Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Triceron]

I was not comparing the two metrics. I merely stated that us liking or disliking the metrics because arbitrary, statistics (that can be truthful and deceiving at the same time), nonsensical etc, has no bearing at the industry, because that's what they have decided to use.

That's the thing though. The industry hasn't decided to use those metrics, otherwise Amazon would be touting those metrics themselves. Nielsen ratings isn't a universally accepted metric for gauging internal success of shows. Different streaming platforms have different goals for their companies. Netflix and Disney Plus relies on it heavier because streaming is their primary business. Apple TV exists to promote their product sales, and Prime Video exists to promote having Prime for online goods purchases, and they do not rely on these metrics as heavily.

Amazon is the industry we are talking about, and their streaming business is not built around minutes viewed.

Just like if there was a Minutes Played tracker for WoW and other MMOs, it wouldn't be relative to how Blizzard actually tracks their internal data through MAUs. MAU's only account for logging into any given game per month, regardless of time spent actually playing said game. Investors don't really care a bout counting how much time you're actually spending playing it. They care more about how much engagement a game gets per month/yearly quarter.

There is also some debate as to what the Originals list actually entails, and how the metrics are counted. Notice that House of the Dragons is not on the list? There's been questions as to whether it didn't get as many views, or if Nielsen were omitting it on the basis that it was not an Original series (prequel to GoT?) or because the metrics were based on streaming, while House of Dragons came out on cable first and that data may have not been considered into these metrics. So really, Nielsen may be accurate, but it's not perfect either.

[jackofwind]

If you take someone who study guitar for decades and do a song, you know its good. You take a random person who never touched an instrument and ask to play a song, you know it will be, objectively, bad

Unless you wanna argue music isn't art.

There are many musicians who don't consider themselves to be artists because, while they possess superb technical skills, they do not feel they have artistry. Likewise there are many musicians who have next to no technical skills whatsoever but are esteemed as artists.

You're trying to talk about skills and abilities as if they are what makes art good or bad. They aren't.

The Sex Pistols' music is as valid art as Yngwie Malmsteen's, even though the divide between their technical prowess is continental in scope.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes it can. There are categories of Art that have specific requirements. If you claim something is photo realism when it is not then it is objectively bad. It really is that simple. Art, like many other things, can be judged by objective standards. How do schools offer art degrees if everything is subjective? They would never be able to fail a student because they would be nothing to determine if it is bad or good.

An abstract painting might be a poor example of photo realism, but it's not bad art. Or it might be considered an avant-garde statement about society.

Art doesn't give a shit about boxes or categories.

And FYI - Fine Arts degrees measure technical prowess, they don't measure the ability to create good art.

[rhorle]

The Sex Pistols' music is as valid art as Yngwie Malmsteen's, even though the divide between their technical prowess is continental in scope.

Doesn't this contradict your claim though? As in order to have a vastly different technical prowess their must be an objective standard to judge that prowess by. Otherwise they would be equals. You seem to be falling into the same type of trap as happens with opinions. Opinions can be wrong but you are never wrong for having one. Just like art can be objetively bad but interpretation of that art is subjective.

There is a reason why the phrase "So bad it's good" exists. Taste is almost always subjective so it can surpass objectivity.

[Fabinas]

That's the thing though. The industry hasn't decided to use those metrics, otherwise Amazon would be touting those metrics themselves. Nielsen ratings isn't a universally accepted metric for gauging internal success of shows. Different streaming platforms have different goals for their companies. Netflix and Disney Plus relies on it heavier because streaming is their primary business. Apple TV exists to promote their product sales, and Prime Video exists to promote having Prime for online goods purchases, and they do not rely on these metrics as heavily.

Amazon is the industry we are talking about, and their streaming business is not built around minutes viewed.

Just like if there was a Minutes Played tracker for WoW and other MMOs, it wouldn't be relative to how Blizzard actually tracks their internal data through MAUs. MAU's only account for logging into any given game per month, regardless of time spent actually playing said game. Investors don't really care a bout counting how much time you're actually spending playing it. They care more about how much engagement a game gets per month/yearly quarter.

There is also some debate as to what the Originals list actually entails, and how the metrics are counted. Notice that House of the Dragons is not on the list? There's been questions as to whether it didn't get as many views, or if Nielsen were omitting it on the basis that it was not an Original series (prequel to GoT?) or because the metrics were based on streaming, while House of Dragons came out on cable first and that data may have not been considered into these metrics. So really, Nielsen may be accurate, but it's not perfect either.

Most of what you're arguing about has been explained and answered above in various different posts. Your opinion is noted though.

I personally have nothing else to add to the discussion.

[rhorle]

An abstract painting might be a poor example of photo realism, but it's not bad art. Or it might be considered an avant-garde statement about society.

What is poor if not bad? All you are doing is playing word games because you've backed yourself into a corner. Why is a technical standard teaching how to create bad art? Those standards exist for a reason because they are objective measurements of what is good or bad.

[jackofwind]

What is poor if not bad? All you are doing is playing word games because you've backed yourself into a corner. Why is a technical standard teaching how to create bad art? Those standards exist for a reason because they are objective measurements of what is good or bad.

A poor example is not objectively bad, it's just mis-defined. Regardless, the definition of something is irrelevant to its merit as a piece of art.

Technical standards are not objective measurements of good or bad, or do you think Picasso never created any good art?

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't this contradict your claim though? As in order to have a vastly different technical prowess their must be an objective standard to judge that prowess by. Otherwise they would be equals. You seem to be falling into the same type of trap as happens with opinions. Opinions can be wrong but you are never wrong for having one. Just like art can be objetively bad but interpretation of that art is subjective.

There is a reason why the phrase "So bad it's good" exists. Taste is almost always subjective so it can surpass objectivity.

Technical prowess is not art, it is merely a tool. It is simply the means to one particular end. Art is the manifestation of human creativity, meaning it is inherently subjective - there is no such thing as "objectively bad" creativity.

The art of Yngwie Malmsteen and the art of the Sex Pistols are equal, that's my point. They use very different levels of technical prowess to produce equally valid art.

[rhorle]

A poor example is not objectively bad, it's just mis-defined

You are just beating around the bush. If something it a poor example of a standard then it is objectively bad. The definition of things is not irrelevant to merit as art. That is the entire point of those definitions existing. Picasso pioneered Cubism so it is a perfect example. As it shows objective set of standards being born.

Is art is subjective then a simple stick figure is as good as Picasso, right? Picasso can't be a good artist if there is no objective standard to judge him by. Art would be neither bad or good. Yet you keep using objective terms to support subjectivity. Strange if objectivity can not exist with art, right?

- - - Updated - - -

The art of Yngwie Malmsteen and the art of the Sex Pistols are equal, that's my point. They use very different levels of technical prowess to produce equally valid art.

And so is the art of a goat bleating. Everything is equal means there is no good or bad. Technical prowess can not exist because there are standards to art. There is nothing to judge because all creation of art is equal. Yet you keep acknowledging that objective standards to art do exist. What you keep arguing about is interpretation or taste.

[jackofwind]

You are just beating around the bush. If something it a poor example of a standard then it is objectively bad. The definition of things is not irrelevant to merit as art. That is the entire point of those definitions existing. Picasso pioneered Cubism so it is a perfect example. As it shows objective set of standards being born.

Is art is subjective then a simple stick figure is as good as Picasso, right? Picasso can't be a good artist if there is no objective standard to judge him by. Art would be neither bad or good. Yet you keep using objective terms to support subjectivity. Strange if objectivity can not exist with art, right?

You are skipping over everything and picking out snippets to reply to, and arguing in bad faith.

To answer your question - literally yes. Yes, a stick figure is as valid a piece of art as a Picasso. Mondrian's art is incredibly simple, and is just as valid as the most technically proficient painting ever produced.

That's the entire point - all I've been saying is there is no such thing as "objectively bad art". I never said there also wasn't "objectively good art", which there isn't either. Art isn't "good" or "bad". Art is art. My personal opinion is that all art is inherently good, because creativity is good.

- - - Updated - - -

And so is the art of a goat bleating. Everything is equal means there is no good or bad. Technical prowess can not exist because there are standards to art. There is nothing to judge because all creation of art is equal.

You're conflating technical prowess with the ability to produce art. Technical prowess is simple one way to produce art, it doesn't mean that someone without it is incapable of producing art. Technical prowess doesn't measure artistry, which you seem to be confused about.

All art is equally valid, goat bleating included.

[rhorle]

You are skipping over everything and picking out snippets to reply to, and arguing in bad faith.

I am not. Calling something bad faith just because you can't come up with a counter is silly. If technical standards exist then there can be bad art. It is that simple and it can not exist otherwise. If art is always subjective then there is no technical prowess. One artist is always as skilled as the next. One musician is always as skilled as the next. In order for their to be differences there must be something objective to measure by.

- - - Updated - - -

You're conflating technical prowess with the ability to produce art. Technical prowess is simple one way to produce art

So I am not conflating it if it means what I say. Lmao.

[jackofwind]

I am not. Calling something bad faith just because you can't come up with a counter is silly. If technical standards exist then there can be bad art. It is that simple and it can not exist otherwise. If art is always subjective then there is no technical prowess. One artist is always as skilled as the next. One musician is always as skilled as the next. In order for their to be differences there must be something objective to measure by.

- - - Updated - - -



So I am not conflating it if it means what I say. Lmao.

Artists may possess different levels of technical prowess, but that doesn't mean they cannot produce equally valid pieces of art. I have explicitly said that there are artists with varying levels of technical ability, but they all produce valid pieces of art.

There are a thousand examples of artists who lack superb technical prowess, lack training, don't fit into neatly organized boxes with nice little definition labels on them, yet they produce valid art that has gone on to be looked at in wonder by millions of people.

Technical standards measure technical ability, no different than any other profession. They do not measure artistry, and therefore they do not measure art itself. Art can only be measured subjectively on a personal level by individuals, because the inherent nature of art revolves around emotion. Art is not an arithmetic problem, it is a feeling.

[rhorle]

Artists may possess different levels of technical prowess, but that doesn't mean they cannot produce equally valid pieces of art.

So there is an objective standard to judge art by. As that is what allows one to know the technical prowess. You can't have it both ways. Pick one. Art can be objective or art is always subjective. Technical ability is measuring your ability to do something. Technical ability for art is your ability to produce art to a set of standards. Technical ability for cooking is the ability to produce recipes to a certain standard. You know what I've said is right and keep beating around the bush by finding different ways to say I'm right without actually agreeing to it.

Do some people have natural talent that doesn't require formal training? Certainly. That still doesn't change that objective standards exist. What you keep calling technical prowess.

[Triceron]

You are skipping over everything and picking out snippets to reply to, and arguing in bad faith.

I mean, it's probably best to just not engage with him because he's intentionally bad faith for the sake of arguing. Just saying.

[jackofwind]

So there is an objective standard to judge art by. As that is what allows one to know the technical prowess. You can't have it both ways. Pick one. Art can be objective or art is always subjective. Technical ability is measuring your ability to do something. Technical ability for art is your ability to produce art to a set of standards. Technical ability for cooking is the ability to produce recipes to a certain standard. You know what I've said is right and keep beating around the bush by finding different ways to say I'm right without actually agreeing to it.

Do some people have natural talent that doesn't require formal training? Certainly. That still doesn't change that objective standards exist. What you keep calling technical prowess.

No, there is not. There are measures (standards) to judge technical prowess, but technical prowess is not the only thing that can produce art. Don't tell me that I think or know that anything you've said is right, because all you're trying to do is put art and artists inside little labelled boxes and art doesn't give a shit about that.

I openly and joyfully disagree with your small-minded opinion of art being able to be deemed "good" or "bad" based on technical skills.

I'm also not interested in continuing what is literally a centuries-old debate anymore, so I'm going to go enjoy some art instead.

[Biomega]

That doesn’t mean it’s a success yet.

The whole problem that's been circulating here for the last couple pages is that "success" means many different things to many different people. There isn't just one "success" - there's many ways to assess it, in many contexts, and using many metrics.

The point @Fencers and others were raising was that there are certain industry standards by which RoP can absolutely be considered a "success" - but what's important to keep in mind is that this holds true only under the given metric, and in that given context. It does NOT mean that because it's a success in terms of industry-standard engagement metrics, it is ALSO a success with critics, say. Or with entrenched franchise fans. And so on. It also doesn't mean it's NOT that - there isn't any such easy or direct correlation. It's always context-specific.

So when someone on here says "RoP is a failure" (or whichever variation thereof) that can mean any number of things; to counter it with "but it's considered a success by Amazon!" is all well and good, but doesn't really bridge the gap either if there's a different context involved. And chances are people who just haphazardly throw out "RoP is a failure" are not referring to the industry-standard engagement metrics. WHAT they're referring to, exactly, is at best unclear. Personal impression is most likely; critical success may be suspected; pop-culture meme-ability, perhaps, who knows.

It seems fairly clear that the critics didn't like the show enough to shower it in rewards. In fact there's hardly even a nomination to be found, let alone a win. Does that mean it's a commercial failure for Amazon? Not really. Critical and financial success are only loosely correlated. There's plenty of highly profitable projects that are critically a joke (hi there, Fast & Furious). And, similarly, there's plenty of critical successes that completely fail financially (see e.g. this year's To Leslie with its less-than-meager $27,322 box office take despite great reviews, a 97% RT score, and an Oscar nomination).

You just can't go from one to the other willy-nilly and expect "success" to mean the same thing. That's not how it works. We shortcut our language by implying context; you can't just take context out of it.

[Triceron]

My quibble with the “industry standard” is ignoring context. If you argue that RoP is a success because its ratings are higher than random cooking race show #9, that’s disingenuous. Expectations for this series should have been very high based on the factors above, so success should be relative to expectations. You can’t ignore those factors in assessing whether it was a success.

To be fair, success is such a subjective topic that really it goes both ways.

Is RoP a success? In certain ways, yes, it was successful. In others, no it wasn't. Overall, there's no real hard standard that defines whether or not it would be. We're just talking about difference in opinions here really.

[rhorle]

No, there is not. There are measures (standards) to judge technical prowess

This is a contradiction. If there are no objective standards to judge art by then there is nothing to judge technical prowess. To judge technical ability requires an objective way to measure that ability. If art is only subjective then there is no way to measure ability to create art. You keep saying the same thing I am while saying I am wrong. lol.

- - - Updated - - -

1. Pay huge money for a property with a lot of pent up demand after a 20 year drought.

There hasn't been a 20 year drought. Lord of the Rings has had actively development with video games since the release of the Jackson movies. Netflix has more subscribers that pay and don't watch all of the shows. Why would Amazon be judged any different? All you are doing is focusing on the latest made up thing to hate on the show. Every time one of the ways is debunked you, and others, move the goal posts to something else.

If what you expect to happen happens then it is just an expected success. Lmao.

- - - Updated - - -

The point Fencers and others were raising was that there are certain industry standards by which RoP can absolutely be considered a "success" - but what's important to keep in mind is that this holds true only under the given metric, and in that given context.

No other context matters. Why would it? Success is determined by those who control and produce the content. They are the keepers. What some random person on the internet think isn't relevant to anything but their own opinion.

[Syegfryed]

There are many musicians who don't consider themselves to be artists because, while they possess superb technical skills, they do not feel they have artistry. Likewise there are many musicians who have next to no technical skills whatsoever but are esteemed as artists.

You're trying to talk about skills and abilities as if they are what makes art good or bad. They aren't.

They indeed do, again, someone with skills and abilities will do a good music/song, therefore a good art

someone who don't have it, will do a bad art.

Again, you are confusing taste with quality, people can like or dislike good/bad shit, isn't a matter if the quality of said product is good or bad

- - - Updated - - -

My quibble with the “industry standard” is ignoring context. If you argue that RoP is a success because its ratings are higher than random cooking race show #9, that’s disingenuous. Expectations for this series should have been very high based on the factors above, so success should be relative to expectations. You can’t ignore those factors in assessing whether it was a success.

ITs even more baffling again, when you had 9.4 millions minutes watched, and 8m is from episode one and two alone, meaning 1.4 from the rest of the season, this is a massive drop, that only screams failure, regardless if they made t to an arbitrary chart because people had expectation and were fooled by amazon.

[Dhrizzle]

ITs even more baffling again, when you had 9.4 millions minutes watched, and 8m is from episode one and two alone, meaning 1.4 from the rest of the season, this is a massive drop, that only screams failure, regardless if they made t to an arbitrary chart because people had expectation and were fooled by amazon.

First up it's billions with a "b", and secondly where are you getting your per-episode breakdown of viewing figures?

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair, success is such a subjective topic that really it goes both ways.

Is RoP a success? In certain ways, yes, it was successful. In others, no it wasn't. Overall, there's no real hard standard that defines whether or not it would be. We're just talking about difference in opinions here really.

The fact it made it onto the top 15 which is usually dominated by Netflix means it can definitely be considered a success in terms of being a streamed show and Amazon seem happy with their metric of it bringing people to their shop.

[Triceron]

The fact it made it onto the top 15 which is usually dominated by Netflix means it can definitely be considered a success in terms of being a streamed show and Amazon seem happy with their metric of it bringing people to their shop.

That's the thing though. Are we talking about it being successful because it hit the top 15? What if it didn't, would we be still talking about it being successful the same way?

Because as I said, the list itself is quite dubious considering the omission of House of the Dragons, which wasn't being counted there for some unknown factors. Either it wasn't being counted because it wasn't original (prequel to GoT?) or because they weren't counting the Cable viewership that was splitting their viewership totals. We know that HoD had numbers being reported higher than RoP by the end of both runs, and yet it's not on the list despite being a 'new original series'.

https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/nie...le-1235435945/

Nielsen Streaming Top 10: ‘House of the Dragon’ Crosses 1 Billion Minutes Viewed in Finale Week

If HoD were being counted, Rings of Power might not be on the list. This is something that has been hotly debated online when this list first came out, so I want to be clear my argument is directly contextual to this particular example. I want to be clear that I'm not arguing against RoP doing well on its own, I'm only making a point that the Nielsen ratings are skewed, and ultimately have little to do with measuring 'success'. IMO RoP is on that list only on a technicality, and it's not like Amazon themselves regard Nielsen ratings as a measurement of success on their own. We really have little reason to regard Nielsen ratings at all; I think it's arbitrary.

The entire metric of 'Original' is questionable at best. The deeper I'm reading into this, there's speculation that anything on HBO might have been counted out for being on cable and not exclusively streaming, which possibly explains the Netflix skew as well.

[Syegfryed]

First up it's billions with a "b", and secondly where are you getting your per-episode breakdown of viewing figures?

Well, it is amazon himself that brags their premiere was 8 millions, and only talk about this and only bring this all the time, if they are not talking about the rest is clearly they had a huge drop off from episod 1-2.

They even said people came to watch the "final battle" but most didn't came back after it

The fact it made it onto the top 15 which is usually dominated by Netflix means it can definitely be considered a success in terms of being a streamed show and Amazon seem happy with their metric of it bringing people to their shop.

But like people mention, its only 15th in the top 15th if you count only originals, and unlike netflix, like people mentioned, people had subscriptions for free if they paid another service.

You could say it since it enter that chart, it was a corporative success i guess, but a failure in everything else.