Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[rhorle]

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.

This gives us 0 information on how many people the show actually attracted enough to bother subbing to prime.

So having no information on how many were attracted by the show has nothing to do with success? Two weeks ago you said we didn't have enough information. The only thing that has changed for information is Amazon stated that they broke previous records for viewers and sign ups on the Prime Video platform. So there are no indicators for the show being a financial success or not. All we have are assumptions. You are using your feelings, and bias, to assume it wasn't successful.

New subscribers isn't the only way Amazon uses to judge a show for success. I'm beginning to regret posting that link since you keep misconstruing it. Regardless how do you know that it didn't draw in enough new subscribers for Amazon to call it a success on that regard? What are the many indicators that show us how many new accounts they got?

House of the Dragon is not Rings of Power. Why is it an automatic failure just because it didn't have the same level of social media engagement? With how much all the haters keep discussing the show here it is an indicator it is doing something right. Because you all can't let it go and have to keep trying to tear it down. All you have for the show losing lots of money is "I say so".

[Triceron]

https://fortune.com/2018/03/16/amazo...ime-originals/

This is How Amazon Evaluates the Success of Amazon Prime Originals


Amazon measures “cost per first stream,” which divides the total cost of producing and marketing an original show by the number of people who stream it after signing up for Prime


Just wanted to throw this out there since there's so much questioning on how Amazon judges success.

[kenn9530]

snip

That is how it works, new shows keep subs and get more subs plain and simple, they have also not spent 1 billion on the show, the first 2 seasons are estimated to cost that, all the money generated in amazon prime is attributed to the most popular show amazon has at the time and RoP beats all other shows by a massive margin.

Its 100 million viewers, which means seperate ppl watching it not views.

- - - Updated - - -

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


Prove it, prove how they did that when they spend more thn billion on it

- - - Updated - - -



It i because they have said numbers, they are able to manipulate info in a way it looks like its favorable.

You do realise alot of ppl dont use amazon prime to watch stuff right, if you think 100 million viewers is a bad sign you are just proving to everyone you lack integrity because you dont like something but more ppl actually do like it, most shows never even reach that number, in no world is that many views bad.

They have not spent 1 billion on the show have they, is season 2 completed no so they have spent about half a billion so far, they make multiple billions every single month from amazon prime so they have made thier money back and more.

[Syegfryed]

This guy is probably in another dimension or something

- - - Updated - - -

https://fortune.com/2018/03/16/amazo...ime-originals/

This is How Amazon Evaluates the Success of Amazon Prime Originals


Amazon measures “cost per first stream,” which divides the total cost of producing and marketing an original show by the number of people who stream it after signing up for Prime


Just wanted to throw this out there since there's so much questioning on how Amazon judges success.

the article is locked on paywall, or its just here?

[Biomega]

That is how it works, new shows keep subs and get more subs plain and simple

That's INCREDIBLY, even fallaciously, reductive, though.

No one is saying the show DIDN'T generate ANY subs. Which is the only claim this kind of statement would refute. You're trying to argue against a version of the claim that no one is putting forward - textbook definition of strawman.

The entire crux lies in HOW MANY subs it generated. You can't just handwave away THE most important, most central part of the issue at hand.

[kenn9530]

That's INCREDIBLY, even fallaciously, reductive, though.

No one is saying the show DIDN'T generate ANY subs. Which is the only claim this kind of statement would refute. You're trying to argue against a version of the claim that no one is putting forward - textbook definition of strawman.

The entire crux lies in HOW MANY subs it generated. You can't just handwave away THE most important, most central part of the issue at hand.

Number of subs gained at the time of a new show is completely irrelevant, if you are only going to sub 1 month to watch a show then those are the subs that matter the least, the most important subs are the ones who will remain subbed because the platform has enough content to keep them around, you are ignoring the most important aspect of the platform.

[rhorle]

Number of subs gained at the time of a new show is completely irrelevant, if you are only going to sub 1 month to watch a show then those are the subs that matter the least, the most important subs are the ones who will remain subbed because the platform has enough content to keep them around, you are ignoring the most important aspect of the platform.

Both are important to Amazon. The problem is only the calculations Amazon uses for new subs is known so they are all trying to tear the show down through those. Existing subscriptions are important as well because that keeps people buying on the platform. In 2016 Mr. Bezos said a golden globe win sells shoes. Prime Video is still seen as a "loss leader" type of product. It draws people in or keeps them subscribed to move more product. With the MGM acquisition and recent shows they most likely want to move away from only the loss leader type of thing.

[Koriani]

https://fortune.com/2018/03/16/amazo...ime-originals/

This is How Amazon Evaluates the Success of Amazon Prime Originals


Amazon measures “cost per first stream,” which divides the total cost of producing and marketing an original show by the number of people who stream it after signing up for Prime

Just wanted to throw this out there since there's so much questioning on how Amazon judges success.

Doh! Yeah behind a paywall man - couldn't get anything of the article behind the first three sentences.

However, in other, slightly related, news. "Everyone else" just posted THIS about Netflix's success with the new show, "WEDNESDAY" -

https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/net...ar-1235447465/
(irony - this page is COVERED IN RoP Ads, ROFL)

https://screenrant.com/wednesday-sho...ours-streamed/

Twelve days after its debut, The Hollywood Reporter reports that the Jenna Ortega-led Wednesday has beaten its own record, as for the week of November 28 - December 4, the series had 411.29 million hours viewed. This is the first time any English-language series has reached and passed 400 million hours viewed in a week. With 752.52 million cumulative hours streamed, Wednesday is ranked No. 3 in Netflix's all-time chart for English-language series, right behind Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story at No. 2 and Stranger Things season 4 at No. 1. It's highly likely that Wednesday will surpass the former soon and take the No. 2 spot.

Knowing this show didn't cost 500, or even 200, hell probably not even 100 million to make - does that make this more, or less, of a success for Netflix than RoP with its "known announced numbers" for Amazon. =D

Yeah, none of us can actually answer the above question with the given data! But watching you guys try to prove otherwise to each other is ....something.

So 750 MILLION HOURS, total for the show, in under TWO WEEKs.

Quoting this from the earlier post re: Amazon's statement--

The first season of The Rings of Power has been an unprecedented success, viewed by more than 100 million people worldwide, with more than 24 billion minutes streamed.

Remains to be seen if Wednesday viewed hours will end up equaling Amazon's stated numbers for RoP - but it certainly seems on track to pass 1 billion hours viewed in its first month, anyway. Whether anyone checks in six months to try and figure that out, outside of each company's pencil pushers, who knows. =D

Also, though I feel I shouldn't need to point this out, I will - each of these "record breaking" statements is among the company's OWN NUMBERS. Amazon's "record breaking" series, and Netflix's "record breaking" series aren't breaking each other's records. Netflix's statement of "Third biggest english language streamed show" is in reference to its OWN Market history and NOT comparing that to Amazon, Apple+, Disney+ etc. records. So both "record breakers" can be true, within their own companies.

You can all make assumptions from the above about their subscription rates, new subs due to shows, whatever, its all pure speculation because none of us has enough of this information to make ANY factual statements. Other than "Both of these networks see these shows as successes."

(Note: I did not give my opinion on whether *I* think RoP was a success or not for Amazon and I won't get drawn into that debate because none of us can answer that. We aren't Amazon accountants.)

[Triceron]

That article unfortunately happens to be behind a paywall, yes. I'll throw up some alternatives that covered mostly the same news:
https://decider.com/2018/03/15/amazo...bers-released/

The document shows that Amazon takes the total cost of the season (in this case, $72 million) and divides by the number of first streams it has (1.15 million) to calculate how much it cost to bring in each individual viewer.

If Amazon is going to base its creative decisions solely on the first stream metric, it makes sense that it chose to spend a massive sum of money on The Lord of the Rings prequel.


And I also found this one while looking for the alternative stuff above. Seems Amazon and Nielsen rating numbers don't quite match up, and Amazon's estimates are quite a bit higher in calculation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nielsen...zon-prime-nfl/

Through six weeks, Nielsen says the Thursday night games have averaged 10.3 million viewers. Amazon says the average is 12.1 million. Amazon's estimate has been bigger than Nielsen's each week.

"I don't at all believe that Amazon's numbers are not right," said Connie Kim, Nielsen spokeswoman. "And I don't believe that our numbers are not right."

And from a Fortune article covering the same news:
https://fortune.com/2022/10/25/how-m...ielsen-rating/

For now, ad prices for the Thursday games are set using Nielsen’s numbers. But Amazon clearly has an incentive to let clients know that it believes more people are actually watching.

I'm not sure what this means exactly, but it is definitely some evidence that Amazon's estimates may be higher for a reason. And while the estimates themselves may not be wrong, we don't know exactly how they're tallying views overall. Cuz a 1-2 million more estimates than Nielsen is quite a big difference. Though I believe Nielsen ratings only count TV-based streaming, and not web if I'm not mistaken?

[Koriani]

Thanks man, I find it interesting to get that peek behind the curtain.

I'd love to know (not saying its out there to be found, I've not looked! lol) how Amazon's process (using that 'new sub/first watch' count) varies, or is similar to , how Netflix or Disney+ counts those metrics.

I find it interesting that's how they figure it - as it pretty much 'assumes' (rightly or wrongly - again we don't know how everyone else does this metric) that every new sub was there because of XYZ new show. That's an assumption I'm a bit surprised ANY company would make, but at the same time I also highly doubt its the 'only metric' they are using to make this decision. (As the quote "..if Amazon...based solely on this first stream metric" refers to that idea.)

Course, maybe I find that assumption surprising because *I* don't base any of my subscription tv-service decisions on whatever the "newest show out" is. (Its not important to me to watch something ASAP upon release *shrugs*.) So whenever I choose to subscribe, or cancel, these services it has nothing at all to do with what "first watch" metrics are assuming. And when one looks at what most people claim - that that they don't even sub to Amazon Prime "for the shows" - its an interesting 'assumption' of the company to be the exact opposite.

(Again not a commentary or whether I think Amazon is smart or stupid to use this metric. I have no idea, its not my field. Its just an interesting assumptive metric to use at all and one I never would have thought of if someone asked me to list out the "best metrics" one might use to figure out a show's/subscription success.)

Unfortunately, I also don't know enough about Nielson (despite having a friend who was a Nielson family for a year ha) to know why their numbers and Amazon's numbers would be different. They probably don't count web streaming or perhaps not even tv-streaming after the first few days (?). And not saying Amazin is lying (at all!) - but I'm sure Ms. Kim would never go on record accusing Amazon of any such thing, even IF she thought they pulled the numbers out their arse.

[Biomega]

I find it interesting that's how they figure it - as it pretty much 'assumes' (rightly or wrongly - again we don't know how everyone else does this metric) that every new sub was there because of XYZ new show. That's an assumption I'm a bit surprised ANY company would make, but at the same time I also highly doubt its the 'only metric' they are using to make this decision. (As the quote "..if Amazon...based solely on this first stream metric" refers to that idea.)

Make no mistake: what they tell the public they're doing is unquestioningly only a bare-bones, radically dumbed-down version of their actual data analysis. No company will reveal the details of that, because that's integral to their business strategy - you'd be feeding competitors priceless information if you just made that public.

There is no doubt Amazon has entire teams of analysts poring over the data they extract from viewer behaviors on a project like this. Very detailed metrics, very thorough analyses, very comprehensive data sets. Of course they can't read minds so they can't ever tell with 100% accuracy "this person subbed only because of the show", but they'll have data models that are accurate enough in giving them a very good idea about who subbed for what reason based on their respective behaviors. But those are metrics they will never ever release to the public, because they're pure business gold - data is everything these days.

Keep in mind the purpose behind information. Anything they release they do for a reason, and if it's something they don't HAVE to release (for legal reasons) then you can be assured they're doing it because they think it'll benefit them somehow. That includes releasing "metrics" that make their own product look favorably - again, this doesn't have to mean they're lying about it, it can just be a certain way of presenting technically accurate data that creates a certain impression, even if that doesn't accurately reflect internal use or interpretation of the same data.

[Triceron]

Unfortunately, I also don't know enough about Nielson (despite having a friend who was a Nielson family for a year ha) to know why their numbers and Amazon's numbers would be different. They probably don't count web streaming or perhaps not even tv-streaming after the first few days (?). And not saying Amazin is lying (at all!) - but I'm sure Ms. Kim would never go on record accusing Amazon of any such thing, even IF she thought they pulled the numbers out their arse.

I'm not really well versed at all, I'm just learning as it goes and as discussion progresses, trying to sift out between data and 'people's fee fee's' on the subject.

From what I gather, Nielsen doesn't take into account web and mobile streaming, but supposedly they're getting better at the metrics since 2020

https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/21/ni...n-prime-video/

As with Netflix, however, Nielsen is able to measure only the Amazon Prime Video streams taking place in the U.S. via TVs. This includes through connected and smart devices — like streaming media players, for example.

That limitation has been a point of criticism from Netflix, which routinely dismisses Nielsen’s accuracy because it misses streams coming from mobile devices and PCs. But insiders now say Nielsen’s numbers are fairly close, according to a Variety report from earlier this year, which detailed how Nielsen’s numbers backed up Netflix’s claims about its hit movie “Bird Box.”

Plus, those missing mobile and PC streams may not be as important in terms of U.S. viewership as you may think. Although many U.S. consumers are cutting the cord with traditional linear TV, they still often watch their streamed shows on the TV’s big screen. Hulu, for example, said last year that as much as 78% of its viewing takes place on a TV, to give you an idea.

Again, many of these articles I pull are from different years, different topic of sources, so it's not all going to align into one big picture. There's a lot of info to sift through to get a good picture, and even now I've heard talks (internally at my studio) that Nielsen ratings have become less and less relevant over the years as companies are shifting how they're approaching content roll out and viewership data.


As for how this pertains to Amazon, I do believe that Amazon may be fudging the numbers to make themselves look better, and I do consider Rings of Power to be intentionally performing at a loss in order to bring in big numbers. And frankly, it's worked for their goals, since they're touting that 100m number and breaking their own internal records (let's be clear, they never compared the show's performance to any show outside of Amazon's own lineup). I can see that working to their benefit. And they want to keep good PR and numbers high in order to potentially snag some awards, to boost Prime Video's overall credibility.

Whether or not RoP is a success when compared to other shows or on its own merit based on Amazon's first-stream system, I don't know exactly. The numbers are too fudged to really say. All I can say is whatever the outcome, Amazon seems to be doubled down on pushing this show as their headliner Prime Original series, and for that it's working out. And not really a surprise, for the amount of money they've thrown at it.

There is no amount of reasoning that can say the show lost money.

Prime Video is still seen as a "loss leader" type of product. It draws people in or keeps them subscribed to move more product.

Pretty sure a reason for the show losing money is already answered and addressed in the latter quote.

Kinda puts into perspective the kind of bullshit arguments being pedalled here to make it seem like it's unreasonable to consider Rings of Power would ever operate at a loss, while completely admitting that operating on losses is part of Prime Video/Amazon's business strategy.

Some people are just so full of shit they forget the bullshit things they say in the show's defense once they start considering actual facts about how Amazon runs its business.

[Skulltaker]

Pretty sure a reason for the show losing money is already answered and addressed in the latter quote.

Kinda puts into perspective the kind of bullshit arguments being pedalled here to make it seem like it's unreasonable to consider Rings of Power would ever operate at a loss, while completely admitting that operating on losses is part of Prime Video/Amazon's business strategy.

Some people are just so full of shit they forget the bullshit things they say in the show's defense once they start considering actual facts about how Amazon runs its business.

Which brings me back to 'what was the goal for the series', and again, I still think it was to set Prime apart from the competition. Draw in a decent number of people who are hesitant to sub to prime, and keep some of them. You'll never retain 100% of new customers you bring in. A substantial bump in sub numbers, though, would mean a shitton of increased revenue. Spend money on one end, make more money on the other.

This is why new sub numbers are very important to gauge the success of a huge show like this. Which is why social media engagement is important, and how the show resonates with the public compared to other shows, especially comparable shows that run at the same time. Which is why 'number of views' compared to 'existing customers' is important, and which is why '100 million views' doesn't mean it's a success, but probably means that it wasn't. Because even if every single view of those 100 mil was on an individually subbed prime account - which it wasn't - that means that less than 50% of all people who have access to the show decided not to watch it. Mediocre attraction, which incidentally corresponds well with the mediocre reception the show got.

[rhorle]

Because even if every single view of those 100 mil was on an individually subbed prime account - which it wasn't - that means that less than 50% of all people who have access to the show decided not to watch it. Mediocre attraction, which incidentally corresponds well with the mediocre reception the show got.

Prime Video doesn't exist in a vacuum. You don't know what percentage of viewers shows on the platform normally attracts. You, and others, keep coming to conclusions that everything is bad news with out anything to actually back it up other than your own feelings. You have the proverbial link chart trying to connect everything together in a way that allows you say "It's bad".

You don't have that data. No one does. We already know that Prime Video exists as a way to keep and create customers. Amazon has said that those who use Prime Video convert from free trials at higher rates then those who do not. They have also said retail sales increase when Prime Video shows when awards because it attracts people. There are a lot of people who know nothing of how Amazon operates yet pretend to be experts just to call the show bad.

[Shadowferal]

‘The Rings Of Power’ Season 1 Review: Amazon’s Arrogant Betrayal Of ‘The Lord Of The Rings’

Ostensibly, this is an adaptation of Tolkien’s Second Age. The story, by showrunners J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay, is drawn from The Lord Of The Rings and its appendixes, though unfortunately Amazon never bought the rights to The Silmarillion, wherein lie so many of Tolkien’s best pre-Third Age stories.

Then again, perhaps it’s all for the best that The Silmarillion remains outside the grasp of these creative butchers. Payne and McKay sold their vision of a Lord of the Rings adaptation thanks to what has been described as a ‘fidelity’ to Tolkien, yet nothing could be further from the truth now that we have the entire first season to analyze and unpack. Far from sticking to the stories and themes of Middle-earth, the showrunners created their own story entirely, abandoning Tolkien’s lore and making wild, reckless changes to the Legendarium in the process.

Perhaps worse, Amazon’s “adaptation” is badly made TV with a nonsensical story built on wild coincidences, contrived plotlines and a blatant disregard for the various building blocks that make any story complete: Logical character choices, a sense of time and place, and narrative tension—not to mention an overly large cast of mostly forgettable and uncharismatic characters, some wholly made up for the show and others changed entirely as to be almost unrecognizable.

In every way that truly matters, The Rings Of Power fails from the writing to the acting to the presentation. It fails as an adaptation, neither enriching Tolkien’s work nor remaining true to it. It fails as a good fantasy, giving us generic tropes and melodrama rather than blazing new ground. And it fails as a compelling story, filled with cheap mystery boxes and unsurprising ‘twists.’ So how bad has this show dropped the proverbial palantir?

Allow me to explain....

[Dhrizzle]

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.

Shame the reviewer only skimmed and quote-mined Tolkien, otherwise he would have read Tolkien's explanation that there is a difference between allegory and inspiration, that writers can be inspired by events in their lives or the world without their story becoming allegorical to those events. It's known that Tolkien's experiences in WW1 informed his writing in Lord of the Rings. That doesn't mean that Lord of the Rings is an allegory for WW1.

[Syegfryed]

Shame the reviewer only skimmed and quote-mined Tolkien, otherwise he would have read Tolkien's explanation that there is a difference between allegory and inspiration, that writers can be inspired by events in their lives or the world without their story becoming allegorical to those events. It's known that Tolkien's experiences in WW1 informed his writing in Lord of the Rings. That doesn't mean that Lord of the Rings is an allegory for WW1.

Sure there is a difference, but the scene he mention is a straight up alegory, not inspiration.

It was something they totally made up for the show, does not make sense in the universe and it was not the reason why the numenorians "disliked" the elves, they consciously changed what tolkien meant to put an alegory.