The race is open between the networks to make the next "Game of Thrones".

Monday's "Game of Thrones" final (local time) means that viewers will have their last taste of the blood and fight of Westerosi that has spilled over.

But in Hollywood, the battle is still going on. Even after House Lannister, Targaryen or Stark end up controlling the iron throne (or all in a fatal heap), premium TV channels will continue to make war, seeking a new show created to rule the world "Thrones".

Netflix, Apple, Amazon and Showtime have all worked hard to rebuild the scale, praise, relevance and, not to underestimate, the properties of the HBO smash attracting subscribers.

"There is an arms race for event television," said a seasoned television executive who has spent years on a high-end platform, using the term "expensive and heavy-site emission with great intrigues. "

"There could be several winners, or there might not be winners at all."

Netflix has "The Witcher", based on a supernatural-monster literary franchise; Showtime has "Halo", based on one of the most popular video game series of all time. Amazon is trying to bring viewers back to the county with "The Lord of the Rings"; Apple hopes to finally give life to the vast "Foundation" of Isaac Asimov. And HBO returns to the well by developing a prequel "Game of Thrones" with Naomi Watts.

The confusion does not occur simply because the end of "Thrones" will leave a large audience looking for their next epic (or, recently, a target for the social media scandal).

For networks, it's about taking advantage of a new set of rules. Swords-and-scepters was once a neglected subject – an adaptation of Tolkien to the movies every few years and, at best, a niche show on weekly television.

Yet, "Thrones" has visited the dragon who lays gold eggs – it has attracted an average of 18 million viewers per episode this season, more than 50% more than the last episode of "The Sopranos" . HBO Now, subscribers have grown 91% during the seventh season.

This success has changed the way leaders think, increasing acceptable risks and price tags for a new genre series. (Budgets for an episode of "Thrones" can now reach more than $ 10 million, many times more than the most prestigious series.) Their logic is that it's not just worth doing shows in categories like fantasy and science fiction – that's worth it to spend a lot for them too.

Given how much a hit can be elusive in the midst of the current television crowd, it means that many executives may soon take a bath.

Consumers? They could swim in the content of the event.

The battle is taking place

David Nevins looked a little nervous.

The executive of CBS and Showtime, longtime rival of the pay-TV channel on HBO, had just talked about the famous adaptation of his video game "Halo" to reporters at a Beverly Hills hotel. Last summer.

He did not give much details about the science fiction show, about an interstellar war between humans and the extraterrestrial supergroup The Covenant. But journalists knew the issues.

"Will this be your" Game of Thrones? "A reporter asked Nevins.

"It will be our" halo "," he says before making a distinction. "It's a different kind – futuristic and space science fiction, not fantasy."

Anyway, a few people in the room have bought it.

"Halo" is a spiritual heir apt for "Thrones". He has the power struggle, the show and the double crossing. Although drawn from a video game, it contains juicy central characters and dimension names "Thrones" (Master Chief John-117, The Arbiter).

But this also makes it a good candidate for failure – with a sprawling mythology through an original trilogy, a second trilogy, spin-offs, novels and graphic novels, the source material may turn out too difficult to handle for eight hourly episodes.

This is in part why the development of "Halo" has been going on for almost six years. Leading filmmakers such as District 9's Neill Blomkamp and Guillermo Del Toro each took a look and finally left. After having invited famous television writer Kyle Killen to play in the showrunner, the network hired last month a second showrunner, Steven Kane, of "The Last Ship" of TNT. But he is still looking for key players and a production start date.

Gary Levine, co-president of Showtime for the shows, talks about it with envy. He says the key is perhaps to find people not known for science fiction, as "Thrones" found his voice in a pair of creators not known for fantasy.

"Our hopes and dreams are that it will have a huge appeal for fans of" Halo "and also for drama fans," said Levine.

Psychohistory

This is the sign of this era of televised events, the trilogy "Foundation" which was once a film attempt now begins a new life as a television show – and on behalf of Apple, with motifs inspired by the dominance of HBO.

The sources have been tested in various forms as a film at Fox, Warner Bros. and Sony, the license having been passed on both sides as a dog-eared copy of "The Fountainhead" in a university dormitory.

It's easy to understand why: literary work is a classic, not just a gender exercise, but a deep contemplation of world power politics through a process called psychohistory. The empires rise and fall in "Foundation" so as to give Westeros an appearance of elections to the city council.

And yet, this same sprawling quality is why the show still has not found the airwaves. Apple could face a similar challenge to Showtime with its series of events: the problem of too much myth. Neither Apple nor Showtime could comment on their bets.

This is why, despite the go-ahead, the writers and a producer-financier, "Foundation" lacks distribution and start date. The show was hardly mentioned during the high-profile presentation of the service in March.

"There are many reasons why this type of programming has stayed mostly in the film," said one seasoned TV producer who has attempted to launch a number of major event programs. "Consumers have generally wanted to see that kind of thing in movie theaters, and creative elements can be difficult to integrate, even in a series of episodes."

Roll the dough

In a way, the fight to follow "Game of Thrones" is very similar to the game of thrones itself: you win or you die. There is no middle ground.

Spending as much for a series raises the bar in terms of profit and number of viewers, and broadcasts that do not reach it can fail negatively.

But these risks do not deter some players – and can even motivate them.

In 2017, Amazon paid $ 250 million US for the "Lord of The Rings" license. For a license. (Underlying material rights tend to be at most a few million.) Production costs, by some estimates, could bring the issue to $ 1 billion.

Amazon is preparing a sequel to the events of the early novels of "Lord of the Rings", hiring writers of "Star Trek" and targeting the series for 2021. (The general manager of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, owns the Washington Post.)

"We feel like Frodo, leaving the County, with great responsibility to our charge – it's the beginning of the adventure of a lifetime," Jennifer Salke, head of Amazon studio, hired in 2018.

Frodo's adventure also included captivity at the hands of a giant spider and a stalker who eventually bit the hobbit's ring finger. Observers also see a lot of risks for Amazon.

"It could be a huge failure in manufacturing, or it could be a cultural event the size of Game of Thrones," Nerdist wrote. And some in Hollywood have wondered if a $ 1 billion issue could be justified.

So why is Amazon doing "LOTR"? Because, say experts, the post-price "Thrones" is so important.

Netflix rides his horse

Ironically, it's Netflix, which usually spends for nothing, who bet on Amazon to get the "LOTR" license, which could end up with the most economical post-"Thrones" option.

Ted Sarandos, content manager at Netflix, explained the ambitions of the service to capture the dinklagian crowd.

The company, he said recently to Wall Street analysts, has "a new great original series that we are currently shooting in Hungary and called" The Witcher ".

"It is," he said, "a huge European intellectual property, a very popular game and book that we think will be a really fun global series. "(Netflix and Amazon would not comment on their broadcasts.)

Glory to world domination is rare for Netflix executives, who typically talk about events of interest to particular foreign markets. But one can understand why he did it: Inspired by the fantasy series of the Polish writer Andrzej Sapkowski on monster hunters with supernatural powers, "Witcher" has a unique "Thrones" pedigree. It is a literary work with a pulpy decor.

Most importantly, "Witcher" has something that almost every other show does not have: a release date. Netflix says that it will debut in the fall.

The marriage bleeds red

When developing Game of Thrones, HBO was skeptical – really skeptical. The original driver fell flat with the frames that they ordered much of the retouching.

The creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, now considered an infallible king king, were about to become a writing duo more than looking for a general assembly. The show almost did not show.

At that time, not many people expected it to be a mainstream movie, watched not only by Tolkien fans, but also by their grandparents.

This feat is difficult to reproduce – not only for obvious reasons, but also because the Hollywood system is designed to find its phenomenon elsewhere. The most original programs come, almost by definition, from the left field, developed without the weight of the hopes of the network or the expectations of the viewers.

"When you take a big franchise, it usually means a lot more cooks in the kitchen, and the pressure is so strong that everyone is afraid of taking risks," said a leader who oversaw several major projects and did not participate. to none of these projects. wave.

The preproduction of "Thrones" by HBO can attract a lot of curiosity.

But internally, the network has high hopes for another show. J. J. Abrams' "Demimonde" is centered on "the battle of the world against a monstrous and oppressive force", which also describes several political documentaries being filmed. Abrams has essentially contributed to the creation of the modern event television with "Lost", so that expectations are plausible.

Amazon may be about to experience a similar dynamic. Her game changer might not be a precedent of "LOTR" but "The Power", according to Naomi Alderman's book on a future in which women develop electrocuting power and use it to reverse a patriarchy.

"I do not know if it will be a big show, but I think what makes it special is that it's an amazing story, something new and provocative that can scare you and you Enchant, something that is based on a very good writing "Reed Morano, the award-winning director of an Emmy, who will lead the series, told The Post.

"And is not that what people are really looking for?"

Morano was rewarded by an Emmy for directing Hulu's "The Tale of the Maid", which could have come close to the slogan "Thrones" – a dark series that became popular (and won awards) thanks to her vision and to his comments. But while a third season is preparing with less heat, she also reminded how difficult it is to replicate the momentum of Hollywood.

HBO itself has suffered from the madness of running after its past successes. Completers, and they alone, will remember that HBO was looking for a rehearsal of David Milch after "Deadwood" with "John from Cincinnati".

"The next" Game of Thrones "will look nothing like" Game of Thrones, "said the executive who worked on event television projects, which makes all the quests for the find urgent and all the articles about them, including this one, ultimately superfluous.

Even if one of these shows succeeds, it does not mean a perpetual wealth. Despite all the spikes of "Thrones", HBO Now has seen the number of subscribers drop by 40% in the three months following the end of the season. Few are able to ascend the throne of iron. And hardly anyone can stay there.