In the UK the dexter season 6 blu ray came out close on 3 months before the next season starts in the US which backs up my point, guess this is not the only one either.
However you look at it waiting a year is totally unacceptable and is the exception rather then the norm. I cant recall another series where there is a gap of almost a year between the TV show and the blu ray release.
Even on the game of thrones forums people are moaning about it so its clearly not the norm.
It is the norm for HBO - and to echo your comment - HBO isn't really interested about the UK DVD market - not compared to it's domestic subscriber revenue.
As to it's acceptability. Tough. Don't buy it then. They are business and they can do what they like with their content.
It is the norm for HBO - and to echo your comment - HBO isn't really interested about the UK DVD market - not compared to it's domestic subscriber revenue.
As to it's acceptability. Tough. Don't buy it then. They are business and they can do what they like with their content.
You would think that it would make commercial sense to bring them out in time for Christmas. DVD/Bluray sales must make up a considerable percentage of their income. But as you said, they're a private company and they've no doubt got some clever people working these strategies out. No point throwing toys out of the pram over it.
I'm not sure why you are rolling your eyes. The previous poster made a point, effectively saying that piracy was normal for so many people that there was no point in Sky putting the show on VM so late. I made a counter-point. If we don't speak up, it will look like everyone is pirating. I'm glad Sky One are showing it. I want to encourage them to show more Sky Atlantic material.
You would think that it would make commercial sense to bring them out in time for Christmas. DVD/Bluray sales must make up a considerable percentage of their income. But as you said, they're a private company and they've no doubt got some clever people working these strategies out. No point throwing toys out of the pram over it.
I suspect fans of HBO shows will buy it whenever they put it out. You are likely right about them getting greater sales at xmas but they are a business so it must be assumed they did the maths and decided subscriber revenue outweighed it. It is owned by Time Warner after all, if they could squeeze more money out of it they would.
I know cable companies like comcast are always complaining about how much they have to pay for HBO, claiming that they essentially make nothing on customers subscribing - but so long as HBO has that image of exclusivity and quality it can name it's price.
I suspect fans of HBO shows will buy it whenever they put it out. You are likely right about them getting greater sales at xmas but they are a business so it must be assumed they did the maths and decided subscriber revenue outweighed it. It is owned by Time Warner after all, if they could squeeze more money out of it they would.
I know cable companies like comcast are always complaining about how much they have to pay for HBO, claiming that they essentially make nothing on customers subscribing - but so long as HBO has that image of exclusivity and quality it can name it's price.
Not only the above, but the release of the previous season's DVDs are used specifically to promote the new one just about to start. It's to remind viewers that the TV show they like to watch is just about to get going again.
I'm not sure why you are rolling your eyes. The previous poster made a point, effectively saying that piracy was normal for so many people that there was no point in Sky putting the show on VM so late. I made a counter-point. If we don't speak up, it will look like everyone is pirating. I'm glad Sky One are showing it. I want to encourage them to show more Sky Atlantic material.
This is a specialist forum. I suspect the number of people who actually download TV shows on a regular basic to be a very small percentage of overall viewers (albeit growing).
I think the eye rolling might be because your post about immorality sounded a bit like it came from a Sunday Sermon.
It's all very well that GOT is airing on Sky One, but it still means nothing for terrestrial viewers. Considering the BBC were the original producers of the show, and their close links with HBO, I'm really surprised it isn't getting repeat viewings on BBC Two.
There's a lot of potential new fans who cannot commit to buying the DVDs for a tv show they've never seen, and not everyone has digital.
Considering the BBC were the original producers of the show.
Well, that's totally wrong. The BBC was never involved in Game Of Thrones in any way. When HBO announced the project was in development there was speculation BBC would be involved, with George R.R. Martin even saying it would be an HBO/BBC co-production if the show went forward, but the BBC never did get involved. I don't know if that was HBO's choice, or the BBC's.
There's a lot of potential new fans who cannot commit to buying the DVDs for a tv show they've never seen, and not everyone has digital.
Game of Thrones is also slightly different, because of course not everyone has digital but lots of people have read the books and will now read them because they are always in the bestsellers lists and then buy the boxset.
And the first week the GOT box set went on sale it broke the HBO record for selling the most copies in 7 days.
I'm not sure why you are rolling your eyes. The previous poster made a point, effectively saying that piracy was normal for so many people that there was no point in Sky putting the show on VM so late. I made a counter-point. If we don't speak up, it will look like everyone is pirating. I'm glad Sky One are showing it. I want to encourage them to show more Sky Atlantic material.
You know, I may not agree with your viewpoint, but I'll damn well defend your right to hold that view
I do think it was a bit silly (and immature) to put the eye-rolling smiley up.
Game of Thrones is also slightly different, because of course not everyone has digital but lots of people have read the books and will now read them because they are always in the bestsellers lists and then buy the boxset.
And the first week the GOT box set went on sale it broke the HBO record for selling the most copies in 7 days.
Hence why I cant understand them delaying releasing S2 blu ray/DVD for almost a year. They must know people are desperate to gets their hands on this.
I hope when it finally comes out they have some darn good extras on it, considering how long they have had to develop the boxset.
My only complaint with the TV series is I wish it had stayed more true to the books, especially S2. I understand its not easy but feel they did change a lot. I also fo the life of me dont understand why character names were changed. On all accounts it was to stop people getting confused but IMO the people watching this show are more then capable of getting to know a few names and not getting confused.
Well, that's totally wrong. The BBC was never involved in Game Of Thrones in any way. When HBO announced the project was in development there was speculation BBC would be involved, with George R.R. Martin even saying it would be an HBO/BBC co-production if the show went forward, but the BBC never did get involved. I don't know if that was HBO's choice, or the BBC's.
Also I suspect Sky now have a better relationship with HBO since they gave them a big bag of cash for all their rights. Damn site easier for then not to have to sell each show individually.
It took a few moments for me to adjust, but then I loved it and didn't want it to end, even after only the first episode. I have read all the books, so knew what was going on and could recognise people.
My only real criticism so far is that it's a shame they cut Danny's wedding night short. In the book it is a lot less rapey. It showed him as being tender and considerate when she needed it most.
Brangdon I agree totally about the wedding night, in the books he is this huge scary man and then is so lovely to her, her feelings start to change about him almost instantly don't they?
It is still pretty rapey both ways, especially since she is meant to be younger in the book (13?).
Yes She is supposed to be 13 in the book, Danny. However they have different standards to those we have today. 13 is old enough to be wedded and bedded in Westeros. They had to make many of the characters older (Danny, John, Robb, etc) t conform with our standards.
It is still pretty rapey both ways, especially since she is meant to be younger in the book (13?).
In the book she is shown to ultimately consent, and it seems to me that if she had refused, that Drogo might in fact have held back, so it did have meaning.
As for her age, well, I'm not sure what our policy here is on spoilers. Is there anyone here both seeing it for the first time without having read the books?
I think we have to grant her full agency and responsibility for her decisions, otherwise it diminishes what turns out to be a major character. She has wisdom and an adult outlook even from the start. Later we see her making life and death choices for a great many people. She's not a child. She knows her own mind. Her embracing Drogo is arguably the start of her seizing her destiny.
At the risk of stating the obvious, her situation is similar to Sana's. Sansa was betrothed to the King's son Joffrey much as Daenerys was betrothed to Drogo. Both for political purposes. Neither had much choice about it. Both bred and raised knowing what their role would be. Both young; even in the TV show, we're told Sansa hasn't had her first period yet. I hadn't noticed these parallels in the book, but the juxtaposition in the show draws them out.
Well, that's totally wrong. The BBC was never involved in Game Of Thrones in any way. When HBO announced the project was in development there was speculation BBC would be involved, with George R.R. Martin even saying it would be an HBO/BBC co-production if the show went forward, but the BBC never did get involved. I don't know if that was HBO's choice, or the BBC's.
Excuse me, but I was not "totally wrong", thank you. Back in 2008 HBO and the BBC made an agreement to finance the show together, as a follow-up to the success of Rome.
George RR Martin publically welcomed the involvement of the BBC at the time, and HBO/BBC began pre-production work, settling on Northern Ireland to shoot it. Once it became clear that the budget exceeded the BBC's original estimate, they backed out.
Excuse me, but I was not "totally wrong", thank you. Back in 2008 HBO and the BBC made an agreement to finance the show together, as a follow-up to the success of Rome.
George RR Martin publically welcomed the involvement of the BBC at the time, and HBO/BBC began pre-production work, settling on Northern Ireland to shoot it. Once it became clear that the budget exceeded the BBC's original estimate, they backed out.
"Pre-production work" is the relevant point -- and you just said it yourself. What I object is the phrase you used. To be an "original producer" you have to have been involved when "production" was first taking place. The BBC got out before that.
damn it i missed the first episode on sky 1. are they definitely showing the whole first series or is it just taster episodes like they did with boardwalk empire?
damn it i missed the first episode on sky 1. are they definitely showing the whole first series or is it just taster episodes like they did with boardwalk empire?
looks like the whole thing, they are certainly showing the first 4 eps in order, my listings run out after that.
Comments
It is the norm for HBO - and to echo your comment - HBO isn't really interested about the UK DVD market - not compared to it's domestic subscriber revenue.
As to it's acceptability. Tough. Don't buy it then. They are business and they can do what they like with their content.
You would think that it would make commercial sense to bring them out in time for Christmas. DVD/Bluray sales must make up a considerable percentage of their income. But as you said, they're a private company and they've no doubt got some clever people working these strategies out. No point throwing toys out of the pram over it.
I suspect fans of HBO shows will buy it whenever they put it out. You are likely right about them getting greater sales at xmas but they are a business so it must be assumed they did the maths and decided subscriber revenue outweighed it. It is owned by Time Warner after all, if they could squeeze more money out of it they would.
I know cable companies like comcast are always complaining about how much they have to pay for HBO, claiming that they essentially make nothing on customers subscribing - but so long as HBO has that image of exclusivity and quality it can name it's price.
Not only the above, but the release of the previous season's DVDs are used specifically to promote the new one just about to start. It's to remind viewers that the TV show they like to watch is just about to get going again.
This is a specialist forum. I suspect the number of people who actually download TV shows on a regular basic to be a very small percentage of overall viewers (albeit growing).
I think the eye rolling might be because your post about immorality sounded a bit like it came from a Sunday Sermon.
There's a lot of potential new fans who cannot commit to buying the DVDs for a tv show they've never seen, and not everyone has digital.
Well, that's totally wrong. The BBC was never involved in Game Of Thrones in any way. When HBO announced the project was in development there was speculation BBC would be involved, with George R.R. Martin even saying it would be an HBO/BBC co-production if the show went forward, but the BBC never did get involved. I don't know if that was HBO's choice, or the BBC's.
Game of Thrones is also slightly different, because of course not everyone has digital but lots of people have read the books and will now read them because they are always in the bestsellers lists and then buy the boxset.
And the first week the GOT box set went on sale it broke the HBO record for selling the most copies in 7 days.
You know, I may not agree with your viewpoint, but I'll damn well defend your right to hold that view
I do think it was a bit silly (and immature) to put the eye-rolling smiley up.
Hence why I cant understand them delaying releasing S2 blu ray/DVD for almost a year. They must know people are desperate to gets their hands on this.
I hope when it finally comes out they have some darn good extras on it, considering how long they have had to develop the boxset.
My only complaint with the TV series is I wish it had stayed more true to the books, especially S2. I understand its not easy but feel they did change a lot. I also fo the life of me dont understand why character names were changed. On all accounts it was to stop people getting confused but IMO the people watching this show are more then capable of getting to know a few names and not getting confused.
Also I suspect Sky now have a better relationship with HBO since they gave them a big bag of cash for all their rights. Damn site easier for then not to have to sell each show individually.
It took a few moments for me to adjust, but then I loved it and didn't want it to end, even after only the first episode. I have read all the books, so knew what was going on and could recognise people.
My only real criticism so far is that it's a shame they cut Danny's wedding night short. In the book it is a lot less rapey. It showed him as being tender and considerate when she needed it most.
Yes She is supposed to be 13 in the book, Danny. However they have different standards to those we have today. 13 is old enough to be wedded and bedded in Westeros. They had to make many of the characters older (Danny, John, Robb, etc) t conform with our standards.
As for her age, well, I'm not sure what our policy here is on spoilers. Is there anyone here both seeing it for the first time without having read the books?
Excuse me, but I was not "totally wrong", thank you. Back in 2008 HBO and the BBC made an agreement to finance the show together, as a follow-up to the success of Rome.
George RR Martin publically welcomed the involvement of the BBC at the time, and HBO/BBC began pre-production work, settling on Northern Ireland to shoot it. Once it became clear that the budget exceeded the BBC's original estimate, they backed out.
"Pre-production work" is the relevant point -- and you just said it yourself. What I object is the phrase you used. To be an "original producer" you have to have been involved when "production" was first taking place. The BBC got out before that.
looks like the whole thing, they are certainly showing the first 4 eps in order, my listings run out after that.
So have Sky One stopped showing altogether?
Will be really pissed off if they stop showing it.