Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[InfiniteCharger]

A 1/10 rating is dishonest, there is not much that deserves a 1/10 rating, its just salty fans of the book who wrongly feel they have somehow been wronged and way too many racists. Plus the story they are telling has not been told by tolkien it just uses some of what is already known about the universe.

The books are the only tolkien you will ever get, the movies are not tolkien and there is nothing really special about LOTR, it a decent story in a fantasy universe and the movies were pretty good.

You cannot say that because there are plenty of movies and shows on these sites with very low ratings from the general public and reviewers. What you are trying to say is that in this specific instance, the reason for the 1/10 review is because of a certain reason and you don't know that either. Again, like I said earlier, some people just will see this show as a desecration of Tolkien and honestly feel it is a 0 or 1 out of 10. The existence of a 1 out of 10 rating is no more or less realistic than any other review rating.

Not to mention almost every trailer for this show has been down voted since the first trailer was released. The way these kinds of systems are designed is to provide an aggregated feedback loop for companies to run their statistics on to come up with an average rating scheme to use for their own purposes. Nobody expects these things to be perfectly accurate, no more than those reviews you get when calling customer service on the phone or while accessing some services on the internet. It has never worked like that. Overall, the fact that this show has had such consistent negative feed back from the very beginning around the world tells you that people aren't liking what they are seeing. Not to mention all the comments on the youtube videos making fun of the story by making up memes about galadriel or other characters doing things from other movies. There is no way that anybody objectively can look at that and say anything other than a lot of people do not like what you are doing with something they like already. It is one thing for companies to deny this but for just random individuals to sit here and argue that this does not represent real authentic feelings from a large part of the audience is ridiculous and odd.


Overall, no matter how people claim otherwise, if something is good, it will get good ratings.
All the hand wringing and potential concerns before hand by so called "haters" don't change that.

The Books are supposed to be the only Tolkien and that is the whole reason people are rejecting this show in its disrespect of Tolkien.
So how is that not obvious to everyone involved at this point? Are we using this exercise as justification for wasting a billion dollars?
Arent there better things we as a society can be doing with a billion dollars, including whatever 'causes' these people claim to care about?
I don't see the point for the folks sitting here grandstanding about this particular show.

I would be equally upset if someone took Akira and changed it to NYC and a mostly white or 'diverse' cast.
This isn't just about Tolkien or European stories. And what is the point? There are plenty of all black movies being released every year. Are we supposed to be pretending that this is 1920 and black people cant make their own movies? Seriously? This is just the purest form of mindless nonsense coming from people that should know better (these producers and entertainers). There was recently a movie made by a black dude that had a largely black cast. So how is anyone claiming that somehow it is justified to throw away a billion dollars just to make a statement about 'diversity' in Tolkien? Especially when you got a major 80% black city in the USA that can't get clean drinking water right now in 2022. This is just absurd nonsensical grandstanding over fictional people and places that means absolutely nothing in real life outside of those getting a paycheck.

At the end of the day these things are going to be judged by final result that people actually see and not by the bloviating of these studios and their marketing statements. I have no sympathy for them.

[Specialka]

racist or maybe bigot. at the least: triggered by diversity

Triggered by "forced" diversity. Make some effort to understand what is being said here.

[BigToast]

Triggered by "forced" diversity. Make some effort to understand what is being said here.

Trust me, I understand.

[Specialka]

Trust me, I understand.

Seems to me you don't as per your response I quoted.

[Biomega]

like I said earlier, some people just will see this show as a desecration of Tolkien and honestly feel it is a 0 or 1 out of 10. The existence of a 1 out of 10 rating is no more or less realistic than any other review rating.

That right there is why these ratings are a terrible metric.

This is not how point ratings are supposed to work. You don't just go "this one aspect of it is a deal breaker for me, therefore 0/10". That's exactly NOT what point scales are for. Instead, they're supposed to be the sum of MANY aspects, some of which you like and some of which you don't like, averaging out to one number at the end. If you give something 0/10 that would have to mean you think it's a 0 in EVERY aspect, not that it's a 0 in ONE aspect. And you may hate the adaptation as much as you like, it still doesn't mean that there's ANYTHING "realistic" about giving, say, the show's visuals a 0/10.

People just misuse the rating system, plain and simple.

Overall, no matter how people claim otherwise, if something is good, it will get good ratings.

Isn't that circular logic? You're basically saying "high ratings means it's good, and good means it gets high ratings, QED" which is a pretty vapid statement. And if you're not tying how "good" a show is to its rating, then it's even MORE meaningless because anyone can subjectively go "I think this is good!" regardless of the rating.

[Hansworst]

Yes that’s very skill based.

Curious why you lie?

dei.amazonstudios.com/inclusion-policy/amp/

Each film or series with a creative team of three or more people in above-the-line roles (Directors, Writers, Producers) should ideally include a minimum 30% women and 30% members of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group. We will give priority consideration to people who have been historically marginalized within the industry, including but not limited to disability, sexual orientation, religion, body size, age, nationality, gender identity, gender expression and people at the intersection of multiple underrepresented identities. This aspirational goal will increase to 50% by 2024. On creative teams with fewer than three people, we prefer that at least one Writer, Director, or Producer be a woman and/or a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group. A single team member can fulfill one or more of these identities.

We also aspire to cast at least 10% of our roles with people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or gender non-conforming / non-binary; and 10% with people who self-identify as a person with a disability.

If any of these aspirational goals are not met, the external partner may be asked to submit a description of the steps that were taken to achieve these goals.

( skill based yes sir)

Alexa, what does aspire mean?

[Dhrizzle]

Yes that’s very skill based.

Curious why you lie?

dei.amazonstudios.com/inclusion-policy/amp/

Each film or series with a creative team of three or more people in above-the-line roles (Directors, Writers, Producers) should ideally include a minimum 30% women and 30% members of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group. We will give priority consideration to people who have been historically marginalized within the industry, including but not limited to disability, sexual orientation, religion, body size, age, nationality, gender identity, gender expression and people at the intersection of multiple underrepresented identities. This aspirational goal will increase to 50% by 2024. On creative teams with fewer than three people, we prefer that at least one Writer, Director, or Producer be a woman and/or a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group. A single team member can fulfill one or more of these identities.

We also aspire to cast at least 10% of our roles with people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or gender non-conforming / non-binary; and 10% with people who self-identify as a person with a disability.

If any of these aspirational goals are not met, the external partner may be asked to submit a description of the steps that were taken to achieve these goals.

( skill based yes sir)

Note the words "should ideally," because the skill set trumps identity. They're not going to hire random women who can't do the job just because they are women.

https://dei.amazonstudios.com/goals/

The targets for above-the-line hiring, based on talent availability data, are as follows:

For film: 30% women/non-binary people and 30% people from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups across directors, writers, and producers.
For episodic series: 30% women/non-binary people and 30% people from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups to be credited across directors, writers, producers, and creators for a season of content. These goals apply to the writers’ room and non-writing producing staff.

These goals are designed to ensure that leadership across the life cycle of the story is balanced and representative of the world we live in. For each open position, first determine the criteria that candidates should meet. Focus on the skill set the candidate possesses in order to excel in the job rather than specific people to fill your list.

Really you should read the website you're linking, it would make you look less silly

[BigToast]

Seems to me you don't as per your response I quoted.

...But I do...

[Dhrizzle]

Triggered by "forced" diversity. Make some effort to understand what is being said here.

"Forced" is a nonsensical qualifier. Are you saying they brought in dark-skinned actors at gunpoint and forced them to act in the show?

[Specialka]

...But I do...

Would you be so kind to explain in details what you did understand then ?

- - - Updated - - -

"Forced" is a nonsensical qualifier. Are you saying they brought in dark-skinned actors at gunpoint and forced them to act in the show?

Another strawmen. Keep them coming, I need more straw to feed my horses.

[Biomega]

Note the words "should ideally," because the skill set trumps identity. They're not going to hire random women who can't do the job just because they are women.

That's a very common and very nonsensical argument you hear all the time in hiring debates.

"They refused to hire the white dude with a Harvard degree, and instead just took a random black person without a high school diploma!".

Yeah, right. I'm SURE that's how that works.

It's the bigots' defense mechanism against the fact that once you get to the last stages of a selection process, you DON'T just have objective criteria to go by. If it WAS as easy as going "this one has score 5.1, that one has score 5.2, so we go with the higher one" we wouldn't have any problems. But that's just, well, NOT HOW ANYTHING WORKS. Without quotas, experience has shown that biases creep in. Until we can reduce those biases on a widespread, systemic levels, quotas are a necessary safeguard to combat biases. Does that mean that sometimes they're unfair to some people? Yes. But guess what's even more unfair - what we had before.

[BigToast]

Would you be so kind to explain in details what you did understand then ?

.....Nah.....

[InfiniteCharger]

That right there is why these ratings are a terrible metric.

This is not how point ratings are supposed to work. You don't just go "this one aspect of it is a deal breaker for me, therefore 0/10". That's exactly NOT what point scales are for. Instead, they're supposed to be the sum of MANY aspects, some of which you like and some of which you don't like, averaging out to one number at the end. If you give something 0/10 that would have to mean you think it's a 0 in EVERY aspect, not that it's a 0 in ONE aspect. And you may hate the adaptation as much as you like, it still doesn't mean that there's ANYTHING "realistic" about giving, say, the show's visuals a 0/10.


People just misuse the rating system, plain and simple.


Isn't that circular logic? You're basically saying "high ratings means it's good, and good means it gets high ratings, QED" which is a pretty vapid statement. And if you're not tying how "good" a show is to its rating, then it's even MORE meaningless because anyone can subjectively go "I think this is good!" regardless of the rating.

Dude. Some people seriously do not like this show. It is real. Get over it.

It is supposed to be an "aggregated" model used statistically along with other metrics.
Meaning 0 to 10 scale only becomes valuable when used in a larger sample set.
Obviously with all the large number of ratings below a 6, that must mean a lot of people don't like it.
This data is intended to give a general assessment of the overall reception of this show.
I don't get your point other than it is just OK to ignore the obvious.
There are plenty of things that get pretty low reviews all the time and there are plenty that get good reviews.
And I have found that in general the audience review averages tend to be good references.

Seems like you are getting ready to pretend that your opinion is the only reference that matters and that others can't have theirs.
Like come on dude, I don't have time to debate with you about parading your subjective opinion as objective fact again.

[Yourendbsby]

Note the words "should ideally," because the skill set trumps identity. They're not going to hire random women who can't do the job just because they are women.

dei.amazonstudios.com/goals/



Really you should read the website you're linking, it would make you look less silly

So according to you, the amazon policy is not forcing anyone to hire by race quotes or sexual identification?

Do you can read?

Skill based means that those race selected persons or those selected by sexual identity should meet skill requirements.

What the fuck are you talking about?

You try to convince people that amazon studios own race agenda is made up and they only hire by skill.

When it’s only skill based you dont need to mention or draw lines how many % should be black or gay

The % of race/disabilit/sexual identity is clearly stated by them

If any of these aspirational goals are not met, the external partner may be asked to submit a description of the steps that were taken to achieve these goals.

Do you understand? When a external partner as example didn’t fullfill race quotas they have to submit how they will make it happen

[BigToast]

So according to you, the amazon policy is not forcing anyone to hire by race quotes or sexual identification?

Do you can read?

Skill based means that those race selected persons or those selected by sexual identity should meet skill requirements.

What the fuck are you talking about?

You try to convince people that amazon studios own race agenda is made up and they only hire by skill.

When it’s only skill based you dont need to mention or draw lines how many % should be black or gay

The % of race/disabilit/sexual identity is clearly stated by them

If any of these aspirational goals are not met, the external partner may be asked to submit a description of the steps that were taken to achieve these goals.

I thought we were supposed to be discussing a TV show, not complaining that there are black people in it.

[Yourendbsby]

That's a very common and very nonsensical argument you hear all the time in hiring debates.

"They refused to hire the white dude with a Harvard degree, and instead just took a random black person without a high school diploma!".

Yeah, right. I'm SURE that's how that works.

It's the bigots' defense mechanism against the fact that once you get to the last stages of a selection process, you DON'T just have objective criteria to go by. If it WAS as easy as going "this one has score 5.1, that one has score 5.2, so we go with the higher one" we wouldn't have any problems. But that's just, well, NOT HOW ANYTHING WORKS. Without quotas, experience has shown that biases creep in. Until we can reduce those biases on a widespread, systemic levels, quotas are a necessary safeguard to combat biases. Does that mean that sometimes they're unfair to some people? Yes. But guess what's even more unfair - what we had before.

They hire by race/ethnic/sexual identity.

That doesn’t mean they pick randoms.

Those race selected still need to fullfill other criteria.

But that’s still race and wthnic and sexual identity hiring.

It’s explicitly states wich goals they have and explicitly stated in % wich races or groups they want to see

Doesnt mean random still needs other criteria.

[Biomega]

Dude. Some people seriously do not like this show. It is real. Get over it.

That's not in question.

"I don't like it" is fine. That doesn't mean giving it a 0/10 rating on a website is justified, because that's not how these ratings systems are supposed to work. It's a misuse of the rating system - THAT is my problem, not the fact that some people don't like the show.

It is supposed to be an "aggregated" model used statistically along with other metrics.
Meaning 0 to 10 scale only becomes valuable when used in a larger sample set.

It's not about whether it's "valuable", it's about whether it's VIABLE as a rating at all.

You're right that the aggregation process relies on a statistical approximation - both for the overall ratings, and for how individuals compose ratings. Obviously people will differ in their chosen criteria, but the idea is to have the score be representative of many factors, not one single factor. If you do that, you're introducing distortion, and that's why 0/10 ratings are by and large useless and a misuse of the system.

Obviously with all the large number of ratings below a 6, that must mean a lot of people don't like it.

Why 6?

[jonnysensible]

WARNING, THREAD UPDATE: With the premiere of this show tonight, we're going to end lots of this discussion which has taken over this thread. It's tiring and goes in circles, and, in many cases, entirely in bad faith.

Do not post bad faith YT trash in this thread, whether it's from a YouTube channel with literally 4 subscribers (see above), or the Babylon Bee, a parody site engaged in culture war bullshit. This show is coming out tonight, and the time for these inane discussions of what a faithful adaptation is are done.

Going forward, the discussion should be centered around what is actual shown in the aired media, which, again, is premiering tonight. And no, the existence of a black elf in a Tolkein adaptation is not permission to continue these previous discussions.

Further continuation of these topics will be considered off-topic, derailing, and will be infracted.

can you enforce this when you are back on, people wanna talk about who the wizard lad is but all the 'woke' 'european stories' 'black people' posters are trashing the thread.

[kenn9530]

snip

a 1/10 review is completely dishonest especially on something like this series, there is nothing to back anyone up giving a 1/10 review on this series let alone most things, if you believe otherwise you are just lying to yourself, many ppl are not honest in thier reviews and reviews dont actually tell anything accurately.

Just because you dont like something doesnt mean it is worth a 1/10, reviews actually mean very little because you cant prove they are actually true or not.

This show is not disrespectful to tolkien in any way, nothing will ever be able to capture the spirit on the origional author to please a hardcore lore fan, companies can spend the money any way they want and employ hundreds or thousands of ppl so the money is not just wasted, things are getting more and more expensive these days.

[InfiniteCharger]

That's not in question.

"I don't like it" is fine. That doesn't mean giving it a 0/10 rating on a website is justified, because that's not how these ratings systems are supposed to work. It's a misuse of the rating system - THAT is my problem, not the fact that some people don't like the show.

These systems aren't designed to make people justify the reason as to why they gave the review they did.
It is a quick and simple guide to give people feedback that ultimately has value when used in aggregate.
If the system is not worthwhile then they should remove the whole thing all together because all reviews for everything are invalid.
Just focusing on this one show to worry about whether the review system is broken is just ridiculous.
At that point, you may as well say turning off comments is good too because people just don't have the right views on things.
It is the same mentality. Personal opinions aren't quizzes with a right or wrong answer.

It's not about whether it's "valuable", it's about whether it's VIABLE as a rating at all.

You're right that the aggregation process relies on a statistical approximation - both for the overall ratings, and for how individuals compose ratings. Obviously people will differ in their chosen criteria, but the idea is to have the score be representative of many factors, not one single factor. If you do that, you're introducing distortion, and that's why 0/10 ratings are by and large useless and a misuse of the system.

If you know what aggregation means then you know why that 1 out 10 rating by itself has no value.
If a lot of people have a 1 out of 10 rating (meaning lowest rating possible) it means they really dislike something.
And because most of this data goes through statistical modeling and analytics, they are going to adjust anyway for internal purposes.
So I don't see your point. People picking the lowest or highest rating whatever it is is going to be one factor out of many.
And this data is collected from across multiple websites and platforms, some with ratings, others with like/dislike and other channels.
This is the day and age of big data and data is the value. Otherwise these web sites wouldn't exist.

Why 6?

As in meaning dislike.