Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Biomega]

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.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

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.

[Shadowferal]

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.

[Skulltaker]

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 - - -

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.

[rhorle]

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.

You have nothing to support your narrative either because you are using personal level of bias as "proof". Isn't it strange how you are "good" for doing the same thing you say I'm bad for doing? Your entire argument that they lost money is "I said so". You don't know if they lost any money because you don't have any data yet you call saying otherwise half-baked, deflection, and gas lighting. Strange, right?

If all you are going to do is insult me, the poster, then just put me on ignore. It is only their for your own pride because no one really cares. Just like when people announce that they are going to, or have, put someone on ignore.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

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.

it would be important to estimate the success of the show but with the info we have right now it’s also quite impossible.

At best we know it broke a bunch of prime records any thing beyond that is yelling into the wind as we just don’t have enough info about the numbers given.

[Syegfryed]

A view is a view.

Ah yes, doesn't matter if people only watch first episode, if they click on the first and the number is show it whats matters, it isa n automatic success

The only reason why you, and others, keep bringing that up is because you need a way to make a negative from a positive.

Thats literally what amazon did m8, they brought the numbers to make a negative positive lmao

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

Nah, just saying something that i heard it happened, didn't say it as a fact or not, but i brought up intended, cause you would focus on this, since the previous narrative was falling apart.

Account sharing is an issue is because you all can't accept that the show might be successful

only 100m "views" that you said yourself can be people who only click the first episode, from a billion dollar show is a immense failure, don't know what kind of copium are you on.

[Skulltaker]

You have nothing to support your narrative either because you are using personal level of bias as "proof". Isn't it strange how you are "good" for doing the same thing you say I'm bad for doing? Your entire argument that they lost money is "I said so". You don't know if they lost any money because you don't have any data yet you call saying otherwise half-baked, deflection, and gas lighting. Strange, right?

If all you are going to do is insult me, the poster, then just put me on ignore. It is only their for your own pride because no one really cares. Just like when people announce that they are, or have, put someone on ignore.

I do have something to support my narrative, though. It's called reason. You, on the other hand, either don't have that, or don't use it. You're saying 'we can't know for sure, so no assumption made is valid!', which is kind of shitposting 101.

But, again, I'll give you my entire argument point by point, feel free to refute it with your own reasonable assumptions.

The show was viewed 100 million times. It's fair to assume Amazon didn't include pirated views. So, out of these 100 million views, is it possible that those were made on 100 million accounts? Sure. It's not reasonable, though. Not even close to it. It is far more likely that it's significantly less.

Arguments for it actually being streamed on 100 million accounts: A) Rhorle's whishful thinking B) Nothing else.
Arguments for it actually being streamed on far less: A) the knowledge that account sharing is wide-spread paired with common sense, B) the economy is terrible, inflation running wild and money is tight, so people save every penny they can.

What was your other insane claim? Oh yeah, it's possible the show actually drew 25 million subscribers. Is that possible? Sure. Is it likely? No.

Indications that the show actually drew a large number of new subscriptions: A): Again, Rhorles wishful thinking. B): Nothing whatsoever.
Indications that it didn't do that: a huge boost in subscriptions would have boosted confidence in Amazon shareholders and would have silenced the critics of the show. Generally, big companies like to boast about their successes, especially when they are facing criticism. Nothing from them, though. If they felt confident to tell us how many new subs a well-recieved show like Man in the High Castle drew in, why haven't they done this for ROP? Because it didn't happen. They were happy to tell us what other records the show shattered, but nothing on how many people it actually drew in. Not a strong indicator that it did well.

So, which part of these trains of thought do you consider to be biased, again? And instead of just saying 'bias', I'd like you to explain how exactly anything I said is biased. Show me that you actually understand the words meaning, and that you're not simply parroting buzzwords.

[Syegfryed]

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.

Don't pretend, i said they are manipulating data, or outright lying bout about the success of the show

the lie is saying the show ws succesful

the manipulation is with the numbers

[Skulltaker]

it would be important to estimate the success of the show but with the info we have right now it’s also quite impossible.

At best we know it broke a bunch of prime records any thing beyond that is yelling into the wind as we just don’t have enough info about the numbers given.

It's not really impossible, though. We know what the show cost, we know how many times it was streamed, we can make some assumptions on how successful it was financially. We'd probably be off by tens of millions of dollars, but saying that the show is a massive financial net loss, for now, is a safe bet. That doesn't mean that it missed Amazons goals.

Is there a lot of speculation? Sure. But with some simply napkin math and using your brain, you can get a rough picture. It's also fun to speculate.

- - - Updated - - -

the lie is saying the show ws succesful

That really depends on what the aim for the show was.

With a budget like 500 mil. to 1 bn USD, it's safe to assume the goal was never to make money. I'm fairly certain Amazon knew from the beginning that they'd sink a shitload of cash into the show that they'd no see back short term. And they won't, unless you count profit from shipping to offset the loss the show made.

I think the goal was to elevate the streaming industry in general. Or rather, to show they are ahead of the competition. Basically, they tried to do for streaming what the MCU did for cinema.

While you can argue about the quality of the movies, the MCU, as it is, is the biggest cinematic project ever. Nothing comes close. And it all culminated in the Infinity Saga, which is, in itself, a milestone that won't be overcome any time soon. A decade-long storyline in the making that culminated in one of the biggest events in cinema history.

And I think that's what Amazon wanted for streaming. The first 'monument' in streaming valley. While HBO has made high-quality entertainment on demand for some time, there's nothing in streaming where you'd say "That was a memorable moment in streaming!". No one series was either so grand or so good that you'd say 'That's outstanding!' 'This is unique in streaming!'.

I don't think they managed that. I think they focussed to much on throwing money at the project and not enough on actually crafting something good. Budget cannot offset lack of imagination.

[rhorle]

Ah yes, doesn't matter if people only watch first episode, if they click on the first and the number is show it whats matters, it isa n automatic success

No one said watching 1 second makes it a success. Though it is still a view. There are plenty of different metrics used to measure a show but a view is still a view. How is Amazon stating numbers a negative, from them, about Rings of Power? Even for you this is down right crazy and requires an actual explanation of the logic you used to get there.

You "heard it happened" is not proof that people are actually changing IP to inflate the Rings of Power view count. It is 100% a conspiracy that you brought up because your own narrative is falling apart. So you double down on crazy.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Don't pretend, i said they are manipulating data, or outright lying bout about the success of the show

the lie is saying the show ws succesful

the manipulation is with the numbers

Don’t need to pretend.

Any number amazon put up to hide their massive failure is a lie or questionable at best,

[Syegfryed]

That really depends on what the aim for the show was.

With a budget like 500 mil. to 1 bn USD, it's safe to assume the goal was never to make money. I'm fairly certain Amazon knew from the beginning that they'd sink a shitload of cash into the show that they'd no see back short term. And they won't, unless you count profit from shipping to offset the loss the show made.

I think the goal was to elevate the streaming industry in general. Or rather, to show they are ahead of the competition. Basically, they tried to do for streaming what the MCU did for cinema.

While you can argue about the quality of the movies, the MCU, as it is, is the biggest cinematic project ever. Nothing comes close. And it all culminated in the Infinity Saga, which is, in itself, a milestone that won't be overcome any time soon. A decade-long storyline in the making that culminated in one of the biggest events in cinema history.

And I think that's what Amazon wanted for streaming. The first 'monument' in streaming valley. While HBO has made high-quality entertainment on demand for some time, there's nothing in streaming where you'd say "That was a memorable moment in streaming!". No one series was either so grand or so good that you'd say 'That's outstanding!' 'This is unique in streaming!'.

From past interaction, interviews and insiders, their aim was to make a BIG show, "their game of thrones", and thats why they took a stronger ip, they wanted to do something popular with huge level of engagement akin to what game of thrones did, who became a fever with people worldwide gathering in the release day to watch

But alas, in what they tried to do, it was a huge failure and why we are hearing about changes in it.

This, or their iam was just to laundry money, and then they were very succesful since it took away all the people eyes.

I don't think they managed that. I think they focussed to much on throwing money at the project and not enough on actually crafting something good. Budget cannot offset lack of imagination.

For sure, they accepted probably because the showrunners asked J.J abrahams or whatever was his name to back then up, big name, they brought though it was a good idea.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It's not really impossible, though. We know what the show cost, we know how many times it was streamed, we can make some assumptions on how successful it was financially. We'd probably be off by tens of millions of dollars, but saying that the show is a massive financial net loss, for now, is a safe bet. That doesn't mean that it missed Amazons goals.

Is there a lot of speculation? Sure. But with some simply napkin math and using your brain, you can get a rough picture. It's also fun to speculate.

It very much is impossible as has already been laid out in the thread we don’t known if the 100m given counts unique users house sharing or greater viewer research, as well as not knowing how many new subs the show got prime or subs that were going to quit but didn’t for the shows run or so on.

All we have is the cost of the show an 100m views that could lead to any number of different earning equations.

[rhorle]

I do have something to support my narrative, though. It's called reason.

There is no amount of reasoning that can say the show lost money. Because you don't have access to that kind of information. You even said a week or two ago that 100 million views can't be used to say anything about the show because we don't have any supporting information. Yet here you are drawing a conclusion that perfectly fits your bias. Strange, right?

Why isn't it reasonable that 100 million accounts viewed the show? Do you know that Amazons metric didn't exclude account sharing already? This is an example of your bias forming the narrative you want when no such data exists. It is strange how you say I'm using wishful thinking when that is exactly what you are doing yourself. Wishful thinking that is negative.

New subscriptions is not the only way to make money for amazon. It is quite strange that your "reasoning" excludes existing customers as well from Amazon's calculations. In fact it shows how you are setting up the parameters for failure from the get go. Because new customers will almost always be dwarfed by existing customers. The other amusing thing is you have nothing what so ever to back up your claims other then "I said so".

Amazon didn't tell us how many new subs Man in the High Castle received. It was leaked. Did you not actually read and comprehend the article I linked? That right there calls into question your ability to reason on this subject and shows that you are just out to confirm your own bias on the opinion of the show and nothing else. They haven't done it for Rings of Power because they rarely do. Amazon is secretive about most of their numbers. Even total subscribers has rarely been stated and that likely only recently happened because of Mr. Bezos retiring.

[Syegfryed]

Don’t need to pretend.

and in the end, my words were true, as they don't say if its 100m watching from start to finish. just 100m views, questionable at best

[rhorle]

Is there a lot of speculation? Sure. But with some simply napkin math and using your brain, you can get a rough picture. It's also fun to speculate.

We don't know plus we don't know is "a rough picture". There is no napkin math that can be done to come to any conclusion about how much money the show made for Amazon.

- - - Updated - - -

and in the end, my words were true, as they don't say if its 100m watching from start to finish. just 100m views, questionable at best

Has any show ever stated views were start to finish?

[Skulltaker]

There is no amount of reasoning that can say the show lost money. Because you don't have access to that kind of information. You even said a week or two ago that 100 million views can't be used to say anything about the show because we don't have any supporting information. Yet here you are drawing a conclusion that perfectly fits your bias. Strange, right?

Why isn't it reasonable that 100 million accounts viewed the show? Do you know that Amazons metric didn't exclude account sharing already? This is an example of your bias forming the narrative you want when no such data exists. It is strange how you say I'm using wishful thinking when that is exactly what you are doing yourself. Wishful thinking that is negative.

New subscriptions is not the only way to make money for amazon. It is quite strange that your "reasoning" excludes existing customers as well from Amazon's calculations. In fact it shows how you are setting up the parameters for failure from the get go. Because new customers will almost always be dwarfed by existing customers. The other amusing thing is you have nothing what so ever to back up your claims other then "I said so".

Amazon didn't tell us how many new subs Man in the High Castle received. It was leaked. Did you not actually read and comprehend the article I linked? That right there calls into question your ability to reason on this subject and shows that you are just out to confirm your own bias on the opinion of the show and nothing else. They haven't done it for Rings of Power because they rarely do. Amazon is secretive about most of their numbers. Even total subscribers has rarely been stated and that likely only recently happened because of Mr. Bezos retiring.

So, nothing on your part, again, but your feelings and more 'you don't know that', with nothing to back up your claims and trying to devalue rational reasoning with your emotions. But I am the biased one. Sure.

Also, sure. New subs aren't the only way to make money. But here's the thing. If you don't grow the revenue you make, in this case, drawing in new customers, but you increase your spendings by a billion dollars, what happens to your profit?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

and in the end, my words were true, as they don't say if its 100m watching from start to finish. just 100m views, questionable at best

So as I said “ Some posters have literally said that any number put out that doesn’t show the show as a failure is a lie”.

[Skulltaker]

We don't know plus we don't know is "a rough picture". There is no napkin math that can be done to come to any conclusion about how much money the show made for Amazon.

- - - Updated - - -



Has any show ever stated views were start to finish?

No, it isn't. You're - again- trying to equate not being able to know with not being able to make a reasonable assumption. The math has been done. Just scroll up.

Oh, wait, so, if views doesn't mean 'from start to finish', what you're saying is that even LESS people than 100 million watched the show?