Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Skulltaker]

"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.

No, it doesn't imply that. You're simply jumping to that conclusion because its the easiest one. You fail to grasp that success doesn't automatically equal financially successful. A show can be a huge success and lose the studio millions if the initial goal wasn't to make money, or making money initially wasn't as important to you as laying the foundation for further benefits down the road.

And you are lying, and you obviously have issues processing the information given to you, as is evident from your entire posting history.

[Syegfryed]

You sure about that?

Yes, those are separated things, there are the normal awards that they didn't got nominated and the audience award that they didn't won shit, they not winning already implies they got nominated and lost. And they got nominated for at least three if i recall, not just one.

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

Are you rly going to play like that? for real? If its not because the holyday/Christmas, then for what reason? and you better have a better "theory" to pretend you have a high ground in this matter to demand proof and quote.

nah, i already know what you are going to say. "i don't know what/why, i just know its not that!" or "it could be anything so we can't say if it was something" Which it tracks with the statement of there "there is no good or bad movies".

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?

Come on, don't be this predictable, when people start correcting other grammars is when you don't have fucking anything else. A tip for yah, since in the internet you talk to people al over the world with different backgrounds. Be like a normal person and ask politely what the other person meant in a conversation instead of going for the sarcastic response trying to ridicularize the other side.

[rhorle]

No, it doesn't imply that. You're simply jumping to that conclusion because its the easiest one. You fail to grasp that success doesn't automatically equal financially successful. A show can be a huge success and lose the studio millions if the initial goal wasn't to make money, or making money initially wasn't as important to you as laying the foundation for further benefits down the road.

I'm not jumping to any conclusion but taking the actual statements made at face value. Do you have proof that the show wasn't financially successful? Does that matter if the company views that it more then paid for itself? I'm not lying about anything here. Amazon keeps saying the show was successful. They keep telling us their goals with tent pole shows.

[Skulltaker]

Yes, those are separated things, there are the normal awards that they didn't got nominated and the audience award that they didn't won shit, they not winning already implies they got nominated and lost. And they got nominated for at least three if i recall, not just one.

What the hell is a 'normal award', man? And no, that's the only thing they were nominated for.

Are you rly going to play like that? for real? If its not because the holyday/Christmas, then for what reason? and you better have a better "theory" to pretend you have a high ground in this matter to demand proof and quote.

nah, i already know what you are going to say. "i don't know what/why, i just know its not that!" or "it could be anything so we can't say if it was something" Which it tracks with the statement of there "there is no good or bad movies".

Dude, you're the one outright saying 'It's not that!' without any proof. You're literally describing yourself.

Come on, don't be this predictable, when people start correcting other grammars is when you don't have fucking anything else. A tip for yah, since in the internet you talk to people al over the world with different backgrounds. Be like a normal person and ask politely what the other person meant in a conversation instead of going for the sarcastic response trying to ridicularize the other side.

I'm not fucking Jean-Francois Champollion, man. Being from another culture is no excuse for not making an effort. I'm fucking German, we're notoriously bad at foreign languages, which is why I accept the help of add-ons to make sure people don't need a master in linguistics to grasp what I'm trying to say.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not jumping to any conclusion but taking the actual statements made at face value. Do you have proof that the show wasn't financially successful? Does that matter if the company views that it more then paid for itself? I'm not lying about anything here. Amazon keeps saying the show was successful. They keep telling us their goals with tent pole shows.

Yes, you are.

Does it matter if the company views it more than paid off? Not to the company. I'm still curious, though.

And yes, you are lying, for example at taking actual statements made at face value, because at every single point during the discussion you have rephrased what was said to suit your narrative. Literally, every single statement you made has certain degrees of dishonesty.

[Syegfryed]

What the hell is a 'normal award', man? And no, that's the only thing they were nominated for.

The ones that actually matter? since audience is all about bias and personal taste? and i was pretty sure the actors got nominated for roles in the show, i was counting then. Well, it just looks worse for then.

Dude, you're the one outright saying 'It's not that!' without any proof. You're literally describing yourself.

Sure, think that way if you want, there is no data telling that people buy more stuff around holydays, shops don't sell more gifts this time. Like you said yourself, waiting for holydays to pay for a sub since its when you are in vacation or in a break from work, but no relation, no one rly know, mystery box.

Im sure it is for something else, maybe it is because rings of po

I'm not fucking Jean-Francois Champollion, man. Being from another culture is no excuse for not making an effort. I'm fucking German, we're notoriously bad at foreign languages, which is why I accept the help of add-ons to make sure people don't need a master in linguistics to grasp what I'm trying to say.

Like i said, you can be a normal person instead of an ass and just say "hey can you be more clear" and the other person go, "sure, let me rephrase". Not making effort? what the fuck do you know about. Gatekeeping posting in a forum is next level.

[Skulltaker]

The ones that actually matter? since audience is all about bias and personal taste? and i was pretty sure the actors got nominated for roles in the show, i was counting then. Well, it just looks worse for then.

The ones that actually matter, hm? What metric are you going to use, then, to determine what matters? Maybe you should hold an award ceremony for award ceremonies. I somewhat doubt that you'll be able to hold back on your bias, though.

Sure, think that way if you want, there is no data telling that people buy more stuff around holydays, shops don't sell more gifts this time. Like you said yourself, waiting for holydays to pay for a sub since its when you are in vacation or in a break from work, but no relation, no one rly know, mystery box.

Im sure it is for something else, maybe it is because rings of po

Again. Waiting for the holiday season to sub and subbing for RoP isn't mutually exclusive. You can wait for the holiday season to stream Rings of Power.

Like i said, you can be a normal person instead of an ass and just say "hey can you be more clear" and the other person go, "sure, let me rephrase". Not making effort? what the fuck do you know about. Gatekeeping posting in a forum is next level.

You don't get the luxury of asking people to be kind to you if all you've been doing for pages at a time is shitposting. If you don't want people to be an ass to you, the first step would be not to be an ass yourself.

[Khaza-R]

I have zero issue believing Netflix broke even or profited on the series.

The claim I find very dubious is the 100 million viewers. Considering Stranger Things at its peak I think was 12 mil and GoT was 46 mil. Amazon also said most of these views were from outside the US but no statistic was given. Yet in contrast, the vast majority of Prime subscribers are US based. So quite simply something is not adding up with however they are deriving their statistics of viewership.

[Syegfryed]

The ones that actually matter, hm? What metric are you going to use, then, to determine what matters? Maybe you should hold an award ceremony for award ceremonies. I somewhat doubt that you'll be able to hold back on your bias, though.

You think the "audience" choice awards have more weight than the 80th globe awards? for those companies?

Again. Waiting for the holiday season to sub and subbing for RoP isn't mutually exclusive. You can wait for the holiday season to stream Rings of Power.

Sure, or you know, there is no correlation here, maybe, just maybe, they didn't sign up for ROP at all.

You don't get the luxury of asking people to be kind to you if all you've been doing for pages at a time is shitposting. If you don't want people to be an ass to you, the first step would be not to be an ass yourself.

Im not asking to be kind, im giving a tip for yah to not be an ass to other people over something so trivial as grammar, cause it shows a weak strawman and make you look bad. I don't rly care, you can keep doing if you wish.

I can trashtalk about the show all i want. Im not trashtalking people here, and damn, some deserve it(and its not you so don't worry).

[rhorle]

And yes, you are lying, for example at taking actual statements made at face value, because at every single point during the discussion you have rephrased what was said to suit your narrative. Literally, every single statement you made has certain degrees of dishonesty.

I haven't though. At face value the show was a success. At face value the show met their goals. The one that is actually not taking them at face value is yourself because you are the one that is doubting the statements made by Amazon. I don't need to twist things to fit the narrative that the show was a success and seen as a success by Amazon. That isn't dishonesty and it is pure projection on your part.

[Skulltaker]

I haven't though. At face value the show was a success. At face value the show met their goals. The one that is actually not taking them at face value is yourself because you are the one that is doubting the statements made by Amazon. I don't need to twist things to fit the narrative that the show was a success and seen as a success by Amazon. That isn't dishonesty and it is pure projection on your part.

Yes, you have, and you're doing it again, right here, you're constantly twisting things to fit your narrative, like in this very post, including putting words into my mouth.

You think the "audience" choice awards have more weight than the 80th globe awards? for those companies?

Nobody said that, man. 'Not as important as the Golden Globes' doesn't mean 'not important', though.

Sure, or you know, there is no correlation here, maybe, just maybe, they didn't sign up for ROP at all.

Yes, and many did. And some didn't. It's still dishonest of you to say 'they didn't.'

Im not asking to be kind, im giving a tip for yah to not be an ass to other people over something so trivial as grammar, cause it shows a weak strawman and make you look bad. I don't rly care, you can keep doing if you wish.

I can trashtalk about the show all i want. Im not trashtalking people here, and damn, some deserve it(and its not you so don't worry).

I'm being an ass to you because you're being an ass yourself, don't you worry. It has nothing to do with your grammar. And you obviously care, because you simply won't let it go. That's also not what a strawman is, maybe actually educate yourself before throwing around random words you picked up on the web. Makes you look stupid.

And of course you can trashtalk about the show all you like. The way you're doing it is just simply pathetic.

[rhorle]

Yes, you have, and you're doing it again, right here, you're constantly twisting things to fit your narrative, like in this very post, including putting words into my mouth.

I'm repeating the words of Amazon. That isn't twisting. That isn't fitting my narrative. That is the face value meaning of the statements from Amazon. I haven't put any words into your mouth. I have only taken you at what you've posted now and in the past.

[Skulltaker]

I'm repeating the words of Amazon. That isn't twisting. That isn't fitting my narrative.

No, you're not. You went from claiming the show made its 465 million back without anything to back that up and then backpaddled to saying that Amazon considered the investment worth it without saying if they actually made a profit or a loss. The latter is true, the former was you twisting their words to suit you.

That is the face value meaning of the statements from Amazon.

It isn't. The 'face value' is that Amazon considers it worth it, net loss or not.

I haven't put any words into your mouth.

Yes, you have. From saying that I agree with you I challenged every point you made in a pathetic attempt at gaslighting to claiming I said we don't have enough info to gauge the shows success, to claiming I said they didn't want a return on their investment in a weak attempt to turn the discussion ad absurdum. You're a liar, nothing else.

I have only taken you at what you've posted now and in the past.

No, you haven't. Not once, actually.

[Xath]

I'm not jumping to any conclusion but taking the actual statements made at face value. Do you have proof that the show wasn't financially successful? Does that matter if the company views that it more then paid for itself? I'm not lying about anything here. Amazon keeps saying the show was successful. They keep telling us their goals with tent pole shows.

Massive recasting and completely changing the behind the scenes team doesn't happen with successful series no matter how much you try to explain it away.

[rhorle]

No, you're not. You went from claiming the show made its 465 million back without anything to back that up and then backpaddled to saying that Amazon considered the investment worth it without saying if they actually made a profit or a loss. The latter is true, the former was you twisting their words to suit you.

Because that is what Amazon stated. It has more then paid off for them. There is no direct profit or loss with the show because there is no direct revenue. Everything is allocated to the show based on their own metrics. If it has more then paid off then why would it be "a loss"? More then paid off implies that they have seen a return on their investment. Again I'm not twisting words you just don't understand the idiom.

If I loan you $20 and to repay me you do $100 worth of labor then you would have more then paid off your debt, right?

The only one that has brought "net loss or not" into this is yourself. You keep moving the goal posts so you can create an asterisk for why the show wasn't successful. The only one making this discussion absurd is yourself lol.

- - - Updated - - -

Massive recasting and completely changing the behind the scenes team doesn't happen with successful series no matter how much you try to explain it away.

One role is "massive"? Two directors is "completely changing" the behind the scenes team? Hyperbole is one of the reasons no one takes the whining seriously.

[Skulltaker]

Because that is what Amazon stated. It has more then paid off for them. There is no direct profit or loss with the show because there is no direct revenue. Everything is allocated to the show based on their own metrics. If it has more then paid off then why would it be "a loss"? More then paid off implies that they have seen a return on their investment. Again I'm not twisting words you just don't understand the idiom.

Sure there is direct revenue. It's the people who decided to sub to Prime for the purpose to watch the show. And if that revenue is lower than the cost, there is a net loss. Amazon can still consider the show a success. I've said that weeks ago. Financial loss doesn't mean not a success.

And yes, you are twisting words. Again.

If I loan you $20 and to repay me you do $100 worth of labor then you would have more then paid off your debt, right?

Not if I do shoddy work. If you loan me 20$, and instead of asking for it back, you agree that I remove the weeds in your garden, but I tear out everything you planted because I don't know weeds from herbs, not only haven't you seen a return on your investment, you've even suffered further damage. Pretty poor analogy on your part.

The only one that has brought "net loss or not" into this is yourself. You keep moving the goal posts so you can create an asterisk for why the show wasn't successful. The only one making this discussion absurd is yourself lol.

I have never said that the show was not successful, that is once more you putting words into my mouth because you can't make an honest argument to save your life. I've stated, quite some time ago, that 'success' isn't absolute. It's subjective, and highly depends on context. For some, only winning the Olympics is success, for others participating is. Both can be true at the same time.

One role is "massive"? Two directors is "completely changing" the behind the scenes team? Hyperbole is one of the reasons no one takes the whining seriously.

And your lies and misrepresentation of facts is why no one takes you seriously.

[Triceron]

And your lies and misrepresentation of facts is why no one takes you seriously.

He's only here to shitpost.

Best to ignore him, because nothing you say will actually get through to him. He's just gonna troll you and twist everything to fit his narrative. There's no sense in talking to him, because he's completely intentionally arguing senselessly.

[Koriani]

Mayhap this back and forth would be less if people also remembered - success does not equal quality.

Seems like a lot of posters are arguing that the "amazon success" is also somehow meaning "its a quality/good show." And no, those two are not the same thing in modern tv - even if they 'should' be. But its clear we have posters who feel their defense of their own opinion (the show is shit) also means its impossible for the show to be successful, or else their opinion is wrong. But that's just not the case - their opinion can still be right, AND the show is still considered successful.

It can be a shitshow - literally - like Real Housewives or The Kardashians - be considered a 'huge success" for those tv companies, but still be a "bad" tv show. Heaven knows i'm offended every time I think about /that/ reality, but it doesn't change the fact that those shows are considered major successes despite the fact that they are bad tv shows. I'd love to rail against the lowest common denominator in humanity that wants to reward (fame and fortune) those who represent the WORST in actual humanity, but it would get me nowhere (other than yelling into the internet void). No matter how right I may be. Humans don't work that way =D.

So no, the fact that Amazon considers this a success is not attacking anyone's belief that the show is crap. Both can actually be true!

But who am I kidding - that won't stop you guys from arguing over the meaning of 'success' until the world dries out. =D

[rhorle]

Sure there is direct revenue. It's the people who decided to sub to Prime for the purpose to watch the show. And if that revenue is lower than the cost, there is a net loss. Amazon can still consider the show a success. I've said that weeks ago. Financial loss doesn't mean not a success.

That still isn't direct though. Because they are subscribing to either Prime Video or Amazon Prime. That fee goes to a lot of different things. Amazon only has ads for their Freevee (formerly IMDB TV) platform. Shows on Prime Video generate no direct revenue. We know from leaks that Amazon uses the show first watched after sign ups to apply one of their metrics for earnings.

Rings of Power wasn't shoddy work though. You even called it half-decent. Amazon has stated they are happy with it and happy with the return on investment from it. Their words imply that there is no financial loss since the cost was been more than paid off. My analogy wasn't poor. You are just looking for ways to devalue it to fit your own narrative.

I have never said that the show was not successful

So if their average shows are a success then being more then average is also a success. Breaking records would put it closer to the end of the scale then the middle. That wouldn't be a success for a platform?

No, it isn't, if the growth in success isn't in line with the growth in spending. Which is why context matters, something that you seem to be incapable of understanding, which is why you keep quoting stuff without seemingly understanding what you're quoting.

That is at least one case of you trying to say the show wasn't successful for Amazon. You've done more by calling things PR talk rather then statements of success. The current discussion is about you trying to argue why statements of success are not actually statements of success. I'm not putting any words in your mouth. I haven't misrepresented any of the facts. You just don't like the facts.

[Dhrizzle]

Mayhap this back and forth would be less if people also remembered - success does not equal quality.

Seems like a lot of posters are arguing that the "amazon success" is also somehow meaning "its a quality/good show." And no, those two are not the same thing in modern tv - even if they 'should' be. But its clear we have posters who feel their defense of their own opinion (the show is shit) also means its impossible for the show to be successful, or else their opinion is wrong. But that's just not the case - their opinion can still be right, AND the show is still considered successful.

It can be a shitshow - literally - like Real Housewives or The Kardashians - be considered a 'huge success" for those tv companies, but still be a "bad" tv show. Heaven knows i'm offended every time I think about /that/ reality, but it doesn't change the fact that those shows are considered major successes despite the fact that they are bad tv shows. I'd love to rail against the lowest common denominator in humanity that wants to reward (fame and fortune) those who represent the WORST in actual humanity, but it would get me nowhere (other than yelling into the internet void). No matter how right I may be. Humans don't work that way =D.

So no, the fact that Amazon considers this a success is not attacking anyone's belief that the show is crap. Both can actually be true!

But who am I kidding - that won't stop you guys from arguing over the meaning of 'success' until the world dries out. =D

The trouble is for some posters it isn't enough that they don't like the show, it has to be irredeemably and objectively bad and that view is threatened if Amazon considers it a success.

[Triceron]

The trouble is for some posters it isn't enough that they don't like the show, it has to be irredeemably and objectively bad and that view is threatened if Amazon considers it a success.

Not at all. It's just merely pointing out that Amazon's metrics for success may not align with what individuals here consider to be a successful show. Lord of the Rings products will be successful because of the good faith in the brand name, and it's hard to separate the strength of the franchise from Rings of Power as an individual show in determining what is successful and what is not. A good example is the good faith in the Star Wars brand name lending a huge success to the Last Jedi and subsequently the Rise of Skywalker, which both went on to make record breaking box office numbers. Yet in terms of 'success', they ended up practically killing the entire movie franchise, practically tanking their merchandising and we end up seeing most Star Wars production pivoting to streaming. And this was well before Covid hit.

Success is relative, that's the core take away here. There is no objectively good or bad when it comes to something like this. It's a very nuanced subject. Amazon can consider it successful while individuals consider it not to be, and both could be true too because the metrics for success are different. Success isn't an objective value.