1. #8781
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-02-05 at 11:33 PM.

  2. #8782
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    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.

  3. #8783
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    24,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.
    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

  4. #8784
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Fencers; 2023-02-06 at 01:23 AM.

  5. #8785
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    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.

  6. #8786
    Immortal jackofwind's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    7,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Because fuck you, that's why.

  7. #8787
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It's just not accurate to all watchers, just specifically to TV watchers (as far as I understand how it works).
    Nielsen introduced consumer tracking for all digital platforms a few years ago. The Nielsen app tracks all user data whether they watch shows on a set top, phone, PC, et cetera.

    Other apps like OTS (over the shoulder), IMDB, Trakit, and a few others also introduced customer tracking software that is account wide regradless of where they watch.

    They are pretty slick. Anyone can sign up to be a tester for OTS and Nielsen now.

    The real issue with Nielsen starting to cover streaming platforms is that they did it super sloppy. Also slow as hell.

    Initially, Nielsen was missing a lot of markets and services. They added them over time but it took like a year to do so. Though Nielsen is still about 2 weeks behind in reportage week to week. Unlike the nationals for OTA which are basically the next day barring quarters.

    And fast nationals, of course. Which isn't relevant here but it is an exception nonetheless.

  8. #8788
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,770
    Quote Originally Posted by jackofwind View Post
    There's no such thing as "objectively bad" art.
    Sure there is. There are certain objective standards to art that if a piece doesn't meet that it would be objectively bad. There is a reason why categories exists. It really is odd how many people think there can't be objective standards when the word exists in the language.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  9. #8789
    The Insane Syegfryed's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    19,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    No. No such thing exists.

    Entire industries and jobs wouldn't exists if it were so.
    Again, its like saying restaurants can't serve bad food or the chief cannot mess up in the order, saying there can't be objectivity in media is borderline delusional

    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.
    Why do you think they already don't know that?

    I mean, you are part of the industry apparently, you should know how those things work, just because they know how to do things doesn't mean they will do it, or can do it, that's laughable.


    Quote Originally Posted by jackofwind View Post
    Not liking a piece of art doesn't make it "objectively" bad art. There's no such thing as "objectively bad" art.
    If you have a bad story, told in a bad way, with bad actors with bad lines, that fuck over the author work it is objectively bad, no matter how you and Fencers want to pass up as "objective"

    Art is inherently subjective and therefore does not possess any objective truths.
    This statement by itself is contradictory, if there is no objective truth how in the ass do you say, "there is no objectivity in media"? Do you confirm what you said is a lie - cause there is no objective truth on it - and therefore there is objectively good and bad art?
    Last edited by Syegfryed; 2023-02-06 at 03:49 AM.

  10. #8790
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    If you have a bad story, told in a bad way, with bad actors with bad lines, that fuck over the author work it is objectively bad, no matter how you and Fencers want to pass up as "understandable" about the subject
    So then you agree that the Peter Jackson work was objectively bad, right? Because the Tolkien estate, or just the head of it, said the work didn't honor the spirit of Tolkien. The problem is that you, and others, are using subjective things to judge it objectively.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  11. #8791
    The Insane Syegfryed's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    19,827
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    So then you agree that the Peter Jackson work was objectively bad, right? Because the Tolkien estate, or just the head of it, said the work didn't honor the spirit of Tolkien. The problem is that you, and others, are using subjective things to judge it objectively.
    I love how you trim the ENTIRE point, to focus only on the tidbitty part about it, and still fails monumentally to make a point

  12. #8792
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    I love how you trim the ENTIRE point, to focus only on the tidbitty part about it, and still fails monumentally to make a point
    Why wouldn't I focus on the problem? You keep throwing in subjective things with parts that could be objective but claim it is all objective.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  13. #8793
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Nielsen introduced consumer tracking for all digital platforms a few years ago. The Nielsen app tracks all user data whether they watch shows on a set top, phone, PC, et cetera.

    Other apps like OTS (over the shoulder), IMDB, Trakit, and a few others also introduced customer tracking software that is account wide regradless of where they watch.

    They are pretty slick. Anyone can sign up to be a tester for OTS and Nielsen now.

    The real issue with Nielsen starting to cover streaming platforms is that they did it super sloppy. Also slow as hell.

    Initially, Nielsen was missing a lot of markets and services. They added them over time but it took like a year to do so. Though Nielsen is still about 2 weeks behind in reportage week to week. Unlike the nationals for OTA which are basically the next day barring quarters.

    And fast nationals, of course. Which isn't relevant here but it is an exception nonetheless.
    My issue with it is most companies don't use nielsen as a measure of success. It's very useful data for certain things, but even when we're talking about something like Amazon touting ROP as a success, it's not based on Nielsen ratings metrics. They have their own system of considering internal success based on first-show watched metrics.

    Nielsen ratings was more relevant when counting minutes watched of shows and seeing where people are spending most of their time. The result of that is knowing that people are prioritizing long series of 'comfort food' over most original new content, and that tends to go against how companies are prioritizing building their original lineups to bring in bigger crowds. If Nielsen ratings were a bigger factor of measuring success, then what we should see is more companies learning towards liscensing old popular shows rather than spending on new content at all.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-02-06 at 05:08 AM.

  14. #8794
    Immortal jackofwind's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    Posts
    7,878
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    Sure there is. There are certain objective standards to art that if a piece doesn't meet that it would be objectively bad. There is a reason why categories exists. It really is odd how many people think there can't be objective standards when the word exists in the language.
    People think Duchamp's 'Fountain' is a landmark art piece, and it's literally just a urinal placed on its side.

    People can critique RoP for the shortcomings of the lackluster writing, the heavy-handed plot, and any number of other things. I don't think the show is without flaws, and I certainly don't have any desire to rewatch it.

    The show might have objectively poor pacing. It might have objectively poor demonstration of the size of Middle Earth, with Galadriel hopping around Eregion like it's all the size of a neighborhood. It might have wooden acting. It might be boring for some, too exciting for others. It might have too many tropes and throwbacks. It might rely too much on what came before it. It can have all of that, but it still doesn't make the show objectively bad art.

    Art is not immune to critique - far from it - art invites critique by its very nature. But art itself cannot be objectively "bad".

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    If you have a bad story, told in a bad way, with bad actors with bad lines, that fuck over the author work it is objectively bad, no matter how you and Fencers want to pass up as "objective"

    This statement by itself is contradictory, if there is no objective truth how in the ass do you say, "there is no objectivity in media"? Do you confirm what you said is a lie - cause there is no objective truth on it - and therefore there is objectively good and bad art?
    So what do you consider "objectively good art", and why do you consider it so? Because I guarantee you there will be people, or have been people, who completely and vehemently disagree with you. The same goes for "bad" art.

    There is no bad art. Art cannot be bad. People can dislike it, they can critique it, they can think it pedantic or puerile or pompous or anything else that starts with a P and sounds arrogant. They can think all of that, and it still doesn't make it "bad art".

    Objectivity in media is a silly comparison. There are objective truths in life, such as the objective truth that I am sitting writing these words now at 10:07PM PST. But art doesn't give a shit about truth. Art is about portrayal, and portrayal is inherently subjective. Portrayal is an opinion, not a fact.

    Brushstrokes seen as pathetic and amateur are lauded as a master's work now. Novels whose abject failures drove their authors to suicide went on to win Pulitzers.

    Art wants to be criticized, it wants to be critiqued. It feeds on the energy people give it - the energy that can turn an off-kilter urinal into a modern masterpiece. Art can't be "objectively bad" because neither of those words hold any meaning to the manifestations of human creative expression.

    Art can't even be objective, so why would you think that it can be objectively bad?
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Because fuck you, that's why.

  15. #8795
    RoP wasn't very good. The writing wasn't good, Gialdriel was terribly written. On top of her acting like a moody teen despite being a decorated commander at this point, they want to force some YA level romance subplot that is just..awful. Durin was fun and I think Eldrond was good to. Those two were the only things I enjoyed really about the show.

    The Hobbits storyline was all over the place. Going back and forth constantly about trust with Not Gandalf, on top of them being borderline evil with wanting to take the families wheels and leave them for dead in the middle of nowhere. Ar Pharazon I enjoyed a bit, not a lot of him in the show to really judge. Elendil was servicable, I hope we get more solo stories with him soon but that whole "going to the southlands to fight" plotline was awful. They just load up their fleet (Of like 6 ships only) and are suddenly in the Southlands after what feels like a few days and Sauron gets declared King of the Southlands which seems to be about 6 thatch huts on near a hill.

    On top of Celebrimbor just being..meh as a smith (apparently he's never heard of alloying metal before). This show just has a profound disrespect for the material it's representing and the audience in which it's telling it too. It's honestly depressing that with this much money spent into it, THIS was the result. A bunch of amateur writers and show runners that have literally done NOTHING before this project.

    At least, despite it's changes from the source material, Lord of the Rings respected the work in which it was adapting. Jackson knew how to approach it. Respect for the world in which you're adapting was all I was hoping for, changing it to fit some storylines isn't a deal breaker. If they delivered something that had those same vibes as the books and movies, I would have been a diehard supporter. Instead, we got whatever this was. I am not mad, just disappointed.
    Last edited by Varitok; 2023-02-06 at 06:33 AM.

  16. #8796
    The Insane Syegfryed's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    19,827
    Quote Originally Posted by jackofwind View Post
    People think Duchamp's 'Fountain' is a landmark art piece, and it's literally just a urinal placed on its side.
    So? it just mean its bad art.

    Just because people like it, or think they like it, doesn't mean its good, same way, even if no one like something, or something bomb, people can recognize something have quality.
    People can critique RoP for the shortcomings of the lackluster writing, the heavy-handed plot, and any number of other things. I don't think the show is without flaws, and I certainly don't have any desire to rewatch it.

    The show might have objectively poor pacing. It might have objectively poor demonstration of the size of Middle Earth, with Galadriel hopping around Eregion like it's all the size of a neighborhood. It might have wooden acting. It might be boring for some, too exciting for others. It might have too many tropes and throwbacks. It might rely too much on what came before it. It can have all of that, but it still doesn't make the show objectively bad art.
    "the show have all this bad shit, but isn't bad because"

    So what do you consider "objectively good art", and why do you consider it so? Because I guarantee you there will be people, or have been people, who completely and vehemently disagree with you. The same goes for "bad" art.
    People can dislike good art, good products, good food, same way they can like bad art, bad food etc. You are just confusing and mingling the definition of TASTE with QUALITY.

    You know a good director or a good writer, you know how to differentiate a good actor from a bad actor, you can objectively verify this shit, so the work that have this can be verified as well. RoP had bad writing, bad acting(and bad casting), bad pacing even goddamn bad cinematography, with one shot not aligning witht he previous one, and you are trying to pass this as "subjective", lmao.

    Its not like they TRIED to be bad, if THEIR INTENT, is to be fucking awful, like, to rly play on the satire, that is a different kind of thing, which isn't the case with RoP

    Art can't even be objective, so why would you think that it can be objectively bad?
    Art can be objective

    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.

  17. #8797
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    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
    Umm, we LITERALLY have the numbers which allow us to say otherwise.......

    LoTR simply isn't even in the same ballpark as the other media franchise titans.
    It's 56th on that list, which tracks GLOBAL performance.
    It's TIED with the Shrek franchise. Shrek....
    Sailor Moon and Sponge Bob Square pants are pulling DOUBLE it's numbers.
    The Titans? The real BIG players? anywhere from 6x (the MCU, which has only been around for like 15 years at this point) to 12x (freaking Winnie the Pooh, who apparently just curb stomps everybody).

    Like, sorry, but you can't just bust out "it's wrong to say LoTR isn't as big as this other stuff". when it is objectively being stomped by Manga IPs, Saturday Morning Cartoons, and Young Adult Fantasy IPs that have existed for less than half as long. And those aren't even the major players, to boot.

  18. #8798
    The Insane Syegfryed's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    19,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    Umm, we LITERALLY have the numbers which allow us to say otherwise.......t.
    i mean, what numbers are those? what metrics are we using? what are talking about?

    Cause if search for most sold books of all time, as an example, lor of the rings come up in third. If you take movie money, they did as much or more than some marvel movies and are from 20 years ago

  19. #8799
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,770
    Quote Originally Posted by jackofwind View Post
    Art is not immune to critique - far from it - art invites critique by its very nature. But art itself cannot be objectively "bad".
    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.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  20. #8800
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    The long and short of all this is simply that S1 of Rings of Power was a success for Amazon. No amount of denial, goalpost moving, or "feels before reals" will change that. Its just a fact that S1 was successful. People will eventually just have to accept that fact because that is the reality.

    Whether a S2 will be as successful is an entirely different matter.
    I have not heard much that indicates what you're saying is any more "reals before feels" than those that you indicate as "feels before reals".

    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.

    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.".
    This is a signature of an ailing giant, boundless in pride, wit and strength.
    Yet also as humble as health and humor permit.

    Furthermore, I consider that Carthage Slam must be destroyed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •