Timeline for Is it possible to produce a continuous Game of Thrones?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 17, 2016 at 11:24 | comment | added | user56reinstatemonica8 | You're basically describing a soap opera with Game Of Thrones-level production values. In most respects it's expensive but possible, you just need a big writing team (many writers, script editors and assistants - GoT has a surprisingly small writing team), a huge support team, and an industrial-sized costumes/props dept, and you'd need to convince the actors to commit to doing GoT all year, for years, full time. The killer would be locations. You couldn't do on-location filming all year without basically buying Malta... You'd need to build huge castle-sized sets, or horribly abuse green-screen | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 18:26 | answer | added | Morning Star | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 15:15 | comment | added | Skooba - Stands Against AI | Did someone just see The Truman Show for the first time? | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 17:58 | comment | added | Typewriter | Oh well, I thought it was fun to consider. Kinda surprised by all the negativity. The question really isn't that unreasonable considering we have questions like "Is it even possible, considering logistics of construction and staffing, to be able to create such large ships? [Star Wars Star Destroyers.]" If we can speculate about that fantasy world, I don't see why we can't speculate about the fantasy world of this question. Darn. I'll just skulk back into permanent lurk mode now. | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 12:35 | comment | added | iandotkelly♦ | There's no way this could ever work even as a thought exercise. Playing out in real time, the action would be so slow - Actors need sleep, to have meals. Even if you could have a production system that could write and manage the whole thing, it breaks down around the fact that you can't duplicate the people. | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 8:26 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson | "The downvoters are not thinking hard enough." - Or they fail to see any kind of sense in this thinking in the first place. And even being not a downvoter I have a hard time coming up with a reasonable sense this whole question is fulfilling (even though I could maybe find some potential for an interesting question buried deep under a pile of hypothetical rubble). But well, doesn't make it off-topic, maybe just useless (or bad for at least 5 people). | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 6:18 | answer | added | Typewriter | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 5:09 | comment | added | Typewriter | The downvoters are not thinking hard enough. | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 2:08 | answer | added | S182 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 5, 2014 at 22:55 | answer | added | Johnny Bones | timeline score: 7 | |
| Oct 5, 2014 at 21:25 | comment | added | Typewriter | @NapoleonWilson it's not about economics of film and television, its about following the thought experiment - what WOULD it take to make this happen? The only constraint I've given is physics itself. Lets put a figure to that LARGE pile of money! | |
| Oct 5, 2014 at 21:19 | comment | added | Napoleon Wilson | @wbogacz It somehow indirectly answers it, because as you said, such a show would simply just exist for the sake of its own and lack any kind of financial revenue, it would just be an enterprise in burning a large (LARGE!) pile of money. This alone makes it physically impossible at this scale in a monetarily driven world. | |
| Oct 5, 2014 at 21:18 | comment | added | Typewriter | @wbogacz You're probably right, but the question is more about the production itself. How could the current process scale to fulfill these requirements? Coming from a behind-the-scenes background, I'm intrigued by the sheer enormity of what this endeavor would require - not the efficacy of the actual product. | |
| Oct 5, 2014 at 20:51 | comment | added | wbogacz | I'm adding this as a comment, because it doesn't even begin to answer: Aside from the producing, what about the WATCHING? People would be turned off if they had to miss entire chunks because work and other real life got in the way, precluding seeing large chunks every day. Also with 24/7/365 production and airplay - no repeats allowing catch up. The only ones left to this watching endeavor are the unemployed or radical social disconnects. Not a win. | |
| Oct 5, 2014 at 20:18 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 5, 2014 at 20:50 | |||||
| Oct 5, 2014 at 20:15 | history | asked | Typewriter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |