here. Does HBO make the show available for download on iTunes? If so, how soon are they available and what's the typical cost per episode? Does it have to be watched on a PC or can it be burned to a DVD to watch on a TV?

If this is an option, it might be a way for me to get the pilot. Thanks.

[Halfhand]

AFAIK, HBO only puts their shows on iTunes after the season is finished airing. It is basically an alternative to purchasing the DVD and not to subscribing. To watch an episode each week, you have to subscribe to HBO.

[Brude]

HBO was a late adopter to releasing on iTunes, I think they only just signed a deal to start distribution there. They were making a LOT on DVD sales alone (they charge the most for their shows, too), but they were being stupid because a lot of the younger audience prefers to DL their shows and not buy on DVD. I think HBO might have been balking at the rates, because buying them on iTunes is a lot cheaper than the cost of most HBO single seasons, and Apple has fixed prices that I'm guessing they refused to change just for HBO.

Edit: looks like they've had shows on there for a good year or so - I don't use iTunes for TV. Could have sworn it was more recent then that.

Showtime started doing quite early and did very well with it, all of their shows have been available there for some time. That's partly why Showtime has been on such a roll the last few years (also, they've just been making some damn good shows).

[Werthead]

Mo Ryan is a good TV critic (The Watcher is the only TV blog I have a bookmark to) and got a lot of people watching BSG who wouldn't touch an SF show otherwise. Her getting excited for the show, along with TIME, is a great sign.

Like I said before though, we can't get too worked up too early. We're still 2-3 months away from filming and as much as 18 months from this airing.

[pablonohablo]

There is certainly a golden opportunity here for HBO: quality fantasy on tv. For grown-ups. Not Merlin, not <insert first-run syndication show here>, not Roar (cast led by a very young Heath Ledger). Of course, I, like the Time writer, am horribly biased.

If the pilot stinks, the show won't get picked up. As long as it doesn't stink, and there's enough marketing aimed at the adults and decision makers of the households (who decide whether or not to subscribe to HBO; I think at least minimal effort needs to be made to distinguish the series from typical, more family-friendly fantasy), seems like it should be gold.

Edit to ask: it's not enough just to have the show on HBO to prove it's not family friendly, is it?

One solution for this would be to do what one commenter in the article did, and let HBO know (through a letter or email, I guess) that you are subscribing solely because of AGOT. Kind of heavy-handed, but enough of those letters/emails woulds get the message through. In politics, you'd be amazed the effect a letter or email can have sometimes -- many people complain about issues, but very few actually contact their local or national representative/senator/MP's office directly about those issues. The people who speak directly to those in power have their voices heard much more often than those who generally express their opinions.

Anyway. Just an idea.

[fitheach]

I would prefer to order the show on demand rather than have HBO in general. They would still make $ from it. But I suppose I'll subscribe to HBO when AGoT happens.

Very exciting that the TV critics are talking about AGoT already, starting a early burn. This will be phenomenal when it finally premiers....

[Halfhand]

Tower of the Hand posted a link to an article over at The AV Club, talking about books as TV series. In it they mention Thrones and seem to be very bullish on its possibilities for success.

[Humble Asskicker]

It certainly is a good opportunity. The format will likely need to be retooled though. It's a peculiar situation. While the books seem perfectly tailored for commercial tv, that's precisely the medium which HBO goes against. ASoIaF has a cliffhanger in virtually every chapter, whereas HBO programs mostly are geared towards the slow burn and then explosive climax.

Still, if the books are followed loyally, there are four books of plot already written out. Like The Wire, characters become major and minor, taking the foreground and background at each book, and so there's a wonderful chance for exciting continuity. Tywin is a minor character in season one, appearing in a couple later episodes; but in season three, he becomes a major character. Likewise with Theon, appearing briefly in a couple of episodes, and then a major character in season two. And so on and so forth.

Lots of good things could come if handled correctly.

[Werthead]

TIME Magazine critic James Poniewozik had a three-way discussion recently with the Chicago Tribune's Mo Ryan and the Newark Star-Ledger TV critic Alan Sepinwall. It's fair to say these three are fairly noteworthy television critics in the USA, and Poniewozik and Ryan have been championing GoT for a while now. They briefly mention it during the discussion and convince Sepinwall to read the books (the discussion is a few months old now and I vaguely recall something about Sepinwall having started the books since then). In the comments, Ryan also confirms (again) that HBO will make a decision in March 2010.

[moirne]

I'm just worried that you won't get new subscribers outside of people who already know the series.

Maybe not at first, but if there is a lot of promoting and buzz going on, people who like history and fantasy might sign up. HBO could have the first episode available free online or through on demand, which would also pull in viewers.

It's great news that so many people are interested in GOT. I feel really positive about the show getting picked up and being a success.