Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[DarkAmbient]

It seems you are unable to read, the books sold 50 million in 2003, the films started in 2001 so most book sales are from how popular the films were, so dont talk BS now when it take 2 mins to look up some basic facts.

It seems you are the one unable to read. At the time the article was written, LOTR had sold 150 million copies, 50 million after the films. That means 100 million copies sold before the films. Surely you will now admit your error...

[kenn9530]

Once again you are wrong.

Maybe because you are only young enough to think the films made it popular because you never knew of it until then and were not old enough to remember a time before then. The books have had large resurgences every decade since the 1960's mostly as when the books gained huge popularity mainly due to a renewed interest in the US market around that time. The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings became required reading for the nascent counterculture around that time, pushing a lot of popularity in music, art and other cultures. then in the 80's as some schools had it put on their curriculum (lucky bustards) as well as some animated movies that gave it new life

Then move to the 2000's because of the movies which led to video games toys and whatnot, which leads to now with the show

I personally knew of Lord of the Rings in the mid 90's because of some old radio show my dad listened to where they had a Lord of the Rings audio play. Everyone knew what Lord of the Rings was even then. You only have to have been alive then to know. I mean sure it wasnt as over commercialised then as it is now but thats the state of a lot of media franchises today. Lord of the Rings was and will have a following for a long time as long as the books stay relevant, hell the Ring of Power show, love it or hate it has caused a big resurgence in book sales, not bad for an 'average' or 'bad' author.

Im not wrong even tolkien himself stated the sales were not great, you care to provide actual proof backing you up when all the data before the films suggest a few hundred thousand copies at most were around, ppl knowing about LOTR before the films is not the same as it being popular.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems you are the one unable to read. At the time the article was written, LOTR had sold 150 million copies, 50 million after the films. That means 100 million copies sold before the films. Surely you will now admit your error...

I have made no error, films started in 2001, 50 million books were sold by 2003, and by 2007 LOTR reached 150 million, you are completely 100% wrong, i cant believe you cant even do some basic research that takes 2 mins to look into.

[DarkAmbient]

It can't be any clearer: Brawn estimates that 150 million copies of “The Lord of the Rings” have been sold worldwide, 50 million of those since Jackson’s films were released from 2001

But what else do you expect from someone who shills for Star Citizen...

[Orby]

Im not wrong even tolkien himself stated the sales were not great, you care to provide actual proof backing you up when all the data before the films suggest a few hundred thousand copies at most were around, ppl knowing about LOTR before the films is not the same as it being popular.

I am not talking about sales (I think you were talking about sales with the other guy) but more or less the popularity and effect on pop culture, I am the one replying to your claim that Tolkien wasn't good or popular before the movies.

The only thing I knew about the sales was that Tolkiens books gained more popularity in sales a few years after he published them. and by a few years I mean a few decades, which might be the 60's too or most certainly post world war 2 at least. which also come under my resurgence argument

Also here are some tomato sauces.

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/...tural%20change

https://www.tor.com/2019/01/03/a-new...j-r-r-tolkien/

[kenn9530]

It can't be any clearer: Brawn estimates that 150 million copies of “The Lord of the Rings” have been sold worldwide, 50 million of those since Jackson’s films were released from 2001

But what else do you expect from someone who shills for Star Citizen...

The books were published under a profit-sharing arrangement, whereby Tolkien would not receive an advance or royalties until the books had broken even, after which he would take a large share of the profits.[58] It has ultimately become one of the best-selling novels ever written, with 50 million copies sold by 2003[59] and over 150 million copies sold by 2007.[2] The work was published in the UK by Allen & Unwin until 1990, when the publisher and its assets were acquired by HarperCollins.[60][61]

Thanks partly to filmmaker Peter Jackson, the Tolkien brand has never been stronger. Fully one-third of the 150 million copies of The Lord of the Rings sold to date were purchased after the release of the first film in the series. And now gamers can look forward to the April 24 release of Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar.

care to revised your clearly wrong statement. I can keep getting more data to prove you wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not talking about sales (I think you were talking about sales with the other guy) but more or less the popularity and effect on pop culture, I am the one replying to your claim that Tolkien wasn't good or popular before the movies.

The only thing I knew about the sales was that Tolkiens books gained more popularity in sales a few years after he published them. and by a few years I mean a few decades, which might be the 60's too or most certainly post world war 2 at least. which also come under my resurgence arguement

Also here

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/...tural%20change

https://www.tor.com/2019/01/03/a-new...j-r-r-tolkien/

A small following doesnt mean it was popular and with the current data available it shows just a small obscure following, we can clearly see the popularity from once the films were released.

[Syegfryed]

Tolkiens work itself has tons of flaws to poor writing and bad stories and plot holes, your clearly being ignorant and holding tolkiens work to a standard that is not possible to attain, his work was average at best, the movies are what actually made the series popular and not the actual books themselves.

First of all, i never said Tolkien work is a standard that is not possible to attain, this is your lame strawman, as Tolkien quality was never the subject, but the show's

Second, you are bullshiting so hard i can smell the breath of it, trying to say the work of a man who shape modern fantasy which most authors take their base have "poor writing and bad stories" just show us that you are just desperate to make an argument.

You make no sense, you are full of fallacies and non sequitur, since you can't defend the show, you attack the author the show is trying to mimic, this is pathetic, and when you can't either, you pretend to say its a good show because people are watching, this is full delusional, and you are embarrassing yourself.

[kenn9530]

First of all, i never said Tolkien work is a standard that is not possible to attain, this is your lame strawman, as Tolkien quality was never the subject, but the show's

Second, you are bullshiting so hard i can smell the breath of it, trying to say the work of a man who shape modern fantasy which most authors take their base have "poor writing and bad stories" just show us that you are just desperate to make an argument.

You make no sense, you are full of fallacies and non sequitur, since you can't defend the show, you attack the author the show is trying to mimic, this is pathetic, and when you can't either, you pretend to say its a good show because people are watching, this is full delusional, and you are embarrassing yourself.

If you wont subject tolkiens work to a standard of quality how can you do the same for RoP, some double standards here, seems you cant take critism on an author that clearly knew his work could be improved, and the flaws are clear for anyone to see, you can still enjoy something regardless of flaws but they are still there for pretty much everything. You are reaching hard here because you are unable to back your own arguments.

[Orby]

A small following doesnt mean it was popular and with the current data available it shows just a small obscure following, we can clearly see the popularity from once the films were released.

It was more than a small following. Tolkien was well known to be featured in songs and art and and other media...

Need I remind you this existed in the 60's. One example of the popularity of Tolkien then.


Your argument seems to be based on 'it wasn't popular before the movies because I wasnt around before then'. Thats not how that works lol.

[kenn9530]

It was more than a small following. Tolkien was well known to be featured in songs and art and and other media...

Need I remind you this existed in the 60's

The data available puts around a few hundred thousands copies being around in the 60s, so yes that is a small following, we have nothing else showing how popular it was until the films.

[Triceron]

That still doesn't change that you can't speak for him to know what he would or would not do. None of his past actions definitively states one way or the other. Hence why you've hyper-focused onto one period of his life and keep trying to discredit him being involved in an adaptation. Even now you are moving the goal posts to "fully involved" because you can't ignore that Tolkien was involved to some degree after the rights were sold.

Of course I can say you are wrong with no one knows either way.

By your own admission, no one knows. By your own admission, your own examples of Tolkien working with UA would be wrong because no one still knows what he would do after.

What the fuck are you arguing?

[Orby]

The data available puts around a few hundred thousands copies being around in the 60s, so yes that is a small following, we have nothing else showing how popular it was until the films.

Once again I am not talking about sales, why you keep talking about sales with me... You were arguing sales with the other guy.

also if you want sales, look at this.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/...nd-the-hippies

which I assume you still havent read. It explains his sales exploded in the 60's. Maybe not as much as when the mvoies came out, but it was one of his many resurgences.

[DarkAmbient]

The books were published under a profit-sharing arrangement, whereby Tolkien would not receive an advance or royalties until the books had broken even, after which he would take a large share of the profits.[58] It has ultimately become one of the best-selling novels ever written, with 50 million copies sold by 2003[59] and over 150 million copies sold by 2007.[2] The work was published in the UK by Allen & Unwin until 1990, when the publisher and its assets were acquired by HarperCollins.[60][61]

Thanks partly to filmmaker Peter Jackson, the Tolkien brand has never been stronger. Fully one-third of the 150 million copies of The Lord of the Rings sold to date were purchased after the release of the first film in the series. And now gamers can look forward to the April 24 release of Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar.

care to revised your clearly wrong statement. I can keep getting more data to prove you wrong.

You have posted contradictory information. Your first quote (that you didn't link to, I will here) states that 50 million copies were sold by 2003. Your second quote (source because you were too lazy) repeats the figures given by the director of publishing at HarperCollins, which are that 100 million copies were sold before the films were released.

But even if it were true that 'only' 50 million were sold before the 2001 film, you originally stated that "the movies were what made the series popular", and I would argue that sales of 50 million are quite enough to qualify the series as being popular.

I'm not going to keep responding to this particular issue as it's off-topic.

[Syegfryed]

If you wont subject tolkiens work to a standard of quality how can you do the same for RoP, some double standards here, seems you cant take critism on an author that clearly knew his work could be improved, and the flaws are clear for anyone to see, you can still enjoy something regardless of flaws but they are still there for pretty much everything. You are reaching hard here because you are unable to back your own arguments.

Whoi say i would not subject Tolkien to a standard? Tolkien standards are high, the standard of RoP is subterranean, because is awful, this is not double standard, one is good with all their flaws the other is pure garbage.

If the Author knew his work could be improved, you know its a good author , unlike someone who think the show is good and perfect.

Again, what you are doing is a lame strawman, Tolkien quality is not the subject here, but the show's, trying to say Tolkien's work is bad is an Argument against your precious show because the show is hundred times worse than anything Tolkien worked

[kenn9530]

Once again I am not talking about sales, why you keep talking about sales with me... You were arguing sales with the other guy.

Sales is relevant to popularity because without them how are you going to read the book or not, i would hardly call a few hundred thousand really popular back in those days especially when books would of been far more popular than now, unless it has millions of followers then its not really popular.

[Syegfryed]

Once again I am not talking about sales, why you keep talking about sales with me...

You have to understand this person is just arguing for the sake of argue as well, everything he says is a fallacy to salvage an argument, is like a broken record.

Dude is basically saying tolkien work was bad and the show is good for reasons.

[Orby]

Sales is relevant to popularity because without them how are you going to read the book or not, i would hardly call a few hundred thousand really popular back in those days especially when books would of been far more popular than now, unless it has millions of followers then its not really popular.

Sure if you want to drag sales into this fine, but once again its said that in the 60's which I have constantly given you sources for have said he had a explosion of popularity in sales for his books in the 60's. Maybe not as much as when the movie came out but big enough for Tolkien to be well recognised as a house hold name, not a small following.

You have to understand this person is just arguing for the sake of argue as well, everything he says is a fallacy to salvage an argument, is like a broken record.

Dude is basically saying tolkien work was bad and the show is good for reasons.

I got to go to bed soon so if he aint getting it after this I am off lol. Too old for this shit, :P

[rhorle]

By your own admission, no one knows. By your own admission, your own examples of Tolkien working with UA would be wrong because no one still knows what he would do after. What the fuck are you arguing?

Against you saying he wouldn't? I would think for someone that kept referencing context and what not that would be clear. I've said from the start that no one can say either way and have been providing examples to counter the times you said he was against adaptations or being involved in adaptations. If you weren't aware what we were discussing it just shows how you projecting arguing for the sake of it onto me. As you argued with out knowing what it is we were discussing. Lol.

[Triceron]

Against you saying he wouldn't?

But you admit you wouldn't know if he would or not either way yes?

So how are you arguing against my so-called claim? And why?

You'd have to employ a double standard in order to make a case that anyone would be right or wrong, because what we're talking about is speculation and opinion, not provable fact.

Did I say it was a fact Tolkien would never write a Rings of Power adaptation? No. The context of my statement was in speculation of what he would do if he were alive today, something which you're still ignoring the context of.

You think I wasn't aware of what you were talking about? No, I am very aware. You are talking out of context of speculation, therefore making erroneous arguments for the sake of shitposting. Pure delusion on your part.

I said clearly we have nothing to argue about because I am not claiming anything you are actually arguing here. I didn't claim anything as fact, the context of my reply is based in speculation.

Did you even read the other poster's original messages? No you didn't. Because you are only looking to argue with me for the sake of it. Stop trolling.

[kenn9530]

Whoi say i would not subject Tolkien to a standard? Tolkien standards are high, the standard of RoP is subterranean, because is awful, this is not double standard, one is good with all their flaws the other is pure garbage.

If the Author knew his work could be improved, you know its a good author , unlike someone who think the show is good and perfect.

Again, what you are doing is a lame strawman, Tolkien quality is not the subject here, but the show's, trying to say Tolkien's work is bad is an Argument against your precious show because the show is hundred times worse than anything Tolkien worked

Tolkiens work is just as flawed as everything can be, its a double standard to ignore the faults of the author just because you dont like RoP, i accept every show or film for what they are and dont hold them to any standard to a relevant author, they stand on thier own merits.

Tolkiens quality is subject because you are going after the quality of RoP based in tolkiens world, you cant have it both ways just because it goes against your weak argument.

- - - Updated - - -

You have to understand this person is just arguing for the sake of argue as well, everything he says is a fallacy to salvage an argument, is like a broken record.

Dude is basically saying tolkien work was bad and the show is good for reasons.

Everything has its own flaws, you should accept that simple reality, you can still enjoy something with flaws cant you and you can ignore all those flaws because you enjoy it.

- - - Updated - - -

You have posted contradictory information. Your first quote (that you didn't link to, I will here) states that 50 million copies were sold by 2003. Your second quote (source because you were too lazy) repeats the figures given by the director of publishing at HarperCollins, which are that 100 million copies were sold before the films were released.

But even if it were true that 'only' 50 million were sold before the 2001 film, you originally stated that "the movies were what made the series popular", and I would argue that sales of 50 million are quite enough to qualify the series as being popular.

I'm not going to keep responding to this particular issue as it's off-topic.

No my information says since you cant read 50 million sales by 2003 worldwide, 150 million sales by 2007 wordwide, the other statement state 1/3 of the total 150 million sales were sold after the first film release so that backs the 50 million sold by 2003 and total 150 million sales by 2007, its very simple to understand, the first 50 million sales were in 2003 not before the films release.

There are no sales numbers before the 50 million sales in 2003 and no information backs you up stating otherwise. It clearly states this in the link you posted with it, im not sure why you cant read it properly. It says after the films release not before the films release for the sales.

Thanks partly to filmmaker Peter Jackson, the Tolkien brand has never been stronger. Fully one-third of the 150 million copies of The Lord of the Rings sold to date were purchased after the release of the first film in the series. And now gamers can look forward to the April 24 release of Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar 2007 release

You were wrong just admit it.

[rhorle]

But you admit you wouldn't know if he would or not either way yes? So how are you arguing against my so-called claim? And why?

Lmao. You made a claim that it would go one way. I've been saying that it could go either way and using examples of it going the opposite way of what you claimed. It doesn't matter if you said it as a fact or not as you were still making a claim. I was countering that claim. The only pure delusion is from yourself as you've said you didn't know what I was talking about while now claiming you are very aware. Lmao.