The finances of Game of Thrones
By Winter Is Coming on in Editorial, Press.

While we wait for the season three greenlight that is almost assuredly coming, I thought it would be good to go over why Game of Thrones is such a lucrative show for HBO. There have been several recent articles that covered this very topic.

First up, this Wall Street Journal article by John Jurgensen looks at the budget for this season.

With the ambitious “Game of Thrones,” spiraling costs are a risk. The reported budget for season one was about $60 million; costs increased by roughly 15% for season two, says Michael Lombardo, HBO’s president of programming.

Even with a 15% increase, there were some concessions required to make everything work.

“We came to [HBO] on bended knee to plead for more money,” says Mr. Benioff. The producers declined to discuss the scale and costs of the Blackwater sequence; inevitably it involved some concessions. Mr. Lombardo says a discussion around building nine ships ended with the decision to make one.

Despite that, the money that HBO did give David & Dan for that pivotal battle seemed to be more than enough for director Neil Marshall, judging by this quote in a recent Empire magazine article.

The Blackwater episode, as the director puts it, “is pretty much one long battle, on a much bigger scale than anything in Centurion. I couldn’t believe the scale of production value I had. It was as big, if not bigger, than most features I’ve done: 400 extras, costumes, horses, stunts, fires… We had a full-size galleon to play with and a green-screen set that was doubling as several other ships, and we were setting that on fire and throwing people overboard. Then there’s a Saving Private Ryan-like beach battle, with all these guys getting shot to pieces, an attack on a castle.”

So we know HBO is willing to spend some money, even if it isn’t an exorbitant amount. But why? Well, one reason is that fantasy, and this show in particular, is really exploding in popularity right now, as this recent CNN article from Joel Williams explains.

Season two of HBO’s epic fantasy drama “Game of Thrones,” the television adaptation of George RR Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire book series, debuts this Sunday. Watching along with the die-hard fans that helped make the book series popular will be a hoard of new, not-necessarily-nerdy fans. Poised to become a crossover hit before the first episode even aired, the show was buoyed by passionate fans of the books who evangelized this particular epic to non-believers for years.

That dedication is finally paying off.

“I’ve been trying for years to get a half a dozen friends to read the books. Once the show caught on, I got them watching and it got them to read it. I love it,” says Stephen Dabundo, a 26-year-old lifelong fantasy geek from Atlantic City, New Jersey, who has only now been able to share this part of his life with certain friends.

And that popularity equals revenue for HBO, not just in the form of subscriptions, but also international and home video sales. This excellent article from Slate’s June Thomas explains well why HBO is able to make so much more money on their shows than their premium cable competitors, Starz and Showtime.

HBO typically banks half the subscription fee from new viewers; Showtime and other pay-cable networks tend to strike deals in which distributors pay a flat licensing fee and then keep customer subs for themselves. This encourages providers to discount Showtime, which increases subscribers without necessarily earning the network more money in the short term.

HBO has made other decisions that bring in the bucks. Unlike most networks, HBO owns, rather than licenses, almost all its shows. (Showtime owns about half its output; the recent breakout hit Homeland is produced by Fox.) That makes programming more expensive, but it’s a smart move. The first season of Game of Thrones was reported to cost between $50 million and $60 million to produce; but international sales covered more than $25 million of that. (Showtime, on the other hand, doesn’t benefit from international sales of Homeland—Fox does.) HBO also has complete control over decisions about syndication and DVDs. Not only does it bank the proceeds from DVD sales—Season 1 of Game of Thrones sold about 350,000 copies in the first week it was available—it can also time the release date to maximize subscriptions.

So HBO has to spend more money on their shows, but in turn that makes them more money. And Thrones is making a lot of money for them. The season two premiere ratings show that the audience for this show continues to grow and with it a jump in revenue.

So fear not, the season three greenlight is coming (and maybe season four as well), and likely to come with it, an even bigger budget.

[Thanks to Michael Harper for the Empire magazine excerpt!]


83 Comments

  1. Conor
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    I still won’t sleep properly until it’s officially announced :)

  2. seras
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    interesting article! thanks for it, and love the littlefinger pic at the top. tell us how it is, petyr. tell us how it is.

  3. Spork
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Is there any info on how much $ GoT has made HBO so far, including DVD sales, merch, subscriptions, etc? I would be interested to see a total figure.

  4. Alan
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    HBO is not likely to release that.

    It would affect negotiations with everything from foreign distributors to cable companies to cast and crew.

  5. corbob10
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

    If anyone can do it, I think HBO should strike out on their own and get out from under those evil cable company umbrellas. That way they can make even more money selling subscriptions of HBOgo to people that don’t want a huge cable package.

  6. Andrija
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    OMG I am such a retard I thought after reading just the headline that you guys meant the finances of Westeros until I started reading the rest of the thing XD
    I wonder if seasons three and four will see a bigger budget still?? That would probably mean more eps per season which would mean more time to tell the story right and more cash which will help keep the quality (which is the trademark of this show unlike Camelot or Merlin which were your typical low-budget fantasy tv-series that almost nobody watched).

  7. Calum Bartlett
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    I’d imagine the season 3 greenlight will come more less immediately after episode 2 has aired and, as you say, I wouldn’t at all be surprised if they went ahead and confirmed season 4 as well given how massive the show has become and how it continues to grow.

  8. Nymeria
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    Now maybe I’m mistaking but I thought I’d read or heard the actual figure of the extra amount granted by HBO for the Blackwater… wasn’t it David Benioff who said it himself in a video? The 22 minute special presentation maybe?

  9. Knurk
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    I’ll point out again that in that Empire-article they were talking about maybe a GIANT or two when they were talking about the CGI-effects this year.

    On topic, it’s safe to say Game of Thrones is a money-maker. But people shouldn’t expect huge budget-increases. A network like HBO usually has 2 or 3 profitable shows and they use them to keep other non-profitable shows on the air (for critical acclaim or whatnot). Imagine how much money HBO has lost on the premature cancellation of Luck. And I’m guessing HBO is also losing millions of dollars with Treme.

    It’s the same with the Walking Dead and AMC, instead of putting all their money in their hit-show they chose to invest a lot of their money into their acclaimed but very expensive shows Mad Men and Breaking Bad.

  10. Spork
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    corbob10,

    That is such a good idea. I don’t understand why that doesn’t happen. I don’t really want anything else on cable, definitely not all the crap that comes with the HBO packages, but I totally would pay for a sole HBO subscription. Even just for access to HBOGO.

  11. Kaeth
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    Spork,

    i doubt they’ve released those exact numbers but im sure theres probably an estimate out there somwhere.

  12. Lucazzy
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    I wouldn’t really be surprised if the entirety of the budget increase for season 2 was spent in the Blackwater. If you do the math, 15% of 60 is 9, so they had 9 Million USD to pull a (estimated) 15 minutes of fighting scenes. So do the math, 9 Million divided by 15 is $600,000 spent per minute of actual fight scenes in the battle.

    Of course, that’s probably not what actually happened, and they probably used some of that budget increase to hire new actors and film in new locations, but I imagine most of it went to the battle. I just read the first chapter in CoK about the battle, the one detailing the naval battle, and if they can include this on screen it will be EPIC.

    As for Season 3 and 4 I’m not worried. Episode 2 will probably bring initial viewings over 4 Million, and maybe even it’ll be up towards 5 million by the end of season 2.

    Then season 3 and 4 (A Storm of Swords) can be done perfectly. With just enough time and enough money. EPIC WIN.

  13. David
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    The one two combo of “The Finances of Game of Thrones” and a picture of Littlefinger made me snicker.

  14. Syrio
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    The thing is, Storm of Swords doesn’t actually have that many big battle scenes.

    The wall is really it.

    The Red Wedding is more a massacre than a battle.

  15. RitariKnight
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    A good write-up, but this part is a bit wrong:

    The season two premiere ratings show that the audience for this show continues to grow and with it a jump in revenue.

    Ratings don’t bring more revenue to HBO, that’s network television thinking. It was actually discussed in that Slate article. If HBO manages to up its subscription numbers then they get more revenue (sure there are other revenue channels for it as mentioned in the articles, but subscribers are the core revenue source), and an increased rating might also happen as a consequence if that happened but not necessarily. Even now, less than half of HBO’s current subscribers watch GoT if we can believe the full viewer numbers touted in the media (an average of 9,3 million per episode for season 1), so there are quite a few HBO subscribers not watching the show (yet). That means ratings might go up without any increase in revenue for HBO if more of its current subscribers start watching the show. And, of course, the new viewers would have to come from those Nielsen households that subscribe to HBO in order to affect ratings, otherwise there would be no effect on ratings.

  16. Carter
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    The thing is the budget for the show isn’t the only expense, they also spend advertising the show [remember the food trucks, pedicabs, boxes of scrolls and scents, commercials, and I thought they were also producing a video game]. The last time I saw a figure for the dvd/blu-ray sales, I think it was at 50 million but that doesn’t include what they spent making the dvds, advertising them [this is anecdotal, but I saw commercials for the dvds all over the place and I don't watch that much live tv], and the cut that the retailers take out.

    I think the show turns a profit, has gotten some award recognition, and is certainly ‘buzzy’, but I don’t know if they’re comfortable spending 70 million or more a year producing it. I’d be shocked if it wasn’t brought back for a third season, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the budget was reduced to at least the 50-60 million range. The show seems pretty comfortable with the Belfast, Croatia, Iceland setup, has plenty of sets already built and with Blackwater being the biggest battle in the series to this point out of the way[while there are certainly plenty of action sequences in the third book, I can't think of anything that would be that massive and expensive], I don’t think the quality would suffer too much from a somewhat reduced budget, though I’m certain some fans would gnash teeth or cry about it.

  17. David
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    I imagine the budget will go down from season 2, since as mentioned above nothing should come close to costing as much as the Battle of the Blackwater.

  18. sjwenings
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Lucazzy: As for Season 3 and 4 I’m not worried. Episode 2 will probably bring initial viewings over 4 Million

    No way! Premiere eps “always” bring in extra viewers, so you should prepare yourself for something like 3.5 for ep 2.

  19. Syrio
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    They still care about ratings. Because it’s a good gauge of audience interest. If the ratings are mediocre, that’s a sign if you canceled the show replaced it with something else most people would not care.

  20. Mimsy
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    Dany’s got at least one battle coming up and eunichs to feed. Let’s not forget about dragon and direwolf CGI. I wonder how expensive CGI is compared to “battle” scenes, which also have CGI. This series has and will give HBO a tremendous amount of media exposure and will keep its’ subscribers like me happy, so I have full faith in the series going at least 5 seasons.

    Andrija,
    Don’t feel bad. I thought we were gonna discuss the Iron Bank and Cersei’s mad money.

  21. William 1000
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    Conor

    me too

  22. Dreamlife
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    I am worried that they haven’t announced season 3 yet… I’m afraid they were hoping for better numbers for the premier. Or are they going to see if the show viewership builds as the season progresses? Do we know if they are even negotiating a season 3?

  23. John W
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    Blackwater sounds like it may go down in history as one of the best hour of TV ever.

  24. Enteril
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    Dreamlife:
    I am worried that they haven’t announced season 3 yet…I’m afraid they were hoping for better numbers for the premier.Or are they going to see if the show viewership builds as the season progresses?Do we know if they are even negotiating a season 3?

    Even though season 2 pickups are almost always immediately announced after the 1×01 premiere, season 3 (and future) pickups are usually announced a few episodes into the current season. No one had any doubt Boardwalk Empire was going to be renewed for season 3, for instance, but it wasn’t “officially” renewed until either after 2×02 or 2×03, I forget. It’s just standard TV practice.

  25. funlight
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    Episode 2 will probably bring closer to 3 million viewers, but I expect it will pick up again pretty fast. I also think the third season was greenlit long before the season 2 premiere, but that they aren’t sure how they’ll approach it yet. Either that, or Melisandre (the character) and her antics alienate half the viewership. ;) (Source: a hunch!)

  26. coronaking
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    All this talk of a big sea battle sequence and no spoiler warning for those who don’t know the books? I’m surprised.

  27. Elena Amici
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    Conor:
    I still won’t sleep properly until it’s officially announced :)

    amen to this.
    Interesting article, but the thing I like the most is the pic. Come on, it’s spot on. I LOL’d

  28. Ingemar Svensson
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    RitariKnight,

    I wouldn’t say that the increased ratings doesn’t mean more revenue for HBO. There are other factors than just new subscribers that affect revenue. First of all higher ratings probably does mean that there is also new subscribers that make up part of the increased numbers but besides that even the existing subscribers that started watching the show would add to the revenue if watching GoT is the reason they keep subscribing to the channel. Getting increased revenue is just as much about keeping subscribers as it is about gaining new subscribers.

  29. Tolgeros
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    If GoT is so good that it makes more HBO subscribers tune in, then it’s probably a safe bet that it’s also drawing in new subscribers.

  30. tysnow
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    funlight,

    Melisandre (the character) and her antics alienate half the viewership. ;)

    What antics would turn off viewers?

  31. tysnow
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Season 3 won’t cost as much as season 2, but season 4 with both (Astapor) and the attack on the wall, could match or pass season 2′s budget. Though both Feast and Dances are more like season 1, with political manuevering , surviving, intrique and the like. Tyrions journey down the river could be costly though and the Drogon/arena scene.

  32. DH87
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    Dreamlife:
    I am worried that they haven’t announced season 3 yet…I’m afraid they were hoping for better numbers for the premier.Or are they going to see if the show viewership builds as the season progresses?Do we know if they are even negotiating a season 3?

    I am not worried at all, not just because of the great buzz the show is receiving but also because of the flame-out of “Luck.” In fact, it’s remotely possible that HBO would want more than l0 episodes for S3 to add several prime-time tentpole weeks to its schedule due to the collapse of “Luck” and the extreme aging of “True Blood,” entering its fifth season, now without Alan Ball.

  33. tysnow
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    Good point, perhaps HBO wants a 15 episode GoT season 3 and they are seeing if D&D can work most of SoS into a lengthened season. The delay could be D&D crunching the numbers and meeting with their production heads and actors to verify if its possible first.

  34. Lars
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    No, a 15 episode season (or anything longer than 10) is extremely unlikely. The show producers have stated MANY times that producing more than 10 per year would be very difficult for them.

    Also, they are moving away from adapting individual books. They are just going to cover as much as they can in season 3, and then pick up from that for the season afterwards.

  35. tysnow
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    Sounds good Lars, I can go with that, probably waiting for the religious holidays to pass over before resurrecting GoT with a season 3.

  36. DH87
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    Lars:
    No, a 15 episode season (or anything longer than 10) is extremely unlikely. The show producers have stated MANY times that producing more than 10 per year would be very difficult for them.

    Michael Lombardo: “Dan and D.B., great news—we need three more episodes for S3. Can you do it? ”
    D&D: “No, boss, no can do. Told you that last year.”
    Lombardo: “Dan and D.B., here’s an additional $15M for three more eps, plus a bonus of $4M as a “surcharge” for you to use to pay George to write a couple additional scripts, bring on more help at the Paint Hall, build those ships or whatever you want!”
    D&D: “Nope. Keep your money, boss.”
    Lombardo: “You two do realize that once you are in the HBO family, you are basically on a full-time employment package right up til Social Security, right? Just ask Alan Ball (we’re on Series number 3 with him), David Milch, the Soprano guys…. and those who don’t play ball are back to pitching Lifetime for a Kim Kardashian special.”
    D&D: Aaaahh. Let’s get back to you on that, boss.”

  37. tysnow
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    I want a 3-way with Loras/Marg/Renly, the big question would be, who is in the middle? But probaly have to wait till episode 4 or 5.

  38. fuelpagan
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    tysnow,

    If that happens, GRRM is in trouble. No way he finishes the last 2 books in 4 years.

  39. Jordan Healey
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

    Knurk,

    Treme will be a slow burner like The Wire, I only expect it to get more popular as it goes along.

    John W,

    And George himself wrote it!

  40. kingthlayer
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    not to mention merchandising – have you seen the amount of stuff at the HBO store? My fiance and I have bought $100 worth of stuff. Don’t pretend like you haven’t!

  41. Restore The Day
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    I hope they manage to keep a certain levity to it that is not always present in the books, as many ‘mainstream’ viewers might end up getting turned off by the general bleakness, not even specific events but the gloom of war.

  42. NewJeffCT
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    OK, so if they made $25 million just from international sales, can they figure out how much HBO made from sales in the US? Do they have a method to determine an increase in subscriptions to HBO? Or, people who sign up for HBO for 3 months just to watch Game of Thrones?

    And, if the DVD sold 350,000 in its first week, how much profit is that per DVD? $10? More? Less? How many copies have they sold since? (I’d imagine the sales in the 3+ weeks since probably haven’t been 350,000 total, but I could be wrong…)

    I’m sure with the publicity & critical acclaim the show got for season 1, they’re probably going to get more sales internationally & more US-based subscriptions this year as well.

  43. NewJeffCT
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    fuelpagan:
    tysnow,

    If that happens, GRRM is in trouble. No way he finishes the last 2 books in 4 years.

    Well, since it took him 11 years to get out books 4 and 5, getting out even one more book within four years might be considered a victory by some fans. ;=)

    Though, I think getting the last two books in six years *might* be realistic. I just hope he can wrap it all up in two more books (isn’t Sam’s maester training supposed to last for years? How about Arya’s training? Didn’t he put the kibosh on a time jump?)

  44. Nagga's Kin
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    @ Winter is Coming – Director Neil Marshall’s comments were mildly spoilerish for those of us who haven’t read the books. It’s no surprise that a naval battle will be coming, given that Stannis just allied himself with Salladhor Saan’s fleet. However, I’d appreciate still being surprised by the details when I see them. Thx.

    corbob10: If anyone can do it, I think HBO should strike out on their own and get out from under those evil cable company umbrellas. That way they can make even more money selling subscriptions of HBOgo to people that don’t want a huge cable package.

    Spork: corbob10,

    That is such a good idea. I don’t understand why that doesn’t happen. I don’t really want anything else on cable, definitely not all the crap that comes with the HBO packages, but I totally would pay for a sole HBO subscription. Even just for access to HBOGO.

    This. It’s not TV, it’s HBO. Or at least it should be, as in: Home Box Office.

    How about a bundle: an early bird order for the season 2 DVD/Blu-Ray plus the means to legally stream GoT content only until the boxed set actually ships. The legal online product should be available in equal – preferably better – quality than pirated copies but not as good as cable HDTV or the boxed sets.

    All official language dubs and subtitle versions should be made available to customers buying this bundle as and when they become available during the season, regardless of where their computer happens to be at the time. This may occasionally entail a delay while the requested asset is mirrored to a server close to the customer (in a network sense).

    Customers should be prompted for their account username/password or pre-order ID for the DVD/Blu-Ray product to verify legal use. At peak times, e.g. during the first airing in the US or of a local-language version, online distribution could be restricted to staggered robust scheduled multicasts to keep distribution costs low. At others, on-demand streaming could be enabled.

    The target market for such a bundle would be those who cannot get HBO content via their cable provider where they live, those who aren’t prepared to wait for a local-language version and, those who simply can’t afford a full subscription to all of HBO’s content.

  45. Anthony Roseman
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    corbob10,

    I have been saying this for a few months now. I would happily pay the same amount that HBO is costing me now for a straight up HBOgo subscription.

  46. Winter Is Coming
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    RitariKnight:
    A good write-up, but this part is a bit wrong:

    The season two premiere ratings show that the audience for this show continues to grow and with it a jump in revenue.

    Ratings don’t bring more revenue to HBO, that’s network television thinking. It was actually discussed in that Slate article. If HBO manages to up its subscription numbers then they get more revenue (sure there are other revenue channels for it as mentioned in the articles, but subscribers are the core revenue source), and an increased rating might also happen as a consequence if that happened but not necessarily. Even now, less than half of HBO’s current subscribers watch GoT if we can believe the full viewer numbers touted in the media (an average of 9,3 million per episode for season 1), so there are quite a few HBO subscribers not watching the show (yet). That means ratings might go up without any increase in revenue for HBO if more of its current subscribers start watching the show. And, of course, the new viewers would have to come from those Nielsen households that subscribe to HBO in order to affect ratings, otherwise there would be no effect on ratings.

    Yes, I understand that ratings mean something different for HBO than most networks. My point was that an increase in ratings signifies an increased audience, that can’t really be debated. An increased audience will most likely produce more revenue for HBO, iIn terms of merchandise sales, home video sales and, yes, increased subscriptions.

    I don’t think you can just assume that the extra million-plus viewers were all previously HBO subscribers. In fact, I’m willing to bet that most weren’t. It has been documented that there are often noticeable spikes in HBO subscriptions when one of their premiere shows airs. I think Game of Thrones could now be considered one of those shows. And even if they were all previous subscribers, the increased audience may help with subscription retention, which equals more continued revenue for HBO.

    In any case, the main point is that all the different factors (intl. sales, home video sales, high ratings) add up to a real cash cow for HBO.

  47. Nagga's Kin
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

    Lars:
    No, a 15 episode season (or anything longer than 10) is extremely unlikely. The show producers have stated MANY times that producing more than 10 per year would be very difficult for them.

    Also, they are moving away from adapting individual books. They are just going to cover as much as they can in season 3, and then pick up from that for the season afterwards.

    I’ve never understood why fans would want D&D to compromise quality just to deliver more than 10 episodes in a 12-month timespan.

    If HBO decides it makes good business sense to omit fewer of GRRM’s secondary characters and subplots, then they can always slow down the show’s pace. After all, there’s no fundamental reason the adaptation of the whole of ASOIAF has to be completed in “just” 6 years. Provided they can persuade the core cast to stick around, why not 8 or 9? Other successful TV shows have had runs that long.

    Moreover, GRRM still has a book or two to write and, it could be to the detriment of his life’s work as well as the HBO series if he is forced to rush them.

  48. Jess
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

    I agree 100%. I’ve never had cable growing up, I don’t have it now and i’m not planning on getting it. the only shows i watched on cable before i got into GoT were the daily show and the colbert report on comedy central, both of which i can watch on their website or hulu so why would i spend $80 each month for even the most basic subscription? Oh, i also watch Doctor Who so I just purchase each episode the day after it airs. since GoT though, I find myself faced with the huge problem of finding a legal (and supportive) way to watch a cable show.

    If HBO makes their programming available online (hbogo or something else) without me having to wait around for a comcast guy and then having to pay for 100 channels i don’t watch, i am definitely willing to do it at whatever price they deem reasonable. But i don’t know what kind of deal they have with providers so i’m honestly not holding my breath. the best i could hope for is having each episode available for purchasing like the Walking Dead. But as above articles talked about the different business models of AMC, ShowTime, and HBO, it’s probably not going to happen anytime soon. (but i hope i’m wrong. fingers crossed!)

  49. DH87
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    Winter Is Coming: Yes, I understand that ratings mean something different for HBO than most networks. My point was that an increase in ratings signifies an increased audience, that can’t really be debated. An increased audience will most likely produce more revenue for HBO, iIn terms of merchandise sales, home video sales and, yes, increased subscriptions.

    I don’t think you can just assume that the extra million-plus viewers were all previously HBO subscribers. In fact, I’m willing to bet that most weren’t. It has been documented that there are often noticeable spikes in HBO subscriptions when one of their premiere shows airs. I think Game of Thrones could now be considered one of those shows. And even if they were all previous subscribers, the increased audience may help with subscription retention, which equals more continued revenue for HBO.

    In any case, the main point is that all the different factors (intl. sales, home video sales, high ratings) add up to a real cash cow for HBO.

    HBO has proprietary protocols to assess what drives new subscriptions. A few models are commonsense: posters to their forums receive detailed online questionaires, about various shows; and satellite and cable companies typically ask a consumer why he/she is signing up or cancelling. The most common reason given for cancelling a premium channel is cost, followed by cost, then cost, and cost.

    However, when I cancelled Starz on Saturday after the Spartacus finale and added HBO for GOT, DirecTV (largest satellite provider by far in the US) asked me why I was cancelling/signing up. When I cancel HBO after GOT I’ll tell them why. The DirecTV CSR told me sign-ups on Saturday and Sunday were unprecedented in his eight years of employment—all GOT. That’s going to get HBO’s attention.

    Another component is activity during those HBO free weekends that are staggered through the U.S. Sign-ups after GOT will be compared to sign-ups after Luck, Boardwalk, and TB.

    Another is the level of repeat viewings, traffic to HBO/Go, etc.

  50. gswelcome
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    that WSJ piece is a bit of a spoiler isn’t it? assuming any fan of the show could escape the hype of what is coming in that episode that is

  51. spacepope
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    gotta give HBO credit, they have not been afraid to go all in with the budget

  52. spacepope
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    and it shows, the production value on this show is better than any show i’ve ever seen by far, and even some feature films

  53. Steven Swanson
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

    Regarding HBO offering its programming individually through HBOgo, I’d love that too, but my guess is part of their deal with cable companies forbids them from doing that, otherwise we would have seen it already.

    And they’re definitely not going to forego cable completely, I think some of you underestimate how many people just pay for premium channels every month habitually (my in-laws do that, blows my mind because they barely watch them), and HBO doesn’t want to lose out on that income, not to mention that it’s the one premium channel you always find in motel room packages and they must make bank on that.

  54. SillyMammo
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

    Couldn’t David & Dan have just borrowed from the Lannisters? Everyone else in Westeros has already?

  55. kingthlayer
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    Steven Swanson,

    I agree – you know what would be a good idea for everybody? Let HBO offer a 1 time 3 month subscription to HBOGO internet only for $30. HBO would get the $$, folks couldn’t resist getting the service once the HBOGO was over and DVD sales would increase for all the back catalogue of HBO programming. Who would lose?

  56. DH87
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

    Steven Swanson:
    Regarding HBO offering its programming individually through HBOgo, I’d love that too, but my guess is part of their deal with cable companies forbids them from doing that, otherwise we would have seen it already.

    I think some of you underestimate how many people just pay for premium channels every month habitually (my in-laws do that, blows my mind because they barely watch them), and HBO doesn’t want to lose out on that income, not to mention that it’s the one premium channel you always find in motel room packages and they must make bank on that.

    Agree with your point about habituation. That’s what makes subscribers who sign up or cancel based on one show only inordinately influential.

  57. Alan
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 2:52 am | Permalink

    kingthlayer:
    Steven Swanson,

    I agree – you know what would be a good idea for everybody? Let HBO offer a 1 time 3 month subscription to HBOGO internet only for $30. HBO would get the $$, folks couldn’t resist getting the service once the HBOGO was over and DVD sales would increase for all the back catalogue of HBO programming. Who would lose?

    The cable company. Pissing off your primary distribution channel is a bad move, and right now, cable dominates potential revenues. As the Internet market grows, that dynamic may change, but right now cable effectively pays for exclusivity – they make it worth their while. One of the most popular cable packages includes one premium channel – what if HBO weren’t an option there?

  58. loco73
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 3:59 am | Permalink

    Though I appreciate the 15% increase in budget, we should be weary about the show getting too expensive to produce. “Deadwood” became too expensive to produce (even though David Milch refused to do kind of a fourth and last season consisting of a 6 episode arch tying up the story…he wanted to do “John From Cincinatti”…ugh!), so did “Rome”. “Carnivale” was cancelled, and “Spawn” was never really given a finale. So HBO is not above cancelling ANY shows.

    I pray and hope that the GoT budget does not become overly inflated, because that would be worrisome to the long-term viability of the show. Also David and Dan should be able to see and end in sight for GoT, that would give the suits at HBO more of an incentive to keep it going, if they know that it will end at some point (preferrably after 7 seasons).

    I actually thought that the fact that “Luck” was cancelled would work in our advantage. Yes HBO lost money on the show, but the fact that they won’t have to produce any more episodes means that that money is now free to be spent on other shows, GoT could benefit from that. Besides “True Blood” is coming to an end, I don’t think that there will be more than one or two seasons at most left in that series (if that). So once “True Blood” goes, HBO will only have two flagship shows, “Game Of Thrones” and “Boardwalk Empire”.

    Still, before we start congratulating ourselves, lets take everything with a grain of salt and be thankful for any season we get greenlit, and not expect that approval as a forgone conclusion…

  59. Chris77
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 4:33 am | Permalink

    Imagine the millions they could make if they made the HBOGO App working in foreign countries as well… What’s weird is that BE is available in itunes Germany the day after it aired in the US, but sadly GOT is not.

  60. Eleanor
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 4:47 am | Permalink

    loco73:

    I actually thought thatthe fact that “Luck” was cancelled would work in our advantage.Yes HBO lost money on the show, but the fact that they won’t have to produce any more episodes means that that money is now free to be spent on other shows, GoT could benefit from that.Besides “True Blood” is coming to an end, I don’t think that there will be more than one or two seasons at most left in that series (if that). So once “True Blood” goes, HBO will only have two flagship shows, “Game Of Thrones” and “Boardwalk Empire”.

    Still,before westart congratulating ourselves, lets take everything with a grain of salt and be thankful for any season we get greenlit, and not expect that approval as a forgone conclusion…

    Why would you think True Blood is coming to an end? It’s still very popular and they are nowhere near running out of material.

  61. Biscotti
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 4:55 am | Permalink

    renew for 3/4 already, HBO!!!!!

  62. loco73
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 5:24 am | Permalink

    Eleanor,

    Because Alan Ball is gone, no longer the show runner, that is never a good sign, and plus the show is running out steam. There might be several Sookie Stackhouse novels outhere, but I doubt that the show will go on for much longer. A typical HBO show does not last longer than 5 seasons. “The Sopranos”, “OZ” and “Sex In The City” had six seasons a piece and no more. I don’t think that “True Blood” will be done this season, but I doubt that it will get more than one season after the 5th one is done.

    I keep my fingers crossed that GoT will break the mould with hopefully 7 seasons.

  63. RitariKnight
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 5:52 am | Permalink

    Winter Is Coming: Yes, I understand that ratings mean something different for HBO than most networks. My point was that an increase in ratings signifies an increased audience, that can’t really be debated. An increased audience will most likely produce more revenue for HBO, iIn terms of merchandise sales, home video sales and, yes, increased subscriptions.

    I don’t think you can just assume that the extra million-plus viewers were all previously HBO subscribers. In fact, I’m willing to bet that most weren’t. It has been documented that there are often noticeable spikes in HBO subscriptions when one of their premiere shows airs. I think Game of Thrones could now be considered one of those shows. And even if they were all previous subscribers, the increased audience may help with subscription retention, which equals more continued revenue for HBO.

    In any case, the main point is that all the different factors (intl. sales, home video sales, high ratings) add up to a real cash cow for HBO.

    I understand your viewpoint and you are somewhat correct, but you seem to have forgotten how the ratings are calculated. Nielsen has about 20,000 households in its viewer survey out of which about a quarter have HBO. This so to reflect the real world ratio of TV households versus HBO subscriber households in the US (currently ca. 115 million TV households of which ca. 28 million have HBO equals roughly 25 %). If HBO’s subscriber numbers rise (or lower for that matter) significantly so that the current ratio of 1:4 changes, Nielsen will have to take that into account by changing its household configuration. This happens retrospectively as Nielsen keeps the numbers the same for the whole TV “season” and changes are made between seasons when necessary.

    Now, if an HBO show’s rating rises it is because more of the Nielsen households with HBO watch the show, not because there are more subscribers to HBO. HBO has an increase of revenue from subscriber numbers rising, but not directly from increased ratings. Looking at it the other way, an increase in HBO subscribers will not affect the ratings immediately at all. An increase in ratings is a good thing, certainly, and it can influence other people to get HBO and thus increase HBO’s revenue, but there is no guarantee for that even though it’s quite likely, especially with all the media buzz and hype. But we cannot say with absolute certainty that an increase in ratings equals more money to HBO. Such is true for network television; their revenue income is almost solely based on ratings, because ratings are only meant to be an advertisement pricing tool. There is actually no real need to even publish the rating figures to the public nor calculate subscriber channel’s viewers (in some countries they are not part of the local ratings system at all).

    For HBO, the buzz and hype and award recognition are way more important than ratings, because the former quite often translate to more subscribers and higher prices for international and syndication sales, while the latter is just one part of making the buzz happen. And when it comes to viewer figures, (initial airing) ratings are nothing to HBO; they know that their subscribers watch their programming when it suits them, and not necessarily the first airing which the ratings are mostly concerned with, so providing several ways of watching is important and then also some way of figuring out how many watch a given show using the different methods available. This gives HBO the full viewer figure (e.g. 9.3 million for GoT’s first season) and that is a figure they are most certainly interested in. When HBO needs to make decisions concerning the future of one of its shows, they do not consider the rating at all, only the full viewing figure plays a role, although there are many other considerations for HBO than simply viewing numbers.

    So yes, I can assume, in fact, we have to assume, that the extra million viewers for the season 2 premiere rating came from existing HBO subscribers within the Nielsen system. Of course, the actual viewer increase in those households was probably under one thousand people which was then multiplied using the Nielsen statistical analysis method for calculating ratings. The actual, real world viewer number for the initial airing was probably a lot higher than the official rating, since the whole Nielsen system is severely flawed in its science aspect, but there is no feasible way to tell the actual number so we and the TV business have to go with the ratings system.

    I’m looking at this from a scientific point of view (both ratings calculations and statistical analysis as well as behavioral sciences) and a business point of view (how network and subscriber TV works business-wise). I have a good understanding of both having studied the former and having had a close inside contact with the latter for years (network TV).

    When it comes to Game of Thrones, we can both agree that it is a very significant show for HBO that makes a lot of money for it from many different sources (domestic and international subscribers, international sales and probably syndication in the future, DVD/BR & merchandising, etc.), and while it is quite expensive to produce, there is no way HBO won’t continue to produce it for many years to come. What I would hope for, on the other hand, is that fan sites and the media would not place such a big deal on ratings as they are not that significant for HBO or GoT. I’m not saying we should disregard them altogether, just understand their function and deal with them accordingly.

  64. Roey Wullman
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 6:16 am | Permalink

    I wonder how many brothels HBO keeps running to finance each season.. :P

  65. Nomi Sum
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    Chris77:
    Imagine the millions they could make if they made the HBOGO App working in foreign countries as well…What’s weird is that BE is available in itunes Germany the day after it aired in the US, but sadly GOT is not.

    so true – im from germany as well. i’d easily spend 5€ or more per episode (available for unlimited streaming) and buy the blue ray afterwards anyway.

    in germany its very popular to watch in english but theres no legal way to get the episodes yet – if you dont want to wait half a year. with a delay you could watch them on some underground payTV but i dont even own a TV. video on demand should really be pushed forward.

  66. Winter Is Coming
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    RitariKnight, yes, I understand how ratings work. Really, I’m just looking at it as a metric, a way to judge the popularity of the show. Yes, it is a flawed metric, but it is equally flawed for all other shows (especially HBO shows).

    Of course, the number HBO is concerned about is total viewers and, more importantly, subscriptions. Ideally, HBO would announce the total viewer numbers every week for all their shows so we’d have a better and more accurate sense of which shows are the most popular. Even better than that would be if they released their subscriber numbers each month, so we could tell where the spikes are and determine what shows are driving those spikes. But that doesn’t happen, so we have to use the only publicly available metric that we have, which is Neilsen ratings, and try to infer how that may effect subscriptions and revenue.

    The other thing we have to take into consideration is that big ratings aren’t just an indication of an increased audience, but could actually generate more buzz. As much as you may wish the media wouldn’t focus so much on ratings, the fact of the matter is that they do. When Thrones had that big premiere number on Sunday many of the big entertainment news sites splashed that news all over their front page. The mainstream media gushing over the show’s growing audience may cause casual TV viewers to think, “Hey, this show is getting really popular and may be the next big thing, I should check it out.” So you end up having more people tuning in simply because the show has high ratings!

    So to sum up, I don’t think ignoring ratings altogether, despite how flawed they might be, is an ideal approach. They are a metric, like any other, that can be useful in determining a show’s popularity (especially if comparing it to other HBO shows). Plus the media’s and the fans’ focus on the ratings can equate to more buzz for the show. Of course, HBO will have internal, concrete numbers that they use when determining the profitability of a show. But for fans, we have to rely on sometimes unreliable metrics such as search volume, social media engagement, award recognition, critical reception and, yes, even ratings.

  67. Catapiller
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    corbob10,

    I’d spend $5 an episode to view each episode as it comes out, no problem. And I’d STILL go out and buy the DVD set when it came out. I’m not going to spend $120 on cable, $500 on a TV, and THEN get HBO on top of that. I really wish HBO would adopt a more Internet-consumer oriented business model. I want to give them my money, if only they’d let me! As it is, I’m going to wait to watch all the episodes in a marathon format once I visit my parents (who subscribe to HBO, but don’t particularly enjoy GoT).

  68. Kingthlayer
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    Alan: The cable company. Pissing off your primary distribution channel is a bad move, and right now, cable dominates potential revenues. As the Internet market grows, that dynamic may change, but right now cable effectively pays for exclusivity – they make it worth their while. One of the most popular cable packages includes one premium channel – what if HBO weren’t an option there?

    So split the $$ with the cable company. Viewership would increase I would think along with back catalogue sales. No one loses. Although the cable company would probably see the wrinting on the wall and not go for it.

  69. Alan
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Kingthlayer: So split the $$ with the cable company. Viewership would increase I would think along with back catalogue sales. No one loses. Although the cable company would probably see the wrinting on the wall and not go for it.

    I don’t think there’s any way they could pay them enough. I get that people want to pay $10/month for HBO and not the like $70/month minimum for the rest of digital cable, but giving the cable company $3 of that $10 isn’t really going to mollify them — they are losing that $70 + $10 in revenue for every person who chooses that.

    The system as currently is works well for Cable/DirecTV and HBO. By bundling required channels, cable gets enough revenue to cover the substantial capital and fixed costs. Having HBO exclusive drives some traffic to their services — HBO, ESPN are two of the very few channels people “have” to have cable for.

    For HBO, there are a ton of HBO subscribers who just get it because they aren’t super price sensitive and want a movie channel with their cable package. But if it wasn’t part of the Silver Package or whatever, they might not really go online and buy it there.

    There’s a large number of people here who download shows and are comfortable watching on their computers. But that’s not most of America. Most of America doesn’t want to watch on a computer screen, and most of America has never downloaded a tv show or movie, or if they have, it’s only been through things like on demand — where it feels more like tv than “downloading.”

    It was a financially dangerous move to push cable right now — the market isn’t there quite yet (soon, perhaps) and the power dynamic still isn’t quite right. HBO has never been the type to fight with the cable company (unlike a lot of regional sports channels or ESPN).

    I think all this will happen fairly soon — watch as something takes the whole ROKU/AppleTV/new TV thing more mainstream and someone makes a break for it.

    I personally can’t wait. Let me buy the sports I want, and I’ll wait for most shows on DVD/Netflix/whatever. Add in the ability to get news for major world events and I don’t need any more.

  70. Qazokju
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Awesome compilation of info without putting too high expectations on the Quagmire Conflict episode.

    On the flip side I’m sure to be disappointed by it by any standard since I read the book. The question how little disappointed will I be? Ps I have it by good authority that Tyrions weird accent hath returned along with shae’s horrible season 1 characteristics.

  71. DH87
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Eleanor: Why would you think True Blood is coming to an end? It’s still very popular and they are nowhere near running out of material.

    In addition to the reasons mentioned by loco73, the actors signed 7-year deals; not 7-season deals. This time next year Season 6 will be wrapping up filming and Skarsgard will be gone to produce/star in/ Warner’s tentpole The Vanguard. Moyer and Paquin will either re-up and have it proved that they have zero star power without their tall co-star, or leave gracefully to star and direct in local middle-school film projects in Venice, California.

  72. DH87
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Alan: Having HBO exclusive drives some traffic to their services — HBO, ESPN are two of the very few channels people “have” to have cable for.

    True, and apropos of this very topic, there is movement to “de-bundle” ESPN from basic packages in carriage deals, since it makes up $5 per month of every cable/satellite bill. The ESPN suits were apoplectic at this suggestion, saying “everyone” wants ESPN, but with “cost” of cable/satellite the primary reason folks cut their services, a “cafeteria” plan may not be that far off, whether ESPN likes it or not. The most current idea is that you could buy a basic plan and choose, say, twenty channels from the menu (and the cable supplier adding in the crap-jewelry and weight-loss-pill/carpet cleaner informercial channels on its own).

    As someone who literally never watches the ESPN stable of channels, it tees me off that I’m paying $60 bucks a year for something that useless and expensive. It’s four months of HBO, five months of Starz, Showtime, etc.

  73. Hollyoak
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    John W:
    Blackwater sounds like it may go down in history as one of the best hour of TV ever.

    But some will still be dissatisfied. We are hardcore geeks, after all. I am pretty sure the majority of us will be totally excited and pleased.

  74. PerfumeDiveTeam
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    So Storm is supposed to be split into season 3 and 4 right? Well does that mean season 5 will be a feast for dancing dragon crows? Seeing as feast and dance both share the same timeline, I really cannot see them doing well separated, especially feast.

  75. Pau Soriano
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    PerfumeDiveTeam:
    So Storm is supposed to be split into season 3 and 4 right? Well does that mean season 5 will be a feast for dancing dragon crows? Seeing as feast and dance both share the same timeline, I really cannot see them doing well separated, especially feast.

    Yes, seasons 5 and 6 will be a more or less a mix of Feast and Dance, although they prolly move some story arcs forward to (o back from) season 4, as they are adapting the series as a whole. :)

  76. vicktorsmom
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    corbob10,

    I so agree with you. I refuse to spend money on cable but would happily subscribe to hbo if they broke off on their own…maybe online streaming…whatever it is, I’m almost ready to end my boycott of cable bc I need GoT in my life on a regular basis

  77. DH87
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    Pau Soriano: Yes, seasons 5 and 6 will be a more or less a mix of Feast and Dance, although they prolly move some story arcs forward to(o back from) season 4, as they are adapting the series as a whole. :)

    I believe GRRM indicated as such and said he understood that that would make the most sense in terms of the narrative.

  78. The Kingslayer
    Posted April 7, 2012 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    Season 3 and 4 will be expensive though, you’ve got The Wall and the Wildlings, Dany using her Dragons in Astapor and you’ve still got Stannis coming to save The Nightswatch. And I haven’t even gotten to the weddings or a certain Viper vs. Mountain scene.

    Plus they’ll probably have to bring in some Greyjoy stuff forward from AFFC and ADWD unless Dan and D.B would be willing to leave Theon, and Asha/Yara sitting out a couple seasons.

    Also there’s still the logistics of creating Riverrun and Sunspear.

  79. RitariKnight
    Posted April 7, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Winter Is Coming:
    RitariKnight, yes, I understand how ratings work. Really, I’m just looking at it as a metric, a way to judge the popularity of the show. Yes, it is a flawed metric, but it is equally flawed for all other shows (especially HBO shows).

    Of course, the number HBO is concerned about is total viewers and, more importantly, subscriptions. Ideally, HBO would announce the total viewer numbers every week for all their shows so we’d have a better and more accurate sense of which shows are the most popular. Even better than that would be if they released their subscriber numbers each month, so we could tell where the spikes are and determine what shows are driving those spikes. But that doesn’t happen, so we have to use the only publicly available metric that we have, which is Neilsen ratings, and try to infer how that may effect subscriptions and revenue.

    The other thing we have to take into consideration is that big ratings aren’t just an indication of an increased audience, but could actually generate more buzz. As much as you may wish the media wouldn’t focus so much on ratings, the fact of the matter is that they do. When Thrones had that big premiere number on Sunday many of the big entertainment news sites splashed that news all over their front page. The mainstream media gushing over the show’s growing audience may cause casual TV viewers to think, “Hey, this show is getting really popular and may be the next big thing, I should check it out.” So you end up having more people tuning in simply because the show has high ratings!

    So to sum up, I don’t think ignoring ratings altogether, despite how flawed they might be, is an ideal approach. They are a metric, like any other, that can be useful in determining a show’s popularity (especially if comparing it to other HBO shows). Plus the media’s and the fans’ focus on the ratings can equate to more buzz for the show. Of course, HBO will have internal, concrete numbers that they use when determining the profitability of a show. But for fans, we have to rely on sometimes unreliable metrics such as search volume, social media engagement, award recognition, critical reception and, yes, even ratings.

    That’s all true, and I did mention most of it in my previous post. Ratings can generate buzz and that is good for HBO, and that’s really the only thing that HBO wants ratings for. Still, I find that people and the media concentrate too much on ratings, considering the problems in the system and what they are mainly for–a tool to establish commercial pricing for network TV. That’s always bugged me for some reason, probably because of my previous connection to the industry and my views on the problems of combining natural and social sciences (e.g. statistical research vs. behavioral research).

    But this is I guess enough on this for now. Hopefully the buzz will grow after the second episode (I’m guessing the ratings will not rise much if at all, might even go down slightly, but hopefully WIC.net’s post on that will look at the bigger picture and not go down the “OMG!1!, the ratings are down!!1!1!” path), and even more so, we get the confirmation from HBO on season 3 (and maybe 4 as well).

  80. Greg Lane
    Posted April 7, 2012 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    there is a few battles in SOS the wall with the crows vs mance & wildings at the tunnel and then king stannis
    Syrio,

  81. Dicas para wordpress
    Posted December 8, 2012 at 12:08 am | Permalink

    It is perfect time to make some plans for the long run and it’s time to be happy. I’ve read this
    submit and if I could I want to recommend you few interesting issues or tips.
    Maybe you can write subsequent articles regarding this article.
    I desire to learn more things about it!

  82. Mehdi
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    I Love Game of Therones

  83. Nick
    Posted July 8, 2013 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    Andrija,
    Well actually Merlin was a universal success in term of viewers. It had an average of 7 viewers in the UK and many more internationally (with a population of 60 million compared to 300 million in the US, that is 35 million viewers comparatively…which is almost twice the viewers of the most watched regular drama show in America).


  • Recent Comments

  • Archives

    • 2014 (749)
    • 2013 (679)
    • 2012 (550)
    • 2011 (512)
    • 2010 (309)
    • 2009 (174)
    • 2008 (47)
  •