Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Khaza-R]

only difference is Velma isnt liked by anyone, some people did actually like Rings of Power (shocking I know), at least the ratings reflect it to be a very 'meh - good' show. Depending on which site you are on.

Rotten Tomatoes: 83% - 38%
IMDB: 6.9/10
Amazon: 3.2/5
Metacritic: 71 - 2.5

While it may be a big dumpster fire to some and while I do share some sentiment to that, its overall a very divisive show regardless.

Tbf, IMDB is owed by Amazon so two of those have a strong bias.

But regardless I agree. RoP is deeply flawed but definitely isn't a 1/10. It also didn't deserve the praise it got from some critics as being "refreshing". So indeed, I think divisive is a great way to put it.

[Rennadrel]

This show did great numbers. One of only 2 original works not produced by Netflix that was in the top 15 streamed shows.

That's terrific performance to just crack the Netflix wall

RoP cost Amazon a billion dollars. The fact that with a budget of more than Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy combined, the first season was a massive failure for views. And that should be embarrassing enough to Bezos to can the people involved in making that shoddy first season. Guess what? He didn't intervene and continues to allow Jennifer Salke to do whatever the fuck she wants when it comes to who she hires to run their shows and we wind up with a couple of literal nobodies for season one of RoP and that was the result. So now she's replacing them with a couple of women who one of was involved in Rafe of Time which was trash too. So daddy Bezos can enjoy another few hundred million being pissed down the drain on season two of this colossal dumpster fire of a show.

And don't take me ripping on this show as me hating it for the sake of hating it. I legitimately want something good set in Tolkien's world, even if it isn't something he explicitly fleshed out himself. Because I love his work and his universe, but it deserves to be respected and that is not what the creators are doing by any stretch. I'd rather see something awful fail than tread on the legacy of a great writer.

[rhorle]

RoP cost Amazon a billion dollars.

To be fair it cost them $250 million for the rights. The first season was $450 million. That is 300 million short of a billion for the combined cost. The first season wasn't a massive failure for views. What metric are you using to get to that point? You say you are not hating on the show just for the sake of it while creating statistics out of your own mind. Strange, right? Also Jackson didn't have to buy the rights because he was working with companies that had already acquired them previously. So any cost comparison should only be the $450 season 1 budget until the costs of more seasons are known.

It is also silly to talk about nobodies when that was the same type of risk that Mr. Jackson was facing. While he wasn't a nobody he only had one big budget film prior to doing Lord of the Rings. That film was also seen as a box office failure (The Frighteners). His King Kong remake was shelved so it didn't get added to his filmography until after LotR. So Amazon going with non-famous people isn't really a big deal. It's not like the famous and well known show runners, directors, and what not don't have their share of hate as well. Mr. Jackson was involved in a few bad movies since Lord of the Rings.

It is amusing that the estate thought Mr. Jackson didn't respect the work of the author yet you and others praise him so highly. Who is wrong in their opinion? The Estate (the son) or a random fan online? This is why things like respect the work mean very little because it is always about what you personally liked and did not like.

[Shadowferal]

LOTR: The Rings of Power Show Budget: Will Cost More Than $1 Billion
The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power TV show will cost Amazon over $1 billion, with the first season alone costing a staggering $462 million

Amazon dropped big money on "The Rings of Power"; beyond its hefty production budget, it also spent $250 million just for the rights and millions more on marketing expenses. The total cost for season one has been estimated to be around $1 billion.

Wat?

The rumored $1 billion budget for Amazon's The Rings of Power series may be higher than the actual cost
Hmf...things will change...

[Xath]

So? That's great for them. The LOTR brand is what made this an attractive project to fund and made it successful as it was positioned.

- - - Updated - - -



I only watched the first 2 episodes but I don't really dig this genre. So I stopped watching. I do not care about LOTR at all or the quality of this show.

It was simply a successful show for the company.

- - - Updated - - -



This is extremely unlikely.

Except they have to make up a billion dollar investment is the issue.

[rhorle]

Except they have to make up a billion dollar investment is the issue.

Only a $750 million one. There are marketing costs that are extra since they are still running ads for Rings of Power but I doubt that is equal to $250 million. Amazon can easily make back the investment. Likely even with their other shows that draw customers to the platform. Sure it is a hit, and a temporary loss, but it is silly to think that Amazon sees it as anything but a blip. They made $192 billion in gross profit in 2021

This is of course if you ignore Amazon stating that their investment has more than paid. There is no issue here except for another failed attempt to keep hating on the show.

[Syegfryed]

Tbf, IMDB is owed by Amazon so two of those have a strong bias.

But regardless I agree. RoP is deeply flawed but definitely isn't a 1/10. It also didn't deserve the praise it got from some critics as being "refreshing". So indeed, I think divisive is a great way to put it.

It is a 3.8/10 at best.

So? That's great for them. The LOTR brand is what made this an attractive project to fund and made it successful as it was positioned.

- - - Updated - - -



I only watched the first 2 episodes but I don't really dig this genre. So I stopped watching. I do not care about LOTR at all or the quality of this show.

It was simply a successful show for the company.

I mean, they will say it was successful, they even point out that the sale of books increase was an indicative of the show success, but they refuse to drop the number of views for all episodes, and keep holding into only the first and second episode.

Thats probably the reason why people fail upwards, they make something shit, but since it had a lot of numbers viewed for the first episode, it means it was a successful, so you get another job.

[rhorle]

I mean, they will say it was successful, they even point out that the sale of books increase was an indicative of the show success, but they refuse to drop the number of views for all episodes, and keep holding into only the first and second episode.

Why are they telling the truth with book sales but not with success of the show? You blindly trust what they say when it supports something you like and don't trust what they say when it supports something you don't like. Strange, right?

[Fencers]

Except they have to make up a billion dollar investment is the issue.

Trival. To just have the rights of production and distribution, they have already made that back.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, they will say it was successful

Self reportable is meaningless. The industry market analysis decides what is successful. What any distro has to say about that is irrelevant.

Rings of Power is successful. It was one of only two streaming shows in the top 15 for the year that was not owned and distributed by Netflix. Amazon has nothing to do with that reportage.

they refuse to drop the number of views for all episodes, and keep holding into only the first and second episode.

That's not what the industry cares about or uses as a means for streaming show viability. Total minutes viewed is the standard. Those numbers are publicly available.

Even if Amazon for whatever reason want to publish their viewership- it would still not mean anything because Rings of Power is still a only available in the US as a streaming show.

When you see reportage from HBO/Warner or NBC/Uni of viewership it is because their content airs on non-streaming platforms as well. Which qualifies as both original and acquired programming in some cases. These are a totally different set of market criteria for media than streaming.

So it is meaningful and useful to the market to report The Last of Us has 6 million viewers. But would not be appropriate for Stranger Things or Rings of Power. In fact, it would be laughable and seen negatively to report such of the former.

There is a case for P18-49 and possibly P2-/+. But streaming is not divided by quarters or quad demos so it's kinda useless in the industry.

[Khaza-R]

It is a 3.8/10 at best.

Tbh, I found it difficult to rate as whole. It reminded me a bit of Book of Boba Fett in that the quality of each episode really kind waivered dramatically. I'd say at its worst it was a 3.5/10 and at its best maybe a 6/10.

I'm hoping they improve it next season. Amazon has sunk so much money into the show they don't really have a choice at this point. From what I understand of some of the metrics there was a severe drop off in viewership after the premiere. So they should be amply motivated to make improvements for the second installment.

[KateReed23]

I didn't like Lord of the Rings. I got to the last episodes but did not begin to watch them. The heroes of the franchise are very abusive, their relationship is built on lies and manipulation. There is no more fairy tale left and it's sad :/

[Fabinas]

Trival. To just have the rights of production and distribution, they have already made that back.

- - - Updated - - -

Self reportable is meaningless. The industry market analysis decides what is successful. What any distro has to say about that is irrelevant.

Rings of Power is successful. It was one of only two streaming shows in the top 15 for the year that was not owned and distributed by Netflix. Amazon has nothing to do with that reportage.

That's not what the industry cares about or uses as a means for streaming show viability. Total minutes viewed is the standard. Those numbers are publicly available.

Even if Amazon for whatever reason want to publish their viewership- it would still not mean anything because Rings of Power is still a only available in the US as a streaming show.

When you see reportage from HBO/Warner or NBC/Uni of viewership it is because their content airs on non-streaming platforms as well. Which qualifies as both original and acquired programming in some cases. These are a totally different set of market criteria for media than streaming.

So it is meaningful and useful to the market to report The Last of Us has 6 million viewers. But would not be appropriate for Stranger Things or Rings of Power. In fact, it would be laughable and seen negatively to report such of the former.

There is a case for P18-49 and possibly P2-/+. But streaming is not divided by quarters or quad demos so it's kinda useless in the industry.

Are the "total minutes viewed" reported by an independent and objective source?

Not trolling, nor dismissing what you said. Genuinely curious how is that counted and reported for any streaming show in US.

[Dhrizzle]

I want to know what world people are living in where business execs are saying "this thing failed and is a waste of money but we're going to lie and keep wasting more money because we hate profits."

Also how do we get those execs to work at EA? I want Anthem 2 and a new SimCity.

[Fencers]

Are the "total minutes viewed" reported by an independent and objective source?

Not trolling, nor dismissing what you said. Genuinely curious how is that counted and reported for any streaming show in US.

Yes. Nielsen, Titvian, Schlesinger, FPG, and other media market analytics are by necessity independent.

That is what makes them valuable and why self-reportage is not a thing within the industry. When a distro self-reports, that is advertising.

When an analytics firm reports or provides DMA/AMOL reportage that is factual and must be so. If a distro claimed they could reach engagement at X or Y level and they sell rights, ad time, or platform on false information they made up- they will be sued and their stock would tank.

It's not a thing really. To the layman, they might think it is so but it's only because you can't tell advertising apart from the analytics. The latter is usually quite expensive to acquire outside of things like Showbuzz or Nielsen.

Studios will not pay millions, and they do pay millions, for what is called 'nationals' and 'dailies' if the information was biased. It's in everyone's best interest to know what the actual numbers on engagement are to leverage your product or platform for the best result. Advertisers and companies that buy ad time as well as licensees do not appreciate being misled on the viability of the product either.

- - - Updated - - -

Also how do we get those execs to work at EA? I want Anthem 2.

Justice for Titanfall!

[Fabinas]

Yes. Nielsen, Titvian, Schlesinger, FPG, and other media market analytics are by necessity independent.

That is what makes them valuable and why self-reportage is not a thing within the industry. When a distro self-reports, that is advertising.

When an analytics firm reports or provides DMA/AMOL reportage that is factual and must be so. If a distro claimed they could reach engagement at X or Y level and they sell rights, ad time, or platform on false information they made up- they will be sued and their stock would tank.

It's not a thing really. To the layman, they might think it is so but it's only because you can't tell advertising apart from the analytics. The latter is usually quite expensive to acquire outside of things like Showbuzz or Nielsen.

Studios will not pay millions, and they do pay millions, for what is called 'nationals' and 'dailies' if the information was biased. It's in everyone's best interest to know what the actual numbers on engagement are to leverage your product or platform for the best result. Advertisers and companies that buy ad time as well as licensees do not appreciate being misled on the viability of the product either.

- - - Updated - - -

Justice for Titanfall!

So, i suppose all those companies (or at least one of them) have software or hardware installed in the streaming companies (or any other technology, really doesn't matter) to measure the minutes viewed. Am i correct or am i missing something?

Is there any graph or table that actually shows the minutes viewed per week for each episode and total? Googling around hasn't given me the full story, just various articles claiming that viewership was dwindling 1% each week till the middle of the show.

[Fencers]

So, i suppose all those companies (or at least one of them) have software or hardware installed in the streaming companies (or any other technology, really doesn't matter) to measure the minutes viewed. Am i correct or am i missing something?

Yes. They use proprietary programs called metering software that tracks and records consumer data of various demographics per market. This is often called 'macro viewer data'.

There is also (about a week out from the air date) consumer data collection; CLTs (onsite & offsite), Focus (Group & 1:1), Survey (T3B & Articulation) & Observation data that companies can pay to acquire. This part is my job.

Is there any graph or table that actually shows the minutes viewed per week for each episode and total?

Nielsen and Showbuzz publish to the public. For the others you have to pay for the data or submit either proposal or petition for a job offer.

A 'job' is what the data collection is called.

Proposals are the criteria of data collection a client may be looking for; "Tell me what % of HH watching are >$50k gross income within the 18-49 bracket".

Googling around hasn't given me the full story, just various articles claiming that viewership was dwindling 1% each week till the middle of the show.

Viewership is pointless. It's advertising. Like reporting worldwide gross for a movie box office- only domestic BO matters.

[Fabinas]

Yes. They use proprietary programs called metering software that tracks and records consumer data of various demographics per market. This is often called 'macro viewer data'.

There is also (about a week out from the air date) consumer data collection; CLTs (onsite & offsite), Focus (Group & 1:1), Survey (T3B & Articulation) & Observation data that companies can pay to acquire. This part is my job.

Nielsen and Showbuzz publish to the public. For the others you have to pay for the data or submit either proposal or petition for a job offer.

A 'job' is what the data collection is called.

Proposals are the criteria of data collection a client may be looking for; "Tell me what % of HH watching are >$50k gross income within the 18-49 bracket".

Viewership is pointless. It's advertising. Like reporting worldwide gross for a movie box office- only domestic BO matters.

Regarding the articles about "viewership", those actually reported that minutes watched were dwindling 1% each week. For example : Viewership for The Rings of Power shrank with every new episode

[Fencers]

Regarding the articles about "viewership", those actually reported that minutes watched were dwindling 1% each week. For example : Viewership for The Rings of Power shrank with every new episode

That's fine. But viewership is referencing the total # of viewers. Minutes and engagement are not the data you would get by requesting viewership numbers.

They still finished top 15 with this show. Only The Boys and Rings of Power cracked Netflix's streaming dominance.

[rogoth]

Regarding the articles about "viewership", those actually reported that minutes watched were dwindling 1% each week. For example : Viewership for The Rings of Power shrank with every new episode

at the time the show ended, there was less people watching the final episode, than had left the show after the first episode release, meaning it had lost more viewers than were left to watch the conclusion, there wasn't even a meaningful bump in viewers for the finale which means people were so pissed off and generally disinterested in the show they didn't even bother coming back to see what the final episode was all about.

if this doesn't illustrate how bad of a production this shitshow was and still is, i don't know what will, you could literally write a media studies textbook for university students based on this show of how NOT to do something, it's littered with examples both micro and macro on abject failure, and yet there are still people to this day defending the indefensible because they have a sunk cost fallacy, and so entrenched in the woke propaganda they have drunk the kool-aid they are trying to peddle.

- - - Updated - - -

That's fine. But viewership is referencing the total # of viewers. Minutes and engagement are not the data you would get by requesting viewership numbers.

They still finished top 15 with this show. Only The Boys and Rings of Power cracked Netflix's streaming dominance.

not only did the viewership numbers tank over the course of time the show was still releasing episodes, but less than 1% of people who watched ANY episode, went back to re-watch it, meaning that it was done like a kipper the moment no new episodes released, it's an abject failure of a project and is a perfect example of why you don't change a well established and beloved IP to suit 'modern' identity politics and ticking of boxes on a casting sheet.

[Fencers]

it's an abject failure of a project.

Maybe to you. But not for Amazon.