Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

You are skipping over everything and picking out snippets to reply to, and arguing in bad faith.

I am not. Calling something bad faith just because you can't come up with a counter is silly. If technical standards exist then there can be bad art. It is that simple and it can not exist otherwise. If art is always subjective then there is no technical prowess. One artist is always as skilled as the next. One musician is always as skilled as the next. In order for their to be differences there must be something objective to measure by.

- - - Updated - - -

You're conflating technical prowess with the ability to produce art. Technical prowess is simple one way to produce art

So I am not conflating it if it means what I say. Lmao.

[jackofwind]

I am not. Calling something bad faith just because you can't come up with a counter is silly. If technical standards exist then there can be bad art. It is that simple and it can not exist otherwise. If art is always subjective then there is no technical prowess. One artist is always as skilled as the next. One musician is always as skilled as the next. In order for their to be differences there must be something objective to measure by.

- - - Updated - - -



So I am not conflating it if it means what I say. Lmao.

Artists may possess different levels of technical prowess, but that doesn't mean they cannot produce equally valid pieces of art. I have explicitly said that there are artists with varying levels of technical ability, but they all produce valid pieces of art.

There are a thousand examples of artists who lack superb technical prowess, lack training, don't fit into neatly organized boxes with nice little definition labels on them, yet they produce valid art that has gone on to be looked at in wonder by millions of people.

Technical standards measure technical ability, no different than any other profession. They do not measure artistry, and therefore they do not measure art itself. Art can only be measured subjectively on a personal level by individuals, because the inherent nature of art revolves around emotion. Art is not an arithmetic problem, it is a feeling.

[rhorle]

Artists may possess different levels of technical prowess, but that doesn't mean they cannot produce equally valid pieces of art.

So there is an objective standard to judge art by. As that is what allows one to know the technical prowess. You can't have it both ways. Pick one. Art can be objective or art is always subjective. Technical ability is measuring your ability to do something. Technical ability for art is your ability to produce art to a set of standards. Technical ability for cooking is the ability to produce recipes to a certain standard. You know what I've said is right and keep beating around the bush by finding different ways to say I'm right without actually agreeing to it.

Do some people have natural talent that doesn't require formal training? Certainly. That still doesn't change that objective standards exist. What you keep calling technical prowess.

[Triceron]

You are skipping over everything and picking out snippets to reply to, and arguing in bad faith.

I mean, it's probably best to just not engage with him because he's intentionally bad faith for the sake of arguing. Just saying.

[jackofwind]

So there is an objective standard to judge art by. As that is what allows one to know the technical prowess. You can't have it both ways. Pick one. Art can be objective or art is always subjective. Technical ability is measuring your ability to do something. Technical ability for art is your ability to produce art to a set of standards. Technical ability for cooking is the ability to produce recipes to a certain standard. You know what I've said is right and keep beating around the bush by finding different ways to say I'm right without actually agreeing to it.

Do some people have natural talent that doesn't require formal training? Certainly. That still doesn't change that objective standards exist. What you keep calling technical prowess.

No, there is not. There are measures (standards) to judge technical prowess, but technical prowess is not the only thing that can produce art. Don't tell me that I think or know that anything you've said is right, because all you're trying to do is put art and artists inside little labelled boxes and art doesn't give a shit about that.

I openly and joyfully disagree with your small-minded opinion of art being able to be deemed "good" or "bad" based on technical skills.

I'm also not interested in continuing what is literally a centuries-old debate anymore, so I'm going to go enjoy some art instead.

[Biomega]

That doesn’t mean it’s a success yet.

The whole problem that's been circulating here for the last couple pages is that "success" means many different things to many different people. There isn't just one "success" - there's many ways to assess it, in many contexts, and using many metrics.

The point @Fencers and others were raising was that there are certain industry standards by which RoP can absolutely be considered a "success" - but what's important to keep in mind is that this holds true only under the given metric, and in that given context. It does NOT mean that because it's a success in terms of industry-standard engagement metrics, it is ALSO a success with critics, say. Or with entrenched franchise fans. And so on. It also doesn't mean it's NOT that - there isn't any such easy or direct correlation. It's always context-specific.

So when someone on here says "RoP is a failure" (or whichever variation thereof) that can mean any number of things; to counter it with "but it's considered a success by Amazon!" is all well and good, but doesn't really bridge the gap either if there's a different context involved. And chances are people who just haphazardly throw out "RoP is a failure" are not referring to the industry-standard engagement metrics. WHAT they're referring to, exactly, is at best unclear. Personal impression is most likely; critical success may be suspected; pop-culture meme-ability, perhaps, who knows.

It seems fairly clear that the critics didn't like the show enough to shower it in rewards. In fact there's hardly even a nomination to be found, let alone a win. Does that mean it's a commercial failure for Amazon? Not really. Critical and financial success are only loosely correlated. There's plenty of highly profitable projects that are critically a joke (hi there, Fast & Furious). And, similarly, there's plenty of critical successes that completely fail financially (see e.g. this year's To Leslie with its less-than-meager $27,322 box office take despite great reviews, a 97% RT score, and an Oscar nomination).

You just can't go from one to the other willy-nilly and expect "success" to mean the same thing. That's not how it works. We shortcut our language by implying context; you can't just take context out of it.

[Triceron]

My quibble with the “industry standard” is ignoring context. If you argue that RoP is a success because its ratings are higher than random cooking race show #9, that’s disingenuous. Expectations for this series should have been very high based on the factors above, so success should be relative to expectations. You can’t ignore those factors in assessing whether it was a success.

To be fair, success is such a subjective topic that really it goes both ways.

Is RoP a success? In certain ways, yes, it was successful. In others, no it wasn't. Overall, there's no real hard standard that defines whether or not it would be. We're just talking about difference in opinions here really.

[rhorle]

No, there is not. There are measures (standards) to judge technical prowess

This is a contradiction. If there are no objective standards to judge art by then there is nothing to judge technical prowess. To judge technical ability requires an objective way to measure that ability. If art is only subjective then there is no way to measure ability to create art. You keep saying the same thing I am while saying I am wrong. lol.

- - - Updated - - -

1. Pay huge money for a property with a lot of pent up demand after a 20 year drought.

There hasn't been a 20 year drought. Lord of the Rings has had actively development with video games since the release of the Jackson movies. Netflix has more subscribers that pay and don't watch all of the shows. Why would Amazon be judged any different? All you are doing is focusing on the latest made up thing to hate on the show. Every time one of the ways is debunked you, and others, move the goal posts to something else.

If what you expect to happen happens then it is just an expected success. Lmao.

- - - Updated - - -

The point Fencers and others were raising was that there are certain industry standards by which RoP can absolutely be considered a "success" - but what's important to keep in mind is that this holds true only under the given metric, and in that given context.

No other context matters. Why would it? Success is determined by those who control and produce the content. They are the keepers. What some random person on the internet think isn't relevant to anything but their own opinion.

[Syegfryed]

There are many musicians who don't consider themselves to be artists because, while they possess superb technical skills, they do not feel they have artistry. Likewise there are many musicians who have next to no technical skills whatsoever but are esteemed as artists.

You're trying to talk about skills and abilities as if they are what makes art good or bad. They aren't.

They indeed do, again, someone with skills and abilities will do a good music/song, therefore a good art

someone who don't have it, will do a bad art.

Again, you are confusing taste with quality, people can like or dislike good/bad shit, isn't a matter if the quality of said product is good or bad

- - - Updated - - -

My quibble with the “industry standard” is ignoring context. If you argue that RoP is a success because its ratings are higher than random cooking race show #9, that’s disingenuous. Expectations for this series should have been very high based on the factors above, so success should be relative to expectations. You can’t ignore those factors in assessing whether it was a success.

ITs even more baffling again, when you had 9.4 millions minutes watched, and 8m is from episode one and two alone, meaning 1.4 from the rest of the season, this is a massive drop, that only screams failure, regardless if they made t to an arbitrary chart because people had expectation and were fooled by amazon.

[Dhrizzle]

ITs even more baffling again, when you had 9.4 millions minutes watched, and 8m is from episode one and two alone, meaning 1.4 from the rest of the season, this is a massive drop, that only screams failure, regardless if they made t to an arbitrary chart because people had expectation and were fooled by amazon.

First up it's billions with a "b", and secondly where are you getting your per-episode breakdown of viewing figures?

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair, success is such a subjective topic that really it goes both ways.

Is RoP a success? In certain ways, yes, it was successful. In others, no it wasn't. Overall, there's no real hard standard that defines whether or not it would be. We're just talking about difference in opinions here really.

The fact it made it onto the top 15 which is usually dominated by Netflix means it can definitely be considered a success in terms of being a streamed show and Amazon seem happy with their metric of it bringing people to their shop.

[Triceron]

The fact it made it onto the top 15 which is usually dominated by Netflix means it can definitely be considered a success in terms of being a streamed show and Amazon seem happy with their metric of it bringing people to their shop.

That's the thing though. Are we talking about it being successful because it hit the top 15? What if it didn't, would we be still talking about it being successful the same way?

Because as I said, the list itself is quite dubious considering the omission of House of the Dragons, which wasn't being counted there for some unknown factors. Either it wasn't being counted because it wasn't original (prequel to GoT?) or because they weren't counting the Cable viewership that was splitting their viewership totals. We know that HoD had numbers being reported higher than RoP by the end of both runs, and yet it's not on the list despite being a 'new original series'.

https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/nie...le-1235435945/

Nielsen Streaming Top 10: ‘House of the Dragon’ Crosses 1 Billion Minutes Viewed in Finale Week

If HoD were being counted, Rings of Power might not be on the list. This is something that has been hotly debated online when this list first came out, so I want to be clear my argument is directly contextual to this particular example. I want to be clear that I'm not arguing against RoP doing well on its own, I'm only making a point that the Nielsen ratings are skewed, and ultimately have little to do with measuring 'success'. IMO RoP is on that list only on a technicality, and it's not like Amazon themselves regard Nielsen ratings as a measurement of success on their own. We really have little reason to regard Nielsen ratings at all; I think it's arbitrary.

The entire metric of 'Original' is questionable at best. The deeper I'm reading into this, there's speculation that anything on HBO might have been counted out for being on cable and not exclusively streaming, which possibly explains the Netflix skew as well.

[Syegfryed]

First up it's billions with a "b", and secondly where are you getting your per-episode breakdown of viewing figures?

Well, it is amazon himself that brags their premiere was 8 millions, and only talk about this and only bring this all the time, if they are not talking about the rest is clearly they had a huge drop off from episod 1-2.

They even said people came to watch the "final battle" but most didn't came back after it

The fact it made it onto the top 15 which is usually dominated by Netflix means it can definitely be considered a success in terms of being a streamed show and Amazon seem happy with their metric of it bringing people to their shop.

But like people mention, its only 15th in the top 15th if you count only originals, and unlike netflix, like people mentioned, people had subscriptions for free if they paid another service.

You could say it since it enter that chart, it was a corporative success i guess, but a failure in everything else.

[Dhrizzle]

That's the thing though. Are we talking about it being successful because it hit the top 15? What if it didn't, would we be still talking about it being successful the same way?

No, we wouldn't be talking about it being successful for cracking the top 15 streamed shows and taking a spot from Netflix if it had not done that thing.

Because as I said, the list itself is quite dubious considering the omission of House of the Dragons, which wasn't being counted there for some unknown factors. Either it wasn't being counted because it wasn't original (prequel to GoT?) or because they weren't counting the Cable viewership that was splitting their viewership totals. We know that GoT had numbers being reported higher than LOTR by the end of both runs, and yet it's not on the list despite being a 'new original series'.

If HoD were being counted, Rings of Power would not be on the list.

How many minutes of streaming did House of the Dragon get? I've only scanned through Nielsen pages and didn't see its annual results anywhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, it is amazon himself that brags their premiere was 8 millions, and only talk about this and only bring this all the time, if they are not talking about the rest is clearly they had a huge drop off from episod 1-2.

They even said people came to watch the "final battle" but most didn't came back after it

Where is it said though? You seem to be getting confused between millions and billions so I suspect you're looking at their one-week figures for those episodes or something. The ratings were discussing are for the whole series over the course of the year.

But like people mention, its only 15th in the top 15th if you count only originals, and unlike netflix, like people mentioned, people had subscriptions for free if they paid another service.

You could say it since it enter that chart, it was a corporative success i guess, but a failure in everything else.

It's a success as a streaming-only piece of original content, which is what it is. Do you class most series as failures because they're not as popular as Cocomelon which absolutely annihilated most original content?

[Triceron]

How many minutes of streaming did House of the Dragon get? I've only scanned through Nielsen pages and didn't see its annual results anywhere.?

https://www.thedigitalfix.com/the-lo...on-for-viewers

This was the closest I could find.

If we are accounting for streaming only, then Rings of Power came out ahead. 1.1 Billion for RoP, slightly under a Billion for HoD. Many sources I've seen on the subject makes sure to note the caveat that HBO has an estimated 1/3rd of its audience watching it live on TV which aren't being accounted for in the Nielsen ratings. So it's a messy, complicated answer to a Top 15 list that is very specific to 'Original shows, Streaming only, in the US'.

[rhorle]

ITs even more baffling again, when you had 9.4 millions minutes watched, and 8m is from episode one and two alone, meaning 1.4 from the rest of the season, this is a massive drop, that only screams failure, regardless if they made t to an arbitrary chart because people had expectation and were fooled by amazon.

It isn't baffling if you don't lie. Episode 1 and 2 did not have 8 billion minutes watched. Episodes 1 and 2 were 1,235m minutes. Episode 8 was 1,137m minutes. The low point for the show was episode 6 at 966m minutes. The only thing that screams failure here is those who are lying just because they can't handle the show having success.

[Syegfryed]

Where is it said though? You seem to be getting confused between millions and billions so I suspect you're looking at their one-week figures for those episodes or something. The ratings were discussing are for the whole series over the course of the year.

I did confuse billions with millions before, but the point still stand, Amazon themselves talk about the premiere being 8millions, and they don't talk shit about anything else.

They also said how they had a spike for the final battle, but that didn't hold until the final epi

It's a success as a streaming-only piece of original content, which is what it is. Do you class most series as failures because they're not as popular as Cocomelon which absolutely annihilated most original content?

And the thing is, they onyl got that far because the service was almost for free, obviously you get more people to watch something if they are not extra charged, little competition that had a strong IP behind, and they still manage to only get a 15th place. Plus, some shows were not considered because apparently HBO shows don't count for niseln

Now, imagine House of the dragon did count(both streaming and tv, cause its minutes watched), they would be in this chart, in a higher position, and rings of power would drop to 16th place, would they still be considered a success if the info is not "manipulated" in some way and they didn't made to the top 15th?

[rhorle]

First up it's billions with a "b", and secondly where are you getting your per-episode breakdown of viewing figures?

Their own mind. They are making up those figures. The show did get around 9 billion minutes viewed but over 7 weeks. It had a low point of 966 million on episode 6. Episodes 4 and 5 declined by about 10m minutes. Episodes 7 and 8 saw an increase. I didn't have information saved for episode 3 (week 2) and didn't feel like going beyond an older post to look it up. I think the wayback machine didn't capture week 2 info which is why I left originally left it out.

[Dhrizzle]

https://www.thedigitalfix.com/the-lo...on-for-viewers

This was the closest I could find.

If we are accounting for streaming only, then Rings of Power came out ahead. 1.1 Billion for RoP, slightly under a Billion for HoD. Many sources I've seen on the subject makes sure to note the caveat that HBO has an estimated 1/3rd of its audience watching it live on TV which aren't being accounted for in the Nielsen ratings. So it's a messy, complicated answer to a Top 15 list that is very specific to 'Original shows, Streaming only, in the US'.

I meant for the full year, the top 15 shows RoP at 9 billion so it must be different data to what you're quoting.

[Triceron]

I meant for the full year, the top 15 shows RoP at 9 billion so it must be different data to what you're quoting.

Like I said, this was the closest thing I could find.

There is no direct data for HoD that lines up to the top 15 totals, since it isn't actually present in that lineup. And even then, it would only be accounting for total streaming, which cuts out a sizeable chunk of its total viewership.

[Dhrizzle]

I did confuse billions with millions before, but the point still stand, Amazon themselves talk about the premiere being 8millions, and they don't talk shit about anything else.

Right so whatever the 8 million figure is you're talking about, it can't be subtracted from the 9 billion minutes of views RoP received for the whole series over the course of the year so your actual point that ~90% of that figure comes from the first two episodes doesn't work.

And the thing is, they onyl got that far because the service was almost for free, obviously you get more people to watch something if they are not extra charged, little competition that had a strong IP behind, and they still manage to only get a 15th place. Plus, some shows were not considered because apparently HBO shows don't count for niseln

Now, imagine House of the dragon did count(both streaming and tv, cause its minutes watched), they would be in this chart, in a higher position, and rings of power would drop to 16th place, would they still be considered a success if the info is not "manipulated" in some way and they didn't made to the top 15th?

So if you add together live viewers and streamed viewers then HBO would beat Amazon's streamed viewers only, okay, but that would miss the point of the chart which is measuring how successful a property is for a streaming service. In those terms RoP was very successful and they have every right to be pleased.

Also if that was the case all of these shows would probably be knocked off the charts by reality shows and sports.