Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Syegfryed]

You show a cup of sugar, and you say you proved what exactly?

That is not the normal amount of sweet in your cup of coffee, cause you barely see the coffee.

There is coffee in there, but, when you shove so much sugar, hey, is that even a cup of coffee anymore? Its thats the normal amount? same thing for movies imo. They changed so much the lore from the show its not even tolkien shit anymore

[Triceron]

That is not the normal amount of sweet in your cup of coffee, cause you barely see the coffee.

No, it is not a cup of coffee at all.

You posted a picture of a cup of sugar and are delusionally calling it coffee. Do you see any coffee in that cup? I don't, so of course no one would call that a 'normal cup of coffee', because it is actually a picture of a cup of sugar

Like what the fuck dude?

You can post a picture of a cat and say 'you can't convince me this is a normal cup of coffee'. It wouldn't be a 'cup of coffee', it is a picture of a cat . No one is arguing that here, I already acknowledge your argument is irrational.

[Syegfryed]

No, it is not a cup of coffee at all.

Well, thats you saying that, your subjective view of the cup.

Do you see any coffee in that cup?

There is lot of things that you can't see as well, and are there.

Like, you don't see Tolkien Galadriel in the show, but, we are told she is there the entire time

[Triceron]

Well, thats you saying that, your subjective view of the cup.

No, I am pointing out the fact you posted a picture of a cup of sugar. It's not an opinion, it is an observable, objective fact. It would be subjective if I said I don't believe there is any coffee in the cup, and I clearly did not express that opinion here.

I can point out objectively that there is no coffee in that picture. Simple as that. There is nothing subjective about that. No one is calling it a cup of coffee, so there's nothing to argue here. You can say it's my subjective opinion, but I'm not expressing any opinion, I'm stating exactly what is observable.

You can say that is a picture of a cat, it doesn't mean it is objectively true. No one is trying to convince you a cup of sugar is a 'normal cup of coffee', lol.

If you're in favour of passing off delusional arguments as your opinion, all the power to you. There's no need to hide it, right?

[Syegfryed]

I can point out objectively that there is no coffee in that picture.

there is on the bottom of it.

I mean i can also make the experiment on my home and take a picture for you, if it makes more easier to understand the analogy

[Triceron]

there is on the bottom of it.

I mean i can also make the experiment on my home and take a picture for you, if it makes more easier to understand the analogy

If you believe there is coffee at the bottom of the cup, then that is your subjective opinion. If you say there is coffee at the bottom of the cup as a fact when there is no observable indication that the cup in the picture has any coffee in it at all, then you are simply lying.

So it's really up to you how you want to be regarded in this argument; as delusional or as a liar. Either way, that is not a picture of a cup of coffee. It is a picture of a cup of sugar. Not sure what you're confused about here really.

Think about this real hard. You posted a picture of a cup of sugar. No one is calling it a normal cup of coffee. What point are you trying to make? Who exactly are you arguing with?

[rhorle]

Real World Response: Either “I know right” or “Eh sometimes I put that much in I don’t think it’s crazy”

It is amusing that you don't see that your "real world" response is what is happening here. Discussing what is normal is the "I don't thin it's crazy" part because every has their different tolerance for additives in coffee. Some want none, some want a double double, and some want a ton.

It is a conversation that is blending standard serving-sizes with personal preference with either side wanting to admit to that difference.

[Triceron]

This is the most internety conversation ever.

Real world convo: “This coffee has an abnormal amount of sweetener”

Real World Response: Either “I know right” or “Eh sometimes I put that much in I don’t think it’s crazy”

Internet response: “Well without an objective test how do we know what is normal”

75 posts later on the internet: “You suck! No you suck!”

That's the crux of it actually.

You didn't have a real world conversation, you are having a internet conversation. This isn't a casual flippant back and forth, this is an internet discussion.

I've been making the argument that both coffees are sweet and using the same amount of sweetner; we should be focused on talking about the premium and grade of the beans and the overall quality of the coffee.

IMO, we're comparing a premium cup of freshly-ground gourmet coffee to watered down gas-station instabrew. And both are overly-sweetened, with some people saying the gourmet cup is 'acceptable' while the gas station one isn't. We shouldn't be hyper-focused on the sweetner. My point and perspective is that a normal level of sweetner isn't going to magically fix the gas station coffee. It's still gas station coffee. It's gonna be lesser quality because it's gas station quality coffee.

No amount of authenticity would fix Rings of Power, because it was poorly made from the getgo. And the amount of authenticity any adaptation has isn't proportional to it being considered good or quality made; like I said with the Shining being a highly deviated adaptation that is arguably 'better than the book'. Sweetness is subjective, not directly associated to the actual quality of the coffee.

I'll appeal to the subjectivity of the topic, and say that if it's at your acceptable sweetness level, then you might find gas-station quality coffee to be at the very least tolerable. That is something I'd gladly defer to. I just don't think it'd make it any better than gas-station grade, when we've all had a taste of the premium stuff that PJ made for us.

[Biomega]

This is the most internety conversation ever.

Real world convo: “This coffee has an abnormal amount of sweetener”

Real World Response: Either “I know right” or “Eh sometimes I put that much in I don’t think it’s crazy”

Internet response: “Well without an objective test how do we know what is normal”

75 posts later on the internet: “You suck! No you suck!”

It's even worse than that, because after several pages they still haven't realized the actual point - which is that not being able to define what is "normal" does NOT mean you can't tell that some given example (like the cup full of sugar) is NOT normal.

This is a completely mundane problem in epistemology, related to different states of knowledge. Like how you can tell at a glance whether a bucket is 100% full or 0% full, even if you CANNOT tell at a glance whether it's 27.9% full. And neither precludes the other. Same thing here - we can't define the norm, but we CAN define (positively or negatively) certain specific cases. And that's true even if there ISN'T an actually definable norm, i.e. even if there IS NO AMOUNT of sugar in a coffee that we can all agree is "normal", we CAN all agree that 100% or 99% or even 90% are not it. And so on.

But that's beside the point, because sometimes people aren't interested in actually figuring things out, they're just interested in making themselves heard.

[Syegfryed]

Those dumb discussions still are more entertaining and nuanced than the rings of power show, so i see this as a win for the thread

[Dhrizzle]

5 "nots" in a single sentence. I love it. Good post.

And to the "that's just your subjective opinion" trope - I think it's really just a way to marginalize a post and claim one's own superiority, which is why it kinda triggers me. This entire website is about posting opinions - it'd get really boring if all we could do is post facts.

Poster 1: "It was 95 degrees in Dallas today"
Poster 2: "Wow, that's pretty hot" (Moderator note: infracted for posting opinion)

The thing is on the internet people often mistake their opinions for an objective truth.

Poster 1: "It was 95 degrees in Dallas today"
Poster 2: "Wow, that's pretty hot"
Poster 3: "That's not hot, it was over 100 where I live"
Poster 2: "Then you're clearly an idiot who doesn't understand what hot really is, what you're calling hot is just an outlier that can be ignored for the sake of my narrative"
Poster 1: "Ignore Poster 3, they're just a shill for big temperature"

[Kumorii]

The thing is on the internet people often mistake their opinions for an objective truth.

Poster 1: "It was 95 degrees in Dallas today"
Poster 2: "Wow, that's pretty hot"
Poster 3: "That's not hot, it was over 100 where I live"
Poster 2: "Then you're clearly an idiot who doesn't understand what hot really is, what you're calling hot is just an outlier that can be ignored for the sake of my narrative"
Poster 1: "Ignore Poster 3, they're just a shill for big temperature"

All I see are opinions.
Poster 3 can be taken as trying to make an objective claim. Since that poster tries to dismiss another persons opinion simply saying they are wrong because they don't find it hot. But considering context, it's an opinion. Same with posters 2 reply which can be taken as an objective claim but is also a response to someone saying they were wrong with their opinion.

They all behave poorly, but none of them can be taken as 100% making an objective claim. Think that's on your interpretation. I find it safer to go on the side of opinion(due to context and knowing how people talk)than guessing they make an objective claim until it's proven further.

[Soikona]

This is the most internety conversation ever.

Real world convo: “This coffee has an abnormal amount of sweetener”

Real World Response: Either “I know right” or “Eh sometimes I put that much in I don’t think it’s crazy”

Internet response: “Well without an objective test how do we know what is normal”

75 posts later on the internet: “You suck! No you suck!”

Don’t forget Godwin. Where the cup of coffee is now a nazi some how.

[Syegfryed]

I feel so sorry for then , but i guess you have to pay the bills somehow.

My bet is they gonna play elves

[Triceron]

I feel so sorry for then , but i guess you have to pay the bills somehow.

My bet is they gonna play elves

Nah, they're too white for that /s

[craigw]

This show was horrible.

most people who tried to watch it agree. 715 million season 1 costs with nearly 63% of viewers not even finishing the series...

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...ws-1235364913/
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...224828529.html

[rhorle]

most people who tried to watch it agree. 715 million season 1 costs with nearly 63% of viewers not even finishing the series...

Season 1 was only around $465 million. The rights shouldn't be lumped in with Season cost as it is an independent expenditure. I never see people include "licensing rights" in House of the Dragon for example. Those were only mid eight figures.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

most people who tried to watch it agree. 715 million season 1 costs with nearly 63% of viewers not even finishing the series...

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...ws-1235364913/
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...224828529.html

Are there any sites that actually track completion % for general comparisons?

[craigw]

Are there any sites that actually track completion % for general comparisons?

i couldnt find anything that breaks it down. but there is software that does it for you. for investors, advertising, marketing, etc... here is a link to get it. you can try a demo. but gotta pay for full features.

https://digital-i.com/

[rhorle]

I bet that 37% number is a lot worse than it seems - I think a lot of Tolkien fans probably hate watched the series to conclusion.

Hate watching is still watching. However it is an amusing thought that the people who hate the show the most were the largest contributor to its success.