Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

Do you know how growth is actually calculated? I'll give you a hint, it's not by Jeff Bezos deciding the growth rate to be 70% and having his people set it at that, lol.

Year over year growth for the period ending Q1 2021 can not continue to grow. It is based on a set period of time that will not see new data for that period. So yes I know how it is calculated and clearly you do not. Lmao.

[Triceron]

Year over year growth for the period ending Q1 2021 can not continue to grow. It is based on a set period of time that will not see new data for that period. So yes I know how it is calculated and clearly you do not. Lmao.

You understand that the a Growth rate that has not changed is not the same as a set value, right?

So amazon stating growth for the year has been 70% means that isn't a set value?

No, not it is not a set value. It is a rate.

The whole reason why it's called a set value is because you can set it.

[rhorle]

You understand that the a Growth rate that has not changed does not make it a set value, right?

So it will never change from that value but it is not set? Values for set periods of time no longer change once the upper boundary of that time period passes. If you are measuring the number of times it rains in a year then come October 1st the number of times it rained in September will no longer increase. The same is true for the year over year growth rate for Q1 2021.

It is a set value for that period but will change for the next period. So the 70% growth for Prime Video year over year Q1 2021 is a fixed value. No amount of analyzing the data will change that value unless a mistake in calculation occurred. That value will change for a different measurement of growth because it is including different data.

[Triceron]

So it will never change from that value but it is not set? Values for set periods of time

You understand these are different terms that you're conflating as believing to be the same thing, when they are not, right?

A growth rate for a set period is not a set value. That is why your price analogy doesn't work. Your shop sale didn't reach that 80% discount by evaluating a price decrease rate over a set period. It is determined by someone setting it to be an 80% discount.

The entire context of statistics is about determining rates and variables, values that are not predetermined. When you use an analogy involving predetermined values, you undermine the very thing you're trying to talk about.

You see? I can't fix your stupidity. I'll still try anyways, because I have faith in you.

[rhorle]

A growth rate for a set period is not a set value.

If it can be used to describe a fixed period then it can be used to describe a fixed value in that period. The Growth rate for year over year 2021 will not change for that period.

[Triceron]

If it can be used to describe a fixed period then it can be used to describe a fixed value in that period. The Growth rate for year over year 2021 will not change for that period.

Yes, because you're actually talking about that growth rate as a static value. And yes, static values are fixed.

That's not the same thing as a set value, while you are saying they are the same and laughing while doing so.

As I said, a set value is predetermined, akin to your Price drop analogy. Growth rates are dynamic, and the fact you kept saying they can become set values means you didn't actually know what the fuck you're talking about.

Set values aren't statistics. Your analogy had nothing to do with statistics. That's why I asked you if you really believed Jeff Bezos chose to set the growth values at 70% and his people just did it, because that's what you mean if you say the growth is a set value. Understand how stupid that sounds?

And now, let's take a quick look at your previous statements for the fucking lols!

Growth is a set value then. Engagement numbers is a set value then.

So amazon stating growth for the year has been 70% means that isn't a set value? That growth for the past year is constantly changing? Lmao.

So yes I know how it is calculated and clearly you do not. Lmao.


I mean, look at the balls on this motherfucker! LOL!

[rhorle]

Yes, because you're actually talking about that growth rate as a static value. And yes, static values are fixed.!

The growth rate is predetermined by the data for that period. It can never change between calculations unless a mistake is made. So it is a set value for that period. Fixed, Set, Static are all being used here to describe the same concept.

[Xath]

Most of the noise comes from YouTube drama fans who think "treated like shit" is an accurate way of describing an adaptation, probably not that many actual Tolkien fans.

Weird how the most ardent defender of the show has admitted they haven't even finished reading lotr let alone even tried reading Sil on Unfinished. Ignoring canon to "modernize" a show is treating it like shit.

[Triceron]

The growth rate is predetermined by the data for that period. It can never change between calculations unless a mistake is made. So it is a set value for that period. Fixed, Set, Static are all being used here to describe the same concept.

But a shop can change the 80% discount any time they want, because they literally set that price. It's not a fixed or static value just because you happened to use it in your analogy. They can adjust or revoke the discount completely.

[rhorle]

An 80% discount being set is not the same concept as a fixed or static rate for a set period no matter how you try to cut it. Repeating the same shit isn't somehow going to make it the same thing.

I haven't said anything about my shop sale example since I made it. The shop example wasn't about dynamic vs fixed anyways. It was about making a judgement on something being good or bad without data about that product. A 50% discount on patio furniture is a good deal even if the store markup is 300% and they are still making money on that sale. The consumer doesn't need to know margins, markup, etc to know that they deal is good or bad.

[Triceron]

I haven't said anything about my shop sale example since I made it. The shop example wasn't about dynamic vs fixed anyways. It was about making a judgement on something being good or bad without data about that product. A 50% discount on patio furniture is a good deal even if the store markup is 300% and they are still making money on that sale. The consumer doesn't need to know margins, markup, etc to know that they deal is good or bad.

But you can't compare that to a statistic in a conversation about statistics. Again, you're taking certain things at face value just because you happen to consider them to be fixed or static, when your analogy doesn't really apply because it is neither a statistic, nor is it necessarily static.

Calculating rates involves many different variables If calcuated through a set period of time, a 30% price drop calcualated through a set period may have been gotten from the product being 100% priced for 30 days of the 31 day month, then making a bunch of its sales during Black Friday where they discounted it by 80%. That rate for that period may have been fixed, but would have fluxuated in values between 100% and 20%, so 'it is good value' is relative to when you actually purchased it during the period. It's not equivalent of a set 30% price drop, understand?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Just wanted to point out how you had no reason to judge anything, and how you were willingly ignorant in having done so. I mean, it's not like I did anything to provoke you into jumping into this, when you never even bothered to regard the context of the conversation at all, am I right? Because if you did, you would see he was baiting a source in order to dismiss it. It was a thin attempt at fueling his already-bad-faith argument. It's obvious as fuck. He even did it after I said that's exactly what he would do if I did post a link. He tried to dismiss it, I pressed him on it, and he had to admit he was wrong.

I really don’t care about your hate boner for Rhrole, I was following the back and forth you made the claim multiple times while avoiding backing it up. If you think your past with Rhrole justifies you being dishonest That’s good for you but from an outside perspective you come off worse then him which was the whole reason I pointed out the irony.

From the sounds of it you did provide a source and he did as you said which makes him just as dishonest as you. I haven’t read that part of the thread yet as I’m just clearing the notifications of your whining about being called dishonest even though you admitted to it.

[rhorle]

But you can't compare that to a statistic in a conversation about statistics. Again, you're taking certain things at face value just because you happen to consider them to be fixed or static, when your analogy doesn't really apply because it is neither a statistic, nor is it necessarily static.

Fixed and static mean the same thing. The analogy isn't about fixed vs dynamic values as I've already stated. You don't need to know everything that went into year over year growth to know that 70% growth is good. Or that 85% of total subscribers engaging in a service majority of customers see no value in is good.

Or a person could consider those things are bad. Judgement of things, including statistics, are made all the time. Summary statements are used to represent big data sets all the time. Just like the statistics about Rings of Power viewership indicate good things despite not having a full break down of the show. We can judge it is popular from the summary statements.

[Triceron]

I really don’t care about your hate boner for Rhrole, I was following the back and forth you made the claim multiple times while avoiding backing it up. If you think your past with Rhrole justifies you being dishonest That’s good for you but from an outside perspective you come off worse then him which was the whole reason I pointed out the irony.

From the sounds of it you did provide a source and he did as you said which makes him just as dishonest as you. I haven’t read that part of the thread yet as I’m just clearing the notifications of your whining about being called dishonest even though you admitted to it.

And how exactly was I dishonest?

If you regarded the context of the conversation you would have seen that I told him he could look it up himself. The information was readily findable, and when I replied to you that I didn't want to look up 5+ tears of articles, he even corrected me that the Boys was released on 2019. Certainly doesn't sound like someone who couldn't find the information they were asking for to me, especially if they knew exactly where and when to look.

I mean this line of accusation seems to come from an outsider perspective of people with a certain bias. Would you have accused me of dishonesty had Rageonit not initiated it first? Would you be concerned enough to point it out?

The way I see it, either you got fleeced by his willing ignorance, and were too naive to see it. Or you jumped on the bandwagon and were bad faith because of some obvious bias when jumping into a conversation you clearly had no understanding the context of.

I mean if you're gonna call the kettle black, don't wave your biased flag so clearly next time. I'm not too fond of that kind of assholery

[MCMLXXXII]

Get a room you two. Or at least take it to PM's. You're both not going to change each other's thoughts and I think I'm not alone when opening up this thread just to scroll by it without reading it.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I mean this line of accusation seems to come from an outsider perspective of people with a certain bias. Would you have accused me of dishonesty had Rageonit not initiated it first? Would you be concerned enough to point it out?

The way I see it, either you got fleeced by his willing ignorance, and were too naive to see it. Or you jumped on the bandwagon and were bad faith because of some obvious bias when jumping into a conversation you clearly had no understanding the context of.

You are aware that I’m the one who called out your dishonesty first and then rageonit came in after me right?

Post 7966

Do you not think this is a bit ironic when you pointed to the boys releasing info multiple times but won’t respond to him asking for any sort of evidence multiple times?

7967

It's not worth my time to dig back 5+ years through articles for. And you haven't been arguing with Rhorle much, so I don't expect you to understand why providing sources for him is a waste of time.

7968

Then don't argue with him, because, if what you say is true, you make yourself look stupid.

Like really your whining about people being bias while you have already admitted you are more then willing to be dishonest if your bias against some one and now your making up a whole bandwagon scenario because you are once again bias.

The only real question Is rather this is you continuing to be dishonest or your blinded by your bias and doing it subconsciously.

[Triceron]

You are aware that I’m the one who called out your dishonesty first and then rageonit came in after me right?

Ah, my mistake then. I apologize for the bandwagoning remarks then, my bad

Like really your whining about people being bias while you have already admitted you are more then willing to be dishonest if your bias against some one and now your making up a whole bandwagon scenario because you are once again bias.

Do you not see that's exactly what you're doin too?

You came at this with an angle without considering both parties, only trying to out me for not providing a link to an answer that I already addressed.

You're calling me out for being dishonest because I didn't feed the troll. That is the context.

I can own up being dishonest, biased and a troll. When I want to be, of course.

What about you?

The only real question Is rather this is you continuing to be dishonest or your blinded by your bias and doing it subconsciously.

I'm biased against people who blanketly accuse me with a clear bias that willingly ignores the context of my conversation. I'm not fond of assholes like that, why would I be?

The fact you aren't addressing Rhorle and saying you considered the context of the conversation shows you are either biased or naive. Or both.

Do you not have any bias? Because I hardly think you understood the context of the conversation, considering I was actively part of it and you were not.

It's not like we ever saw eye to eye either, I wouldn't be surprised if you have a chip on your shoulder against me even being here.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Do you not see that's exactly what you're doin too?

I can own up being dishonest, biased and a troll.

What about you?

Nope, that all falls solely on you. Your the one who said you were Bias with your initial reply to me followed by you saying you were dishonest.

At this point your just trying to project your own negatives traits onto me because you got upset that I didn’t follow the thread for a day and reply to your post to some one else and the made up scenario you had wasn’t true.

[Triceron]

Nope, that all falls solely on you. Your the one who said you were Bias with your initial reply to me followed by you saying you were dishonest.

At this point your just trying to project your own negatives traits onto me because you got upset that I didn’t follow the thread for a day and reply to your post to some one else and the made up scenario you had wasn’t true.

Comon, you really think calling me out for being dishonest because I didn't feed the troll changes anything?

Since the subtext could get lost if you never argued with Rhorle before, I can only imagine you came at this believing the conversation was meant to be honest and civil. It couldn't get further from the truth, because neither of us had any intention of mutually understanding each other on this particular issue.

Rhorle addresses statements he doesn't find acceptable, and tries to prove those statements wrong. This includes initiating discussions with people with no intent on mutual understanding. He says he's here for good discussion, but a quick search into his post history will tell you otherwise. He's here to tell you why you're wrong.

It's like asking someone why they like something, then dismissing every reason they give when they explain it, as though it must be wrong. At some point you realize it doesn't matter what answers you give, the entire argument is in bad faith. Obliging requests for sources for those reasons doesn't change jack shit.

Nothing changes from feeding the troll. I do it, he does it, we have no intention of reaching mutual terms. His angle is trying to get the other side to admit how their opinion is wrong. I merely oblige with the same stubborn obstinance. I don't deny humoring a troll and being one myself.

That is the context of the conversation. All you did was determine that I was being dishonest for not feeding the troll what he wants. I completely understand that.

That being said, I don't think you understood his intentions. In my opinion, I think you have been ignoring Rhorle's reputation and presence here, though one I am not sure whether it is willing or not. I just find it interesting that you chose to single me out when you also say you understood the context of the conversation.

- - - Updated - - -

Get a room you two. Or at least take it to PM's. You're both not going to change each other's thoughts and I think I'm not alone when opening up this thread just to scroll by it without reading it.

You can just not open the thread at all? Like, I'm not sure how that is anyone's problem here. The show's over. People are still talking shit. If I'm not the one doing it it'd be other people. Not sure why you need to open the thread at all.

[DingDongKing]

That's me - I mean, I'm not sure it's unhealthy, but I'm obsessed with and furious at how terrible and cynical a production it is. Here's my backstory:

I read LOTR for the first time in middle school - it was my favorite book ever. My dad had a policy that he wouldn't let me reread books I had already read, and this was prior to the internet, so I got it from the library, read it, returned it, and that was it, except for two things -

1. I used to go to the library in high school during my study hall and read the copy they had there.
2. I got a gift certificate to buy a book, and my dad let me buy the Silmarillion because I hadn't read it yet. So I read that book obsessively for years, just open it up and read a section occasionally. I've probably read it 15 times.

As an adult I obviously bought the series, watched the Peter Jackson movies and loved them. I remember being mildly annoyed at the changes in The Two Towers, and I understand the Tolkien family's critique that they made some of the characters a bit too "heroic" compared to who they were in the books, but I generally loved the movies. I watched Return of the King at a midnight showing and went to work the next day totally exhausted.

From the first moments it was obvious that this was going to be bad - Amazon paid some influencers and called them "superfans" and had them do a review of the show, and it was fawning and sycophantic and also, painfully obvious that these people were not actually fans of Tolkien (one of them was later asked on her twitch stream what she thought of it and she said that she hadn't watched it yet because she was watching House of the Dragon). One of the other "Superfans" was a big Percy Jackson fan but his entire youtube channel didn't have a single mention of Tolkien, and his website where he reviewed fantasy books didn't mention it either. This was repeated worldwide, as there were complaints about the videos in other countries and languages.

Just think about that - Tolkien and Lord of the Rings, one of the most beloved series anywhere, and they couldn't even be bothered to find actual fans of the show to do the review!

This series comes out, and sure it looks nice, and it has a fairly generic fantasy plot, but from the first episode it's an absolute mockery of Tolkien's work. So yes, the actual fans are angry - a megabillionaire thought he could just write a big check to buy the big IP, then ignore that IP's fanbase completely in order write a 2022 fantasy plot (ELVES WILL TAKE OUR JOBS!!), and it would somehow still be successful. This is a fight against these kind of dumb manipulative things pulled by big corporations, where they are ruining something that is great.

And while we are the underdogs - Amazon gets a lot of lukewarm reviews from various reviewers, many of whom have some financial incentive to say that it's good (like The Ringer, which gives seemingly warm reviews just before Payne and McKay to show up as guests), and the show has an 85% positive ranking from critics - we are making progress. That 39% rotten rating on Rotten Tomatoes hasn't budged, thank god. They deleted a bunch of reviews from Amazon early on (including mine) to try to keep the score higher, but hopefully they know internally that their show sucks balls. Hopefully the next shoe to fall is the Emmys, where House of the Dragon cleans their clock.

At this point we have to win. We have to beat them, and make it clear that bullshit like this is not how you handle content that is beloved by fans.

Or just enjoy the books and dissociate yourself from the stuff you don’t like? There’s no ‘we have to win’. They don’t give a shit about you, the intellectual property is a commercial asset. Whining about it in an echo chamber is only adversely affecting you. I love the books too, but I’m losing sleep over any of this. Same for Star Wars or the next Indy film or the Dc/Marvel stuff. It’s all just commercial properties. Why let it hinder you.