Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Lorgar Aurelian]

We really couldn't care about any of your arguments, then, since we cba to actually decipher your mistake ridden text.

It's also common courtesy to edit grammar and spelling mistakes you see later.

Not that you're the only guilty person, but don't try to dismiss that.

If you have to “decipher” what context I’m using “there” in I don’t think you have any thing of worth to add to any of my arguments any way.

[eschatological]

If you mean "engagement" as in the metrics of the industry, maybe so. You're the expert in that.

However, there's a lot of people actually engaging with LotR content of films, books and games for years .

FWIW, I don't think superfans re-watching their copies of the Extended Edition DVDs do much for "the brand" in an executive's mind. Like, I have all 3 LOTR movies on DVD and my friends and I watch them during the holidays, but that doesn't make anyone any money, and doesn't expand the brand.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, do not police other people's grammar. It is explicitly against the rules of this forum. Not everyone speaks English as a first language, and because we require all posts to be in English, policing grammar is considered trolling.

CF: Only post in English. As English is not everyone's native language, we ask you to not correct other people's posts unless you are asked to. Do not quote dictionary entries for the sake of arguing. Don't be the grammar police.

[Fencers]

If you mean "engagement" as in the metrics of the industry, maybe so. You're the expert in that.

Yes. LOTR is a long running franchise brand. But has nowhere near the interaction points of Marvel or Star Wars.

However, there's a lot of people actually engaging with LotR content of films, books and games for years .

Of course. As I said, bigger brands tried and failed.

Disney, WBD, Uni- they spent money and threw a lot at Netflix. None broke through the Netflix content wall. Amazon did.

[rhorle]

Oh hey the liar is still posting ONE OF was the terminology used if you are going to attempt to badly play word games then actually read what you are quoting.

It isn't close to the top of that list. If you are using one of to refer to everything on the list then that is an attempt a word games. Technically correct but functionally meaningless. Which is why you had to rabidly attack over it rather then trying to make an argument for why it is one of the most valuable even though it is far down the list.

- - - Updated - - -

On topic: it's entirely possible Amazon views this as a success - it got a lot of people to realize that prime video exists... honestly I am a prime member and I barely pay attention to it - and if you don't know any better you would think that it's an ok, generic series, but it was still a terrible adaptation of a beloved property.

The Judge of it being a good adaptation is the Tolkien Estate. They (or just Christoper) considered the Jackson films to be a poor adaptation. They have never seemed to be looking for a 1:1 adaptation. Just one that captures the spirit of Tolkien.

- - - Updated - - -

Evidence? You have gave it yourself, argumenting towards the success of the show, the books sold by Amazon etc. You have provided tons of pages of "evidence" Not interested in discussing anything with the likes of you, anyway.

Are you confused? I am not asking for you to provide evidence that it is a popular or successful IP. I am asking for you to prove that it is one of the most valuable ones around. The reason why you are not interested in discussing is because you know you can't back up your claim with evidence.

[Fencers]

Again, I think that’s more a result of them basically giving away a free sub as an add on to their delivery service which already had 200 mill subscribers. That’s what separates them from Disney and HBO.

No.


/10chars

[bledgor]

No.


/10chars

I have to hard disagree with you there, unless you have some data strongly indicating otherwise, because literally everyone I know has prime for the delivery, and because they have it a few of them watch some tv on it. If prime was on its own I can off the top of my head remove 10 subscribers from just my family and friends.

[exochaft]

I have to hard disagree with you there, unless you have some data strongly indicating otherwise, because literally everyone I know has prime for the delivery, and because they have it a few of them watch some tv on it. If prime was on its own I can off the top of my head remove 10 subscribers from just my family and friends.

Yeah, it's akin to Disney+: their streaming service isn't what's making the money and keeping the streaming service alive, it's another service. In the case of Disney, their streaming service (even admitted by Disney themselves) is losing insane amounts of money every quarter... but they lump it into their amusement parks budget, which is actually profitable.

It's not surprising that Amazon Prime's streaming service and Prime original content creation isn't really the main drive either, as it's lumped into something that everyone has and desires, i.e. Prime shipping. I wouldn't even be surprised if the majority of Prime members don't even know or have never even viewed the streaming service. Again, there's a bunch of interviews and articles that delve into how Rings of Power needed to be a big win to justify even having original content creation for Prime because monetarily it wasn't worth it, and the metrics indicate that RoP got nowhere near what Amazon wanted it to be.

In general, there's been a push to bundle streaming services together with other products/services, and the main reason is likely no one wants them. Disney+ is a great example of this, as they have to give it away for free with stuff or bundle it into other services (while generally making it hard to unbundle it) yet still operate at a massive deficit constantly. When it comes to Prime streaming service, it was just piggybacked off of something that was already massively successful, but I wouldn't be surprised if the original content creation side of the Prime streaming service was bleeding money.

[Fabinas]

FWIW, I don't think superfans re-watching their copies of the Extended Edition DVDs do much for "the brand" in an executive's mind. Like, I have all 3 LOTR movies on DVD and my friends and I watch them during the holidays, but that doesn't make anyone any money, and doesn't expand the brand.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, do not police other people's grammar. It is explicitly against the rules of this forum. Not everyone speaks English as a first language, and because we require all posts to be in English, policing grammar is considered trolling.

CF: Only post in English. As English is not everyone's native language, we ask you to not correct other people's posts unless you are asked to. Do not quote dictionary entries for the sake of arguing. Don't be the grammar police.

Agreed. However, my intention was not to police his grammar. Someone else tried to explain a common mistake for many non native english speakers, with no judgement at all, and this helpful suggestion was replied with a snarky defiant remark.

It is this that i replied to, the "I really couldn't care less about grammar rules". When someone tries to be helpful and you dismiss them like that, you are not discussing in good faith and that was what i intended to showcase with my post.

Just explaining my position, not trying to open a discussion for this or your moderation.

[rhorle]

Again, there's a bunch of interviews and articles that delve into how Rings of Power needed to be a big win to justify even having original content creation for Prime because monetarily it wasn't worth it, and the metrics indicate that RoP got nowhere near what Amazon wanted it to be.

Do you have a link to that? Because it has never been linked to having original content but about Amazon Studios being able to do large scale productions. Prime Video and Amazon Studios have been producing original content since 2015. It was already monetarily worth it as the CEO stated that a golden globe win sells shoes. Bundling streaming services with other products has nothing to do with people not wanting them but simply because it keeps people in the ecosystem. Prime Video does have a stand alone subscription option. It wouldn't exist if it had no value on its own. Amazon has even said that those who make use of Prime Video convert from free trials more than other users of their products.

[rogoth]

FWIW, I don't think superfans re-watching their copies of the Extended Edition DVDs do much for "the brand" in an executive's mind. Like, I have all 3 LOTR movies on DVD and my friends and I watch them during the holidays, but that doesn't make anyone any money, and doesn't expand the brand.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, do not police other people's grammar. It is explicitly against the rules of this forum. Not everyone speaks English as a first language, and because we require all posts to be in English, policing grammar is considered trolling.

CF: Only post in English. As English is not everyone's native language, we ask you to not correct other people's posts unless you are asked to. Do not quote dictionary entries for the sake of arguing. Don't be the grammar police.

correct, but here's the thing, it's massive for the franchise as a whole because it keeps things in the collective consciousness, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of people engage with the older media whether that be the PJ films, or the EA games and is still popular today says that the brand is very much alive and well and it is this precise reason that Amazon tried to piggyback off that collective consciousness and failed miserably at it, all Amazon has succeeded in doing is driving fans back to the older media which is considered by almost everyone to be the superior works, and driven them away from any further media that they can make.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. LOTR is a long running franchise brand. But has nowhere near the interaction points of Marvel or Star Wars.


Of course. As I said, bigger brands tried and failed.

Disney, WBD, Uni- they spent money and threw a lot at Netflix. None broke through the Netflix content wall. Amazon did.

here's a hypothetical for you:

lets say for the sake of arguement that 1 Billion unique people have interacted in some form with Marvel thanks to the Iron man led MCU of the late 00's/early 2010's, that's the baseline.

now lets assume that for the past 100 years the average family is 2 parents and 2 children (we know that's false but for the sake of arguement assume it to be true):

now, if we assume 50% of people in the last 100 years have had a family, and at least 1 person in those families has read the LOTR trilogy of books prior to the release of any motion based media existing, and lets assume that there have been 5 generations born prior to the PJ movie trilogy, that works out to about 600,000,000 people per generation engaging in some form with the LOTR, making it roughly 3 Billion people engaging in the franchise prior to the PJ films, add in the surge of new fans as a result of the massive success the movies had, the multiple games released as a result of that movie success, you're looking at a further 500,000,000 at least engagements alone from that, i highly doubt as a collective whole that Marvel have anywhere near the total engagement figures of Tolkien and his works, as much of a runaway success the MCU has been over the last decade or so, there's still hundreds of millions more people who have engaged with and continue to push engagement in LOTR through books alone, i think you're drastically underestimating just how many people are a member of the Tolkien community and just how many people consider themselves fans of the franchise.

[rhorle]

correct, but here's the thing, it's massive for the franchise as a whole because it keeps things in the collective consciousness

Warner Brothers is developing an animated movie and there are at least three video games in development. The franchise as a whole didn't need old media to stay in the collective consciousness. Ever since the revival by the Jackson work it has seen constant development on the gaming side. That has kept it in the "collective". Amazon hasn't failed at keeping things in the "collective". Do you not see how popular it has made it that even after all this time you are still discussing the IP?

It is crazy that you don't see how much even what you call a failure has done to get people to think about the work of Tolkien.

- - - Updated - - -

now, if we assume 50% of people in the last 100 years have had a family, and at least 1 person in those families has read the LOTR trilogy of books prior to the release of any motion based media existing, and lets assume that there have been 5 generations born prior to the PJ movie trilogy, that works out to about 600,000,000 people per generation engaging in some form with the LOTR

What is the point in a hypothetical that has no connection to reality and is just so you can claim some inflated numbers by Tolkien? There are plenty of current IP's that are bigger then Tolkien without being out as long as Tolkien. Star Wars and Harry Potter to name two.

[Rennadrel]

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.

Disney's TV production has been an unmitigated disaster as far as commercial flops go from both the Star Wars and MCU brands. WandaVision might have been the only moderately successful thing to come out of phase 4 from the TV series side and even that wasn't a massive hit. They haven't really been hitting it home with their films lately either, with Pixar films like Lightyear being box office bombs and Black Panther 2 and Thor: Love and Thunder failing to come close to their predecessor's. Their most successful MCU film was produced by Sony, and they were carried hard by Avatar at the box office last year. Overall a down year for blockbuster films, but also very underwhelming for Disney compared to past successes they've had with the MCU and Star Wars brands.

[Dhrizzle]

here's a hypothetical for you:

lets say for the sake of arguement that 1 Billion unique people have interacted in some form with Marvel thanks to the Iron man led MCU of the late 00's/early 2010's, that's the baseline.

now lets assume that for the past 100 years the average family is 2 parents and 2 children (we know that's false but for the sake of arguement assume it to be true):

now, if we assume 50% of people in the last 100 years have had a family, and at least 1 person in those families has read the LOTR trilogy of books prior to the release of any motion based media existing, and lets assume that there have been 5 generations born prior to the PJ movie trilogy, that works out to about 600,000,000 people per generation engaging in some form with the LOTR, making it roughly 3 Billion people engaging in the franchise prior to the PJ films, add in the surge of new fans as a result of the massive success the movies had, the multiple games released as a result of that movie success, you're looking at a further 500,000,000 at least engagements alone from that, i highly doubt as a collective whole that Marvel have anywhere near the total engagement figures of Tolkien and his works, as much of a runaway success the MCU has been over the last decade or so, there's still hundreds of millions more people who have engaged with and continue to push engagement in LOTR through books alone, i think you're drastically underestimating just how many people are a member of the Tolkien community and just how many people consider themselves fans of the franchise.

You know Marvel comics have been running about as long as Tolkien has had works out, right? Only they've consistently been putting out new stuff for nearly 90 years including video games, cartoons and action figures.

[Fencers]

That’s all you got?

Yes, it's a notion you made up in your mind. I don't care about your fantasies.

- - - Updated - - -

here's a hypothetical for you:

This is a worthless conversation to have then. Also, that is not what engagement is within entertainment-based media.

Engagement, when I a use the term here, is simply the interaction points any given piece of media have online that can be objectively measured and calculated for data collection.

That is what I mean by engagement. That is what the software tools calculate. That is what studios pay to acquire. That is what executives that made business decisions care about.

This is not a matter of opinion. People know the precise engagement of any media they own. Nothing is on the level of Marvel, Harry Potter, Winnie the Pooh, Pokemon or Star Wars. Those brands have engagement stats that would take several dozen franchises and/or brands combined to match even by half on any given day of the week.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

snip.

Your never gonna back up any thing you posted earlier are you? just go from post to post making up bullshit aren't you?

[rogoth]

Yes, it's a notion you made up in your mind. I don't care about your fantasies.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a worthless conversation to have then. Also, that is not what engagement is within entertainment-based media.

Engagement, when I a use the term here, is simply the interaction points any given piece of media have online that can be objectively measured and calculated for data collection.

That is what I mean by engagement. That is what the software tools calculate. That is what studios pay to acquire. That is what executives that made business decisions care about.

This is not a matter of opinion. People know the precise engagement of any media they own. Nothing is on the level of Marvel, Harry Potter, Winnie the Pooh, Pokemon or Star Wars. Those brands have engagement stats that would take several dozen franchises and/or brands combined to match even by half on any given day of the week.

so just to be clear: anything that exists outside of digital imprint is irrelevant?, ok that's good to know, so the billions of people who have engaged with dozens of beloved franchises are utterly meaningless right?, how does that work when without that prior engagement, there would be NO FRANCHISE TO BEGIN WITH?

- - - Updated - - -

Your never gonna back up any thing you posted earlier are you? just go from post to post making up bullshit aren't you?

it's all over the Amazon press releases from the time the show launched, not my fault you're too lazy to go look it up and read it, if you want stuff handed to you on a plate, ask for it in future, not my job to do that for you.

[Triceron]

You know Marvel comics have been running about as long as Tolkien has had works out, right? Only they've consistently been putting out new stuff for nearly 90 years including video games, cartoons and action figures.

To be fair, all of Marvel's efforts were mediocre at best in terms of capturing any significant mainstream attention. The only real exceptions I'd say are the Spiderman and Xmen movies, which happened to be liscences that Marvel didn't even own at the time.

It really was the post-Disney MCU that elevated it into the massive success that it is now, otherwise most of the comics and games and cartoons and action figures really only appealed to a niche market.

That being said, LOTR was also in this boat for decades until the movies brought it to the public eye, and even then the merchandising of the franchise was limited by the Tolkien Estate's conservative liscencing. It's only now starting to open back up.

[rogoth]

You know Marvel comics have been running about as long as Tolkien has had works out, right? Only they've consistently been putting out new stuff for nearly 90 years including video games, cartoons and action figures.

yes, i do know that, except unlike Tolkien, Marvel comics were almost exclusively an American market only product, they had no global audience until about the 60's unlike LOTR which had an international audience for decades by the that point as professor Tolkien translated his own works into multiple languages himself so as many people as possible could enjoy his work, but i fail to see what that has to do with the price of cheese?, my original point was that Fencers was stating that the historical engagement of billions of people is irrelevant because some already disgustingly wealthy cunt in a suit couldn't make money off of that and the only important metric is what can be measured in 'modern day', which is hilarious when you consider that the franchise wouldn't exist without that historical engagement.

- - - Updated - - -

"I'm right because I work in the industry, but I can't explain why."

What a compelling argument.

it almost convinced me, it was that good! /s

[Lorgar Aurelian]

it's all over the Amazon press releases from the time the show launched, not my fault you're too lazy to go look it up and read it, if you want stuff handed to you on a plate, ask for it in future, not my job to do that for you.

So that's a yes your just gonna keep spreading bullshit you made up out of thin air, got it.

[Zodiark]

I did finally finish the show, and it wasn't actually THAT bad, it wasn't great, but it made decent filler between top end shows. I like the actress who played Galadriel. The writing was pretty bad. Oddly, some people didn't like the the hobbit like creatures, but I thought they were some of the best parts of the series. This isn't a show that I would get really into the lore about or anything, and that is unfortunate considering the IP. It isn't too much worse than The Witcher on Netflix(don't get me wrong Cavill is awesome, but without him that show isn't special) and very watchable. I'd give it maybe a 7/10 going by imdb scale, maybe a 6.9, assuming the recently released The Sandman or Peripheral being about an 8/10 in my book. Breaking Bad would be a 9/10, and I'd only rank a few other series higher, The Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, Star Trek TNG, ect.

This is slightly off topic, but honestly, with several pages of discussion on Walter White, I don't feel I'm stepping too far out of bounds here.

If you like Walter White as a character and morally questionable anti-hero or even just like Breaking Bad, I would highly recommend watching Mr. Inbetween.

Regarding your point about being filler... See I am a fan of a lot of older shows because for one, I can sit and watch them in their entirety without having to wait for a new season. Secondly many of them I've seen before and can sort of just watch peripherally while I am doing something else. For me to actually SIT down and watch something new it has to be GOOD. Not just passable. Because something new doesn't have the nostalgia hooks of older favorites to keep me engaged. That old feeling of your favorite show coming on Friday or Saturday night. So this is why I coined my personal term "this feels like Saturday night" to describe a new movie or show that immediately hits that sweet spot and almost becomes an instant classic. The Rings of Power accomplished no such feat in my eyes.