Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I think the reality check is that Amazon is considering changing the showrunners...assuming they haven't already, or at least dilute their idiocy. The show just isn't the big hit Bezos wants...his "Game of Thrones" isn't even close to its successor "House of the Dragon."

You do know that house of dragon isn’t on the top 15 list right? How could RoP not be close to it when it apperntly did better then it according to Nielsen.

[s_bushido]

It will eventually. We might see hour-long shows broken into 2-3 minute videos that can be posted or inserted on various platforms as an intermediary. At some point, that practice will just be producing 30 mins of content edited into 1-minute chapters.

The algorithms and metrics indicate this is a more palatable method of content delivery to an increasing number of people.

I'll believe it when I see it. What robots say people will click on (or simply not bother to turn off when it autoplays) when browsing video sites, and what people actually want out of their scripted high-production-value content don't strike me as even remotely the same thing...

Let's not forget how spectacularly Quibi failed during a time when streaming services were raking in the money hand over fist.

[Fabinas]

You do know that house of dragon isn’t on the top 15 list right? How could RoP not be close to it when it apperntly did better then it according to Nielsen.

I thought that HoD was a far better series than RoP.

But, for the industry, RoP is more successful than HoD.

As a viewer, i disagree. Because i measure success by other standards. Story, scenario, acting, production etc. But the industry just counts beans. I mean minutes viewed.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

That's a list of streaming shows. Much of HOTD's audience views it on TV. And again, see my comment above - Amazon basically gave RoP away to 200 million people.

Looking around no where list HoTD higher with Tv minuets included or not, Mabye you or @Fencers can find other wise though.

And then “giving it away” is meaningless Amazon has a ton of other shows some that even had bigger premiers like reacher and they didn’t make it on the top 15.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought that HoD was a far better series than RoP.

But, for the industry, RoP is more successful than HoD.

As a viewer, i disagree. Because i measure success by other standards. Story, scenario, acting, production etc. But the industry just counts beans. I mean minutes viewed.

Ya id say I agree competently I’d ranked HoT as Probably a good show instead of just ok but the people who church numbers would put it lower.

[Syegfryed]

Do you know how actors are hired for roles? How production is contracted?

If there was a way to make objectively good anything in the entertainment business, they would do it 100% of the time. Focus testing wouldn't exist. CinemaScore would be out of business.

No such thing exists my dude.

You are just trying to pass up as pseudo inteligent if you think there is no objectively good or bad media in entertainment, you can't possible say there aren't, objectivelly good or bad actors, good or bad scripts/stories, bad/good directors and how all of then can affect a movie quality.

Yes, there is ways to make objectively good things, its not rocket science, its why cliches and troops work in most cases.

Is like saying there is no way of making good food, and if there was, people would make 100% good food all the time, when its not how it works, ingredients can be spoiled, something can go wrong in the kitchen, the chief can pass the point, the chief isn't as much talented, many variables.

I was comparing the properties. As a property, Lord of the Rings is not as valuable as the other brands mentioned.

How they are not valuable when they paid a billion for SOME of the rights?

do you know a lot of other companies were trying to snatch Lotr too right? they all crazy about it because they know how valuable it is and how much potential hold it. Netflix wanted to make a MCU-like, others wanted to do remakes, and others wanted to do aragorn stories.

The unadjusted domestic box office is the only industry standard for film success.

Thats ridiculous, you are going to tell me, you are not going to count worldwide, and only count US to see if the movie is a success? do you seriously think ignoring the rest of the world is a way to say if something is a success?

Not even that, ignoring, inflation, how the price of tickets increase recent years is not a fair noir just comparison

And even with that, a quick search showed me the return of the king, alone, by example, did better than Iron man one and two and thor love and thunder domestically

[rhorle]

That's a list of streaming shows. Much of HOTD's audience views it on TV. And again, see my comment above - Amazon basically gave RoP away to 200 million people.

So? Netflix had 223 million subscribers in the third quarter of 2022. Yet not all of their shows had 223 million viewers. No service has all of their subscribers engage in a show.

[Syegfryed]

LOTR is not as valuable as Star Wars and Marvel but that doesn’t mean it’s worse.

I didn't claim lotr was more valauble, i said they were as valuable, those two can have new shit, because authors are alive, and they can create enw stuff foward, you can't do that with tolkien.

There are reasons to believe RoP was a success - it put up good numbers and critics liked it - and there are reasons to view it as a failure - how many fans despised it and it was very expensive. With one season in the books it’s too soon to call it either way, particularly in the context of Amazon’s huge investment.

What bothers me, is how "minutes watched" and making to top 15 of just original shows is a shit metric and should not be used as an signal of "success", its arbitrary, boderline manipulating information

is like if i said they were top 5 in the medieval fantasy shows, taking second place behind lost kingdom, waaaaow, they took 2nd place!!! huge sucess!!! < this is what looks like.

Personally I think that barring a huge improvement season 2 is going to be where the cracks in the facade really start to widen. The show pissed off core fans and was largely generic otherwise - I’m skeptical that casual fans will even remember much of the plot in 18 months when it comes out. And the LOTR novelty will wear out so you won’t have those first timers that buoyed this season.

18? people didn't gave two shits about it after 2 months, thei strategy is put the show in 2024 so people can indeed forget how bad it was, let the dust set, then they can grab people who forgot about season 1.

We already saw the HUGE drop from episode 1 to the rest of the season, "huge success" of a show that los that many viewers, if they made season 2 in 2023 people would just say fuck off.

[Triceron]

It's all arbitrary too.

It's like if we list the top MOBAs of 2023, Heroes of the Storm would still be on that list. Doesn't really mean jack shit.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It's all arbitrary too.

It's like if we list the top MOBAs of 2023, Heroes of the Storm would still be on that list. Doesn't really mean jack shit.

There are like 5-6 moba's on the market, there are likely 100's of original shows that ran in 2022, these two things aren't in the same solar system.

[Triceron]

There are like 5-6 moba's on the market, there are likely 100's of original shows that ran in 2022, these two things aren't in the same solar system.

The metrics are still both arbitrary. That is the point.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

The metrics are still both arbitrary. That is the point.

they have been using the same metric for year's you or I might not get why they choose that one but it's surely not arbitrary that's just not how data gathering industry's work.

[rhorle]

What bothers me, is how "minutes watched" and making to top 15 of just original shows is a shit metric and should not be used as an signal of "success", its arbitrary, boderline manipulating information

How is it manipulation to track self-produced shows by streaming companies? They track Original, Acquired, and Overall. It all provides valuable information and none of it is close to being manipulated. Stop trying to make everything bad just because you don't like it.

- - - Updated - - -

18? people didn't gave two shits about it after 2 months, thei strategy is put the show in 2024 so people can indeed forget how bad it was, let the dust set, then they can grab people who forgot about season 1. We already saw the HUGE drop from episode 1 to the rest of the season, "huge success" of a show that los that many viewers, if they made season 2 in 2023 people would just say fuck off.

House of the Dragon is taking just as long of a break. It has nothing to do with letting people forget something terrible and just the amount of work that goes into these productions. The finale episode was only 95 minutes different then the first two for Rings of Power. The "huge" drop recovered. Why do you keep ignoring facts in order to continue to hate?

[Fencers]

Looking around no where list HoTD higher with Tv minuets included or not, Mabye you or @Fencers can find other wise though.

And then “giving it away” is meaningless Amazon has a ton of other shows some that even had bigger premiers like reacher and they didn’t make it on the top 15.

Nielsen did not start tracking HBO and HBO Max until recently. Technically, consumer data can only count app data for HBO Max.

HBO (premium cable) has to legally and technically be counted separately.

Many WBD shows are huge, but their numbers do not reflect it because they have to count OTA and Streaming separately. Euphoria would be the biggest show of them all if it was not for the spilt.

HBO and HBO Max are basically different platforms.

Regional licensing, FCC regulations and a lot of contracts account for the state of HBO. Before the sale to Discovery, AT&T had documentation in how their OTA rights were tied up.

RoP, Stranger Things, Handmaiden's Tale, etc; they have the advantage of being non-ancillary programming.

It's a big deal Amazon owns the Rings of Power and The Boys as properties. Where as HBO Max, for example, doesn't and can't wholly leverage their properties.

This is why HBO Max clears production for shows such as Velma, Harley Quinn, Julia, Selena + Chef and cancels things like Doom Patrol and Titans.

Selena + Chef would be more valuable as an HBO Max show that airs in HBO than the other way around. For example.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Nielsen did not start tracking HBO and HBO Max until recently. Technically, consumer data can only count app data for HBO Max.

HBO (premium cable) has to legally and technically be counted separately.

Many WBD shows are huge, but their numbers do not reflect it because they have to count OTA and Streaming separately. Euphoria would be the biggest show of them all if it was not for the spilt.

HBO and HBO Max are basically different platforms.

Regional licensing, FCC regulations and a lot of contracts account for the state of HBO. Before the sale to Discovery, AT&T had documentation in how their OTA rights were tied up.

RoP, Stranger Things, Handmaiden's Tale, etc; they have the advantage of being non-ancillary programming.

It's a big deal Amazon owns the Rings of Power and The Boys as properties. Where as HBO Max, for example, doesn't and can't wholly leverage their properties.

This is why HBO Max clears production for shows such as Velma, Harley Quinn, Julia, Selena + Chef and cancels things like Doom Patrol and Titans.

Selena + Chef would be more valuable as an HBO Max show that airs in HBO than the other way around. For example.

Ah so we really wouldn't know how the two compare, thanks for the insight.

[Triceron]

they have been using the same metric for year's you or I might not get why they choose that one but it's surely not arbitrary that's just not how data gathering industry's work.

There's been debate over its relevance in current markets, because while they are still very much useful points of data for discerning things like competition and success of shows, there are also big shifts in the market that are moving away from standard television streaming.

From what I understand, Nielsen is still specific to TV, while streaming in general has grown beyond TV watchers in the past few years. So while Nielsen is still highly considered reliable and effective metrics, the overall relevance to shows being watched is also becoming less and less relevant. Since we don't have any other reliable metrics to rely on, most metrics default to relying on Nielsen ratings as the most reliable metric we have available to us.

It's just not accurate to all watchers, just specifically to TV watchers (as far as I understand how it works).

That Is why some other ratings use different metrics, like google trends, which some have said has been quite an accurate metric for shows. How reliable it actually is, I wouldn't really know personally.

Overall, I do consider it arbitrary, because as reliable as it is, it's only accounting for TV watchers, which is only a fraction of all watchers in general. We're only really talking about how popular these shows are to TV watchers, and I don't even know how many people here talking are actually watching it on TV. I personally don't know anyone who does, which is why I find the data to be arbitrary. Everyone I know streams on PC or tablet or even phone, oddly enough.

[Fencers]

Let's not forget how spectacularly Quibi failed during a time when streaming services were raking in the money hand over fist.

That's the app! I couldn't remember it off the top of my head earlier.

Quibi was a huge failure. But it existed and was launched because the data strongly indicates an increasing audience for that content methology.

Consumer habits sunk Quibi. True.

But the data is very good at predicting consumer trends. Netflix maintains it's value primarily because they have the best content algorithm ever created. Goggle's YouTube algorithms are a close second.

On average, key demos spend more time on Tik Tok than any media platform in the world. That's real power.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

There's been debate over its relevance in current markets, because while they are still very much useful points of data for discerning things like competition and success of shows, there are also big shifts in the market that are moving away from standard television streaming.

From what I understand, Nielsen is still specific to TV, while streaming in general has grown beyond TV watchers in the past few years. So while Nielsen is still highly considered reliable and effective metrics, the overall relevance to shows being watched is also becoming less and less relevant. Since we don't have any other reliable metrics to rely on, most metrics default to relying on Nielsen ratings as the most reliable metric we have available to us.

It's just not accurate to all watchers, just specifically to TV watchers (as far as I understand how it works).

That Is why some other ratings use different metrics, like google trends, which some have said has been quite an accurate metric for shows. How reliable it actually is, I wouldn't really know personally.

It doesn't seem in debate in the industry at all mabye it was in 2021 or early 2022 but it seems pretty settled by this point.

The Nielsen SVOD Content Ratings, which launched in 2017, will now be called the Nielsen Streaming Content Ratings. The rankings are used by seven of the top 10 TV network groups and 14 of the top media agencies, Nielsen said.

Nielsen’s Streaming Suite will also include Nielsen Digital Ad Ratings, which measures audiences for streaming ads on connected-TV devices, comparing their performance with other digital buys.

https://deadline.com/2021/10/nielsen...nt-1234851174/

Netflix announced Thursday that will start using Nielsen’s digital audience measurement in the U.S. to give advertisers an understanding of its reach. It said the Nielsen ratings will start sometime in 2023, marking the first time the streaming giant will have the ratings available for its content.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/netf...0its%20content.

Though again @Fencers would be the person to ask as every thing they have said about the industry so far sounds legit.

[Fencers]

You are just trying to pass up as pseudo inteligent if you think there is no objectively good or bad media in entertainment, you can't possible say there aren't, objectivelly good or bad actors, good or bad scripts/stories, bad/good directors and how all of then can affect a movie quality.

No. No such thing exists.

Entire industries and jobs wouldn't exists if it were so. Or "not rocket science".

If you think otherwise, go ahead and call a development executive and tell him how to determine what is objectively good. They will make you a millionaire.

I will even give you contact numbers if you PM me.

Pick me up some Tony Bianco boots on your way to the top as a thank you. Thanks, dude on a gaming forum.

[Triceron]

Though again @Fencers would be the person to ask as every thing they have said about the industry so far sounds legit.

Well, anecdotally speaking, I work in animation and went through a marketing presentation, where one of the key points was about how the landscape is very different now than it was before. Metrics of profit and success aren't relying on Nielsen as they once did. I'm just sharing what I know and what I understand of Nielsen and its relevance in today's market.

[jackofwind]

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

Not liking a piece of art doesn't make it "objectively" bad art. There's no such thing as "objectively bad" art.

Art is inherently subjective and therefore does not possess any objective truths.