1. #8101
    The Unstoppable Force Syegfryed's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    21,755
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn9530 View Post
    100 million views is 100 million active subs paying to watch the content
    Like people said, 100m saw from 200 total subs, it means half the péople watch it, even if its for free, that is a bad sign
    the sub cost from amazon prime has made all the money back they have spent on RoP so far
    Prove it, prove how they did that when they spend more thn billion on it

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by callipygoustp View Post
    Believing that Amazon doesn't have accurate viewership numbers is utterly unbelievable.
    It i because they have said numbers, they are able to manipulate info in a way it looks like its favorable.

  2. #8102
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,854
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Like people said, 100m saw from 200 total subs, it means half the péople watch it, even if its for free, that is a bad sign
    Why is that a bad sign? Most Prime Video shows get way less and it isn't considered bad.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  3. #8103
    The Unstoppable Force Syegfryed's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    21,755
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    Why is that a bad sign? Most Prime Video shows get way less and it isn't considered bad.
    most prime video shows don't get a billion for budget

  4. #8104
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,854
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    most prime video shows don't get a billion for budget
    Why is 50% of Amazon Prime subscribers a bad thing? Remember even 100 million Prime subscribers brings in 13.9 billion yearly with just subscription fees.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  5. #8105
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn9530 View Post
    Amazon has not lost money from the show, the amazon prime subs make more than enough money to pay for the show multiple times over every single month
    That's not how any of this works, though. They spent $1b on the show. The fact that their prime subs make them more than $1b doesn't mean that money comes FROM THIS SHOW, because a significant number of those subs WOULD SUB EITHER WAY. Which means you'd still get that money even if you hadn't spent $1b. In order for the show to "make money", you'd need to get NEW subs that you WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN WITHOUT IT (or at the very least, existing subs that would have quit without it) in the amount of $1b+ total. You can't simply count subs they already had and subs they would have retained either way, because that's not money resulting from your investment; and, consequently, it can't be counted as recouping that investment either.

    We don't know how many new subs they got as a result of RoP and/or how many existing subs they retained because of it. We never will. Amazon isn't going to release any useful form of those numbers, at best we'll get PR-sanitized ballparks. We also still have very little idea what they mean by "views", as they're effectively treating people who watched start to finish the exact same as people who watched 1 episode and turned it off in disgust never to return. There ARE some view-minutes numbers if you look, which give a bit of a better idea; but it's all very flimsy data to say the least. Again we'll never see actual numbers from Amazon, because those kinds of numbers are almost never released.

  6. #8106
    Quote Originally Posted by callipygoustp View Post
    Believing that Amazon doesn't have accurate viewership numbers is utterly unbelievable.

    Did I mention that I thought the show sucked?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    It’s that or they are flat out lying about the numbers according to some.

    What ever it takes to make the numbers lower then some want them to be.
    You're both kind of saying the same, so I'll reply to both of you at the same time.

    First of all, no-one who is to be taken seriously claims that Amazon doesn't know how many views the show has. But views and viewers are two rather different things.

    Streaming services aren't like movie tickets. With movies, you can simply tally tickets sold, and you'll have an accurate number on how many people watched your movies. With some simple surveys you can even estimate relatively accurately how many of these are people who watched the same movie twice, or more often. In the end, with minimal effort, you'll get a fairly accurate estimate of how many people your movie actually reached.

    With streaming, it's different. I'm fairly certain Amazon, or any other service, can accurately track how often a show was streamed. That tells you nothing about how many people actually watched it, though. Some people watch on one device in groups, or as a couple, and so on. Taking myself as an example, I don't have a Prime account, I watched it shared with two other households. 9 People, 3 households, one prime sub.

    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    Someone needs an active subscription to watch the show. Amazon can also track how many times the show is watched. Their 100 million viewers could be from 100 million accounts. Not being able to tell if it is 1, 2, 3, etc people watching the show just means the number could be higher then 100 million and not lower. The exception is if their in-house tracker assumes multiple people already.

    We don't know if Amazon has lost hundreds of millions on the show. Season 1 had a production cost of $450 million. The rights often get lumped into Season 1 but really should be split over the stated five seasons. Without having the information on how Amazon determines "revenue" for their streaming platform we won't know if the show lost or generated money. We do know it broke all previous records for sign-ups and viewers on Prime Video.

    I found "leaked" information on how Amazon views return on investment. At least in 2018. The article even has Mr. Bezos state that a golden globe win helps sells shoes. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN1GR0FX

    "The documents show that Amazon calculates a direct return on investment for each show, based on what it costs to produce versus how many Prime subscriptions it drives. For example, The Man in the High Castle cost $72 million to produce and market, but drove 1.15 million new Prime subscribers. That comes out to a cost of $63 per new Prime subscriber — which is far less than the annual Prime fee of $99. Cha-ching!"
    Assuming Amazon doesn't use drones or their Alexa to accurately determine how many people are in the room when you stream something, the only thing they can accurately count are views. Did Amazon say the show got 100 million views, or 100 million viewers? The latter is significantly worse.

    If it's 100 million views, that means less than 100 million prime accounts watched the show. There are probably plenty of people who actually adhere to the TOS and only use one sub for one household, but factor in that we're currently in an economic crisis and many people have to watch out with their budget, so I'm fairly confident in saying that 100 million views came from probably something like 75 million accounts. That's very generous on my part, because that would mean half of the subscribers don't share their account at all, and the others only with 1 other household. I'd not be surprised if the people who don't share their sub over more than one household are in the one digit percentile. It also doesn't take into account that there are probably some who watched the show more than once.

    If the show has 100 million views, that means that the number of people who actually watched it is something like 3-4 times as many, not taking rewatches into account. I assume they're quiet negligable, anyway.

    So, 75 million Prime subs watched the show, over 3 months, that's 675 million dollars, with a monthly fee of 8.99, rounded up to 9 USD. Sounds great. But how many of these are new subs? We'll never know, but if Man in the High Castle only drove 1.18 million, out of 150 million existing ones, I feel confident in saying that Rings of Power didn't drive more than 10 million new subs. It's probably drastically less, but they hyped the show quiet a bit, so, again, I'm being generous.

    Suddenly, the additional revenue drops to 90 million dollars over what you'd already have, anyway. So, if Amazon hadn't made RoP, they'd have made 90 million less revenue, but would have saved a budget of... how much?

    And, btw, no, you can't lump in licensing into the entire project. It's a fixed cost at the beginning without which you can't start in the first place.

    If Amazon has said it's 100 million viewers, that's drastically worse. Like, really bad.

    Let's do the sane thing and assume Amazon doesn't lie. If they picked 100 million viewers as the number they are comfortable to tell the public, that probably means it's the best sounding number they can publish.

    While sharing accounts is strictly against the TOS, I'm fairly certain Amazon knows that A) people still do it like crazy, and B) to which extent it's done. Some easy anonymous research will tell you exactly how many people do or do not actually use one account.

    If Amazon tells you 100 million people watched the show, 100 million viewers, that means that they extrapolated that data from market research and looking into how many people actually stream on one subscription. They can't know it, unless you think they're actively spying on people. Which also means that the number of Prime accounts that actually streamed Rings of Power is closer to 50 million accounts. That would only assume that, on average, 2 viewers shared the same account. Most likely, it's significantly more on average.

    In either case, if you factor in all they spent on the show so far, it has lost them hundreds of millions. Which is probably something they were aware of. Which gets me to your next question.

    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    Why is 50% of Amazon Prime subscribers a bad thing? Remember even 100 million Prime subscribers brings in 13.9 billion yearly with just subscription fees.
    Yes, but they would have done so if you hadn't made ROP as well. Even if ALL Prime accounts watched the show 100 times each, if not one of them is a new sub, you have made 0 additional profit and have spent a tremendous amount of cash.

    And these subscription fees are revenue. The profit is drastically less.

    Since Amazon doesn't publish subscription numbers frequently, we'll probably not know how many people were actually gained as new customers. But, there are a few things we can extrapolate. For example, you said the production cost was 450 million USD for S1? You'd need a minimum of 2 months to watch the entire show every week, so a fee of 18 USD.

    You'd need 25 million new subscriptions just to offset the 450 million you just sunk into the series, and that's not even taking the costs for the additional servers and their maintenance for that increased strain on your hardware into account.

    And now ask yourself, do you think RoP drove 25 million new subscriptions?

    Yeah, didn't think so either.

    They lost hundreds of millions of dollars on that show.

  7. #8107
    The Unstoppable Force Syegfryed's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    21,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    Assuming Amazon doesn't use drones or their Alexa to accurately determine how many people are in the room when you stream something, the only thing they can accurately count are views. Did Amazon say the show got 100 million views, or 100 million viewers? The latter is significantly worse.

    If it's 100 million views, that means less than 100 million prime accounts watched the show. There are probably plenty of people who actually adhere to the TOS and only use one sub for one household, but factor in that we're currently in an economic crisis and many people have to watch out with their budget, so I'm fairly confident in saying that 100 million views came from probably something like 75 million accounts. That's very generous on my part, because that would mean half of the subscribers don't share their account at all, and the others only with 1 other household. I'd not be surprised if the people who don't share their sub over more than one household are in the one digit percentile. It also doesn't take into account that there are probably some who watched the show more than once.

    If the show has 100 million views, that means that the number of people who actually watched it is something like 3-4 times as many, not taking rewatches into account. I assume they're quiet negligable, anyway.

    So, 75 million Prime subs watched the show, over 3 months, that's 675 million dollars, with a monthly fee of 8.99, rounded up to 9 USD. Sounds great. But how many of these are new subs? We'll never know, but if Man in the High Castle only drove 1.18 million, out of 150 million existing ones, I feel confident in saying that Rings of Power didn't drive more than 10 million new subs. It's probably drastically less, but they hyped the show quiet a bit, so, again, I'm being generous.

    And we hve to point out again, that 100milion views also count people who just checked the first episode and didn't watched the rest, prob why they stop talking about minutes watched.


    Plus, and this is something im asking because i don't rly know, what happens if someone is watching, they close/have to log off, and come back to watch, or just f5 the page, does it count as the same view, or count as another view?

  8. #8108
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Plus, and this is something im asking because i don't rly know, what happens if someone is watching, they close/have to log off, and come back to watch, or just f5 the page, does it count as the same view, or count as another view?
    We don't know, because Amazon doesn't (afaik) give details like that for their metrics. For all we know they could have a rolling trailer embedded on some site and count that as "view". I'm not saying they're doing that, but it's not unheard of as a practice for pumping "viewer numbers" to look good on reports.

  9. #8109
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    And we hve to point out again, that 100milion views also count people who just checked the first episode and didn't watched the rest, prob why they stop talking about minutes watched.


    Plus, and this is something im asking because i don't rly know, what happens if someone is watching, they close/have to log off, and come back to watch, or just f5 the page, does it count as the same view, or count as another view?
    Well, if they said the show has X views, I'd assume they mean 'streamed from beginning to end'.

    If they said X Viewers, we don't even know if they included pirated versions.

  10. #8110
    Pretty sure Amazon and Netflix and the like do check IP's and can easily see account sharing that way. They just don't cancel it even if they are against it because they know how widespread it is and that would just annihilate your customer base.
    So those viewers are taken into account in the numbers I'm sure. Which means the actual accounts watching/paying is less than people viewing it.

    As I mentioned before, it's all fun and games playing around with numbers and speculating, but in the end we all are missing the bigger picture because we don't have full context. To accurately gauge the success we have to know how many new subs came with the show and also how many were retained because of it. E.g someone was thinking of stopping subbing, but then they got excited for RoP and continued to be subbed. Those should also count towards RoPs success, but even more difficult to gauge except with surveys, which we don't have.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    Well, if they said the show has X views, I'd assume they mean 'streamed from beginning to end'.

    If they said X Viewers, we don't even know if they included pirated versions.
    Can't think of any site that uses views to mean "watching the entire thing". Views is interchangeable with traffic essentially.
    Youtube for example you count has a view as soon as you clicked the video, maybe it needs a few seconds or actually going pasts ads, but you are a view almost instantly. Then you have lots of background statistics of how much people watch, which section people watch etc etc. I take views like sites use clicks to gauge traffic and "drawing" attention.

    Granted this is just my interpretation, not sure how it's used exactly. Could be completely wrong.
    Error 404 - Signature not found

  11. #8111
    The Unstoppable Force Syegfryed's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    21,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    We don't know, because Amazon doesn't (afaik) give details like that for their metrics. For all we know they could have a rolling trailer embedded on some site and count that as "view". I'm not saying they're doing that, but it's not unheard of as a practice for pumping "viewer numbers" to look good on reports.
    Well thats a thing, i talk to some people, and some online and they said they were loged-of, from their watching, so they had to click to watch again, can't verify that because i didn't watch there. But that never happened to me while watching other shows on prime.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    Well, if they said the show has X views, I'd assume they mean 'streamed from beginning to end'.

    If they said X Viewers, we don't even know if they included pirated versions.
    I actually think they don't count from beginning to end, cause that would for sure lower their numbers. And if it was fom piracy they numbers would increse, and how can they quantify that? That would be rly hard to do.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kumorii View Post
    Pretty sure Amazon and Netflix and the like do check IP's and can easily see account sharing that way. They just don't cancel it even if they are against it because they know how widespread it is and that would just annihilate your customer base.
    So those viewers are taken into account in the numbers I'm sure. Which means the actual accounts watching/paying is less than people viewing it.
    That would also boost numbers with people changing their ip or using programs to do so, we rly don't have much basis for those things;
    Can't think of any site that uses views to mean "watching the entire thing". Views is interchangeable with traffic essentially.
    Youtube for example you count has a view as soon as you clicked the video, maybe it needs a few seconds or actually going pasts ads, but you are a view almost instantly. Then you have lots of background statistics of how much people watch, which section people watch etc etc. I take views like sites use clicks to gauge traffic and "drawing" attention.

    Granted this is just my interpretation, not sure how it's used exactly. Could be completely wrong.
    I this checks out, cause some videos i click by accident there, close instantly, but they still send me related videos for recommendation

  12. #8112
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,854
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    If it's 100 million views, that means less than 100 million prime accounts watched the show.
    No it doesn't. That is you putting your bias into this with no evidence. Even with account sharing it still could have been 100 million accounts with Amazon not reporting the others. They did state views, and not viewers.

    Yes, but they would have done so if you hadn't made ROP as well. Even if ALL Prime accounts watched the show 100 times each, if not one of them is a new sub, you have made 0 additional profit and have spent a tremendous amount of cash.
    Amazon views Prime Video as a way to keep people subscribed. 50% of a your subscribers using a secondary service and kept on the Prime ecosystem is bad? Amazon doesn't only use new subs as a way to calculate profit. New subs is only the part that leaked.

    You still have your bias showing by answering your own question about driving subscriptions. How do you know it didn't drive 25 million new subscribers? Your $18 is also just for Prime Video. Those people could convert to a full subscription. The article I linked said Prime Video customers are most likely to convert from free, or paid, to full subscriptions. Some might not have paid monthly and might have just done the year. All you keep doing is setting up everything to fail because that is what you want it to do. Yet it is entirely possible for it to have succeeded.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    And we hve to point out again, that 100milion views also count people who just checked the first episode and didn't watched the rest, prob why they stop talking about minutes watched.
    A view is a view. The only reason why you, and others, keep bringing that up is because you need a way to make a negative from a positive. We know from the Nielsen ratings that the finale had almost as many as the premiere. So we know that about the same watched the start as they did the end with a drop in the middle. That was just US TV viewing only. So web, mobile, and non-us viewing could have a different trend.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    That would also boost numbers with people changing their ip or using programs to do so, we rly don't have much basis for those things;
    If you are starting to invent a conspiracy for a show you hate I think it is time you take a breather and maybe stop following that show. Account sharing isn't seen as that big of a deal by Amazon because they even give you a way to legitimize it with Amazon Household. You can share benefits of a Prime subscription with other people. Two adult accounts and I forget what the limit is for kids

    Account sharing is an issue is because you all can't accept that the show might be successful and have to find a reason why good news is really bad news Even if a percentage has been shared it is still something that would exist for all of the Prime Video platform and Rings of Power would still be impressive and have broken several records for the service.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  13. #8113
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    No it doesn't. That is you putting your bias into this with no evidence. Even with account sharing it still could have been 100 million accounts with Amazon not reporting the others. They did state views, and not viewers.



    Amazon views Prime Video as a way to keep people subscribed. 50% of a your subscribers using a secondary service and kept on the Prime ecosystem is bad? Amazon doesn't only use new subs as a way to calculate profit. New subs is only the part that leaked.

    You still have your bias showing by answering your own question about driving subscriptions. How do you know it didn't drive 25 million new subscribers? Your $18 is also just for Prime Video. Those people could convert to a full subscription. The article I linked said Prime Video customers are most likely to convert from free, or paid, to full subscriptions. Some might not have paid monthly and might have just done the year. All you keep doing is setting up everything to fail because that is what you want it to do. Yet it is entirely possible for it to have succeeded.
    Yes, it does. If it had been 100 million accounts that watched it they would have said that, because that looks a lot better than saying '100 million views', which is incredibly vague.

    As has been established, people share accounts. And since, once more, all you have to contribute to this discussion is your flavor of the week 'nu-uh', with 0 reason behind it and exactly nothing other than your h urt feelings to make your point, I'll go ahead and say it's actually your bias that's showing here, if you're honestly trying to deny the existance of shared accounts and think this show generated 25 million subs. If that had been the case Amazon would have let the public have acces to their data to show it, because that'd actually be news.

    But they didn't. They kept it as vague as possible to try to mitigate the fact that they lost a lot of money on that show.

  14. #8114
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,854
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    Yes, it does. If it had been 100 million accounts that watched it they would have said that, because that looks a lot better than saying '100 million views', which is incredibly vague.
    It isn't vague. If they said accounts you would be finding some way to rationalize it as vague. My hurt feelings? It sounds more like you are the one getting your feelings hurt by being called out on your obvious bias. I haven't denied that account sharing exists. Amazon has the ability to share accounts built in to the Prime platform with the Household feature.

    Amazon doesn't let the public have access to any data. They are known to be secretive. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy about Rings of Power viewers. It is crazy you say I'm the one showing a bias when you are pushing an actual conspiracy about why Amazon is secretive. That they only way they wouldn't be bad is if they give you open access to all of their data.

    They didn't keep it as vague as possible. They used the same language and terms that other platforms use. It is only a problem with Amazon and Rings of Powers because you, and others, need to manufacture reasons to hate on the show rather then just stick to the things that were an actual problem.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  15. #8115
    Merely a Setback Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    26,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    First of all, no-one who is to be taken seriously claims that Amazon doesn't know how many views the show has. But views and viewers are two rather different things.
    Whole of courses views and viewers are two different things it’s really rather irrelevant to the point and the over all back in forth in the thread.

    Rather it be not tracking ip’s to know who’s account sharing, flat out lying about the number, saying they could be counting in app adds as views the sentiment again and again is that they either don’t know how many people views they had or they do know and they are using any trick they can to lie about it.
    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

  16. #8116
    The only ones braying how awesome this show is, is Amazon and Bezos, and the few that seem to believe that mediocrity is the epitome of achievement.

  17. #8117
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    Whole of courses views and viewers are two different things it’s really rather irrelevant to the point and the over all back in forth in the thread.

    Rather it be not tracking ip’s to know who’s account sharing, flat out lying about the number, saying they could be counting in app adds as views the sentiment again and again is that they either don’t know how many people views they had or they do know and they are using any trick they can to lie about it.
    Nobody is talking about actual LIES, just about the way certain data is represented. And no one has to accuse Amazon specifically of doing this, because this is ALWAYS done by EVERYONE. Which is why you almost never see meticulous, differentiated metrics, but only vague generalizations into "views" or "clicks" or whatever.

    "View" can be anything, but someone who watches 1 episode, hates it, and never comes back is a VERY different data point from someone who watches all episodes start to finish. Saying "views are views" in response to that only reinforces what people are saying: that these kinds of simplified, one-dimensional metrics are extremely vague and extremely prone to creative interpretation.

    As for account sharing... we don't know how many people do it, but we know it's more than 0 - and so the "views" are almost certainly higher than the number of actual accounts. By how much, we don't know; but lower, for certain. We also don't know if these "views" count repeats - so someone watching the show twice might show up in views twice, but would NOT actually generate revenue twice. And so on.

    Absent details on the metrics we can't say for certain how many of their stated "views" actually translated into views tied at least potentially to revenue, but we CAN say with virtual certainty that it's LESS than the stated number.

    The biggest distorting factor remains the conversion rate, i.e. how many people subbed because of the show and would not have otherwise (either new subs or continuing existing subs). That's data Amazon will never ever EVER make public, and it's difficult to speculate about. But it's VERY likely to be SIGNIFICANTLY less than the total number of views, probably by a factor of 3+ simply because that would already be an incredible conversion rate for any streaming service, let alone one where the sub isn't just about streaming.

  18. #8118
    Merely a Setback Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    26,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Nobody is talking about actual LIES, just about the way certain data is represented.
    Some posters have literally said that any number put out that doesn’t show the show as a failure is a lie and there have been all kinds of other silly statements in the thread.

    While there is of course room between 100m views viewers and unique accounts there is a ton of non sense in this thread about it based off nothing but wishful thinking.
    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

  19. #8119
    Some reviews are just too amusing;

    Rings of Power Season 1 Review – How to burn a billion dollars

    With many episodes clocking in at over an hour, the snail’s pace in this show is painful at times, to say the least. Pretty visuals and establishing shots can only go so far, but the actual story beats, narrative and logic are almost completely devoid from this show.

    As a quick disclaimer, I am a fan of Lord of the Rings but it’s been a long time since I read the books and I only have a passing knowledge of the Silmarillion and the appendices. I appreciate that lore changes do happen but the way Rings of Power handles that – and Tolkien’s legacy – is akin to giving a baby a shotgun.

    In one letter, Tolkien writes that he “cordially dislikes allegory in all its manifestations”, so when we hear a xenophobic worker in Numenor worried that elves are “taking all their jobs”, it obviously reflects the current situation going on in various parts of the world – and contradicts the writers claiming they’re honouring Tolkien.

    But beyond that, the actual story here just isn’t very good. The sheer lack of logic and narrative structure belies belief. I said before about the pacing but even simple things like characters moving from point A to B are completely disregarded.

    These sort of lackadaisical slips are not just frustrating to watch, they completely take you out of the world and destroy any sense of realism and immersion you may have. And that in itself is staggering for a billion dollar project.

    The character development is almost non-existent through large swathes of this season, and it’s presented in a really questionable way. The show has a bizarre tendency to lean on mystery box gimmicks for things that aren’t even mysteries. Will Isildur, the man destined to cut the ring from Sauron’s hand die? We’ll have to wait to find out!

    But then even through all of this, the show has a really awful way of handling its dialogue. Characters either repeat information constantly or float into grandiose but nonsensical bits of dialogue that are almost laughable for how they’re delivered. Early on, Arondir is warned not to go down a hole as he doesn’t know what’s down there, so in reply he says “that is why I must go.” I could be here all day rattling off instances of dialogue like this but suffice to say it does nothing to help this series.

    Speaking of characters though, Galadriel in particular has to be one of the most unlikable protagonists in a project this year, if not in the past decade. She’s arrogant, rude, abrupt and unbelievably self-entitled, not to mention smug in most encounters. She walks around with a big scowl on her face and embodies all the characteristics you’d expect from a perfect “Mary Sue” character. The others here range from blandly forgettable to exhibiting sparks of promise (mostly Disa, Elrond and Durin) but largely, everything here is a big glossy void of…nothing.

    There’s absolutely nothing here that exhibits depth, majesty or richness lore. Instead, what we get is an empty husk; a show playing puppeteer with Tolkien’s world but devoid of heart, reason and logic, with narrative faults rippling right the way through its production. With the show creators promising big changes to come in season 2, it seems even they’re aware of the issues inherent with this.

    Whether people will actually return to this one in a hurry is left up for debate but based on this showing, Rings of Power is not just one of the most disappointing shows of the year, it’s shockingly also one of the worst written and produced. Glossy visuals will only get you so far and Rings of Power has done absolutely nothing to convince that its writing will improve the next time out. What a disappointment.


    This show would probably work better as a comedy.

  20. #8120
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    It isn't vague. If they said accounts you would be finding some way to rationalize it as vague. My hurt feelings? It sounds more like you are the one getting your feelings hurt by being called out on your obvious bias. I haven't denied that account sharing exists. Amazon has the ability to share accounts built in to the Prime platform with the Household feature.

    Amazon doesn't let the public have access to any data. They are known to be secretive. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy about Rings of Power viewers. It is crazy you say I'm the one showing a bias when you are pushing an actual conspiracy about why Amazon is secretive. That they only way they wouldn't be bad is if they give you open access to all of their data.

    They didn't keep it as vague as possible. They used the same language and terms that other platforms use. It is only a problem with Amazon and Rings of Powers because you, and others, need to manufacture reasons to hate on the show rather then just stick to the things that were an actual problem.
    And again, nothing but half-cooked accusations, deflections, and some minor and poor attempt at gaslighting. I find it amusing, however, how you can type so much and say actually nothing of substance.

    You cannot refute a single thing I said without trying to drag it to a personal level of bias. Please, point out one of my assumptions and tell me why you think it is unreasonable.

    You have exactly nothing to support your narrative, and not for the first time, either.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    Whole of courses views and viewers are two different things it’s really rather irrelevant to the point and the over all back in forth in the thread.

    Rather it be not tracking ip’s to know who’s account sharing, flat out lying about the number, saying they could be counting in app adds as views the sentiment again and again is that they either don’t know how many people views they had or they do know and they are using any trick they can to lie about it.
    It really depends on what you're trying to argue. I agree with the second part of your post, obviously, but for trying to get an estimate whether or not the show did good or not, it's kind of important.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •