Westeros Blog: The Competition

[Westeros]

We’ve found some interesting information that has some indirect relevance to HBO’s Game of Thrones, concerning Starz’s Camelot. This Arthurian drama which may well be called a direct competitor to Game of Thrones, and may have been so even when both were just ideas floating around the networks. As we’ve speculated in the past, Camelot may have been the Arthurian project that was being considered by HBO as an alternative to Game of Thrones at the time when Chris Albrecht still ran the Warner Brothers subsidiary, and if so it doesn’t seem like much of a coincidence that it ended up with Starz now that Albrecht runs that cable company.

In any case, back in July the Wall Street Journal reported that the per episode budget was around $7 million, an extraordinary sum more than half again the speculated budget for Game of Thrones: So extraordinary, in fact, that we cast doubts on it in our report. As it happens, we were right to. In a press conference at the end of August, executive producer Morgan O’Sullivan apparently confirmed that the budget was 34.7 million Euros. This comes out to about $46 million for the 10 episode series, which is exactly the same as what we believe Game of Thrones to be at.

The $7 million per episode budget may have been nothing but hype ... or it may be a hint of the fact that the purchasing power of Starz’s money in Ireland means the show has a budget equivalent to $7 million compared to a similar show filmed in the United States. The interesting thing, of course, is that the Irish and Northern Irish tax incentives and other advantages for film and television productions are pretty similar. That would then fit our own speculation that Game of Thrones stands nearer a $6.5-$7 million per episode budget when compared to a similar production in the U.S., when these incentives and other benefits are factored in.

One last thing for Game of Thrones fans. Executive Producer Morgan O’Sullivan had this to say about the future of Camelot, and the words certainly apply to HBO’s epic fantasy drama:

‘I’m expecting that we will run for five years,’ O’Sullivan told the press this week. ‘We’ve an order for one season - for ten hour-long episodes - from the Starz cable television network in the US but, generally speaking, companies don’t invest in something like this for a single season. To get a proper return on your investment, you need to be thinking in terms of a longer run. We have mapped out a story that will carry “Camelot” through four or five seasons,’ he added.”

Visit the Site!

[JungianQueen]

Interesting stuff. My only big worry about GoT and it's future is that they'll pull a "Carnivale" and give up before really giving the show a chance. HBO has a few darlings that have shown stamina: The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Entourage, etc. But, so many shows have fallen to the wayside as well. I remember the (then) president of HBO actually saying that Carnivale "had a satisfying end to the series." I was left thinking the execs were smoking some whacky weed.

I do worry about ratings. Certainly there will be a built-in audience from the books themselves. But, if True Blood only relied on the book audience, would it be pulling in these amazing numbers?

This is leaving me to wonder what HBO will consider a success. Boardwalk Empire has already been renewed after 1 episode (seeing the remarkable ratings success). Will they expect the same from GoT?

I'm not terribly worried that Camelot will pull viewers away from HBO. The nice thing about premium channels is that they tend to run their series multiple times a night and throughout the entire week. People won't really "have" to choose unless they're only ready to stomach one fantasy epic series at a time. For folks like me, the more, the merrier.

[moirne]

They might be in the fantasy genre, but Camelot and Game of Thrones couldn't be more different. One has been re-made over and over, while the other is completely original and new. I guess we can't really judge until we see both of them, but I think Game of Thrones will be more successful.

[JungianQueen]

They might be in the fantasy genre, but Camelot and Game of Thrones couldn't be more different. One has been re-made over and over, while the other is completely original and new. I guess we can't really judge until we see both of them, but I think Game of Thrones will be more successful.

Just from what I've seen of both (in terms of production shots, info, etc), GoT seems way ahead of the mark. I agree that it feels like the smarter choice. I think the Camelot theme has been overdone in the past: Excalibur, Camelot, The Mists of Avalon, King Arthur in the theaters, Merlin (miniseries and the television series. GoT feels grittier, less fanciful. I think that will attract a certain audience that might balk at something too high fantasy.

[Ran]

Carnivale could have continued, if the producers had seen their way to requiring less of a budget. But it's true that this could be a concern for GoT -- if anything, the third season will almost certainly need more, not less, money than previous seasons. It's hard to imagine how they can trim it down in a way that won't be obvious.

That said, a second season seems very likely unless the show proves such a disaster that HBO can show that customers are ending their subscriptions because of it. And that, of course, seems very unlikely. After that, though, it's a real question. Now, the fact that the third season provides a semi-stable wrapping up point -- a major phase of the narrative is complete -- might encourage them to go ahead, even if its numbers are soft. But right now, I think a third season is at best 50-50. We'll see what the odds look like after the first season.

[Brienne the Beauty]

One has been re-made over and over, while the other is completely original and new.

Technically GOT is less original, as it is based on a licensed property which it is apparently going to stick pretty close to. The legend of King Arthur will no doubt be followed quite loosely in "Camelot", since there is no real canon to stick to, just a selection of loosely linked tales.

[Padraig]

Technically GOT is less original, as it is based on a licensed property which it is apparently going to stick pretty close to.

I presume they meant that GoT is original when it comes to TV. GoT couldn't be considered a remake but Camelot would be.

[Cuellar]

After watching Pillars of Earth, I can't imagine Starz really giving HBO a run for its money. HBO just does such a good job on making sure their shows are well done, and have an overarching story that ties the whole series together. HBO also tends to focus on characters a lot, which is a perfect fit for ASOIF.

The problem with Camelot is that it is somewhat cliche (I can't think of another more overdone fantasy line), and lends itself well for retarded Xena warrior princess garbage.

Hopefully they'll both turn out good, but HBO + Game of thrones = w1n.

[Brude]

So far I haven't been too impressed with Starz's shows. I know a lot of people liked Spartacus, but I thought it was mostly just insane and trashy, buoyed only by the performances of Lucy Lawless and the guy who played her husband. They did their best, the rest of the show - meh. Pillars of the Earth, likewise, was a big disappointment, especially considering the cast. There were some great production values, but it was marred by a lame script and poor characterization.

Maybe 'three time's a charm,' but I'm not holding out too much hope.

[Ran]

Bear in mind that Pillars of the Earth is not a Starz production -- it was put together and funded by a German production company. Starz just paid for U.S. broadcast rights. That they paid for them if people disliked the script and such does suggest they may have issues with recognizing quality. OTOH, what we're actually seeing is that Albrecht wants Starz to be the go-to place for historical-flavored action and adventure. They announced a big budget William the Conqueror miniseries back in April, too. So spectacle over substance may be a big part of the drive right now.

[Brienne the Beauty]

I'd like to see a version of the legend of Arthur rather like Sansa's daydreams. Every knight is noble, every lady true, and a big budget is used for beautiful scenery and gorgeous costumes. Like the Lord of the Rings movies basically.

However, I just googled "Camelot" and it doesn't look so great :(

For a start it is helmed by Chris Chibnall, who penned the atrocity known as "Cyberwoman" for Torchwood. I can't say in words how bad that episode was.

And secondly, early publicity says it will be "realistic" which in my opinion usually means "cynical" or "sleazy" or "bloody" or "anachronistic", not actually *realistic*.

[Venardhi]

There is a reason that stories like that are generally only made for children. People with a full range of emotion simply don't act that way in real life, and no one would believe for a moment a whole society could exist with everyone being that perfect. Its also boring, since we always know the answer to any problem they show us as soon as it is presented. Mallory and the people who he got the legends from knew enough about storytelling to give the characters flaws and failings morally, emotionally and in their relationships with others. Even saturday morning cartoons have flawed heroes these days, because it makes for a better story.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

You can hardly describe the original Arthurian fable as morally simplistic. There was plenty of character depth; perhaps you're thinking of the Disney adaptation?

Regardless, although I like the idea of the series, I think the timing is wrong given all the competition it will have, as well as how the story has been done several times in recent years already. I think it would be more successful five years down the road, but who knows.

[Venardhi]

Perhaps you should read my post, and the one I was responding to.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

I was responding to Brienne the Beauty.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Mallory and the people who he got the legends from knew enough about storytelling to give the characters flaws and failings morally, emotionally and in their relationships with others.

I really meant I wanted something like Mallory, not the crap like the recent BBC update of Robin Hood. Something not afraid to show wonder. Something not afraid to show ideals. I don't mean the characters should have no flaws.

[Ran]

I have to say, the set photos from the Wall Street Journal article looked ... pretty good. I liked the set design. The costuming was a little overly colorful, generic fantasy, from what I could see, but I don't know. I have a wait-and-see attitude. The cast -- including James Purefoy and Eva Green -- looks pretty good.

[moirne]

I really meant I wanted something like Mallory, not the crap like the recent BBC update of Robin Hood. Something not afraid to show wonder. Something not afraid to show ideals. I don't mean the characters should have no flaws.

I agree. I would imagine that Camelot is going to be pretty trashy, which I think misses the whole point of the myth because Camelot was an idealistic place where people tried very hard to be moral. If it's just a giant orgy with the knights and ladies, then it will be an epic fail.

[Brienne the Beauty]

If it's just a giant orgy with the knights and ladies, then it will be an epic fail.

There was a whole lot of screwing going on in the original myths, so we can have a bit of that. But what I am worried about is that it will lose the context of courtly love and the Christian themes of sin and redemption, and just be a whole lot of soap opera.

[moirne]

There was a whole lot of screwing going on in the original myths, so we can have a bit of that. But what I am worried about is that it will lose the context of courtly love and the Christian themes of sin and redemption, and just be a whole lot of soap opera.

Yes, I can see it becoming very much like a soap opera. I'll check it out, but I'm not going to watch it if it's complete trash. I'm pretty sick of the Arthurian myth at this point anyway.