Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Triceron]

Now i've not watched it nor do i plan to due to Amazon's involvement, so in this case the whole woke-or-whatever-it-is-this-time is secondary to me.

The woke stuff is a non-issue. Its problems are in its production and execution, simple as that. Poor pacing, poor script, poor planning in general.

So i'm kinda curious as to how it was, in any way, a succes?
Last i heard they were planning to sack the directors, but admittedly that was a while ago during the fan hysteria. Still, the report seemed genuine and such a thing does not exactly scream "Job well done.".

Amazon has an internal method of defining what a successful show looks like to them. From what little we know of the subject, their internal gauges involve tracking the first show that new Prime Video subscribers watch. This is what they attribute the subs towards; they correlate the new user to 'subbing' to watch that show. This is unique to Amazon, and there's articles out there that try and analyze why they use this method over other known metrics. So if the Amazon exec says it's successful, it's probably going to be in context of the show being one of their top first-watched shows. If they're touting millions/billions of minutes watched, then I could see that being true too, since they already have plenty of Prime subscribers who would be interested in a 'new Lord of the Rings' series and give it a go. It banked on being a highly anticipated sequel to a movie franchise that has high demand.

As for how Prime Video actually operates, they don't really care much about 'winning' against other streaming platforms either. Nielsen ratings are what people are touting here to compare the series to other shows and use as a metric for success (or failure), Amazon generally doesn't care. It's fairly well acknowledged that Prime Video is a loss-leader. Prime Video exists to promote people staying subbed to Prime, which in turn builds more incentive to buy more stuff online. That's where the real money comes from. Come for the free shipping, stay for the free streaming.

[Dhrizzle]

I simply said i had heard nothing about it being a succes.
Honestly i have also heard little about HoD being a succes, so that's perhaps not an inaccurate metric.

Amazon said they were happy with its performance which is the main thing really, though people are taking that to mean it was really a failure and they're only carrying on with it because huge corporations love throwing away profits.

[Quote)Ah.
Sounds pretty standard practice for online tribalism nowadays. Especially poor little statistics, being abused like some crackhouse whore.

Still doesn't give me clarity though, from either side honestly.

Eh, back to apathy i guess.[/quote]

To add context only two shows in the top 15 were non-Neflix. @Fencers who actually works in the industry says that's something Amazon should be very happy about.

[Shadowferal]

"Amazon said" means little.

[Fabinas]

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.


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.



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.

Remember MAU's instead of sub numbers in WoW?

Same shit.

Still, the game companies report MAU numbers, Nielsen reports minutes viewed (even if that mean s only the first episode) and those are their respective industry standards.

You don't like it? I don't either. IT DOESN'T MATTER TO THEM.

Denying it doesn't do any good. It's a hill you gonna die on for nothing.

Better stick to topics that can be discussed. Like how BAD and not at all elf like was Morfydd Clark.

- - - Updated - - -

"Amazon said" means little.

Amazon said something that has the Nielsen numbers backing it up.

Unfortunately for all of us who wanted this to crash and burn, it didn't.

[Triceron]

Still, the game companies report MAU numbers, Nielsen reports minutes viewed (even if that mean s only the first episode) and those are their respective industry standards.

You don't like it? I don't either. IT DOESN'T MATTER TO THEM..

The difference is game companies are reporting metrics that their own investors rely on. Nielsen ratings and reports are completely 3rd party, and aren't metrics used by Amazon to correlate 'success'. Nielsen ratings are based on minutes viewed, while the Amazon exec was talking about total viewers who have watched the show, regardless of what actual time investment was spent on the episodes. These are two different metrics, like comparing MAU to Subs. They're not the same thing.

You're right about one thing regarding Nielsen ratings; IT DOESN'T MATTER TO THEM..

[Fabinas]

The difference is game companies are reporting metrics that their own investors rely on. Nielsen ratings and reports are completely 3rd party, and aren't metrics used by Amazon to correlate 'success'. Nielsen ratings are based on minutes viewed, while the Amazon exec was talking about total viewers who have watched the show, regardless of what actual time investment was spent on the episodes. These are two different metrics, like comparing MAU to Subs. They're not the same thing.

You're right about one thing regarding Nielsen ratings; IT DOESN'T MATTER TO THEM..

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.

Our opinions on the matter are irrelevant to the people who use those metrics to capitalise on the media market.

As for the Amazon exec, we have a saying where i come from. "The priest always blesses his own beard first"

[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.