Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[crusadernero]

I rly doubt any fan liked this.

Fans liked it before it aired. Now? Not so much. I bet alot of LoTR fans also saw the whole season out of a glimmer of hope.

[Skulltaker]

One of the first paragraphs is literally a summary of the hard figures the assessment is based on

I'm sorry, did we read different interviews? The only hard figure in this entire thing is the cost of 465 million USD. Other than that, you only get the usual PR talk without any context, which makes it all rather worthless.

[Syegfryed]

People really wanted the show to be a lot worse than it is and to absolutely tank, they're reaching QAnon levels of reality denying now that it's turned out to be half-decent and really successful.

Lmao talking bout denying reality, "show is half-decent"

And you're wrong.

I was talking bout fans, not superfans, like the one amazon hired to advertise the show, i know they loved.

They didn't watched, but loved.

[Skulltaker]

Lmao talking bout denying reality, "show is half-decent"

The show is half decent. Acting, cinematography, soundtrack, most of the props and designs, are all decent. Story and character development are trash. Depending on where you stand, I can see people get a lot of entertainment out of this show. There has clearly been effort put into it. I just don't think it's enough.

[Dhrizzle]

I'm sorry, did we read different interviews? The only hard figure in this entire thing is the cost of 465 million USD. Other than that, you only get the usual PR talk without any context, which makes it all rather worthless.

"In an interview with Deadline, Vernon Sanders, Head of Global TV for Amazon Studios, says the financial bet “has more than paid off.” He addresses the success of the show on Prime Video — where it broke records for most global viewers in its first day (25 million) and overall (more than 100 million), for minutes streamed (24 billion) and signups worldwide during its launch window, attracted younger viewers (record number of adults 18-34 for a Prime Video original) and affluent audiences (40% coming from households with income greater than $100,000) — and beyond, boosting Amazon’s sales of J.R.R. Tolkien books on which the series was based."

- - - Updated - - -

Lmao talking bout denying reality, "show is half-decent"

Oh no! Do people like something you don't like?

I was talking bout fans, not superfans, like the one amazon hired to advertise the show, i know they loved.

They didn't watched, but loved.

And I'm talking about people who enjoy the works of Tolkien and liked the series Amazon made.

[Syegfryed]

The show is half decent. Acting, cinematography, soundtrack, most of the props and designs, are all decent. Story and character development are trash. Depending on where you stand, I can see people get a lot of entertainment out of this show. There has clearly been effort put into it. I just don't think it's enough.

It takes more of CGI and Soundtrack to make the show half-decent.

The acting and cinematography are terrible, If you actually pay attention thee is awful shots and nonsense cut from one scene to another. Grant it, we know thy after they released the behind the scenes, when they had a small space doing the scenes, so there isn't an inspiring shot of the place. But mind you, This is the show with slow-motion Galadriel riding a horse, that is haunting, i don't even want to search the image to put here

If you take away Diza, Durin, Elrod and the orc guy no one acted well. four people acting half-decent does not make the show half decent.

After knowing they filmed the fight scene with galadriel in numenor in one day nd were proud of it and the numenor armor, i doubt they rly put much effort

- - - Updated - - -

Oh no! Do people like something you don't like?

did you liked?

[Skulltaker]

"In an interview with Deadline, Vernon Sanders, Head of Global TV for Amazon Studios, says the financial bet “has more than paid off.” He addresses the success of the show on Prime Video — where it broke records for most global viewers in its first day (25 million) and overall (more than 100 million), for minutes streamed (24 billion) and signups worldwide during its launch window, attracted younger viewers (record number of adults 18-34 for a Prime Video original) and affluent audiences (40% coming from households with income greater than $100,000) — and beyond, boosting Amazon’s sales of J.R.R. Tolkien books on which the series was based."

Well-quoted. And exactly nothing in there tells you anything of value.

Most global views, most overall views, minutes streamed - all good for them. By how much did the show beat the incumbent shows? And what did these shows cost, compared to Rings of Power? If you beat whatever show holds the respective titles by 5 %, but your show cost 50% more, that's a net loss, even though you broke records.

This is a regular old sales pitch, and nothing else. It doesn't tell you anything of substance. Without context, all of his talk, even the statement that the 'bet has paid off', means nothing.

See what I mean?

[rhorle]

Hard numbers, for example. Literally, nothing he says in the interview gives you any idea of how well the show did. Go through the answers step by step and you'll see that he avoids giving definitive answers. Which is normal for a corporate guy, of course.

Breaking records isn't an indication of how well the show did? Having a big draw in high income houses isn't a marker of success? Having a big draw among young people isn't a marker of success? You would find some way to tear down any numbers he gave and come up with a new reason why the "definitive answers" are not really definitive. Every time something is posted that hints at success you, and others, bend over backwards in your effort to explain why it really isn't "good news" for the show.

[Skulltaker]

Breaking records isn't an indication of how well the show did? Having a big draw in high income houses isn't a marker of success? Having a big draw among young people isn't a marker of success? You would find some way to tear down any numbers he gave and come up with a new reason why the "definitive answers" are not really definitive. Every time something is posted that hints at success you, and others, bend over backwards in your effort to explain why it really isn't "good news" for the show.

No, it isn't, because context matters, something I've explained to you many times, and also something that you deliberately chose to ignore every single time.

There's also nothing in that interview that says it has a huge draw among young people or high income houses, that's you once more lying about what was said to suit your narrative.

The interview only mentioned that it has a 'record breaking number of young adults for a Prime show'. So, mostly yound adults watch high fantasy. Shocker. And it could also be any number of young adults in between everyone on the planet that fits that description, and two. That's a pretty wide margin there. If you don't know what the record for a Prime show is, and what the average is, it's not indicative of anything at all. All this tells you is that Amazon broke an internal record, which is good for them, but says nothing about how well that show performs.

Same goes for the 40% of affluent households. What exactly is that supposed to tell you? 40% of all viewers? Cool. How many is that? And what's the percentile of these households in Prime in general? Here's a funny little number to go along with that, households making above 100k in the US make up 34% of all US households.

Throwing numbers around is fun, but without context, they don't mean anything. Sanders tells us they initially reported a hundred million viewers, and that millions saw the show after that. Cool. That's a 1 digit percentile increase after the initial run, and still leaves them VERY short of even reaching everyone who is already subscribed to Prime. He tells us that the show saw a record in new subscriptions to watch it. Cool. What's the record, or rather how many is that?

The entire interview is nothing but PR talk. Which doesn't tell you anything, it's just supposed to sound impressive. Which is fine. There's nothing in that interview that tells you that the show performed well.

[rhorle]

There's also nothing in that interview that says it has a huge draw among young people or high income houses, that's you once more lying about what was said to suit your narrative.

The article mentions it. Cherry picking things to support your narrative isn't indicative of anything but your own bias. You don't really care about context because you've argued that we don't have information to draw a conclusion but it is still bad in the past. You'll tear anything down in order to fit the your bias.

[Skulltaker]

The article mentions it. Cherry picking things to support your narrative isn't indicative of anything but your own bias. You don't really care about context because you've argued that we don't have information to draw a conclusion but it is still bad in the past. You'll tear anything down in order to fit the your bias.

No, it doesn't. All it tells you is that it's more than average for Amazon. Stop lying, please.

[rhorle]

No, it doesn't. All it tells you is that it's more than average for Amazon. Stop lying, please.

So if their average shows are a success then being more then average is also a success. Breaking records would put it closer to the end of the scale then the middle. That wouldn't be a success for a platform?

Also the article does mention those figures so it isn't a lie. I'm not even sure why you would pick that, of all things, to claim it doesn't exist.

"In an interview with Deadline, Vernon Sanders, Head of Global TV for Amazon Studios, says the financial bet “has more than paid off.” He addresses the success of the show on Prime Video — where it broke records for most global viewers in its first day (25 million) and overall (more than 100 million), for minutes streamed (24 billion) and signups worldwide during its launch window, attracted younger viewers (record number of adults 18-34 for a Prime Video original) and affluent audiences (40% coming from households with income greater than $100,000) — and beyond, boosting Amazon’s sales of J.R.R. Tolkien books on which the series was based. "

[Skulltaker]

So if their average shows are a success then being more then average is also a success. Breaking records would put it closer to the end of the scale then the middle. That wouldn't be a success for a platform?

Also the article does mention those figures so it isn't a lie. I'm not even sure why you would pick that, of all things, to claim it doesn't exist.

"In an interview with Deadline, Vernon Sanders, Head of Global TV for Amazon Studios, says the financial bet “has more than paid off.” He addresses the success of the show on Prime Video — where it broke records for most global viewers in its first day (25 million) and overall (more than 100 million), for minutes streamed (24 billion) and signups worldwide during its launch window, attracted younger viewers (record number of adults 18-34 for a Prime Video original) and affluent audiences (40% coming from households with income greater than $100,000) — and beyond, boosting Amazon’s sales of J.R.R. Tolkien books on which the series was based. "

No, it isn't, if the growth in success isn't in line with the growth in spending. Which is why context matters, something that you seem to be incapable of understanding, which is why you keep quoting stuff without seemingly understanding what you're quoting.

Quoting the same part of the article as the other guy won't help your case, if you cannot accurately process what the article says. Nothing in your quote supports what you lied about said quote, or the article. It's just you making stuff up. It just says it's a record for Amazon, which again, without anything to compare it to, means nothing.

[Dhrizzle]

The absolute burning desire to reject the reality that maybe, just maybe, this series did ok is... well, its really just par for the course here, isn't it? Kinda makes me think of the old WoW sub number threads and all the fervent efforts to make up reasons as to a rise or fall. Good times.

If anything, people should be happy that viewers were so interested in RoP that they decided "hey, maybe I'll get those related books!" But some folks don't seem to know what "happy" actually is, sadly.

Normally when sections of the internet decide to hate something before release hey either crow about it for years if it sucks or completely ignore it if it's good. This is the first time I've seen such outright denial of reality.

[rhorle]

No, it isn't, if the growth in success isn't in line with the growth in spending.

The executive says the show has more than paid off for Amazon. So you take that statement to mean it didn't cover the $465 million budget of the first season? It isn't context that matters here but your inherent bias. The only one who is having trouble processing stuff here is yourself. It isn't a lie to talk about the things the article mentions. It yet again shows how strong your inherent bias against the show is.

[Dhrizzle]

No, it isn't, if the growth in success isn't in line with the growth in spending. Which is why context matters, something that you seem to be incapable of understanding, which is why you keep quoting stuff without seemingly understanding what you're quoting.

Quoting the same part of the article as the other guy won't help your case, if you cannot accurately process what the article says. Nothing in your quote supports what you lied about said quote, or the article. It's just you making stuff up. It just says it's a record for Amazon, which again, without anything to compare it to, means nothing.

It's just getting pathetic now, there's a quote that very plainly states the investment paid off and did well among younger (18-36) people and affluent households, and you're pretending it doesn't say that because they're not handing you a total summary of all Amazon Prime's figures for every show to compare.

[Skulltaker]

The executive says the show has more than paid off for Amazon. So you take that statement to mean it didn't cover the $465 million budget of the first season? It isn't context that matters here but your inherent bias. The only one who is having trouble processing stuff here is yourself. It isn't a lie to talk about the things the article mentions. It yet again shows how strong your inherent bias against the show is.

And him saying the show paid off only means just that, namely that they consider the investment worth it. And yes, most of the things you claim the interview revealed were just that. Lies. By you. Again.

It's just getting pathetic now, there's a quote that very plainly states the investment paid off and did well among younger (18-36) people and affluent households, and you're pretending it doesn't say that because they're not handing you a total summary of all Amazon Prime's figures for every show to compare.

They don't hand you any number to compare, or judge how well it performed. All they do give you are out of context statistics. Everything in that interview is empty platitudes. Which, again, is to be expected, and not surprising. It also says nothing about how good or bad the show performed.

[rhorle]

And him saying the show paid off only means just that, namely that they consider the investment worth it. And yes, most of the things you claim the interview revealed were just that. Lies. By you. Again.

So paying off an investment and it being "worth it" is not a sign of success? Lmao.

[Skulltaker]

So paying off an investment and it being "worth it" is not a sign of success? Lmao.

Depends on what your initial goal was. Which is what I've been saying for weeks. Even if the show lost millions, Amazon can still consider it a success. Success is a completely subjective concept. If the goal was for it to 'not be horrible', they surely managed that. It isn't. It's very mediocre.

[rhorle]

Depends on what your initial goal was.

So their goal is not to see a return on their investment? Are you honestly claiming they wanted to fail with the show? Lmao. We know what their goal is and it was again stated in the article I recently linked to. They want tentpole media to bring people to their ecosystem. The only one that is lying here is yourself. Every time something is presented for why the show is a success you move the goal posts. Even when it is a metric you've posted.

"“We have an ambitious agenda, we are trying to launch a big moment at least once a month if not more on Prime Video. It’s The Boys, Lord of the Rings, it’s Jack Ryan, Reacher and Alex Cross, it’s Daisy Jones and the Six, so what it takes to mount the shows that are as close of global events as possible is massive. As the needs grew, we went from being in a position, we’ll do that six times a year, and now it’s more than double. We needed to adjust our structure in order for us to have the best shot at achieving as much content. "