Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

Its not a problem until it hurts then and this massive flop they can take it just fine.

According to them it has already returned on the season 1 investment of $465 million. That isn't a flop. Amazon rarely does things just because they have money to spare. Just accept the reality that the show was a success for Amazon. It doesn't change that parts were flawed. It won't change any of your other criticisms to acknowledge that. You even said you have no problem acknowledging the positives about the show. Actually back up your own words.

[Fantomen]

You act as if Amazon is dumb and doesn't have servers full of data to analyze these things. The only thing coping is yourself and it is amusing that you can't actually see that.

There are lies, big lies and statistics. Its not Jeff Bezos who compiles the numbers, its sombady else, and sombady can "massage" the numbers, like have Rings of power to autoplay to get the numbers up (and more devious methods) so the number look better, so sombady do not louse there work.

What is good for the company is normaly not good for the the individual.

- - - Updated - - -

According to them it has already returned on the season 1 investment of $465 million.

So why is there a need to change the second season? Why change a winning concept?

[rhorle]

So why is there a need to change the second season? Why change a winning concept?

So shows can't change anything or they are bad? Does that mean every show that introduces new characters, new staff, new whatever for that season are automatic failures? It is crazy the things some of you think of just to continue to hate on the show.

[Syegfryed]

According to them it has already returned on the season 1 investment of $465 million

yeah, according to then. They not losing money invested because other shows is sure sign of "the show paying itself".

Amazon rarely does things just because they have money to spare.

They just did that.

Just accept the reality that the show was a success for Amazon.

Maybe when they go to public to say more ten times, because if it is a success you sure need to constantly say that, unlike another show who aired at the same time

[rhorle]

yeah, according to then. They not losing money invested because other shows is sure sign of "the show paying itself".

They never said they didn't lose money because of other shows. Do you really need to start inventing things in this discussion? Why is it that you'll take them at their word for sales of the books but not about the show? You never answered how you can tell what is a lie and what is not a lie.

It is funny how them talking about it a few times means they are lying. If they never talked about it you would say the show is a failure because they haven't talked about it. I know at least one poster in this thread made that argument and I'm sure you agreed with them at the time.

[bledgor]

A show so successful they are now promising to follow the lore in the next season, and they are having to change the what writer or producing staff (all female, had to make sure we told the world that), and oh the show has gotten 0 nominations for awards. They are touting numbers that are useless in a vacuum as success and no one can really confirm or deny because they are useless metrics without more data to supplement them.

Face it with Jackson's trilogy there was LITERALLY NO DOUBT they were a massive success. With Tolkien's novels, there is NO DOUBT they were a massive success. With this show it is very debatable they were even a success, much less a massive one.

[Syegfryed]

Face it with Jackson's trilogy there was LITERALLY NO DOUBT they were a massive success. With Tolkien's novels, there is NO DOUBT they were a massive success. With this show it is very debatable they were even a success, much less a massive one.

There is no doubts this show is a success, they came every week to reminds us that

[rhorle]

Face it with Jackson's trilogy there was LITERALLY NO DOUBT they were a massive success. With Tolkien's novels, there is NO DOUBT they were a massive success. With this show it is very debatable they were even a success, much less a massive one.

It isn't debatable that the show is succesful. The metrics are there that it was. Success isn't determined by awards. Directors between episodes can change and for some productions is standard. Talking about the next season and how closely it follows the books is a sign of failure? Lmao. Those of you that dislike the show keep inventing some strange metrics.

Jackson's triology didn't have much faith during filming. He had to argue for the budget. The gamble paid off but it could have easily gone the other way.

[bledgor]

The company that said THIS SHOW HAS TO SUCCEED or else is now claiming the show is a success by metrics that mean nothing? WOW what a shocking revelation!

[rhorle]

The company that said THIS SHOW HAS TO SUCCEED or else is now claiming the show is a success by metrics that mean nothing? WOW what a shocking revelation!

Do you honestly expect us to believe that you would accept the show as a success if someone other then Amazon stated the same things? You are also lying about the "has to succeed or else". It was an "insider" that stated the IP was to big to lose for Amazon and that the studio would "arguably couldn't". So nothing really concrete.

But succeed or else is a lie, right? Because if it came from Amazon it can't be trusted, right? Isn't it strange how you and others 100% believe the stuff that fits your negative bias and call anything positive a lie? Do you honestly see how silly that makes you?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv...-2-1235233124/

While Amazon could easily survive if Rings were to somehow collapse like the tower of Barad-dûr, industry insiders say its studio arguably couldn’t. They compare the company’s bet on Tolkien to New Line famously gambling its existence on Jackson’s movie trilogy two decades ago.

“The show is exceptionally important to them,” says one of Amazon’s partners. “It’s a branding opportunity for Amazon to show that they can deliver something with a patina of quality in terms of audience, critical and cultural reception, which they have not yet had. And strategically, in a market where there’s contraction at many of their competitors — Netflix, HBO Max — they think this is ushering in a moment for them to expand. Not just in terms of throwing money at things, but their ability to draw other talent and opportunity.”

Or, as one insider put it: “It’s too big to lose.”

Salke’s take is a bit more tempered. “Obviously, it is incredibly important that this be successful,” she says. “But this is a company that takes giant swings all the time, and they’re not afraid of risk.”

[Syegfryed]

The company that said THIS SHOW HAS TO SUCCEED or else is now claiming the show is a success by metrics that mean nothing? WOW what a shocking revelation!

Its good to remember that Amazon is contracted obliged to do five seasons, they already paid. But the Article already give uncertain feelings for season three.

Its not just that bs but they keep mentioning the same shit, over and over every week:

1."we broke records in the first episode!" What record? compared to whom? how does this reflect to other episodes? if your show is a success why are you talking about the first episode only?

2. "100milion minutes watched!" Like this means jackshit, when the episode were fucking long compared to other shows, and does not show how many views X episodes had, is a garbage metric

Also, The article said rings of power brought people in, "during its launch window specifying younger viewers. But if you actually read what the guy said:

LULSanders: After we finished releasing episodes, we saw a new surge of people come to the service "to start the show".

First, he doe snot specific how this "after is" it could be November or, more likely, December, for other reasons.

He is saying people buying prime videos AFTER the show launched, means the show was a success. When in reality if the show was a success, people would buy prime DURING the launch to watch it, when episodes were coming, not after it ended.

The spike on prime subs AFTER the show aired is pure due to Christmas time, people buying stuff and whatever, trying to make a correlation to the show and claim it was a success is bogus, just like pretending the books sales spike is due to "the show success".

[Skulltaker]

So their goal is not to see a return on their investment? Are you honestly claiming they wanted to fail with the show? Lmao. We know what their goal is and it was again stated in the article I recently linked to. They want tentpole media to bring people to their ecosystem. The only one that is lying here is yourself. Every time something is presented for why the show is a success you move the goal posts. Even when it is a metric you've posted.

"“We have an ambitious agenda, we are trying to launch a big moment at least once a month if not more on Prime Video. It’s The Boys, Lord of the Rings, it’s Jack Ryan, Reacher and Alex Cross, it’s Daisy Jones and the Six, so what it takes to mount the shows that are as close of global events as possible is massive. As the needs grew, we went from being in a position, we’ll do that six times a year, and now it’s more than double. We needed to adjust our structure in order for us to have the best shot at achieving as much content. "

Whomever said anything about them not wanting to see a return on their investment? Are you high?

I've said pages back that 'success' can only be measured by whatever Amazon decided they want to achieve with this series, on more than one occasion. Every time, you're jumping down my throat, because you lack the capacity to process information given to you further than the length of your own nose.

So shows can't change anything or they are bad? Does that mean every show that introduces new characters, new staff, new whatever for that season are automatic failures? It is crazy the things some of you think of just to continue to hate on the show.

It's one thing to change something, it's an entirely different thing to change all but one director. You can't honestly say that this isn't a major shakeup.

Still is, very bad,

No, it isn't. Parts of it are.

... still is a failure,...

No, it just lost money. It fell behind what you should expect from a show that size and with that budget, but that doesn't make it a failure. Being 5th at the Olympics still means you were running with the best. You'll probably not be remembered, aside from Wikipedia. Just like this show.

They proved the book sales increased after the show aired. And if the show is objectively bad in writing and story means people actually wanted to see the real deal.

First, they didn't prove anything. They just said sales spiked, which happens every time a book series is turned into a grand adaptation.

And seeing how there is no 'real deal' for the story they're trying to cobble together, I'm going to go ahead and say 'that's probably not the case'. It's more likely that people enjoyed what they saw and stretch their legs in the IP a bit. If they'll like the books coming from the series, that's a whole other story.

No, not dumb, neither clever, they just do part of the course, by manipulation what info they show, they only show "minutes watching" and "millions" so it looks like is a success. Its not like they can't live with that massive flop. They pretty much can and will do again.

No, they can't. Amazon can take a financial hit and produce a show that loses them a shitton of money, but it has to financially pay off for them in the long run. I really don't get why people have the impression companies can do with their budget whatever the fuck they want.

Thats why they are saying the same thing over and over, and people pretend those are news. They will not release more details because if they do, it will show it was a massive flop, prob the flop of the decade

Dude, you need to scale it back.

PFFFF haha, sure, they do that. Amazon can throw money away for a couple of season, stop doing, and they will still not say it was a flop.

Again, no they can't. Amazon has responsibilities.

Its good to remember that Amazon is contracted obliged to do five seasons, they already paid. But the Article already give uncertain feelings for season three.

Would you happen to have a source for them being contractually obliged to make 5 seasons? As far as I know, they paid royalties for 5 seasons, they are commited to make 5 seasons, they want to make 5 seasons, but if that's actually the case, we'll see.

Season 3 not being greenlit is not a good sign, though. Probably means they'll renegotiate and restructure some more.

1."we broke records in the first episode!" What record? compared to whom? how does this reflect to other episodes? if your show is a success why are you talking about the first episode only?

2. "100milion minutes watched!" Like this means jackshit, when the episode were fucking long compared to other shows, and does not show how many views X episodes had, is a garbage metric

Compared to themselves. You know, if you want to dissect what they said and try to get an idea of how well the show performed, you should put some effort in. Otherwise you'll appear dishonest.

And they are not talking about the first episode only, either. Minutes watched etc. doesn't tell us much, but you can devide it by total runtime and get an aproximation of how many instances of streaming the show got.

Also, The article said rings of power brought people in, "during its launch window specifying younger viewers. But if you actually read what the guy said:

First, he doe snot specific how this "after is" it could be November or, more likely, December, for other reasons.

He is saying people buying prime videos AFTER the show launched, means the show was a success. When in reality if the show was a success, people would buy prime DURING the launch to watch it, when episodes were coming, not after it ended.

The spike on prime subs AFTER the show aired is pure due to Christmas time, people buying stuff and whatever, trying to make a correlation to the show and claim it was a success is bogus, just like pretending the books sales spike is due to "the show success".

As a general rule of thumb, I'd reccomend you to not try and interpret this wildly. There's a number of reasons why people put off subscribing to watch shows, seeing how the prelude to Xmas is usually disproportionally busy. Not everyone can afford staying subbed 24/7/365, and people pick the holiday season, because for many that means extra time off. There's probably a decent chunk of people who put off subbing to watch the show, and timed it to coincide with holiday shopping. It's probably not the only reason they subbed, but it probably was a contributing factor.

And the book sales most definitely spiked because of the show. Because of the show, mind you, not because of the show's success. Increased sales contribute to the show's success. That's a difference.

[Syegfryed]

No, it isn't. Parts of it are.

We don't say that just some parts of the show/movie are good and bad, we evaluate the product as a whole.

The show is bad, period, it have good parts, they don't overcome the whole. Just like there is good movies/shows with bad parts. You don't say "house of the dragon was not good, it just had some good parts".

No, it just lost money. It fell behind what you should expect from a show that size and with that budget, but that doesn't make it a failure. Being 5th at the Olympics still means you were running with the best. You'll probably not be remembered, aside from Wikipedia. Just like this show.

If you only have 5 participants, seems like failure. And i sure remember they being like 9°/10° position in the shows that aired at the same time.

Would you happen to have a source for them being contractually obliged to make 5 seasons? As far as I know, they paid royalties for 5 seasons, they are commited to make 5 seasons, they want to make 5 seasons, but if that's actually the case, we'll see.

they don't say all the bureaucracy of those things, could be tolkien estate for all we know.

Compared to themselves. You know, if you want to dissect what they said and try to get an idea of how well the show performed, you should put some effort in. Otherwise you'll appear dishonest.

But they don't said it is to themselves, if it was, why not highlight that? pretty sure if they come up and say the show did better than big hits like The Boys, people would be surprised.

Like, you can say X show had more minutes watched than Y show. But if X show had way more minutes than show Y it would look like X did better, despite they having the same number of views.

As a general rule of thumb, I'd reccomend you to not try and interpret this wildly. There's a number of reasons why people put off subscribing to watch shows, seeing how the prelude to Xmas is usually disproportionally busy. Not everyone can afford staying subbed 24/7/365, and people pick the holiday season, because for many that means extra time off. There's probably a decent chunk of people who put off subbing to watch the show, and timed it to coincide with holiday shopping. It's probably not the only reason they subbed, but it probably was a contributing factor.

Im not interpreting widly though? its logic, people would sub in Christmas, Like you said, its holydays. Subs increased because of that, not because rings of power. Which is what they are trying to make it look like.

And the book sales most definitely spiked because of the show. Because of the show, mind you, not because of the show's success. Increased sales contribute to the show's success. That's a difference.

Yes, books spiked because the show, that is what happens with every adaptation. But in this case it was the basic "movie/show is shit, go see the book!", Happened with Percy jackson and His dark materials by example.

I think its rly nonsense to say the book spike contribute to the show success when almost no one bought the book because they liked the show.

[Skulltaker]

We don't say that just some parts of the show/movie are good and bad, we evaluate the product as a whole.

The show is bad, period, it have good parts, they don't overcome the whole. Just like there is good movies/shows with bad parts. You don't say "house of the dragon was not good, it just had some good parts".

No, 'we' don't do that. People without the ability to think try to shove stuff in little boxes like that, because it makes their world easier.

If you only have 5 participants, seems like failure. And i sure remember they being like 9°/10° position in the shows that aired at the same time.

No, it doesn't It would seem like a failure only to someone who hasn't achieved anything in their lives to speak off. Merely participating in the olympics is a tremendous achievement you can be proud of.

And you probably have a source for what you remember...?

they don't say all the bureaucracy of those things, could be tolkien estate for all we know.

So, no source. Okay.

But they don't said it is to themselves, if it was, why not highlight that? pretty sure if they come up and say the show did better than big hits like The Boys, people would be surprised.

Yes, they do. 'Record number of adults for a Prime Original'. Which isn't hard to believe given how much addvertisement and promo the show got from Amazon.

Im not interpreting widly though? its logic, people would sub in Christmas, Like you said, its holydays. Subs increased because of that, not because rings of power. Which is what they are trying to make it look like.

These two aren't mutually exclusive. It's not like you have to tick one box and can't tick the other. And you saying that it's only because of X is incredibly dishonest, and does nothing for you, except to demonstrate that you either can't or won't think critically.

Yes, books spiked because the show, that is what happens with every adaptation. But in this case it was the basic "movie/show is shit, go see the book!", Happened with Percy jackson and His dark materials by example.

I think its rly nonsense to say the book spike contribute to the show success when almost no one bought the book because they liked the show.

So, what you're saying is, people bought the books because they saw the show, which in turn contributed to the show's success. Thanks for playing, you came in 6th out of 5.

[Syegfryed]

No, 'we' don't do that. People without the ability to think try to shove stuff in little boxes like that, because it makes their world easier.

Oh, it makes sense, there are no good or bad movies/show, there is no metric and no way to avliate that. They are just movies/shows with good and bad parts, big brain thinking.

No, it doesn't It would seem like a failure only to someone who hasn't achieved anything in their lives to speak off. Merely participating in the olympics is a tremendous achievement you can be proud of.

Thats why, all the fifith places are remembered all th time when we talk about Olympics, am i right?

This by itself is also a rly bad comparison since we are pretending this is rings of power going to the Olympics, when its more like some regional tournament that they got demolished. they didn't got nominated for nothing, they didn't won public awards.

And you probably have a source for what you remember...?

Pretty sure it was posted in this thread some time go, gonna try to find that out later.

Yes, they do. 'Record number of adults for a Prime Original'. Which isn't hard to believe given how much addvertisement and promo the show got from Amazon.

But again, why not say it? the one thing they could to corroborate that this is a success and they don't do it?

These two aren't mutually exclusive. It's not like you have to tick one box and can't tick the other. And you saying that it's only because of X is incredibly dishonest, and does nothing for you, except to demonstrate that you either can't or won't think critically.

Im just saying Its not because rings of power, you can come up with a couple of reasons of why it increased in numbers, crck your skull thinking, still doesn't erase the fact that majority of it is due to christimas time, end of the year and holydays.

So, what you're saying is, people bought the books because they saw the show, which in turn contributed to the show's success.

Sure, like all the sales in those other books contributed to the movies success

oh wait, those movies didn't make success, they flooped anyway. Buying the book don't pay the movie

[Skulltaker]

Thats why, all the fifith places are remembered all th time when we talk about Olympics, am i right?

This by itself is also a rly bad comparison since we are pretending this is rings of power going to the Olympics, when its more like some regional tournament that they got demolished. they didn't got nominated for nothing, they didn't won public awards.

Good on you for repeating my little sting basically verbatim, shows me how much attention you're paying when reading.

And they did get nominated for SciFi/Fantasy Show of 2022 in the People's choice. If you're trying to trashtalk, at least be honest and do your research. Otherwise you just look like a raving lunatic.

Pretty sure it was posted in this thread some time go, gonna try to find that out later.

You do that, I'll wait.

But again, why not say it? the one thing they could to corroborate that this is a success and they don't do it?

But again, they said it. What the hell are you bleating on about?

Im just saying Its not because rings of power, you can come up with a couple of reasons of why it increased in numbers, crck your skull thinking, still doesn't erase the fact that majority of it is due to christimas time, end of the year and holydays.

Yes, and that's you being dishonest. And I really don't see why I should 'crck my skull' to come up with anything to support your bullshit.

Sure, like all the sales in those other books contributed to the movies success

oh wait, those movies didn't make success, they flooped anyway. Buying the book don't pay the movie

Buying the book absolutely pays for the movie if buying the book adds revenue to the company releasing the movie, thanks for demonstrating that, among other things, you have no idea how basic capitalism works.

[Syegfryed]

And they did get nominated for SciFi/Fantasy Show of 2022 in the People's choice. If you're trying to trashtalk, at least be honest and do your research. Otherwise you just look like a raving lunatic.

??? i said they didn't won public awards, they were nominated an didn't won, who isn't paying attention?

But again, they said it. What the hell are you bleating on about?

"it broke records"

Yes, and that's you being dishonest. And I really don't see why I should 'crck my skull' to come up with anything to support your bullshit.

How knowing the subs increasing because holidays and not due to rings of power is being dishonest? lmao

Buying the book absolutely pays for the movie if buying the book adds revenue to the company releasing the movie, thanks for demonstrating that, among other things, you have no idea how basic capitalism works.

It is some next lv to make an shit adaptation, so people buy the book, and you get the revenue from the book, show still floped though.

[rhorle]

Whomever said anything about them not wanting to see a return on their investment? Are you high?

You did. You said that seeing a return on their investment wouldn't make the show a success. Amazon keeps telling us what their goal was and how they met that goal. Yet you keep denying those statements to argue "We don't know". I'm not the one that is having trouble processing anything here lmao.

- - - Updated - - -

No, they can't. Amazon can take a financial hit and produce a show that loses them a shitton of money, but it has to financially pay off for them in the long run. I really don't get why people have the impression companies can do with their budget whatever the fuck they want.

Amazon made $469 billion in 2021. A $465 million season and $250 million for rights is not going to hurt them in the long run. It might hurt the ambitions of Amazon Studios but they would likely recover just fine as well.

[Skulltaker]

??? i said they didn't won public awards, they were nominated an didn't won, who isn't paying attention?

they didn't got nominated for nothing, they didn't won public awards.

You sure about that?

"it broke records"

Yes. Their own. It's right there. So again, what are you bleating about?

How knowing the subs increasing because holidays and not due to rings of power is being dishonest? lmao

How do you know that, and would you mind a quote or an explanation on how you got to that point?

It is some next lv to make an shit adaptation, so people buy the book, and you get the revenue from the book, show still floped though.

At this point, I'm having issues deciphering what it is you're trying to say. Might I recommend you some English lessons, or at least a Browser extension?

They stated they saw a returned on their investment but you are still debating "what their goal was". Which means you are question their statement, right? Amazon keeps telling us what their goal was and how they met that goal. Yet you, and others, keep denying those statements to argue "We don't know". I'm not the one that is having trouble processing anything here lmao.

For completeness' sake;

No, 'Deadline' speaks of return on investment, but only as a topic, not stating that they got any, so, you're lying once more; and Sanders himself says the investment paid off, which is not the same as seeing a return on your investment. Something can pay off for you, even if you make a loss.
Think a little, and mull each sentence over in your head.

So, yes, you are absolutely the one having difficulties processing information, both from the article and from what I'm saying.

And no, it doesn't mean that I question their statement, that's just - once more - you putting words into my mouth. Which is just sad.

[rhorle]

No, 'Deadline' speaks of return on investment, but only as a topic, not stating that they got any, so, you're lying once more; and Sanders himself says the investment paid off, which is not the same as seeing a return on your investment. Something can pay off for you, even if you make a loss.

"It’s just been a company-wide success and as significant as our investment has been, it has more than paid off for us."

That implies a return on investment as he specifically calls out the pay off being more then their significant investment. I'm not lying and I'm not having trouble processing things.

If you were not questioning their success then why do you keep making statements that say we don't know or that they were not successful? Lmao.