Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[InfiniteCharger]

No. I said it was announced around the same time as the show and that he resigned in August. I had a separate source that stated he was involved with the deal and it was signed prior to his resignation. You keep ignoring what is posted in order to not admit you were wrong. I haven't misrepresented any of the facts.

The fact is both articles came from the same site and the contradict each other. That is why I posted it. He resigned long before the announcement, which is what I have been saying and your so called "source" contradicts itself in another article saying the exact same thing I am saying. The fact that you refuse to see that this is the point is you simply refusing to admit that maybe those "facts" don't add up. Meaning your suggestion that he was "involved" with this project, as in "supporting" it are not proven at all, just because his retirement was announced close to the date the series was announced.

[rhorle]

The fact is both articles came from the same site and the contradict each other. That is why I posted it. He resigned long before the announcement, which is what I have been saying and your so called "source" contradicts itself in another article saying the exact same thing I am saying.

I have never said that he didn't resign before the public found out about the Amazon deal or his resignation. Again you are inventing an argument that was never stated just so you can avoid admitting you were wrong. My source about him signing the deal before his resignation does not contradict anything. If you are saying exactly that then why are you arguing that I've been wrong? Lmao.

He did not. His "official" retirement was August 31st 2017 and announced a few days after the Rings of Power deal was announced. He was however still in charge when the deal was signed. It was even the estate while Christopher would have been in charge that approached Amazon, and others, to make a pitch for the rights.

"Christopher Tolkien (the Professor’s son) was in charge of the Estate at the time the deal was made in 2017. He passed away three years later in 2020 after production on the show had already begun, and the directorship was passed on to his son, Simon Tolkien."-- https://www.theonering.net/torwp/202...in-the-fandom/

[rogoth]

Jesus wept. My uncle's sister knows a guy that knows a guy!

Personally, I'd keep S1 as is and just go forward with whatever changes from S2. S1 was fine for the majority of people.

and yet every possible metric to measure engagement suggest otherwise, but keep telling yourself that if it makes you happy.

[Celement]

Problem with that is the GoT pilot never got aired. Now we have an entire first season to "forget"

I think they have to just start over... the money has already been spent they are hitched to this trainwreck.

Part of me hopes they dont I want to see just how absurd this gets.

[Ivanstone]

I have watched this show now.

Its good TV. Better than Wheel of Time.

However if I had to choose between a new season of Wynonna Earp and a new season of Rings, Wynonna wins.

PS I'm assuming any changes to the production crew have less to do with alleged fans and much more to do with the show not sufficiently feeding Jeff Bezos's ego. Sorry, Jeffy but GoT season 1 is a lot better.

[Ivanstone]

It had to have been better than wheel of time, it had better source material.

What scares me is the idea that they seem to think they can buy the ip to get casual viewers and just completely ignore the actual fans of the source material. They’ve taken this approach with both RoP and WoT. That’s not how adaptations should work.

I agree that it’s probably fine if you don’t pay attention to the source, but it just feels so bizarre to me. It’s like everyone is watching a movie claiming to based on WW2, and Japan and Germany are merged into one country that is invading the US, and everyone is like “this is great!” and only a few people are like, but, uh, this isn’t how it’s supposed to go!

Rings is based off of incomplete source material that Tolkien never wanted published. Not sure I'd say that's better.

Fans have unrealistic expectations. I remember one alleged fan of GoT hated the show because it didn't have narration explaining all the small details. Adaptations work the same way original material works. Hire capable people and they might deliver the goods. I'll use the Watchmen as an example. The movie had some interesting elements. The opening credits were great. They delivered a lot of back story with great efficiency. Jackie Earl Hailey was fantastic. Unfortunately, Snyder also didn't understand that the Watchmen was a satire, he overemphasized action scenes and a lot of the acting was awful. And some of that awful acting were done by people who were good elsewhere. Seriously go watch Stoker if you want see Matthew Goode do good work.

Changing things is fine. Capable people make good changes, less capable people might accidentally make a good change. An adaptation should make good use of the medium that its being adapted into. One thing people fail to grasp about why Jackson's adaptation is great. He made lots of changes. Its not as faithful as people think. Its a good adaptation because he managed to make things that work as a book while making a very capable commercial product.

[Triceron]

and yet every possible metric to measure engagement suggest otherwise, but keep telling yourself that if it makes you happy.

Measuring engagement that has kept it in the top 10 shows of the season indicates that its a popular show no matter how you cut it.

Just because you personally don't like the show doesn't mean the majority share your sentiments. The dropoff of viewership is still the minority of people who watched the show, and its numbers are still high enough to keep it in the top 10, if not the top 5 shows watched during its release. Of course, it should have been a better show with the amount of money they put into it.

Most people are fine with bullshit TV, that is reality.

Shows like Andor is a much better show yet it can't even get the numbers that Rings of Power had. That's just how it goes.

[Shadowferal]

They've the time to decide whether or not to dump/replace the showrunners.

[Celement]

Measuring engagement that has kept it in the top 10 shows of the season indicates that its a popular show no matter how you cut it.

Just because you personally don't like the show doesn't mean the majority share your sentiments. The dropoff of viewership is still the minority of people who watched the show, and its numbers are still high enough to keep it in the top 10, if not the top 5 shows watched during its release. Of course, it should have been a better show with the amount of money they put into it.

Most people are fine with bullshit TV, that is reality.

Shows like Andor is a much better show yet it can't even get the numbers that Rings of Power had. That's just how it goes.

There is that and most people consider amazon video a freebie for getting prime membership.

[Biomega]

There is that and most people consider amazon video a freebie for getting prime membership.

Definitely the case for me. I have it because I do most of my shopping there, and it's worth it for the free shipping. The video is just a side benefit, and I sure as hell would never ever pay for AP just for the videos. As I'm sure is the case for most AP customers.

That being said, it's not like they don't track viewer numbers or behavior. I'm sure they have all sorts of very detailed metrics that tell them how well a show is doing on their platform - the stuff they PUBLISH is just a tiny fraction of simplified, dumbed-down, PR-sanitized numbers revealed if and when they think it serves a purpose.

[rhorle]

There is that and most people consider amazon video a freebie for getting prime membership.

In 2021 they stated they had 175 million users stream stuff. That is 25 million less then their total subscriber count. These were official statements to shareholders so they have more weight then a typical publicity statement. I haven't seen anything more recent but the pandemic seemed to shift it away from just being a freebie for a lot of people. They do offer a Prime Video only subscription as well but I have never seen any numbers for just that plan.

[Biomega]

In 2021 they stated they had 175 million users stream stuff. That is 25 million less then their total subscriber count. These were official statements to shareholders so they have more weight then a typical publicity statement.

Still plenty of ways to misrepresent things here. What does "stream stuff" mean, for example? Is that anyone who ever watched as much as 1 second? Is that accounts, or is there some kind of multiplier based on estimated household size? Etc. etc.

I'm not saying they misled their investors (not much than is normal for such data, anyway) but there's plenty of things you can do with numbers to make them look a certain way without technically telling lies.

[rhorle]

I'm not saying they misled their investors (not much than is normal for such data, anyway) but there's plenty of things you can do with numbers to make them look a certain way without technically telling lies.

In its first quarter 2021 earnings report, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said that “as Prime Video turns 10, over 175 million Prime members have streamed shows and movies in the past year, and streaming hours are up more than 70 percent year-over-year.”

It doesn't matter what stream stuff means. It is still an impressive number for what was once a small secondary benefit. It shows growth of the platform and it is silly to always find ways to tear it down for whatever reason. What is wrong with allowing Amazon to have success?

[Biomega]

It doesn't matter what stream stuff means. It is still an impressive number for what was once a small secondary benefit. It shows growth of the platform and it is silly to always find ways to tear it down for whatever reason. What is wrong with allowing Amazon to have success?

Nobody is talking about not "allowing Amazon to have success". Where's that coming from?

"Members have streamed shows" is a very vague metric, is all I'm saying. We have no idea how many of those 175 million people clicked on Prime Video to see what it's about, saw a rolling ad or whatever but never actually watched anything, yet now get counted as "having streamed a show". Of course that's an extreme example - that's my point. You saying "but it's an impressive number!" is logically fallacious here, because my whole argument is that we don't know what that number really represents. I'm not saying it IS inflated or by how much - I don't know. But neither do you.

This isn't about sticking it to Amazon, this is about what data we have, and what claims we can reasonably make.

[rhorle]

Nobody is talking about not "allowing Amazon to have success". Where's that coming from?

From trying to * a statement to investors for no real reason? It says streamed show or movies and not "opened up Prime Video interface". You aren't even suggesting things that fit the statement to investors. It is an impressive number. It isn't logically fallacious to state that. We know what the number really represents. 175 million accounts have used Prime Video to stream shows or movies for that yearly period. A 70% growth for the service.

[Biomega]

From trying to * a statement to investors for no real reason? It says streamed show or movies and not "opened up Prime Video interface".

We have no idea. You are INTERPRETING it that way - my point is that they could mean any number of things with "streamed a show or movie", including things that introduce distortions that run counter to your interpretation. DID they? I don't know. Neither do you.

It is an impressive number. It isn't logically fallacious to state that.

Yes, it is, because you don't know if it's impressive or not. What if 100 million out those 175 are people who watched less than 5 minutes? That wouldn't make it an "impressive number". Is that what's happened? I don't know. AND NEITHER DO YOU, but you ASSUME that it's not like that despite you having no idea about the deeper meaning behind the metric - that's why it's fallacious to just call it "impressive", because we don't actually have information that warrants such a verdict.

[rhorle]

We have no idea. You are INTERPRETING it that way

Are you suggesting that a CEO of a company lied to investors during federally regulated reports? It being 1 minute or 1 year of content for those users is irrelevant to the statement. You keep trying to bring in things to make the statement less impressive. 175 million of a 200+ million user base using a service is impressive. 70% growth year over year is impressive. That is 87% of subscribers using Prime Video (cutting off at 200 million even though Amazon announced 200+ around the same time). That isn't impressive?

You are trying really hard to spin it into a negative.

[Biomega]

Are you suggesting that a CEO of a company lied to investors

If I'm suggesting anything, it's is that you apparently didn't carefully read my previous comments, where I specifically mentioned how numbers can be used to seem a certain way WITHOUT ACTUALLY LYING.

I'm in no way saying or suggesting that they're lying. I'm saying that the way they present that number lacks sufficient context or explanation for it to lend itself to any kind of reasonable data analysis. I don't know what to do with that number, because it could mean anything.

It being 1 minute or 1 year of content for those users is irrelevant to the statement.

But not to the interpretation. There's a VAST difference between 175m users watching for 1 minute each or 1 year each. Suggesting that it's all the same does nothing except betray gross ignorance about the way statistics or data analysis are done.

You keep trying to bring in things to make the statement less impressive.

No. I'm not making any value judgement at all. I couldn't, reasonably. There's not enough data for me to know if it is or isn't impressive. Nor for you to know, either. THAT is my point.

[rhorle]

If I'm suggesting anything, it's is that you apparently didn't carefully read my previous comments, where I specifically mentioned how numbers can be used to seem a certain way WITHOUT ACTUALLY LYING.

Giving misleading information is still a no-no in SEC reports. This isn't a forwarding looking statement that would be covered by that general warning either. The statement doesn't need more context. 175 million of Prime subscribers used streamed something on the Prime Video platform for that period. A 70% growth for the service. There is nothing more that needs to be said for it to be impressive numbers for what started as a small side benefit 10 years ago.

There is enough data to know it is impressive. Why wouldn't a 70% growth or about 87% of total subscribers using a secondary service be unimpressive? You keep trying to be negative here while refusing to admit that is what you are doing. Anything that doesn't meet your negative viewpoint is labeled illogical or fallacious.

[Biomega]

There is nothing more that needs to be said for it to be impressive numbers
[...]
There is enough data to know it is impressive. Why wouldn't a 70% growth or about 87% of total subscribers using a secondary service be unimpressive?

I didn't say it was "unimpressive". I said I don't know if it's impressive or not (and neither do you). It certainly SEEMS impressive if you interpret it strictly the way you're doing, but the data in and of itself allows for other interpretations as well, which you simply discount or disregard. Objectively speaking, there is no way you can reasonably make that assessment. I don't know if the investors had access to more data than a condensed, simplified press release. It's very common for press releases to just go "80% growth!" but that's not real data. Real data is pages upon pages of tables and graphs, with tons of context and detail. With that, you may arrive at some kind of value judgement; with a PR-sanitized single-number label without context or depth, you cannot (not reasonably anyway).

You keep trying to be negative here while refusing to admit that is what you are doing. Anything that doesn't meet your negative viewpoint is labeled illogical or fallacious.

I don't have a negative viewpoint. I have a neutral one. Refusing to underwrite a positive viewpoint does not equal endorsing a negative viewpoint. The negativity comes from YOUR interpretation - in fact you're doing the very thing you so haphazardly accuse me of, namely immediately assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with your positive interpretation of things must therefore have a negative one. That's just not how it works. And that's why you're running into illogical statements and fallacies.