Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Rageonit]

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).

Don't overstimate Tolkien's name. It is widely reported that Amazon has troubles luring younger audiences to the show (something that for example "Stranger things" was able to do, and even GoT to some extent). It may be canon for you and me (if you're a Tolkien fan, it's rather safe to assume you're at least somewhere between 30 and 40), but for younger audience, it doesn't ring too many bells. Add to that a slow start, no sex and violence scenes a la GoT, and suddenly it turns out that for them, Tolkien - not only this show, but Tolkien the writer - is a borefest.

[bledgor]

Don't overstimate Tolkien's name. It is widely reported that Amazon has troubles luring younger audiences to the show (something that for example "Stranger things" was able to do, and even GoT to some extent). It may be canon for you and me (if you're a Tolkien fan, it's rather safe to assume you're at least somewhere between 30 and 40), but for younger audience, it doesn't ring too many bells. Add to that a slow start, no sex and violence scenes a la GoT, and suddenly it turns out that for them, Tolkien - not only this show, but Tolkien the writer - is a borefest.

That isn't a failure of Tolkien's name, that is a failure of the shows producers/writes mate. You think the 25 million showed up (excluding the younger audience as you said) because the show looked amazing? No it got 25 million because it had Tolkien's name attached to it, and since then its retention has (by the only numbers I have seen at least) not been stellar, and as you want to say its reach to the younger audience has been lackluster. All of those are problems from the production side, from Mckay and Payne, from Amazon.

what is with everyone downplaying the sources of shows lately, like seriously. We have an author with HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of books sold and suddenly we are overestimating their name? Like you going to tell me next the Harry Potter movies got the crowds they did not because of Rowlings books?

[Triceron]

True. In the grand scheme of things, nothing really matters, because we're all going to die, so what's the difference, really?

If people started complaining about how unjustified it is that they're gonna die one day, yeah I'd say who the fuck really cares. Everyone dies, get over it. There's nothing worth getting bent out of shape over.

[Rageonit]

That isn't a failure of Tolkien's name, that is a failure of the shows producers/writes mate. You think the 25 million showed up (excluding the younger audience as you said) because the show looked amazing? No it got 25 million because it had Tolkien's name attached to it, and since then its retention has (by the only numbers I have seen at least) not been stellar, and as you want to say its reach to the younger audience has been lackluster. All of those are problems from the production side, from Mckay and Payne, from Amazon.

what is with everyone downplaying the sources of shows lately, like seriously. We have an author with HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of books sold and suddenly we are overestimating their name? Like you going to tell me next the Harry Potter movies got the crowds they did not because of Rowlings books?

All I'm saying is that Tolkien's name is on a decline. That's a fact. For the young generation, Tolkien is simply not an attractive writer, and there's no comparision to Harry Potter, which is much more of a modern book. I'm a father of three and while it's painful for me to say, LotR is a big no-no for them; it's exactly like the show, even more so - too long and boring. Harry Potter? They loved it! So if anything, modern Tolkien adaptations should deviate from the original even more, to make it more attractive for the new audience (I know, I know, blasphemy). Go check how many books did Shakespeare sell and then just think for a minute how attractive is he as a writer for the young generation.

[Myradin]

too long and boring. Harry Potter? They loved it! So if anything, modern Tolkien adaptations should deviate from the original even more, to make it more attractive for the new audience (I know, I know, blasphemy).

PJ's adaptations are full of action and excitement. The slow and boring seems to be part of this particular adaptation.

Honestly it feels like we haven't even gotten to rivendale yet.

[Triceron]

All I'm saying is that Tolkien's name is on a decline. That's a fact. For the young generation, Tolkien is simply not an attractive writer, and there's no comparision to Harry Potter, which is much more of a modern book. I'm a father of three and while it's painful for me to say, LotR is a big no-no for them; it's exactly like the show, even more so - too long and boring. Harry Potter? They loved it! So if anything, modern Tolkien adaptations should deviate from the original even more, to make it more attractive for the new audience (I know, I know, blasphemy). Go check how many books did Shakespeare sell and then just think for a minute how attractive is he as a writer for the young generation.

Aside from the Hobbit novel, I don't think Tolkien's work resonates with young kids or even early teenagers really. Even the PJ movies, aren't really all that appealing to kids, it's quite a slog for em.

I think Tolkien is something to be appreciated at a more mature age, where a deeper understanding of mythology and it being the source of modern fantasy can really be understood. Kinda like appreciating Lovecraft and how it influenced modern horror.

And it's not like the series has a very wide hook to it like how Disney is opening up the MCU or Star Wars to have stuff for all-ages.

[Rageonit]

PJ's adaptations are full of action and excitement. The slow and boring seems to be part of this particular adaptation.

Honestly it feels like we haven't even gotten to rivendale yet.

You're comparing a movie trilogy to a show supposedly planned for 5 seasons - and we're 3 episodes into season 1. Is it really that surprising that it's mostly about world buidling? And when I talk about Tolkien being boring for the young audience, I'm talking mostly about the books. It may be a shocking fact to some, but try to understand this: for a young viewer, all those names in the show mean NOTHING! They don't know the books, they don't know the setting, they don't know the characters. And the source material for this particular show is mostly the background, not the story, there's very little story there. So here you are, trying to make a modern show out of it - between hardcore Tolkien fans that will crush you for every little deviation from the source material and people who know absolutely nothing about the source material and just want to watch an exciting show about elves killing some orcs or vice versa. Not a great place to be in TBH.

- - - Updated - - -

I think Tolkien is something to be appreciated at a more mature age, where a deeper understanding of mythology and it being the source of modern fantasy can really be understood. Kinda like appreciating Lovecraft and how it influenced modern horror.

Are you aware how small is the group of people who truly appreciate that? No, not even small. Miniscule.

[Triceron]

Are you aware how small is the group of people who truly appreciate that? No, not even small. Miniscule.

It's as big as the population that reads fantasy novels, whatever you consider that as. I mean, what exactly are you thinking to compare Tolkien to? Paw Patrol?

[Rageonit]

It's as big as the population that reads fantasy novels, whatever you consider that as. I mean, what exactly are you thinking to compare Tolkien to? Paw Patrol?

No, it's not. Only a small part of people who read fantasy novels truly care about the mythology of the Tolkien's universe. The Lovecraft comparision is actually very apt. Tolkien is only important for people who care about the roots of fantasy genre, just like Lovecraft is only important for people who care about the roots of horror. Most people who read horror stories are quite content to stop on King, Koontz, Masterton and whatever. I'm willing to bet more people were drawn to "Rigns of Power" thanks to PJs movies than Tolkiens books - and most of those people have never read any Tolkien book.

[Triceron]

No, it's not. Only a small part of people who read fantasy novels truly care about the mythology of the Tolkien's universe. The Lovecraft comparision is actually very apt. Tolkien is only important for people who care about the roots of fantasy genre, just like Lovecraft is only important for people who care about the roots of horror. Most people who read horror stories are quite content to stop on King, Koontz, Masterton and whatever. I'm willing to bet more people were drawn to "Rigns of Power" thanks to PJs movies than Tolkiens books - and most of those people have never read any Tolkien book.

Yes, and what exactly does that matter?

You say don't overestimate his name, but he's still one of the most widely celebrated fantasy authors out there. Just as Lovecraft is one of the most widely celebrated horror authors. And you're then trying to downplay that by comparing it to what exactly? Movies and other multimedia? Shows your kids like? It doesn't 'overestimate' anything since what's being said is he is one of the most renowned fantasy authors.

Harry Potter is also popular. So what? Doesn't make Tolkien 'on decline'. If anything, the LOTR-related movies, games and shows keep his name alive and draw more awareness to his original novels, making him continue to be widely acknowledged.

[bledgor]

No, it's not. Only a small part of people who read fantasy novels truly care about the mythology of the Tolkien's universe. The Lovecraft comparision is actually very apt. Tolkien is only important for people who care about the roots of fantasy genre, just like Lovecraft is only important for people who care about the roots of horror. Most people who read horror stories are quite content to stop on King, Koontz, Masterton and whatever. I'm willing to bet more people were drawn to "Rigns of Power" thanks to PJs movies than Tolkiens books - and most of those people have never read any Tolkien book.

Holy shit mate, you call on the 25 million number yet you want to downplay the biggest fantasy author of all time? Like which is it? Is the number small or Tolkien actually still a powerhouse of fantasy? Tolkien still has massive reach, yes his younger audience might be smaller, but he still has reach. Tolkien is much bigger than just people who care for roots of fantasy. Also I mentioned the Jackson movies too, so you are conceding the point here anyways. Again, do you think with Tolkien's name/Jacksons help this show gets ANYWHERE close to 25 million views on episode one?

Like I said, the Rings of Power had every single silver spoon a spoiled rich kid could want, and yet it from the numbers we have given is falling off, and from what we can watch has fallen way short of what it could have been.

Also please don't ass pull, when you say things like only a small part of fantasy readers care/read Tolkien's universe I can't take you seriously. There is a reason he isn't just so well read, but respected, he is the OG and one of the greats of world building. Even if we kindly give you the bs that people don't care for his universe, they still sure as fuck respect it.

Finally you can't say he is overestimated, he is STILL the king of fantasy book sales, like he has sold hundreds of millions of copies, the only author on par with him is Rowling.

[VMSmith]

Tolkien - not only this show, but Tolkien the writer - is a borefest.

As much as I love the books, this has always been true. The Tom Bombadil section of Fellowship nearly peeled me off the books completely and there's a reason no adaptation has included it, it's incredibly dull.

Tolkien was never a master at writing a gripping tale that kept readers enthralled in each chapter. He was a master mythologist who was creating a world that he had imagined. The actual storytelling is actually quite dry and tedious, often diverging into tangents (like the aforementioned Bombadil scene) that really only interested the author, himself ... and those who were most interested in the building of a world more than the story set in that world.

[Rageonit]

Yes, and what exactly does that matter?

You say don't overestimate his name, but he's still one of the most widely celebrated fantasy authors out there. Just as Lovecraft is one of the most widely celebrated horror authors. And you're then trying to downplay that by comparing it to what exactly? Movies and other multimedia? Shows your kids like? It doesn't 'overestimate' anything since what's being said is he is one of the most renowned fantasy authors, not that he's got the reach of Paw Patrol or whatever else non-fantasy novel you want to equate his books to.

What exactly am I downplaying here? All I'm saying is that Tolkien's name doesn't have as much drawing power as some would like to assume. Yes, people know the name - but do you really think that's enough to draw them in? Again, is Shakespeare a name people are generally accustomed with? Yeah, one would think so. Do you think it's enough to draw people to the new adaptation of "Hamlet"? Well no, I don't think so. It doesn't matter how many people heard the name Tolkien and associate it with the fantasy genre; what matters is how many of those people truly enjoy his work. And nowadays, it's less than you think.

[VMSmith]

Tolkien still has massive reach

Honestly, he never had this. I can only cite my graduating class of 1987, but I was the only person in that class who had read any Tolkien at all. And that's including my friends that I played D&D with.

Tolkien only became really well-known outside of literary circles because of the "Frodo Lives" campaign that caught people's attention.

[Triceron]

What exactly am I downplaying here? All I'm saying is that Tolkien's name doesn't have as much drawing power as some would like to assume. Yes, people know the name - but do you really think that's enough to draw them in? Again, is Shakespeare a name people are generally accustomed with? Yeah, one would think so. Do you think it's enough to draw people to the new adaptation of "Hamlet"? Well no, I don't think so. It doesn't matter how many people heard the name Tolkien and associate it with the fantasy genre; what matters is how many of those people truly enjoy his work. And nowadays, it's less than you think.

No one said that his works are popular because of the name of the author alone, so you're literally arguing yourself here. What was said is that Tolkien is widely recognized and people already know of his work, while the LOTR movies have also established his works' popularity in the public domain. You're circling back to attack a strawman when no one was saying the success of his works is based on his name alone.

Don't peddle that bullshit here.

[bledgor]

Honestly, he never had this. I can only cite my graduating class of 1987, but I was the only person in that class who had read any Tolkien at all. And that's including my friends that I played D&D with.

Tolkien only became really well-known outside of literary circles because of the "Frodo Lives" campaign that caught people's attention.

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?

[Rageonit]

No one said that his works are popular because of the name of the author alone, so you're literally arguing yourself here. What was said is that Tolkien is widely recognized and people already know of his work, while the LOTR movies have also established his works' popularity in the public domain. You're circling back to attack a strawman when no one was saying the success of his works is based on his name alone.

Don't peddle that bullshit here.

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.

[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.