Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Triceron]

The comment I was responding to literally said that the showrunnes ruined the show, becaue Tolkien's name alone was enough to make it a success (it was a comment written by bledgor), and I didn't - and don't - agree with that.

No, you can go back and see he cited the LOTR movies as well.

Not to mention this is TOLKIEN, the most renowned fantasy author of all time, and Rings of Power also had the huge support of LoTR movie goers to watch, it isn't like this show had no help coming in, it probably had the highest possible starting point you could get for a show (HotD COULD have equaled it if later seasons of GoT were actually good, but that is a tangent).

That's a MASSIVE difference to your argument that focuses only on Tolkien's name as though it were the only relevant factor here.

Now, whether what he says about RoP declining that popularity or not, that's completely debatable and I don't see there being any indication for a rise or decline of the property based on viewer numbers alone. It's too early to tell what the impact and reach would be just based on first 24-hour numbers, so I wouldn't be quick to judge that either way.

[bledgor]

No, you can go back and see he cited the LOTR movies as well.

Not to mention this is TOLKIEN, the most renowned fantasy author of all time, and Rings of Power also had the huge support of LoTR movie goers to watch, it isn't like this show had no help coming in, it probably had the highest possible starting point you could get for a show (HotD COULD have equaled it if later seasons of GoT were actually good, but that is a tangent).

These people can't read, can only defend RoP with tangents and false strawman's. I really should just stop as actual/quality conversations are sparse here.

[Rageonit]

No, you can go back and see he cited the LOTR movies as well.

Not to mention this is TOLKIEN, the most renowned fantasy author of all time, and Rings of Power also had the huge support of LoTR movie goers to watch, it isn't like this show had no help coming in, it probably had the highest possible starting point you could get for a show (HotD COULD have equaled it if later seasons of GoT were actually good, but that is a tangent).

That's a MASSIVE difference to your argument that focuses only on Tolkien's name as though it were the only relevant factor here. As we all acknowledge, it's not.

Well I don't know what we're arguing here then, since I said myself that I'm willing to bet PJs movies were a bigger draw than Tolkien's books.

- - - Updated - - -

These people can't read, can only defend RoP with tangents and false strawman's. I really should just stop as actual/quality conversations are sparse here.

Pot and kettle much? Nowhere did I defend RoP; I didn't even say it's good, I said the first few episodes were a boring world building affair.

[VMSmith]

Cool as former educator I knew dozens of students that read it, and every librarian I know of recommends it to fantasy readers. See how little your point means?

What is with these fucking nay Sayers trying to down play Tolkien now? HE HAS SOLD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF COPIES OF HIS BOOKS, you are factually wrong.

It has sold about 150 million copies worldwide over the past sixty-eight years.

I'm not saying it's unknown, but it's definitely not some huge cultural touchstone. Not until, at least, the Jackson movies.

Don Quixote more than triples the number sold and if you mentioned it in casual conversation many people would have no clue what you're talking about. The first Harry Potter book has sold more than two-thirds the number of books as LotR and it's only twenty-one years old, less than a third the age of Rings.

The books are a previous generations story. More people today recognize the story due to the Jackson movies than the books. If you removed all the Jackson movies from existence and released Rings of Power in that vacuum then it would have only a fraction of the interest it currently has.

[RH92]

It has sold about 150 million copies worldwide over the past sixty-eight years.

I'm not saying it's unknown, but it's definitely not some huge cultural touchstone. Not until, at least, the Jackson movies.

Don Quixote more than triples the number sold and if you mentioned it in casual conversation many people would have no clue what you're talking about. The first Harry Potter book has sold more than two-thirds the number of books as LotR and it's only twenty-one years old, less than a third the age of Rings.

The books are a previous generations story. More people today recognize the story due to the Jackson movies than the books. If you removed all the Jackson movies from existence and released Rings of Power in that vacuum then it would have only a fraction of the interest it currently has.

This is true. I think the books were quite popular initially and then forgotten for some time until the movies came out.

I personally know only one or two people who read it before the trilogy hit the theaters.

[Askyl]

It has sold about 150 million copies worldwide over the past sixty-eight years.

I'm not saying it's unknown, but it's definitely not some huge cultural touchstone. Not until, at least, the Jackson movies.

Don Quixote more than triples the number sold and if you mentioned it in casual conversation many people would have no clue what you're talking about. The first Harry Potter book has sold more than two-thirds the number of books as LotR and it's only twenty-one years old, less than a third the age of Rings.

The books are a previous generations story. More people today recognize the story due to the Jackson movies than the books. If you removed all the Jackson movies from existence and released Rings of Power in that vacuum then it would have only a fraction of the interest it currently has.

I'm sorry are you a teenager or something? Do you not know who Tolkien is or was? Do you not know that every modern fantasy writer credit his work and everyone in the world pretty much knew about Lord of the Rings before the movies came out? It's not a modern phenomenon.

All of Tolkiens books have sold over 600 million copies (Lotr, Hobbit, Silmarillion, Lost tales and all the other books C Tolkien finished from notes and stories).

What you said now is fucking hilarious and just show how amazingly unknowledgeable a person can be.

Edit: Also, as someone who've been a huge Tolkien nerd since I was like 8 years old, so soon 25 years of Tolkien nerdage. Read all books (except for Fall of Gondolin which I'm reading now), even learned Quenya and Sindarin as a teenager etc.. The show is fucking amazing. It would be better if they had Silmarillion and Lost Tales rights, but it's fucking amazing. To the point I hope Tolkien Estate get their act together and sell the rights for Silmarillion for some 1st age action on screen.

[Triceron]

Well I don't know what we're arguing here then, since I said myself that I'm willing to bet PJs movies were a bigger draw than Tolkien's books.

Exactly. No one said Tolkien's work was farther reaching than the movie adaptations, so not sure why you went on a tangent to argue that point....

[bledgor]

It has sold about 150 million copies worldwide over the past sixty-eight years.

I'm not saying it's unknown, but it's definitely not some huge cultural touchstone. Not until, at least, the Jackson movies.

Don Quixote more than triples the number sold and if you mentioned it in casual conversation many people would have no clue what you're talking about. The first Harry Potter book has sold more than two-thirds the number of books as LotR and it's only twenty-one years old, less than a third the age of Rings.

The books are a previous generations story. More people today recognize the story due to the Jackson movies than the books. If you removed all the Jackson movies from existence and released Rings of Power in that vacuum then it would have only a fraction of the interest it currently has.

Cool and the Hobbit has sold 100 million, meaning 250 million total. It is #3 on your list behind Don Quixote a book over 400 years old and A Tale of Two Cities a book over 150 years old. Like what the fuck do you qualify as huge cultural touchstone? Does it have to have monuments in every city? Does it need to personal impact the lives of everyone on the planet?

Also if people you are conversing with have no clue what Don Quixote is, you aren't conversing with many people/people with a high school education. You go into Harry Potter which yes has amazing numbers without mentioning so many other details that are contextually important, but whatever, if you want to point to Harry Potter I don't think it helps your cause.

I would concede books are no longer a big hallmark of hobbies now, but they very much still have a market/are relevant. I would say a majority of younger people recognize the story due to Jackson films, but anyone teen+ during the Jackson films if not already knowing the novels would have learned of them by then, and most of those that enjoyed the film at least sampled the novels. Again HUNDREDS OF millions collective books sold, like what the fuck number does it have to be for you? A billion? 10 billion? How do you consider it overestimating?

If you removed all the Jackson movies I would again concede it would be a smaller interest, but I very strongly disagree it would only be a fraction, as the older generations would be starved for a good Tolkien adaptation then and be very interested in the potential of Rings of Power. Again, stop downplaying this shit, it is against all facts we have.

It also doesn't do anything to disprove my point that Rings of Power had all the potential in the world to be the greatest/largest show ever and has potentially (I would contend has already, but will need final numbers to confirm) fallen not just short of that, but very short. Using your example the Potter films deviated in quite a few ways from the books, and in the later films I would say to large detriments to the story, but they were still close enough/enjoyable enough for me to give each a watch and look forward to the next (and considering the praise and how the films grew I would contend others felt very much the same). This direction helped them to become one of the greatest/most profitable film franchise in history.

[Rageonit]

Exactly. No one said Tolkien's work was farther reaching than the movie adaptations, so not sure why you went on a tangent to argue that point....

Are you 100% sure it was noone? Read the post above you then.

[RH92]

I'm sorry are you a teenager or something? Do you not know who Tolkien is or was? Do you not know that every modern fantasy writer credit his work and everyone in the world pretty much knew about Lord of the Rings before the movies came out? It's not a modern phenomenon.

All of Tolkiens books have sold over 600 million copies (Lotr, Hobbit, Silmarillion, Lost tales and all the other books C Tolkien finished from notes and stories).

What you said now is fucking hilarious and just show how amazingly unknowledgeable a person can be.

I think it's important to understand that being influential does not always translate to being popular as well.

Now I am not saying Tolkien wasn't popular, he created a world with a lot of depth that is hard to replicate, but there were multiple highly influential artists across all the platforms who died less fortunate than those they inspired. Probably a price to pay for being ahead of your time.

[Triceron]

Are you 100% sure it was noone? Read the post above you then.

Yes, no one, because you went off on a tangent, and now we have a bunch of people making comments on Tolkien's work vs the adaptations because of your original strawman argument.

Like you said yourself, you agreed that the LOTR movies are wider reaching. Now let' go back - where does Bledgor say the books were more far reaching than the movie adaptations?

No where. Because he never said that. All he's pointing out is that the Author is well recognized and the Books are popular, both statements being true. There's no statement made about the entire LOTR multimedia franchise being popular because of the books alone. What was said is that the property was already based on a popular book series by a well known author, and RoP had the draw of this AND the people who watched the LOTR movies, which you have admitted to agreeing to.

So I take this as a misunderstanding on your part, if anything.

[InfiniteCharger]

Right. You are yelling at the wind. Your point has nothing to do with what we were originally discussing nor is it something that has been in doubt in the discussion we were having.

You replied to me tho and nothing you are talking about actually contradicted what I said so I am not sure of your point.
The circumstances of how this all came about does impact the bottom line and the final product.

But anyway, moving on.

[rhorle]

You replied to me tho and nothing you are talking about actually contradicted what I said so I am not sure of your point.

I don't have a point because I've never said anything about the topic you keep rambling about. You created a fictitious argument out of thin air and moved the goal posts instead of addressing what we were originally talking about. lol.

[Rageonit]

Yes, no one, because you fucking misread what he said and went off on a tangent, and now we have a bunch of people making comments on Tolkien's work vs the adaptations because of your original strawman argument.

Like you said yourself, you agreed that the LOTR movies are wider reaching. Now let' go back - where does Bledgor say the books were more far reaching than the movie adaptations?

No where. Because he never said that. All he's pointing out is that the Author is well recognized and the Books are popular, both statements being true. There's no statement made about the entire LOTR multimedia franchise being popular because of the books alone.

Whoa, no need to get aggressive, man!
So we've established that Tolkien has less reach than Peter Jackson? I'm super, super curious to see how well will it go down here.
EDIT: And take a big breath before writing a comment, you editing it all the time makes it difficult to respond.

[Askyl]

I think it's important to understand that being influential does not always translate to being popular as well.

Now I am not saying Tolkien wasn't popular, he created a world with a lot of depth that is hard to replicate, but there were multiple highly influential artists across all the platforms who died less fortunate than those they inspired. Probably a price to pay for being ahead of your time.

I know there's plenty of Americans here, and I can't say much for you. But I can promise you that in the rest of the world, Tolkien is "popular". His books, especially Hobbit, is usually a part of reading in school.

I honestly don't know a single person my age (millenials) or older that haven't read or atleast tried to read any of his books. Younger people I can't say anything for, I know most people don't read as much and we get movies for everything now.

In Europe Tolkien is a household name.

[bledgor]

Whoa, no need to get aggressive, man!
So we've established that Tolkien has less reach than Peter Jackson? I'm super, super curious to see how well will it go down here.

I mean I guess in the modern world yes, but then again you don't have Jackson/the trilogy without Tolkien so in other ways completely wrong.

Jackson while being Jackson is still Tolkien. Yes with a lesser producer the films are less popular/more forgotten, but with a lesser Author the same is true and maybe the movies never even get made. You still have Tolkien without Jackson being immensely successful/known (again hundreds of millions of books sold), but on the other side without Tolkien you can't have the Jackson films (not to say he wouldn't/hasn't produced other good movies, just not these movies in that case).

[InfiniteCharger]

I don't have a point because I've never said anything about the topic you keep rambling about. You created a fictitious argument out of thin air and moved the goal posts instead of addressing what we were originally talking about. lol.

Nah I went back and you were replying about something to do with how this adaptation isn't bad because adaptations change things and multiverse blah blah blah.

Anyway whatever.

[rhorle]

Nah I went back and you were replying about something to do with how this adaptation isn't bad because adaptations change things and multiverse blah blah blah.

Which has nothing to with making money and the Tolkien estate wanting to make money. It is hilarious that you put work in to prove how off point you were. While actually thinking you got one up on me. Lmao. You started yelling at the wind about things never said.

[Syegfryed]

Cool as former educator I knew dozens of students that read it, and every librarian I know of recommends it to fantasy readers. See how little your point means?

What is with these fucking nay Sayers trying to down play Tolkien now? HE HAS SOLD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF COPIES OF HIS BOOKS, you are factually wrong. Also if Tolkien is just some author now who has no reach why the fuck would Amazon pay 250 million for just the rights to the appendices??? Are you saying Amazon is run by complete idiots that know nothing?

Man, this is a weird state of the world rly, people trying to say how good and amazing this series is, and trying to say "tolkien isn't as good" or "his work was not even that good", i can only imagine those people are baiting.

Like, every bit piece of fantasy after him, has his influence, motherfucker shaped the genre, the elves being like they are in every piece of media out there is because of how he did his own.

[RH92]

I know there's plenty of Americans here, and I can't say much for you. But I can promise you that in the rest of the world, Tolkien is "popular". His books, especially Hobbit, is usually a part of reading in school.

I honestly don't know a single person my age (millenials) or older that haven't read or atleast tried to read any of his books. Younger people I can't say anything for, I know most people don't read as much and we get movies for everything now.

In Europe Tolkien is a household name.

Well, I am European too.

However Europe can be a broad term if you think about it. For a long time it was split into two very different worlds and unfortunately my country happened to be on the wrong side of the fence. Instead of the cool stuff, we were learning about and reading works of a numerous russian authors that get nowhere near the recognition now as they did when I was still going to school. I hated that, after interwar period everything was a fucking chore.

I actually don't know many people who read the books before the movies came out, plenty did though when the buzz surrounding it began. Until then it was mostly known by fantasy nerds. At least that's how I remember it and I spent my childhood in a puppet theater (my father and aunt work there) and I've seen a wide variety of stories being told there.

The point is the movies helped Tolkien to reach new audiences and revitalized the fantasy genre going forward, making it actually cool.