Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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?

[rhorle]

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.

Of course you are the biased one. You are pretend like you have actual data rather then just your feelings. I'm not biased either way on the show's performance. It could have lost money. It could have earned money. From Amazon's statements it appears the show was a success. 100 million views, and it broke all previous records for new sign ups and views.

You are lashing out and pretending that you have access to some kind of secret data that has allowed you to do "napkin math" to determine the show has lost money.

Here is an example of you not having a bias. Which has clearly changed despite still having 0 information to draw conclusions and nothing to back up your claims other then "I a say so".

Just because 100 million watched it doesn't mean 100 million enjoyed it. So far it has been recieved with mixed reviews. Amazon Prime has over 200 million subscribers, so out of their own audience, 50% were interested. This gives us 0 information on how many people the show actually attracted enough to bother subbing to prime.

Also, more people like the show than don't like it is a rather big assumption on your part. You have nothing backing your claims, other than your opinion, dude.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

How can you do math when you don't know the information? That isn't reasonable in the slightest. You are making up values to fit the narrative you want. How many new subscriptions did the show get Prime? How many current subscribers watched it? How many cancelled? How many of those new subscribers were just Video and not Prime? How many made other purchases during that time period? All things that you don't know which means you didn't do any math and haven't made any reasonable conclusions. Lmao.

[Syegfryed]

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”.

Nitpicking and ignoring context.

Which is funny since I've being accused of nittpicking the show

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Nitpicking and ignoring context.

Which is funny since I've being accused of nittpicking the show

Not doing either you just don’t want to own your own words.

[Coolface330]

Show was pretty sweet.

Was fun watching, acting like Batman "Where's Sauron???" Hehehhe.

[Skulltaker]

Of course you are the biased one. You are pretend like you have actual data rather then just your feelings. I'm not biased either way on the show's performance. It could have lost money. It could have earned money. From Amazon's statements it appears the show was a success. 100 million views, and it broke all previous records for new sign ups and views.

You are lashing out and pretending that you have access to some kind of secret data that has allowed you to do "napkin math" to determine the show has lost money.

Here is an example of you not having a bias. Which has clearly changed despite still having 0 information to draw conclusions and nothing to back up your claims other then "I a say so".



- - - Updated - - -



How can you do math when you don't know the information? That isn't reasonable in the slightest. You are making up values to fit the narrative you want.

Again, I know it's difficult for you to understand that concept, but assumptions aren't based on feelings.

I'm not pretending to know anything, that's (another) blatant lie on your part. I'm also not lashing out, buddy. You're the one who is increasingly agitated because you desperatly try to hold on to the fantasy of 'All assumptions are equally valid'.

The point I made 2 weeks ago and the point I'm making today are the exact same thing. We don't know what 100 million views means, but we can speculate.

And saying 'we don't know the information' is another blatant lie by you. You've even repeated some of the infos we have. You're just unwilling or unable to get to any conlcusions. None of the values I used are made up. They are assumptions. That's not the same thing.

Again. Point out what I've said is unreasonable to you, and why.

Or keep flailing.

[rhorle]

Again, I know it's difficult for you to understand that concept, but assumptions aren't based on feelings.

You don't have the information to make these assumptions on anything but feelings. If the point you made today and two weeks ago are the same then why is it that today you said we have enough information to say the show lost money but two weeks ago you said we don't have enough information? You are now lying while saying I'm the one increasingly agitated. It is pure projection on your part lol.

We don't know the information to say if they show made money or lost money. 100 million viewers is not in indication of money made. Breaking all previous prime records for viewers and new sign ups (tracked by first show watched after sign up) is not an indication of how much money the show made. Your assumptions are you've argued that the show lost money. You have no way of knowing that based on the information given.

[Skulltaker]

You don't have the information to make these assumptions on anything but feelings. If the point you made today and two weeks ago are the same then why is it that today you said we have enough information to say the show lost money but two weeks ago you said we don't have enough information? You are now lying while saying I'm the one increasingly agitated. It is pure projection on your part lol.

We don't know the information to say if they show made money or lost money. 100 million viewers is not in indication of money made. Breaking all previous prime records for viewers and new sign ups (tracked by first show watched after sign up) is not an indication of how much money the show made. Your assumptions are you've argued that the show lost money. You have no way of knowing that based on the information given.

Dude, I never said that two weeks ago. You even bothered to search for and quote what I said. Literally nothing I said back then goes near the question of success. So please stop putting words into my mouth, it's just another pathetic attempt at gaslighting on your part.

There are more than enough indicators to make an assumption whether or not the show was financially succesfull. Or rather, there are many MANY indicators that it wasn't, and not one that it was.

Do you think that the show drew in enough new subscribers to warrant the 500 million to 1 billion Dollar cost? Or rather, turn a profit? And what makes you think so?

Did the show get huge social media engagement to indicate it spread throughout potential customers? No. It fell short of the engagement House of the Dragon got. Did it get really good critiques? Nope. Mediocre ones. Yes, 6.9 average is mediocre.

The show lost money. Lots of it.