Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

do they pick the accounts that brought prime and the first thing they watched was RoP to say they bough for it?

The first few, or all, purchases are likely tracked by Amazon to analyze for any trend. We already know from leaks that they track first show watched after sign ups so the first things purchase can be tracked. However that isn't important to linking books sales to the show. What do you think would have created a large increase in book sales at the same time that Rings of Power came out? What else was happening in regards to Tolkien or Lord of the Rings to see a sudden increase in sales?

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.

[Syegfryed]

Only reply you're going to get, because I just be can't arsed going into anything with you for very long...

Nah, people like you can't resist, its the same for 2/3 others here.

Is all you have just a "no u" response? Weak.

Just to show how poor of an argument it was, since you know, is based around bias and can easily be flipped back

Also an awful lot of projection in that second sentence. I watched, I liked it well enough to watch another season. Does that mean it didn't have issues? No.

Sure you liked, but as a reminder, you can like bad stuff just fine, everyone have their guilty pleasure of a movie/show, the funny part is pretending the show/movie is ok or good, just because you liked, that is a mentality of "if i Like something bad would mean i have bad taste, uuuh, this can't happen, i only like good stuff!"

Meanwhile, we have people here that went on long rants about it, across several pages, after just the first 15mins (who did later go on to watch the rest, supposedly, tbf), and people that didn't watch it at all and claim to have only read text summaries lol But the people with even a single positive thing to say about it are the ones that didn't like or watch it? Get a grip.

God forbid that people discuss about a show/movie objectively and break down what happen in, you know, what we doo for countless others, just because it expose their awfulness(instead of how it is good like other shows), is not their fault, is the fault of the show. Those people who actually watched trough everything to give a review, instead of the "critics" who can claim like robots "it is good! a great experience!" because they were paid off.

And the same people who roast the show are the ones to point the actual positive things, because the supposed people that liked can't and/or lie about.

Like again, the show was fucking awful, in many ways, i can still say positive things about CGI, most of the scenarios, soundtrack, some casting and acting. Some interactions with Durin and Elrond. But all the good things get dragged down by nonsense plot, awful writing(this is what hurt the most the same interaction with Durin and Elrond), terrible dialogue and bad acting.

If it was some c-tier netflix show telling a different story(could be middle earth) with lower budget(since the figure was low budget) it would be half-decent.

I did say positive things about it, i actually watched to give a honest review. Still is, very bad, still is a failure, and it will be in season 2 if they do not reboot.

And shit is going to hit the fam, since it will once again compete with House of the dragon, and probably with the War of rohirrim, everything good about then will highlight the bad things with RoP like House of the dragon did.

See, this is one of those times (most of the time) where you make an assumption and just decide it is reality. Can you prove people "rushed to buy the book to actually see what a good story"? Nope. Same way I can't prove everyone bought the books because they enjoyed RoP.

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.

That said, I dunno about you, but if I'm not enjoying something, I don't then rush to buy more of that thing.

Or "this version is trash, i wanna the see the good version"

Many people bought books because even if the movie/show was bad they discovered the book was much better.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

It's just sad really. Do you really expect a magazine interview to give you the full financial details of their television department? I'm guessing you're not actually that daft and you're demanding unrealistic levels of detail as part of your "cope."

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

Y'know big companies don't actually "cope" the way you're doing, right? .

Except, again, every week they come up to say how successful it was, or to attack fans.

If something flops they say it's a flop and stop throwing more money at it.

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.

[rhorle]

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.

They proved the book sales increased after the show aired.

What is dumb is that you accept the book sales increased because it supports the argument you are making but you call their other statements lies and manipulation because it doesn't fit the argument you are currently making. I still don't really understand why you can't accept things that are good for the show and why you are now lying about being able to do so.

[Syegfryed]

What is dumb is that you accept the book sales increased because it supports the argument you are making but you call their other statements lies and manipulation because it doesn't fit the argument you are currently making. I still don't really understand why you can't accept things that are good for the show and why you are now lying about being able to do so.

How can they manipulate sales in books?

its not like they are saying shit about pages read rofl. they are using the increase on sales in the book to pretend it was due to the show success, when the correlation is the opposite.

[Dhrizzle]

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

It's this level of delusion that keeps drawing me back in to the discussion. There are people who liked the show and people who disliked the show, both sides of that divide had casual fans who maybe only knew the movies and hardcore fans who had consumed all 12 volumes of HoM-e and NoM-e and anything else with Tolkien printed on it, and good and bad conversations could be had with all those groups. But this stubborn reinvention of reality to satisfy the pre-existing bias of people like you is frankly stunning and enthralling.

Except, again, every week they come up to say how successful it was, or to attack fans.

Your persecution complex is showing...

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.

Yes but why would they? They're a multinational corporation, not an internet drama fan who got invested in the idea that something was going to be terrible and now can't handle the fact it wasn't too bad.

[rhorle]

How can they manipulate sales in books?

If they can manipulate views, demographics, etc why wouldn't they be able to manipulate sales of books on their platform? I'm really am floored that you honestly can't understand how a store could manipulate sales figures that they are themselves reporting.

[Syegfryed]

It's this level of delusion that keeps drawing me back in to the discussion. There are people who liked the show and people who disliked the show, both sides of that divide had casual fans who maybe only knew the movies and hardcore fans who had consumed all 12 volumes of HoM-e and NoM-e and anything else with Tolkien printed on it, and good and bad conversations could be had with all those groups. But this stubborn reinvention of reality to satisfy the pre-existing bias of people like you is frankly stunning and enthralling.

Im not denying that people liked, people can like shit or bad stuff. The delusion is pretending it was a success show, just because "there are people that liked". Same way there is good movies/shows that people liked and flopped hard as fuck either way. Rings of power is a bad show, that some people liked, but floped.

Yes but why would they? They're a multinational corporation, not an internet drama fan who got invested in the idea that something was going to be terrible and now can't handle the fact it wasn't too bad.

They are what, a multi-bilion dollar company, they do not care about doing quality, as we saw in the first season, they are doing because they have money to spare, its mater of holding the ip and engagement. They will do second and third season even if it is bloated and awful as season 1. Its not a problem until it hurts then and this massive flop they can take it just fine.

[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.