Game of Thrones Season 3 to Run Longer

[protar]

Again, this is immaterial since HBO has also said that it wants its shows to have a regular schedule. No delays.

A lot of things could be done theoretically but HBO and D&D have already ruled them out.

Yes, they have said that but there is no reason why they can't change their mind. If they feel the need to make a 12 episode season D+D will make one, and given GOT's popularity HBO is unlikely to stop them.

[boojam]

Yes, they have said that but there is no reason why they can't change their mind. If they feel the need to make a 12 episode season D+D will make one, and given GOT's popularity HBO is unlikely to stop them.

Despite what D and D say and it's never mentioned, it's a matter of contracts.

Veterans like Lena Headey , Peter Dinklage, Conleth Hill , Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Aidan Gillen and maybe a few others in the first season signed up to be available for only , like 6 months, since they likely had other contracts for stage, film and TV to fulfill the next six months.

Lord Lena Headey has 4 films for release this year!

[Padraig]

Yes, they have said that but there is no reason why they can't change their mind. If they feel the need to make a 12 episode season D+D will make one, and given GOT's popularity HBO is unlikely to stop them.

But that's the point. There is very little reason for them to change their mind. Will it make GoT more popular? 20% more popular given 20% more episodes?

And there are many reasons for them not to change their mind (which have been listed here and elsewhere). That's why they have ruled it out. I think anything else is clutching at straws. (They've even given up on 1 book = 1 season in order to avoid needing more episodes to do a book).

To suggest they may change their mind, you are going to have to first supply a very good reason.

[boojam]

But that's the point. There is very little reason for them to change their mind. Will it make GoT more popular? 20% more popular given 20% more episodes?

And there are many reasons for them not to change their mind (which have been listed here and elsewhere). That's why they have ruled it out. I think anything else is clutching at straws. (They've even given up on 1 book = 1 season in order to avoid needing more episodes to do a book).

To suggest they may change their mind, you are going to have to first supply a very good reason.

We shall see, but going to 20 episodes for SOS seems like a solution that should work.

I know there is talk of bringing stuff from novels 4 and 5 over... and maybe they will... but man! as much as I love FoC and ADwD , on the page, seems some invention is going to have to be done for season 5. Or since there is so much 'action' in SoS , some of it might be moved to season 5?

If GRRM finishes novel 6 next year that might change everything.

Puzzled about season's 5 and 6 , if we get em!

[fantasmas]

That just means more titty shots, let's be real.

[Rockroi]

Despite the fact that Deadwood - at it's most expensive - was roughly the same cost of Game of Thrones season one, I don't doubt for one second that having a 12 episode season would delay the start date by at least another two months. It really isn't a matter of HBO throwing more money at the production, as they did just that with season two (giving D&D a 15% overall increase), and reports have suggested that they've done the same for season three (although the amount increased isn't know). So it's already been proven that HBO hasn't said "that's that".

The differences between these two series (and there are many) are pretty apparent. Deadwood was shot almost exclusively on one very elaborate set, with made-up interiors that allowed them to do very little studio shooting. The large cast - even with the new additions added each season (and there were also cast members who left) - were fairly static. Deadwood also had nearly no VFX that wasn't done in-camera (such as the odd throat being cut, and the like).

Game of Thrones, on the other hand, has shot in no less than two separate countries each season, both on-location and in the studio (though Paint Hall is the primary studio). Season two increased that number to three, and season three has increased it to four. There are several new locations being added each season, and with those locations come new cast members. The costuming, the make-up, the props, the weapons - these all have to be designed and produced/applied on a yearly basis to account for these additions. This is to say nothing of the extensive VFX work (including CGI, matte paintings, etc.). And it is very important that D&D remain as involved as they possibly can, albeit allowing those they work closely with to share in the work, because they are the guys running the show. Deadwood without Milch isn't the same, and neither would Game of Thrones be the same with David & Dan.

To be honest, comparing Deadwood and Game of Thrones only works in so far as they are both "period" pieces that were produced by HBO. Not trying to be rude, but the fact that they have a similar budget doesn't account for anything as far as what you were trying to say. There is a lot more to it than just, 'throw more money at them for 12 episodes'.

There are a lot of variables comparing Deadwood to GoT but they are both supremely expensive. Somebody up-thread mentioned that Deadwood did not have that much video special effects. This is (surprisingly) not true. Deadwood had a great deal of special effects. First, almost every single exterior shot where you could see beyond a store front or a dirt road. Almost every mountain shot, almost every horizon shot was FX'd up a great deal. Second, they used a great deal of special effects for stuff like animals, especially pack animals which would cost EVEN MORE to have them actually on set. David Miltch commented on this when he did the DVD commentary showing how when Al Swearengen would cross the street and he would have to go around an ox or a pack of horses Miltch just says "Yeah, there is nothing there- that's all digital. No animals were on set for this." Etc, Third- as was already stated- Deadwood did a lot of additional effects when it comes to blood and gore etc and you would see a blood spurt. That takes a lot of time to not look uber-fake.

To me, that's just another credit to Deadwood- their SFX were so ingrained into the show and so well done that nobody ever noticed them. Also, recall that Deadwood came out 8 years ago; the technology was less refined than it is today.

GoT's cost is really built into their LACK of special effects- they shoot a TON on location and that can get expensive (it can also be less expensive in certain situations). Shooting on location is a ton of money- you have to pay everyone and nobody in that industry works cheep. That includes flying them out there, feeding them, housing them etc. Add in that they are shooting in at least one location where their daylight is ... limited. Also, like Deadwood, GoT has a built-in large set - in this case many of the stages for KL are pretty much established much in the same way Deadwood's location was set (and that in and of itself can be a TON of money. The Deadwood set had to be maintained year-round: whether they were shooting on it or not).

There are also a bunch of variables we do not know about - I am guessing that D&D (combined) cost less than Mitch (that's just my own opinion: Mitch seems like the type of guy who would proudly say "I don't get out of bed for less than $50,000.") The cast is also uncertain. Deadwood's cast was much smaller, but they had more established actors (probably more expensive). Also, and let me stress that I have no clue if this is true - there may be something in the Screen Actor's Guild that says the base salary of an actor $X.00 if the season is 10 episodes but goes up by Y% if the season goes 13 episodes or even 23 (network TV). Again, no idea if that is true but it may explain some things.

I think the overwhelming reason GoT is 10 episodes is entirely costs- it can get really expensive REALLY fast. Shooting on location etc. I really think part of the reason Deadwood was so expensive was Mitch - him and his people cost a ton of money and I also think the actors for Deadwood- while smaller -took up a good % of the overall costs.

[protar]

But that's the point. There is very little reason for them to change their mind. Will it make GoT more popular? 20% more popular given 20% more episodes?

And there are many reasons for them not to change their mind (which have been listed here and elsewhere). That's why they have ruled it out. I think anything else is clutching at straws. (They've even given up on 1 book = 1 season in order to avoid needing more episodes to do a book).

To suggest they may change their mind, you are going to have to first supply a very good reason.

The point is that a 12 episode season may be the only way of successfully adapting AFFC/ADWD. Stretching the two - much slower than usual - books over two seasons will imo kill the show. But nor can the two books be compressed into 10 episodes, especially if the battles of Ice and Fire are inserted which imo they need to be to give a satisfying conclusion.

[Khal-a-bunga]

There are a lot of variables comparing Deadwood to GoT but they are both supremely expensive. Somebody up-thread mentioned that Deadwood did not have that much video special effects. This is (surprisingly) not true. Deadwood had a great deal of special effects. First, almost every single exterior shot where you could see beyond a store front or a dirt road. Almost every mountain shot, almost every horizon shot was FX'd up a great deal. Second, they used a great deal of special effects for stuff like animals, especially pack animals which would cost EVEN MORE to have them actually on set. David Miltch commented on this when he did the DVD commentary showing how when Al Swearengen would cross the street and he would have to go around an ox or a pack of horses Miltch just says "Yeah, there is nothing there- that's all digital. No animals were on set for this." Etc, Third- as was already stated- Deadwood did a lot of additional effects when it comes to blood and gore etc and you would see a blood spurt. That takes a lot of time to not look uber-fake.

To me, that's just another credit to Deadwood- their SFX were so ingrained into the show and so well done that nobody ever noticed them. Also, recall that Deadwood came out 8 years ago; the technology was less refined than it is today.

GoT's cost is really built into their LACK of special effects- they shoot a TON on location and that can get expensive (it can also be less expensive in certain situations). Shooting on location is a ton of money- you have to pay everyone and nobody in that industry works cheep. That includes flying them out there, feeding them, housing them etc. Add in that they are shooting in at least one location where their daylight is ... limited. Also, like Deadwood, GoT has a built-in large set - in this case many of the stages for KL are pretty much established much in the same way Deadwood's location was set (and that in and of itself can be a TON of money. The Deadwood set had to be maintained year-round: whether they were shooting on it or not).

There are also a bunch of variables we do not know about - I am guessing that D&D (combined) cost less than Mitch (that's just my own opinion: Mitch seems like the type of guy who would proudly say "I don't get out of bed for less than $50,000.") The cast is also uncertain. Deadwood's cast was much smaller, but they had more established actors (probably more expensive). Also, and let me stress that I have no clue if this is true - there may be something in the Screen Actor's Guild that says the base salary of an actor $X.00 if the season is 10 episodes but goes up by Y% if the season goes 13 episodes or even 23 (network TV). Again, no idea if that is true but it may explain some things.

I think the overwhelming reason GoT is 10 episodes is entirely costs- it can get really expensive REALLY fast. Shooting on location etc. I really think part of the reason Deadwood was so expensive was Mitch - him and his people cost a ton of money and I also think the actors for Deadwood- while smaller -took up a good % of the overall costs.

No offense, but at lot of what you just said simply isn't the case at all. As a huge fan of Deadwood (it switches as my absolute favorite show ever between a few other amazing shows), I'm pretty well-versed in how the production was handled. I've heard all the commentaries, I've read countless articles, and most importantly, I've seen the show through three times in its entirety.

Almost every single exterior shot you see outside of a storefront or saloon is, in fact, not enhanced with SFX. The buildings were all constructed with the majority of the sets inside of them, so that they wouldn't have to do what you're proposing they did (which I'd assume is that they digitally enhanced the setting). Some of the mountain views were matte paintings composited with live-action footage, but that's not a particularly expensive effect. The big costs associated with Deadwood were because Milch preferred for the directors to do everything as practical as possible in-camera. Creating the ambiance of the living town was of utmost importance, and that cost a lot of money on a day-to-day basis.

When Milch mentioned that the oxen weren't actually there, he was BEING FACETIOUS! It's hard to believe you couldn't realize that, given it's clear as day that the animals are actually in the shot. And yes, animals are expensive to have on-set, and Deadwood had a lot of them - but never nearly as many that simultaneously appear on GoT. Not even close. As for the actors - the biggest name on Deadwood at the time that it aired was Brad Dourif (who plays Doc Cochrane). Not that the rest of the cast weren't recognized as good actors, or even well-known, but Dourif - and Boothe, arguably - were the two most well-known actors of the bunch. They didn't have a single cast member of the level of Sean Bean, for instance.

As to your last point - since most television shows haven't historically been 10 episodes a season, I doubt it's a regulation you'd find among the rules of fair pay and compensation within the Screen Actors Guild. Check here for more information:

www.sag.org

If HBO wanted twelve episodes per season of GoT, I'm sure they could find a way to make that happen. What it would entail would likely be an exponential increase in budget, and D&D assigning out a lot of the work they now oversee to other individuals. Not to mention that everyone involved would be given a pay raise, due to the extra amount of shooting pages and the additional time commitment. As it stands now, with each season costing somewhere in the realm of $60-$75 million dollars, D&D have exactly one month "off" consecutively between post-production on the previous season and pre-production on the next. During that time, I'm sure they spend a lot of it writing scripts for the next season (or rather, editing them, as the scripts for the next season would likely need to be in ASAP to allow for actors' schedules to be worked out, and for the season to be budgeted), and approving designs for costumes, and new locations, and new sets, etc. my point is, it's a year-long process that requires immense commitment from many of the people involved, so while we're watching the back half of season three in May, many of the crew will already be hard at work preparing season four for the viewers.

[boojam]

Almost every single exterior shot you see outside of a storefront or saloon is, in fact, not enhanced with SFX. The buildings were all constructed with the majority of the sets inside of them, so that they wouldn't have to do what you're proposing they did (which I'd assume is that they digitally enhanced the setting). Some of the mountain views were matte paintings composited with live-action footage, but that's not a particularly expensive effect. The big costs associated with Deadwood were because Milch preferred for the directors to do everything as practical as possible in-camera. Creating the ambiance of the living town was of utmost importance, and that cost a lot of money on a day-to-day basis.

If HBO wanted twelve episodes per season of GoT, I'm sure they could find a way to make that happen. What it would entail would likely be an exponential increase in budget, and D&D assigning out a lot of the work they now oversee to other individuals. Not to mention that everyone involved would be given a pay raise, due to the extra amount of shooting pages and the additional time commitment. As it stands now, with each season costing somewhere in the realm of $60-$75 million dollars, D&D have exactly one month "off" consecutively between post-production on the previous season and pre-production on the next. During that time, I'm sure they spend a lot of it writing scripts for the next season (or rather, editing them, as the scripts for the next season would likely need to be in ASAP to allow for actors' schedules to be worked out, and for the season to be budgeted), and approving designs for costumes, and new locations, and new sets, etc. my point is, it's a year-long process that requires immense commitment from many of the people involved, so while we're watching the back half of season three in May, many of the crew will already be hard at work preparing season four for the viewers.

On DeadWood , costs were at least 5 million and episode , nearly in the same ball park as GOT.

Increasing GOT's budget to 12 episodes may depend on D and D.

They seem to have the technical support they need from directors to cast and crews..but it would mean delegating more production management, and creative assembly to others. I don't know this, but have the suspicion they want a short leash on production and that would mean about 10 episodes is all they can handle.

Add to this more unknowns in terms of economics , maybe, HBO is more comfortable with 10 eps. per year.

If Bruno Heller could handle 12 episodes of ROME with a bigger crew of producers I am sure D and D could too.

But this could mean a nearly 900 million dollar a year budget... that would give HBO pause.