Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Lorgar Aurelian]

1) you have persistently and continuously conflated what you personally think of this excuse for a production, and what the general audience en masse thinks of this show as a whole, and regularly you have stated that you are defending this shite based on the 'numbers' so yes, you obviously do care, very much in fact.

I try to never attribute my own view's to any one else or what the general audience thinks, can you link me any of my post where I am doing so? Like I know I've said abunch of time's that I don't personally care for the Jackson movies all that much But in general they are well liked adaptations even if they aren't for me.

As well can could you link me any post where I have ever said any thing about defending the show based on numbers? The only post I can think of that are about numbers at all are around things like how amazon isn't lying about them or how there numbers say it was a worthwhile investment I don't believe I have ever tied the quality of any thing to numbers.

But mabye I just don't remember some of my post in here there have been quite a few so they could have slipped my memory.

2) last time i checked there was 7.6-7.7 BILLION people that lived outside of the US, now i'm not maths expert here but i find measuring a population of ~340 MILLION and using that as your only metric for measuring engagement metrics FLAWED IN THE EXTREME, but that might just be me, as stated by others, where i live this show flopped so badly they replaced the advertising boards before the final episode had aired, and based on GLOBAL interaction it's been a massive flop almost globally, the only market it did 'well' in and i use that word extremely loosely because based on all metrics comparing it to the competition it sucked ass, was the US market.

The amount of people out side the Us really doesn't matter if the standard is to base success off of the Us market, mabye the standard should be adjusted to be global but until it is measuring a show by a standard no other show adheres to doesn't make any sense.

3) at the time of the show airing, less than 40% of people with an amazon prime account watched the first episode, that number rose to approximately half of all people with an amazon prime account by the time the show was due to end, that means despite the fact it was 'free' to watch, people were so put off by the sheer state of the show, they didn't bother to watch it, they valued their time more doing other things than watching this clusterfuck of a show, compare that to the likes of 'Reacher' which launched earlier in the year which saw almost 85% of all people with a prime account watch it either as it released or shortly thereafter, or other movies which see a majority %age of those with an account watching, so yes, it's embarrassing for Amazon to not even have half the people already subscribed to their service watch the program.

If you have data about amazon show's and what % of people with prime accounts watch them please share it other wise it's just a kinda useless data point.

Reacher for example is a show I have never once heard of until this thread I wasn't part of the suppose 15% who didn't watch it because of the state of the show I just don't check prime for months on end and when I do I tend to go straight to the Horror section and ignore every thing else Nor have I ever seen an add for any show on prime for any thing other then ROP or The Boys.

It could be that 50% is an awful number and most show's are around the 85 mark you said Reacher got it could be that most shows get say 5-10% and 50% is really good with things like Reacher being an anomaly, I don't know either way and without a actual reference beyond one show I've never heard of I can't care one way or the other so again if you have a link to how the shows normally do % wise please share it.

I have is people trying to claim that it's a good show when the reality of it is that this show is one of the worst shows ever made based on the IP,

Isn't this the only show ever based on the IP? have there been other LOTR based shows I've missed?

the 'influencers' they paid to watch a preview and did a whole 'superfan' video series for haven't even watched the show, that's damning in and of itself nevermind the paid for media, Amazon actively paid these people to give positive and repeated takes all under direction off screen and not a single one of them has watched or given any feedback towards the show, is that not suspicious to you?

I do not follow marketing/promo's around any show's or movies, Once every few months Ill look up horror movie trailers on youtube and mark down any that look interesting to me, Beyond that and reading threads here before a show airs I don't follow or check on any Media before something comes out with I think the only exception I have ever made being for the The recent Mortal combat movie.

So in short, I have no idea if its suspicious I don't know what the norm in the industry is.

[rhorle]

1) you're using 'boundingintocomics' as a source unironically, the clowns running that website are known to simp for a product when they are being paid for it then do the whole 'hate clicks' schtick when they stop being paid, it's normal for them, so trying to say they are a reputable source of anything is laughable at best, and downright dishonest generally.

I never said it was reputable. Still producing hate for clicks indicates they still think people are interested, right? Non-US not liking the show is irrelevant. The show still got views and was a success for Amazon. Will season 2 be the same now that majority of the world hates the show? Maybe maybe not. Though you are known to lie and exaggerate so I doubt you have any statistics to back up your claim of how many dislike the show.

3) the show was funded by the purchase of the copyright and publishing rights to the lord of the rings trilogy, the hobbit, and the appendices of said books, that cost ~$250M, the show marketing budget was said to be roughly a quarter of the total budget which is widely reported to be $1Bn meaning that as an estimate the advertising budget for the show was the same as the rights portion of the budget with the general production costing the remaining $500M

The rights purchase is not part of the budget though. The budget for the show is reported to be $450 million. So if marketing is a quarter of that it would only be $126 million. That is about half of the figure you are using and would put their total expenditure short of $1 billion so far. Seasons for streaming shows have not always been 12 or 13 episodes. It has also been a varying amount based on network and show type.

- - - Updated - - -

Reacher for example is a show I have never once heard of until this thread I wasn't part of the suppose 15% who didn't watch it because of the state of the show I just don't check prime for months on end and when I do I tend to go straight to the Horror section and ignore every thing else Nor have I ever seen an add for any show on prime for any thing other then ROP or The Boys.

It's first week of full availability saw 1,589m minutes and the priemer week ( two days I believe) had 1,800 something minutes. So it had a bigger debut then RoP but it didn't get a higher total streamed as only two shows appeared on the 2022 top 15. The Boys and Rings of Power. So if 85% watched Reacher then 85% or more watched Rings of Power making the show a success. If that figure doesn't make RoP a success then no Amazon show can ever be successful.

[Fencers]

Not just mine, but social media overall, i don't think is right to disregard how little engagement it had in the most populous social medias out there.

I don't think you know what the industry means by engagement. Engagement is simply how many instances of interaction and visibility exists for your product.

Engagement has nothing to do with what people are saying, minutes viewed, overall viewership. It has nothing to do with the platform. The platforms can not and do not even track engagement.

Engagment is a broad method of interactions that are tracked by social media analysts and only measures the instances of interactions. Visitation, amplification, advocacy, contribution, content permission, informational distribution among a given set of category and non-category user interaction.

You are confusing different things within the industry. They are not the same and involve a whole different set of specialists and executives.

Right, but that is not personal or subjective, the show is objectively bad.

There is no such thing. Even if there were, it wouldn't mean anything to the business criteria for a streaming platform.

Try to make an argument about something being "objectively bad" in an actual business meeting. Total nonsense. Subjective opinion is not a measure anyone will track or base their business plans on.

Right, what im saying is, taking account the IP, the money they put, and the controversy around it, is not that impressive.

That's entirely your subjective opinion on whether it is impressive. The people that will be packaging the show would disagree. I already answered a number of different aspects that you are not speaking on with any discernable knowledge of process or practice.

With all of that, they should have snatched top 5 easily, if it was somehow decent

Also, entirely your personal opinion based on feeling. Both are irrelevant and inaccurate.

If it were easy, other distros that command larger and more valuable brands than Lord of the Rings would have done better than 15th. None did. Except for Amazon.

What i gather here, is nothing else matter, only minutes watched, and to me it sounds like it is an artificial success(let alone how minutes watched is a garbage metric to measure something, unlike, maybe number of views), and only in terms of that chart that can lead to other beneficial to the company, in advertisement

This is all your opinion, again. It doesn't matter, again.

The entertainment industry uses minutes viewed as a measure and will continue to do so regardless of a random guy on the internet thoughts on the matter. This is the measure that is used- period.

You are free to send an email to any executives at Netflix, Amazon, Universal, or to the data analysts themselves to voice your opinion on how people with personal private jets, yachts, and islands ought to measure their business.

I guess the problem rly we just have different views on what is a success and what is not.

That doesn't matter. I am talking about the business of the show. It is based on the standards and common practices for media packaging in the commercial entertainment industry.

Having a "different view" is not useful to anyone. Because it is a view supported by nothing and no one that is actually involved in the business of packaging and leveraging content properties.

I bet if they went 16th or 18th, we would have a top 20 instead, to show how much successful it was

Amazon doesn't make this chart. It is data collected by Nielsen. Nielsen is an independent organization.

i hardly call it a success,

Irrelevant. This is not a conversation to have with me. The quality of this show is not relevant to anything I am talking about nor am I interested in discussing the quality of the show.

The show was already greenlit for 4/5 seasons, i don't remember the number exactly, but they have to make then, because they already spend 1 billion on it. might as well just roll on it to not lost the money.

That isn't how it works, really. "Greenlit" is the wrong terminology here too. If you knew the process you wouldn't make that error. You would know what a production suite being renewed is and means. The long and short of it is, Amazon don't "have to make" anything and they wouldn't if it had no market viability.

Especially as they just hired a new executive to trim the fat from all areas of business within Amazon. An exec that has already raised rates, cut budgets, canceled in production projects and so on.

My brother, do you think these people are billionaires because they don't know what they are doing and really give a fuck about the pointy ears of elves?

There is no "different view" to have. Because how you view it is only relevant to you. Not to the industry.

[rhorle]

Subjective opinion is not a measure anyone will track or base their business plans on.

Considering that pitches to get funding rely on subjective opinions and fan influenced revivals have occurred like with The Expanse, Galaxy Quest, Veronica Mars, Twin Peaks, and Arrested Development. It seems entirely clear that the industry will make a business plan around subjective opinions if they want to.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It's first week of full availability saw 1,589m minutes and the priemer week ( two days I believe) had 1,800 something minutes. So it had a bigger debut then RoP but it didn't get a higher total streamed as only two shows appeared on the 2022 top 15. The Boys and Rings of Power. So if 85% watched Reacher then 85% or more watched Rings of Power making the show a success. If that figure doesn't make RoP a success then no Amazon show can ever be successful.

Wait when you say full availability do you mean all the episodes launched at once unlike Rop/The boys staggered release?

Because if people are comparing premier numbers of 8-?? Episodes to just 2 and saying the 8-?? Show had a higher launch number that’s really stupid.

[rhorle]

Wait when you say full availability do you mean all the episodes launched at once unlike Rop/The boys staggered release?

Correct. The entire season of 8 episodes was released on February 4th. It was the first time that an Amazon show was number one on the weekly top 10 apparently. So it is still an accomplishment but doesn't detract from Rings of Power in any way.

[Dhrizzle]

I was expecting more when you said "the top 15", but they are just the 15th place, that was a bit sad. And that is like, almost all the shows that aired, of course they would make to it somehow lol

It's also at number 15 in the top 100 charts, is that more exciting for you?

[Koriani]

God I love this thread.

Some one who apparently works directly in this line of work “numbers across multiple unbiased sources says it did well and was with there investment”

People who whine about how it did poorly “I don’t like it so your wrong and it failed!”

I just think its really interesting how far off us 'normal viewers' are from understanding, really, what goes into how these companies determine 'successful' show. Fencers informative posts about these things, along with random tidbits I read elsewhere, just further indicate that most of us, as viewers and posters here, really don't fully grasp all the bits that go into these decisions.

Like the recent Netflix CEO (Or whomever he was) statement about how Netflix "has never cancelled a successful show" was met with such backlash - when people just have to realize that the way NETFLIX counts those numbers, its a true statement. It coming to light (through this statement or possibly just before) that a major 'success' marker for Netflix is looking at "engagement through ENTIRE show" or "Who watched the whole thing". Not just raw numbers or minutes viewed in each episode - but counting who FINISHED the show.

And in the articles I read, they found example after example of shows viewers (the public) thought as popular/successful but that Netflix cancelled (confusing people at the time) and found this marker to be telling. Almost all the supposedly "popular" shows they were looking at had very low 'full show completion' numbers.

Just pretty interesting to me. As well as reminding us "we aren't as 'expert' as we think we are/we don't even know what we don't know" about how these decisions are REALLY made and what numbers DO really matter.

And our own personal impressions, or how much money was spent vs what WE see as the 'successful profit return' - CAN (not always, but at least sometimes) have almost nothing to do with what is really used to determine a show's 'success'.

Course, that's something that is now 'known' about at least one part of how Netflix actually determines "show success" for renewal/cancellation. No idea how Amazon, Apple+, HBO, etc. considers that SAME data in prioritizing decision-making, or uses entirely different sets of data altogether and may not give an F about "viewed to completion" rates.

We don't know!! Now just admit it. =D

[Combatbutler]

People just remember the Michael bay Transformers movies were also very successful, that is all I'll say on this matter.

[rogoth]

People just remember the Michael bay Transformers movies were also very successful, that is all I'll say on this matter.

the first few were successful because it was the revival of a series that had been dead for decades outside of childrens TV shows on obscure networks, so there was a lot of adults (me being one of them) that was really looking forward to seeing what i grew up on, on the big screen that the masses would engage with, and while i despise the bay orgasms all over the place, the earlier films were decent enough to revive the franchise.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Correct. The entire season of 8 episodes was released on February 4th. It was the first time that an Amazon show was number one on the weekly top 10 apparently. So it is still an accomplishment but doesn't detract from Rings of Power in any way.

Ya it sounds like the show did well but it’s premier isn’t really Relevant to a weekly released show as there was so much more to binge which could boost numbers a lot higher.

Hopefully Rogoth has some links though as I can’t seem to find any thing about it having 85% of prime users watching it or %’s for like any show with a quick google.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I wouldn't mind seeing a link with figures that show how it bombed in every country that isn't the US, personally.

That would be nice as well though kinda makes
Me wonder if prime is even a big thing out side of North America store front or prime wise.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

We don't know!! Now just admit it. =D

It’s people seeking validation I think they want there views to be right so they have to tear down any info that doesn’t Aline with them and won’t admit that They don’t have the full picture if it’s not the picture they want.

[Ezyah]

Finished 1st season, it definitelly had some good aesthetic but boy , was it boring ....

I feel like nothing really happened in that show apart from a cheap battle between the numenor and the orcs. It felt like watching the extended remix director cut long version of a show that could easily have been a 4 episode season without losing ANY story telling, removing the slow motions scenes and the unecessary dialogues that are just here to give a flase sense of being important lessons.

And it felt weird that the way they were talking about their attack was like a massive army sailing from numenor to save a whole region but in realitty it felt like 4 ship going there to help a single village ???

And my god, please, bring a bit of nuance in your characters ... They are either evil or good hobbits with the power of friendship ....

[Fabinas]

/snip

If it were easy, other distros that command larger and more valuable brands than Lord of the Rings would have done better than 15th. None did. Except for Amazon.

/snip

There's only one thing i might disagree with you in your post and that's the only quoted part.

Lord of the Rings is one of the largest and most valuable brands in literature, cinema, game companies and has a great engagement in all those areas. And has done so for years.

I do feel that you judge this by the TV industry standards and recent metrics and while it isn't exactly wrong, your quoted part isn't also exactly right. While some other IP's and brands may have done better in the industry recently, this does not reduce the value of Lord of the Rings and the Tolkien brand, which has had a steady and faithful engagement from the public for more than 75+years.

I would really like to know which brands do you think were larger and more valuable than Lord of the Rings and the criteria that led to this opinion.

[Triceron]

I would really like to know which brands do you think were larger and more valuable than Lord of the Rings and the criteria that led to this opinion.

A bit surprising that no Disney Plus show has hit the top 15 in 2022. But I do admit Disney Plus had a lackluster 2022 lineup, with Obi-Wan being mediocre and Andor not really getting the mainstream attention that it should have. Their Marvel series weren't very strong either.

[rhorle]

Lord of the Rings is one of the largest and most valuable brands in literature, cinema, game companies and has a great engagement in all those areas. And has done so for years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...dia_franchises

In terms of value it seems like there are plenty of media franchises that are higher. The largest claim is also suspect as Star Wars has more games, cinema, and literature then Tolkien. Do you any evidence to back up your claim? The Tolkien Estate could grow it into what you claim since they seem more open to expansion/development.

[rhorle]

If you don’t have kids, Disney doesn’t produce enough compelling content to make it worth the sub. You can subscribe for a month, watch everything you want to see, then be sure there are no hidden gems left to find. Netflix and HBO Max don’t have that problem with adult subscribers.

Disney+ has Encanto, Bluey, and The Simpsons in the Nielsen top 15 for Overall for 2022. The entire top 15 Overall is higher then 5th or lower place on the Originals list. It really has nothing to do with compelling content but the category definitions reporting services use.

[Xath]

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.

They have absolutely not made that back rofl

- - - Updated - - -

I was expecting more when you said "the top 15", but they are just the 15th place, that was a bit sad. And that is like, almost all the shows that aired, of course they would make to it somehow lol

Seriously I haven't even heard of half of these lol

- - - Updated - - -

That is fine. I am aware the show is controversial. I have no opinion on the creative of the show. Strictly speaking on the analytics side; this was impressive for Amazon.

I think they greenlit Season 2 with new packaging recently and with a renewed production suite. That's money. They wouldn't do that if it was a poor-performing product.

- - - Updated - - -

Look up the concept of a sunk cost they absolutely would.

[kenn9530]

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.

If you call 100 million plus viewers a failure then every show in existance is a complete failure, and its the first 2 seasons thats costing around 1 billion including buying the rights to use the stuff, the show has done better than most shows released even in the short time its been out.

The company doesnt have enough rights to produce a show that could ever be a faithfull adaptation on LOTR so anyone expecting otherwise has unrealistic expectations, you were never going to get tolkien so you were always going to be unhappy, more than enough ppl like the show as it is so it doesnt matter is a small minority dont like it.