Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2018 13:13:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Aug 13, 2018 15:30:53 GMT
I just wonder if and when they'll give him the yellow boots...
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Aug 13, 2018 17:44:09 GMT
When he goes to L.A. to become a dancer.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 13, 2018 18:07:15 GMT
It's also chinless which maybe better for Grant when wearing it, as to keep it all straight during scenes when he wears the mask they have to glue it to his face, having the bottom half free may reduce the need for this when filming, as they have him unmask any chance they get it seems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2018 12:14:03 GMT
It's also chinless which maybe better for Grant when wearing it, as to keep it all straight during scenes when he wears the mask they have to glue it to his face, having the bottom half free may reduce the need for this when filming, as they have him unmask any chance they get it seems. Yes. You are right. It is chinless and I actually didn't notice that the first time I saw the picture but it does look different and I wonder if they will give him the yellow boots next like Stargazer suggested above or that could cause problems with Grant's running scenes? I think you are right that the new mask will make it easier for Grant when he is wearing it 'cause he will be able to take it off easier when they need him to quickly unmask and I was unaware it was glued to his face but knew they had to be using something to keep it straight.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 25, 2018 17:44:58 GMT
It's also chinless which maybe better for Grant when wearing it, as to keep it all straight during scenes when he wears the mask they have to glue it to his face, having the bottom half free may reduce the need for this when filming, as they have him unmask any chance they get it seems. Yes. You are right. It is chinless and I actually didn't notice that the first time I saw the picture but it does look different and I wonder if they will give him the yellow boots next like Stargazer suggested above or that could cause problems with Grant's running scenes? I think you are right that the new mask will make it easier for Grant when he is wearing it 'cause he will be able to take it off easier when they need him to quickly unmask and I was unaware it was glued to his face but knew they had to be using something to keep it straight. Yeah and that's why we don't see him actually unmask, they always do a cut when he goes to then cuts back to him pulling it off, and he has multiple versions of the old suit, one with the mask they glue on, one to take off and one that's just the hood at the back iirc.
What were you thinking they used to keep it straight Deb? chewing gum? sticky back tape? maybe a dwarf holding the mask in place at the back stuck on Grants back like a back pack? you make me chuckle so much deb.
The how they do things info always makes me laugh, like how they have Barry zoom in and out is hilarious, the actors have to freeze in place as Grant just walks off then they blow and air cannon at them as Grant stands in the corner giggling because they all hate the air cannon to the face.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 12:47:00 GMT
Yes. You are right. It is chinless and I actually didn't notice that the first time I saw the picture but it does look different and I wonder if they will give him the yellow boots next like Stargazer suggested above or that could cause problems with Grant's running scenes? I think you are right that the new mask will make it easier for Grant when he is wearing it 'cause he will be able to take it off easier when they need him to quickly unmask and I was unaware it was glued to his face but knew they had to be using something to keep it straight. Yeah and that's why we don't see him actually unmask, they always do a cut when he goes to then cuts back to him pulling it off, and he has multiple versions of the old suit, one with the mask they glue on, one to take off and one that's just the hood at the back iirc.
What were you thinking they used to keep it straight Deb? chewing gum? sticky back tape? maybe a dwarf holding the mask in place at the back stuck on Grants back like a back pack? you make me chuckle so much deb.
The how they do things info always makes me laugh, like how they have Barry zoom in and out is hilarious, the actors have to freeze in place as Grant just walks off then they blow and air cannon at them as Grant stands in the corner giggling because they all hate the air cannon to the face.
I didn't notice that before but now that I think about it we don't see Barry unmask in episodes of 'The Flash' and when he does take his mask off they do a cut or you only see him from behind but that explains things and I don't know what I was thinking he was using to keep it straight and I guess I just never really thought about it before. I didn't know the actors were freezing either during the zoom in scenes and I thought they were editing the scenes on a computer and putting them on pause while Barry was doing that 'cause I heard they can do things like that.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Sept 9, 2018 16:04:10 GMT
But to do something like that requires money, which these shows don't have!
|
|
|
Post by BexxyJ on Sept 11, 2018 8:04:52 GMT
Still looks lame. Can't he just lose the mask and get a better one that doesn't cover his head? He looks like he is going to enter a swimming competition as Captain Redfish. The King of the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Sept 11, 2018 18:13:09 GMT
How about this for a new costume?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2018 13:24:09 GMT
But to do something like that requires money, which these shows don't have! How much money do these shows have exactly, I wonder? I mean they are obviously have a bit or they wouldn't be able to make the shows in the first place but compared to other networks would you say the CW Network is generous with the money they give the 'Arrowverse' shows or they are at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to the money they get every week. What I don't get is why Warner Bros don't give them more money. Time Warner is a huge company and are multi-billionaires and they should have a few million dollars to spare.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 28, 2018 3:42:48 GMT
I have heard the cost about half the amount shows of their nature and tenure cost, CW are cheap, but smart, I heard it estimated at around $2-3m an episode in 2015, so were probably looking more to $3.5-4m at the moment for Arrow, probably the same for Flash as it's the bigger show and needs more effects.
But shows like GOT have crazy high budgets for TV at $10m an episode, I think this last season was said to be $15m but I maybe wrong, thing is it isn't the money so much as the time, CW's schedule like that of any normal 20+ ep season doesn't leave a lot of time for CGI, which means they have to hire additional graphic artist to do the work and pay overtime, but they are also limited because you cant do certain effects until others are done, you know they have to build the detail work onto other renderings, which is why the CGI characters are so painfully cgi at times, when we know they can make Josh Brolin look like a giant purple dude with a ballsack for a chin, and make it look like that's a real fucking thing, but Flash doesn't have that time to do all that so we get the iffy video game graphics a lot in the fight scenes.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Sept 28, 2018 18:30:20 GMT
And sometimes you can make up for you lack of a budget by being completely insane.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 12:40:49 GMT
I have heard the cost about half the amount shows of their nature and tenure cost, CW are cheap, but smart, I heard it estimated at around $2-3m an episode in 2015, so were probably looking more to $3.5-4m at the moment for Arrow, probably the same for Flash as it's the bigger show and needs more effects. But shows like GOT have crazy high budgets for TV at $10m an episode, I think this last season was said to be $15m but I maybe wrong, thing is it isn't the money so much as the time, CW's schedule like that of any normal 20+ ep season doesn't leave a lot of time for CGI, which means they have to hire additional graphic artist to do the work and pay overtime, but they are also limited because you cant do certain effects until others are done, you know they have to build the detail work onto other renderings, which is why the CGI characters are so painfully cgi at times, when we know they can make Josh Brolin look like a giant purple dude with a ballsack for a chin, and make it look like that's a real fucking thing, but Flash doesn't have that time to do all that so we get the iffy video game graphics a lot in the fight scenes. Thanks for telling me that Dazz. I still think a lot of these TV shows could be better if they had bigger budgets like the movies to work with 'cause they would be able to do so much more than they can now and 'Supernatural' as you know is one show that would have been very different if they had a big budget 'cause they would have been able to have a lot of monsters in monsterlike forms and I feel some of their characters suffered from being confined to human forms like the dragons who were kinda useless but would have been heaps more fun to see Sam and Dean fight if they were in their traditional forms flying around and breathing fire. I don't understand why 'Game of Thrones' gets such a high budget compared to the DC and even the Marvel shows when Disney and Time Warner are both multi-billion dollar companies who could afford to give their shows a budget like that and just imagine what they could have done in 'Smallville' if they had the budget of the DCEU movies. We could have had Doomsday in the monster form more and had a proper version of Darkseid instead of having him possess different people like the alternate version of Lionel Luthor.
With a higher budget they could have the Green Lantern on TV or have made a Green Lantern TV show and the thing about superheroes and a number of their villains they need big budgets to adapt them 'cause some of them aren't going to be cheap and the more things turn to TV I wonder if we will end up seeing a change in that.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jan 19, 2019 13:15:03 GMT
I have heard the cost about half the amount shows of their nature and tenure cost, CW are cheap, but smart, I heard it estimated at around $2-3m an episode in 2015, so were probably looking more to $3.5-4m at the moment for Arrow, probably the same for Flash as it's the bigger show and needs more effects. But shows like GOT have crazy high budgets for TV at $10m an episode, I think this last season was said to be $15m but I maybe wrong, thing is it isn't the money so much as the time, CW's schedule like that of any normal 20+ ep season doesn't leave a lot of time for CGI, which means they have to hire additional graphic artist to do the work and pay overtime, but they are also limited because you cant do certain effects until others are done, you know they have to build the detail work onto other renderings, which is why the CGI characters are so painfully cgi at times, when we know they can make Josh Brolin look like a giant purple dude with a ballsack for a chin, and make it look like that's a real fucking thing, but Flash doesn't have that time to do all that so we get the iffy video game graphics a lot in the fight scenes. Thanks for telling me that Dazz. I still think a lot of these TV shows could be better if they had bigger budgets like the movies to work with 'cause they would be able to do so much more than they can now and 'Supernatural' as you know is one show that would have been very different if they had a big budget 'cause they would have been able to have a lot of monsters in monsterlike forms and I feel some of their characters suffered from being confined to human forms like the dragons who were kinda useless but would have been heaps more fun to see Sam and Dean fight if they were in their traditional forms flying around and breathing fire. I don't understand why 'Game of Thrones' gets such a high budget compared to the DC and even the Marvel shows when Disney and Time Warner are both multi-billion dollar companies who could afford to give their shows a budget like that and just imagine what they could have done in 'Smallville' if they had the budget of the DCEU movies. We could have had Doomsday in the monster form more and had a proper version of Darkseid instead of having him possess different people like the alternate version of Lionel Luthor.
With a higher budget they could have the Green Lantern on TV or have made a Green Lantern TV show and the thing about superheroes and a number of their villains they need big budgets to adapt them 'cause some of them aren't going to be cheap and the more things turn to TV I wonder if we will end up seeing a change in that.
Well again one thing comes down to time, GOT has months and months to do the CGI for stuff because they only have half to quarter as many episodes as network tv shows usually do, and they can be on a less strict time frame, so if they need 2 more months to do everything right HBO can so ok then take the time, CW cant because then you are taking the show out of your peak viewership months.
As for cost one thing is network vs. cable, not everyone gets cable so not everyone gets HBO, those who do pay extra for it, so the more viewers GOT attracts = more people paying for the channel on top of them ore ad revenue they can make as I would assume they still have paid advertising on HBO, where as with network the viewership is just impacting advertising, so HBO has 2 revenue streams from their viewerships coming in where as CW has one for the same thing.
Then the higher budget comes from in part the actors salaries, HBO hires bigger names for bigger contracts on lower episode orders, GOT this season is going to cost like $100m I heard, iv you take Arrow at $4m an episode that's going to cost roughly the same, difference is Arrow's near $100m is spread over 20 plus episodes where as GOT is done over 6, GOT also has a cast list in the 20-30's if not higher, Arrow has a regular cast of 8 or less, the GOT big 5 cast make the same for a season as J&J do for Supernatural.
A major part of the cost is simply being in production also, Kevin Smith said a day on Die Hard 4 where nothing got shot and Bruce Willis just nitpicked the script all day still cost like $100k just because everyone still had to be paid everything had to be powered, equipment and space still cost money to rent and have on hand and such.
The streaming services I think will be what changes things, I mean money doesn't = quality not even in CGI, theres a reason why people praise the limited CGI in something like Ex Machina which had a tiny budget but still looked great but critic the CGI in Black Panther or selective shots in IW whilst priaising the CG for Thanos because despite having budgets of $100's of millions of dollars, Thanos's look mattered so they spent the time doing it right, Hulkbuster and the other suits looked great eh the floating head things passable who cares, so if we could just get that time for stuff to be done right it wont cost more, I mean look at animation that stuff takes months years even to get done to a good quality, but they don't break the bank in getting them made even though those shows could be in production for 2 years compared to 8 months like a live action show.
But on streaming services they don't need to follow network schedules, they just need to provide a product people will pay to watch, and they control their own fate so if a Blue Beetle gets greenlit but needs more time but they can bust out a The Question series cheaper due to less effects whilst Beetle simply gets an extra 13 weeks or more to touch up to quality.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Jan 19, 2019 17:40:08 GMT
Yeah, network television is getting it's arse handed to it by network televison and streaming. Having shorter seasons and seasons a year or more apart really help. It allows them to put money into better actors, special effects, writers, and directors.
If network wants to catch up they need to ditch the traditional season format that has them in a strangle hold.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jan 19, 2019 18:37:36 GMT
Thanks for telling me that Dazz. I still think a lot of these TV shows could be better if they had bigger budgets like the movies to work with 'cause they would be able to do so much more than they can now and 'Supernatural' as you know is one show that would have been very different if they had a big budget 'cause they would have been able to have a lot of monsters in monsterlike forms and I feel some of their characters suffered from being confined to human forms like the dragons who were kinda useless but would have been heaps more fun to see Sam and Dean fight if they were in their traditional forms flying around and breathing fire. I don't understand why 'Game of Thrones' gets such a high budget compared to the DC and even the Marvel shows when Disney and Time Warner are both multi-billion dollar companies who could afford to give their shows a budget like that and just imagine what they could have done in 'Smallville' if they had the budget of the DCEU movies. We could have had Doomsday in the monster form more and had a proper version of Darkseid instead of having him possess different people like the alternate version of Lionel Luthor.
With a higher budget they could have the Green Lantern on TV or have made a Green Lantern TV show and the thing about superheroes and a number of their villains they need big budgets to adapt them 'cause some of them aren't going to be cheap and the more things turn to TV I wonder if we will end up seeing a change in that.
Well again one thing comes down to time, GOT has months and months to do the CGI for stuff because they only have half to quarter as many episodes as network tv shows usually do, and they can be on a less strict time frame, so if they need 2 more months to do everything right HBO can so ok then take the time, CW cant because then you are taking the show out of your peak viewership months.
As for cost one thing is network vs. cable, not everyone gets cable so not everyone gets HBO, those who do pay extra for it, so the more viewers GOT attracts = more people paying for the channel on top of them ore ad revenue they can make as I would assume they still have paid advertising on HBO, where as with network the viewership is just impacting advertising, so HBO has 2 revenue streams from their viewerships coming in where as CW has one for the same thing.
Then the higher budget comes from in part the actors salaries, HBO hires bigger names for bigger contracts on lower episode orders, GOT this season is going to cost like $100m I heard, iv you take Arrow at $4m an episode that's going to cost roughly the same, difference is Arrow's near $100m is spread over 20 plus episodes where as GOT is done over 6, GOT also has a cast list in the 20-30's if not higher, Arrow has a regular cast of 8 or less, the GOT big 5 cast make the same for a season as J&J do for Supernatural.
A major part of the cost is simply being in production also, Kevin Smith said a day on Die Hard 4 where nothing got shot and Bruce Willis just nitpicked the script all day still cost like $100k just because everyone still had to be paid everything had to be powered, equipment and space still cost money to rent and have on hand and such.
The streaming services I think will be what changes things, I mean money doesn't = quality not even in CGI, theres a reason why people praise the limited CGI in something like Ex Machina which had a tiny budget but still looked great but critic the CGI in Black Panther or selective shots in IW whilst priaising the CG for Thanos because despite having budgets of $100's of millions of dollars, Thanos's look mattered so they spent the time doing it right, Hulkbuster and the other suits looked great eh the floating head things passable who cares, so if we could just get that time for stuff to be done right it wont cost more, I mean look at animation that stuff takes months years even to get done to a good quality, but they don't break the bank in getting them made even though those shows could be in production for 2 years compared to 8 months like a live action show.
But on streaming services they don't need to follow network schedules, they just need to provide a product people will pay to watch, and they control their own fate so if a Blue Beetle gets greenlit but needs more time but they can bust out a The Question series cheaper due to less effects whilst Beetle simply gets an extra 13 weeks or more to touch up to quality.
No, HBO (and other premium channels, like Showtime) don't have advertisements; at least not during programs, and what they do run in between are usually internal stuff about their other shows and movies. I think that's always been one of their major draws, is that subscribers have always been able to watch content uninterrupted; and because they're not broadcast and they're not beholden to advertisers, they can do just about anything they want. Ratings are relative on those networks, they don't have sweeps periods, because they don't have to assess the value of airtime for anyone besides themselves, they can take more chances, their schedules can be more dynamic and their metric for success is how many subscribers they have and what is drawing in the new ones. And this also allows them to push boundaries with content with sex and language and nudity, years ahead of the curve. I mean, if anything, broadcast and basic cable shows regressed, I think because of the crap with Janet Jackson. Back in the 90s primetime was pushing boundaries as much as they could, then you almost, but not really see a nipple at the Superbowl and everyone lost their damn minds.... For CGI, part of it is definitely time. I was reading an article recently about how much more CGI gets used now, even for the most inane thing, because it's become so synonymous with quality, but then they want it all turned around in timetables that most of the time just can't be done to that degree of volume in such a short amount of time and still look good. And so there's become this standard where CGI designers do the level of work they can in the time they have for the initial release, knowing they'll have to go back and improve it for the DVD or Blu-ray. And I think the article talked about that this is hurting small CGI firms, because often times they only get paid for doing it the one time and not the additional work later, or something along those lines. Maybe it's the theatre nerd in me, or the old school sci-fi nerd, but I definitely think there's something to be said about using practical (real) effects and props, etc. whenever possible.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jan 19, 2019 20:44:19 GMT
Well again one thing comes down to time, GOT has months and months to do the CGI for stuff because they only have half to quarter as many episodes as network tv shows usually do, and they can be on a less strict time frame, so if they need 2 more months to do everything right HBO can so ok then take the time, CW cant because then you are taking the show out of your peak viewership months.
As for cost one thing is network vs. cable, not everyone gets cable so not everyone gets HBO, those who do pay extra for it, so the more viewers GOT attracts = more people paying for the channel on top of them ore ad revenue they can make as I would assume they still have paid advertising on HBO, where as with network the viewership is just impacting advertising, so HBO has 2 revenue streams from their viewerships coming in where as CW has one for the same thing.
Then the higher budget comes from in part the actors salaries, HBO hires bigger names for bigger contracts on lower episode orders, GOT this season is going to cost like $100m I heard, iv you take Arrow at $4m an episode that's going to cost roughly the same, difference is Arrow's near $100m is spread over 20 plus episodes where as GOT is done over 6, GOT also has a cast list in the 20-30's if not higher, Arrow has a regular cast of 8 or less, the GOT big 5 cast make the same for a season as J&J do for Supernatural.
A major part of the cost is simply being in production also, Kevin Smith said a day on Die Hard 4 where nothing got shot and Bruce Willis just nitpicked the script all day still cost like $100k just because everyone still had to be paid everything had to be powered, equipment and space still cost money to rent and have on hand and such.
The streaming services I think will be what changes things, I mean money doesn't = quality not even in CGI, theres a reason why people praise the limited CGI in something like Ex Machina which had a tiny budget but still looked great but critic the CGI in Black Panther or selective shots in IW whilst priaising the CG for Thanos because despite having budgets of $100's of millions of dollars, Thanos's look mattered so they spent the time doing it right, Hulkbuster and the other suits looked great eh the floating head things passable who cares, so if we could just get that time for stuff to be done right it wont cost more, I mean look at animation that stuff takes months years even to get done to a good quality, but they don't break the bank in getting them made even though those shows could be in production for 2 years compared to 8 months like a live action show.
But on streaming services they don't need to follow network schedules, they just need to provide a product people will pay to watch, and they control their own fate so if a Blue Beetle gets greenlit but needs more time but they can bust out a The Question series cheaper due to less effects whilst Beetle simply gets an extra 13 weeks or more to touch up to quality.
No, HBO (and other premium channels, like Showtime) don't have advertisements; at least not during programs, and what they do run in between are usually internal stuff about their other shows and movies. I think that's always been one of their major draws, is that subscribers have always been able to watch content uninterrupted; and because they're not broadcast and they're not beholden to advertisers, they can do just about anything they want. Ratings are relative on those networks, they don't have sweeps periods, because they don't have to assess the value of airtime for anyone besides themselves, they can take more chances, their schedules can be more dynamic and their metric for success is how many subscribers they have and what is drawing in the new ones. And this also allows them to push boundaries with content with sex and language and nudity, years ahead of the curve. I mean, if anything, broadcast and basic cable shows regressed, I think because of the crap with Janet Jackson. Back in the 90s primetime was pushing boundaries as much as they could, then you almost, but not really see a nipple at the Superbowl and everyone lost their damn minds.... For CGI, part of it is definitely time. I was reading an article recently about how much more CGI gets used now, even for the most inane thing, because it's become so synonymous with quality, but then they want it all turned around in timetables that most of the time just can't be done to that degree of volume in such a short amount of time and still look good. And so there's become this standard where CGI designers do the level of work they can in the time they have for the initial release, knowing they'll have to go back and improve it for the DVD or Blu-ray. And I think the article talked about that this is hurting small CGI firms, because often times they only get paid for doing it the one time and not the additional work later, or something along those lines. Maybe it's the theatre nerd in me, or the old school sci-fi nerd, but I definitely think there's something to be said about using practical (real) effects and props, etc. whenever possible. Ah ok I didn't know that about HBO, over here the cable or sky as I always called it has ads like the terrestrial channels do, only ones that don't are the BBC which run ad free because it's paid for by our TV licenses.
I agree on the practical effects thing, I watched a thing about The Thing remake a year or two back and the effects guys on that said how they made a full scale like 75% shootable alien effect for the helicopter scene but a studio shithead came in and made them do it all CG because they couldn't shoot it on the direct left side, despite the effects guys saying that's fine we don't need to shoot on the left side we can shoot on the right and straight on and you cannot tell theres a bit missing, but the guy insisted do it CG so they have 100% coverage, then they still did the scene on the right and straight on, but the CGI looked like shit compared to the practical effects.
CGI should be used when it is needed, either because heres no way to physically do something otherwise, it's too dangerous to do it otherwise or to touch up imperfections in practical effects, I hate CG blood in stuff it just looks fake, also god they need to stop doing pure CGI backgrounds again unless otherwise needed because it is so horribly obvious.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Jan 20, 2019 14:39:15 GMT
CGI is a tool and like any tool it works depending on when it's used and who uses it. With the exception of blood. That cannot be realistically rendered, regardless of who is doing it. But sadly it's not going anywhere. Studios love CGI blood because they can add or remove as much as they want to effect their rating with the film board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 11:08:25 GMT
Thanks for telling me that Dazz. I still think a lot of these TV shows could be better if they had bigger budgets like the movies to work with 'cause they would be able to do so much more than they can now and 'Supernatural' as you know is one show that would have been very different if they had a big budget 'cause they would have been able to have a lot of monsters in monsterlike forms and I feel some of their characters suffered from being confined to human forms like the dragons who were kinda useless but would have been heaps more fun to see Sam and Dean fight if they were in their traditional forms flying around and breathing fire. I don't understand why 'Game of Thrones' gets such a high budget compared to the DC and even the Marvel shows when Disney and Time Warner are both multi-billion dollar companies who could afford to give their shows a budget like that and just imagine what they could have done in 'Smallville' if they had the budget of the DCEU movies. We could have had Doomsday in the monster form more and had a proper version of Darkseid instead of having him possess different people like the alternate version of Lionel Luthor.
With a higher budget they could have the Green Lantern on TV or have made a Green Lantern TV show and the thing about superheroes and a number of their villains they need big budgets to adapt them 'cause some of them aren't going to be cheap and the more things turn to TV I wonder if we will end up seeing a change in that.
Well again one thing comes down to time, GOT has months and months to do the CGI for stuff because they only have half to quarter as many episodes as network tv shows usually do, and they can be on a less strict time frame, so if they need 2 more months to do everything right HBO can so ok then take the time, CW cant because then you are taking the show out of your peak viewership months.
As for cost one thing is network vs. cable, not everyone gets cable so not everyone gets HBO, those who do pay extra for it, so the more viewers GOT attracts = more people paying for the channel on top of them ore ad revenue they can make as I would assume they still have paid advertising on HBO, where as with network the viewership is just impacting advertising, so HBO has 2 revenue streams from their viewerships coming in where as CW has one for the same thing.
Then the higher budget comes from in part the actors salaries, HBO hires bigger names for bigger contracts on lower episode orders, GOT this season is going to cost like $100m I heard, iv you take Arrow at $4m an episode that's going to cost roughly the same, difference is Arrow's near $100m is spread over 20 plus episodes where as GOT is done over 6, GOT also has a cast list in the 20-30's if not higher, Arrow has a regular cast of 8 or less, the GOT big 5 cast make the same for a season as J&J do for Supernatural.
A major part of the cost is simply being in production also, Kevin Smith said a day on Die Hard 4 where nothing got shot and Bruce Willis just nitpicked the script all day still cost like $100k just because everyone still had to be paid everything had to be powered, equipment and space still cost money to rent and have on hand and such.
The streaming services I think will be what changes things, I mean money doesn't = quality not even in CGI, theres a reason why people praise the limited CGI in something like Ex Machina which had a tiny budget but still looked great but critic the CGI in Black Panther or selective shots in IW whilst priaising the CG for Thanos because despite having budgets of $100's of millions of dollars, Thanos's look mattered so they spent the time doing it right, Hulkbuster and the other suits looked great eh the floating head things passable who cares, so if we could just get that time for stuff to be done right it wont cost more, I mean look at animation that stuff takes months years even to get done to a good quality, but they don't break the bank in getting them made even though those shows could be in production for 2 years compared to 8 months like a live action show.
But on streaming services they don't need to follow network schedules, they just need to provide a product people will pay to watch, and they control their own fate so if a Blue Beetle gets greenlit but needs more time but they can bust out a The Question series cheaper due to less effects whilst Beetle simply gets an extra 13 weeks or more to touch up to quality.
Alright. That makes sense but I am still surprised over what some of the older TV shows were able to pull off in the 90s and early 2000s compared to the TV shows of today especially with Horror themes and monsters and they feel so much more limited than before with what they can have and the price of makeup must have gone up a lot since ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ and ‘Angel’ but there have been a lot of independent Horror films that have come out in the past decade like the ones under Charles Band’s ‘Full Moon Features’ that seem to have had better makeup and special effects that TV shows but I think Charles Band might have a lot of money. You make a good point about the network vs Pay TV difference and I didn’t know ‘Game of Thrones’ had two revenue streams coming in while the CW only had one and don’t CW make money from DVD and Blu Ray sales and legal downloads of shows?
That probably doesn’t make as much money as it used to ‘cause more people download but I know it used to ‘cause I read there were some shows in the 90s that were almost cancelled ‘cause they were going down in ratings but they had high home video sales so they got renewed. Do TV shows on the Syfy Channel bring in two revenue streaming too ‘cause that might also explain how they are able to have better special effects for their shows apart from most of them only having 10-13 episodes each season and I read the reason Supergirl can’t fly around in space in the show like she does in Supergirl comic books was ‘cause it is too expensive to do but ‘Dark Matter’ mostly took place in space on the Raza and they had episodes where the crew floated around in space.
Wow. I didn’t know ‘Arrow’ cost 100 million a season. I thought the cost of the show would be down at $20-30 million and that is a lot of money and who made the TV Shows this expensive and did they always cost that much or did it only go up recently ‘cause I always thought movies were supposed to be more expensive than TV shows and TV shows were heaps cheaper especially on channels like the CW Network and I read somewhere ‘Smallville’ had a $13,000,000 budget for Seasons 1-3, seasons -6 had $8,000,000 and seasons 9 and 10 had $7,667,000 and that is a lot cheaper than $100 million a season. I am not an expert on the costs of some of these shows but $100 million sounds a lot for one season of 'Arrow' and it is a wonder anybody can work in TV when it costs that much. You don't happen to have a spare $100 million to throw away Dazz?
|
|