Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[rogoth]

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

what part of 'it's in the public domain on the website for the creators' is me 'making up bullshit'?, it's curious how you easily conflate things and come to the absolute wrong conclusion every time and still think you're in the right, it takes a special sort of mentality to be that delusional.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

what part of 'it's in the public domain on the website for the creators' is me 'making up bullshit'?,

All of it, you made abunch of claims you apparently cant back up and are now just saying they are real and are out there some where just like saying you saw Big Foot or a Unicorn and all we need to do is go outside and look for it and it will be there.

it's curious how you easily conflate things and come to the absolute wrong conclusion every time and still think you're in the right, it takes a special sort of mentality to be that delusional.

You are projecting so hard here geeze.

[rhorle]

what part of 'it's in the public domain on the website for the creators' is me 'making up bullshit'?, it's curious how you easily conflate things and come to the absolute wrong conclusion every time and still think you're in the right, it takes a special sort of mentality to be that delusional.

https://press.amazonstudios.com/us/e...for-season-two
https://press.amazonstudios.com/us/e...ting-for-the-s

Those are the two press releases from after Reacher debuted. It makes no mention of 85% of prime subscribers watching the show. So either explain yourself or stop lying about things.

[rogoth]

All of it, you made abunch of claims you apparently cant back up and are now just saying they are real and are out there some where just like saying you saw Big Foot or a Unicorn and all we need to do is go outside and look for it and it will be there.

You are projecting so hard here geeze.

https://decider.com/2022/03/03/reach...tings-nielsen/
a direct quote from that article:

Nielsen’s Weekly Streaming Top 10 report for the week ending Feb. 6, 2022, counted an impressive 1.843 billion minutes of viewing pleasure for Reacher.

based on viewing numbers, because it was a Prime video exclusive, it shows that the vast majority of people with an amazon prime account (at the time of release) viewed the show, with approximately 66% of viewers being older middle aged individuals (the majority of those being men).

https://www.joblo.com/reacher-is-alr...atched-series/

this article shows that it was so popular that it was the first time an Amazon prime video show was top of the Nielsen ratings, once again showing the level of engagement from (at the time of release) those with an Amazon prime account.

this is all from just a quick cursory search if i was overly bothered i could likely find tons more references, but to quote yourself, 'i am le tired and can't be bothered'.

happy now? or are you just gonna keep this tirade up like you have been doing for months now because apparently you're not happy until the point is no longer possible to argue from any side.

lastly, if you wanna act like a twat, at least get your point straight before doing so, it just makes you look even worse than you already do otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

https://press.amazonstudios.com/us/e...for-season-two
https://press.amazonstudios.com/us/e...ting-for-the-s

Those are the two press releases from after Reacher debuted. It makes no mention of 85% of prime subscribers watching the show. So either explain yourself or stop lying about things.

see above, furthermore, learn to fucking read what's presented, then learn how to properly comprehend it, you have failed on so many occasions in just this thread alone to misinterpret correctly what's presented to you, and have failed on countless occasions when using your bad faith arguements to comprehend properly what's actually been written it's impressive really.

and just to make the point crystal clear:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/asse...eport-2022.pdf

quote: The most-watched programmes on Amazon Prime Video and Disney+ rank below Netflix’s top titles,
largely explained by the platforms’ lower subscriber bases.

and quote: Amazon Prime Video
titles in H1 2022, puts Amazon’s most-watched programme in 27th place: the thriller series Reacher
was watched in 3.3 million UK households.

quote: Netflix and Amazon Prime Video both
saw their base of subscribing households decline in Q2 2022 – Netflix by around 210,000 and
Amazon Prime Video by around 590,000

quote: one person commented on Amazon prime video '“I had a subscription to Amazon Prime but had this solely for free delivery on Amazon orders. I
found it extremely difficult to find out when live sports games were on Amazon and have never
renewed it.” Man, 75+'

this shows just how little Amazon prime is accessed outside of the US and the vast majority of audiences are US based for their tv shows and movies userbase, so next time you try and make some asinine arguement about engagement metrics, make sure you have a point because up to this point every single comment you have made has been a waste of bandwidth filled with nothing but complete and utter dross.

[rhorle]

based on viewing numbers, because it was a Prime video exclusive, it shows that the vast majority of people with an amazon prime account (at the time of release) viewed the show

This part is not in the articles you linked. Strange how it went from 85% to vast majority. Doesn't that mean that even more watched Rings of Power since the minutes streamed is greater than Reacher? So did Rings of Power get 90%? Did The Boys get 95% since it had more minutes streamed as well? You bring a kernel of truth then lie about the rest of your points.

So take your own advice about acting poorly without having a point straight.

- - - Updated - - -

see above, furthermore, learn to fucking read what's presented, then learn how to properly comprehend it, you have failed on so many occasions in just this thread alone to misinterpret correctly what's presented to you, and have failed on countless occasions when using your bad faith arguements to comprehend properly what's actually been written it's impressive really.

You said it was on the official site for Amazon. The "above" you reference is not an official site for Amazon or the show. The only one failing here is yourself and as usual you lash out and attack because you backed yourself into a corner that you can't get out of.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

https://decider.com/2022/03/03/reach...tings-nielsen/
a direct quote from that article:

Nielsen’s Weekly Streaming Top 10 report for the week ending Feb. 6, 2022, counted an impressive 1.843 billion minutes of viewing pleasure for Reacher.

based on viewing numbers, because it was a Prime video exclusive, it shows that the vast majority of people with an amazon prime account (at the time of release) viewed the show, with approximately 66% of viewers being older middle aged individuals (the majority of those being men).

https://www.joblo.com/reacher-is-alr...atched-series/

this article shows that it was so popular that it was the first time an Amazon prime video show was top of the Nielsen ratings, once again showing the level of engagement from (at the time of release) those with an Amazon prime account.

this is all from just a quick cursory search if i was overly bothered i could likely find tons more references, but to quote yourself, 'i am le tired and can't be bothered'.

happy now? or are you just gonna keep this tirade up like you have been doing for months now because apparently you're not happy until the point is no longer possible to argue from any side.

Oh Yes I am incredibly happy because you just proved that you are in fact just making up bullshit out of thin air as this was your orginal claim

3)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,

I had even read both of those articles already but then dismissed them as they didn't support your Claim and figured you might have other sources I couldn't find, But no you were just spreading bullshit.

lastly, if you wanna act like a twat, at least get your point straight before doing so, it just makes you look even worse than you already do otherwise.

OH the delicious Irony.

[Fencers]

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

What a compelling argument.

You desire for me to argue with you on a fantasy scenario you made up?

I am right because I talked about facts. Not hypotheticals about incorrect terminology and methodology.

- - - Updated - - -

so just to be clear: anything that exists outside of digital imprint is irrelevant?

Irrelvent to this conversation, yes.

Media engagement is not 'general engagement' meaning anyone who has consumed a product. These are different things.

You are mistaken.

[Syegfryed]

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 start saying social media is not engagement t but then say it is engagement, if the show is not talk about and not searched in said social media, i see like it didn't make success with the public, even if there was 8milion of minutes watched

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

There is such a thing of subjectivity in those works, but it does not hold much because even trash can make success yes, but that was not the case here.

But again, if the show is good or bad is not a matter of subjective opinion, if people liked or not is subjective, the show is objectively bad, but people, even fi rare still enjoyed.

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

Nope, not my opinion, the IP is strong and they have a massive fanbase, look at the hobbit, bad movies but were able to do success

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.

They have to make it because they paid for it, if they stop now they lost 1 billion that they can't make back

And, as you said yourself, as trash as the show can be, and next to zero engagement from the fanbase, still become a success by arbitrary metrics, so there is no reason to stop doing it

[rhorle]

All that this really is about is that you know there's something to my argument, so you're just trying to bluff your way out of it with "I'm in the industry and I know things".

But you have no proof that several recent shows have been able to top streaming charts just because it was given away free to Amazon customers. You are purposefully ignoring your own argument to hyper focus on to something that wasn't called into question. Prime Video has always been free for Prime subscribers. If what you say is true then wouldn't every show have topped the streaming charts because of having access to "200 million subscribers"?

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.

- - - Updated - - -

They have to make it because they paid for it, if they stop now they lost 1 billion that they can't make back

They already made it back. Even if they didn't you drastically under estimate how much Amazon makes. Not to mention they could use Hollywood Accounting to make it beneficial for the company.

[Fencers]

You start saying social media is not engagement t but then say it is engagement

No? I did not say this at all regarding engagement. You may be mistaken about terminology.

But again, if the show is good or bad is not a matter of subjective opinion, if people liked or not is subjective, the show is objectively bad, but people, even fi rare still enjoyed.

Everything related to the quality of an artistic or creative work is subjective. There are no tracking metrics otherwise. You can not present a PRL with "good show" in it. That doesn't exist.

Nope, not my opinion

It is. Being impressed is entirely your opinion here. LOTR isn't as big a property as Marvel, Harry Potter, Star Wars, et cetera.

No one else managed to get their shows, wielding those IPs, in the top 15. Just Amazon.

This isn't a matter of opinion. The data was provided by Nielsen, it is an industry-standard. Amazon and other studios are already moving forward with the data from January.

They have to make it because they paid for it, if they stop now they lost 1 billion that they can't make back

That's not how they make their money back. Amazon doesn't have to make more of any show. Doesn't work like that, my dude.

Amazon would stop ordering any show if it had low engagement or was otherwise unable to be packaged. To hold the rights to anything is immensely valuable. To be able to package any IP you own and any production or suites owned- even more valuable. That is the purpose of IP acquisition.

It's not a fantasy scenario.

A hypothetical scenario where you made up metrics nobody uses within the business to determine how popular you are supposing a book series is in relation to the performance of a streaming show or other major IPs?

Fantasy.

Amazon did give prime video to all its customers who subscribed to prime for delivery.

Their revenue model for Prime Video is not strictly a subscriber base. Some of that is categorized as ancillary. This is not what Amazon bases the performance of its shows on.

All that this really is about is that you know there's something to my argument, so you're just trying to bluff your way out of it with "I'm in the industry and I know things".

I don't even know what your argument is actually. It just seems like a bunch of your feelings.

There is no argument to be had. The data is collected. Decisions have already been made based on the consumer data collected by Nielsen, OTS, and so on. In fact, it's kinda old news. I just happened to notice it a few days later.

The only relevance of working in market research is I can see data points not freely available to the public. Which I have not shared or mentioned. I mentioned specifically the Nielsen data- which is free to everyone. If you ask me questions on how their data is collected or used, I can answer that accurately.

If you are a shareholder you can get a lot of information for free too. Quarterly reports are free, IIRC. I don't know when the next Shareholder call is but Disney's running their call on the 8th.

I don't own Amazon stock. Maybe you do? Take a look or request documentation as you see fit.

You are arguing with the blunt data.

[Fabinas]

It's not a fantasy scenario. Amazon did give prime video to all its customers who subscribed to prime for delivery. Not sure you understand what fantasy is.

- - - Updated - - -



It's not a fantasy scenario. Amazon did give prime video to all its customers who subscribed to prime for delivery. Not sure you understand what fantasy is.

All that this really is about is that you know there's something to my argument, so you're just trying to bluff your way out of it with "I'm in the industry and I know things".

No, it is not.

Stop arguing with Fencers. She has gone out of her way to explain to all of us that "engagement" in the corporate movie/tv production and distribution industry is something different than what we as users understand and perceive.

It has also nothing to do with the quality of the show, whatever that may mean to any of us.

The fact that only RoP managed to reach the top 15 for Nielsen ratings means that, whatever the reason people had prime (as a tv service or free for their already paid prime delivery service) for the above mention industry, the show was successful.

For me as a viewer it was a trainwreck and an abomination. However, it's not the first time that corporate execs use statistics and metrics that frame their products as successful, while the public hates them. Hell, even hateposting in social media or hateviewing is counted as "engagement" and adds to their success.

Let this serve as a warning to all of us.

[Veggie50]

Dear god, this entire page is just “no, u!”

[bledgor]

No, it is not.

Stop arguing with Fencers. She has gone out of her way to explain to all of us that "engagement" in the corporate movie/tv production and distribution industry is something different than what we as users understand and perceive.

It has also nothing to do with the quality of the show, whatever that may mean to any of us.

The fact that only RoP managed to reach the top 15 for Nielsen ratings means that, whatever the reason people had prime (as a tv service or free for their already paid prime delivery service) for the above mention industry, the show was successful.

For me as a viewer it was a trainwreck and an abomination. However, it's not the first time that corporate execs use statistics and metrics that frame their products as successful, while the public hates them. Hell, even hateposting in social media or hateviewing is counted as "engagement" and adds to their success.

Let this serve as a warning to all of us.

I mean to be fair they had a massive mostly free video service with the greatest trilogy of all time and barely made top 15 while earning 0 awards. Not much of a success.

[Syegfryed]

Everything related to the quality of an artistic or creative work is subjective. There are no tracking metrics otherwise. You can not present a PRL with "good show" in it. That doesn't exist.

No its not, and there is metrics to determine if a work is good or not with objective points.

By example, if the actors are saying their lines like they read yesterday, with no effort, like they are reading from a paper, is not good acting, period. The show is bad, There is countless of bad points already discussed here in the topic.

It is. Being impressed is entirely your opinion here. LOTR isn't as big a property as Marvel, Harry Potter, Star Wars, et cetera.

Im not talking which is bigger, but you are out of your mind to say lotr isn't as big as those other stuff, knowing how much the books are sold and how well the first trilogy went

Is "not as big" that they paid fucking a billion for some of the rights

That's not how they make their money back. Amazon doesn't have to make more of any show. Doesn't work like that, my dude.

Ok, they paid 1 billion for the 4/5 seasons, and they can just, not make said seasons, and its all dandy, because they don't need to. what its matter is that they have the IP that will make back the money they spend in a short while.

- - - Updated - - -

Stop arguing with Fencers. She has gone out of her way to explain to all of us that "engagement" in the corporate movie/tv production and distribution industry is something different than what we as users understand and perceive

I said once, RoP success is like when your mom give you money to make lemonade, but your father buys all, because no one else did, you can say it was successful because all the thing was sold. This is the kind of metric used.

Let alone that the chart show 9.4 million "minutes watched" for the season, and they said 8milions or the first episode/premiere, that means only 1m for the rest of the season, and if that is true, no matter how metric you use, this only can be seeing as a failure, thats low engagement and low numbers.