Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series

winteriscoming.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 605 posts

Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series

#471

Post by HWR_14 »

logifail wrote: post #441
xsmasher wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't use the terms interchangeably. An "Executive producer" credit may be applied to lots of people who are not the showrunner. >This credit is given to the showrunner, or the head writer, and is sometimes also given to other important members of the production. These could include the show’s creator if different from the showrunner, other high-level writers (often future seasons’ showrunners), the owner/creator…

> You can't use the terms interchangeably Right, but what's the actual definition of the term "showrunner"? It's "the leading producer", according to the first sentence of that Wikipedia article. Why aren't we talking about the "lead[ing] producer"? Is the term "showrunner" perhaps just industry jargon that slipped out into the mainstream? EDIT: Go read through the Wikipedia:Talk page for 'Showrunner'[0], the quote "…

The showrunner is the person responsible for the long-term trajectory and story health of a tv show. It's a real term (Joss Whedon is the showrunner for the Whedon-verse shows), but "leading producer" is not a term, it's an attempt at a description.

The showrunner can also have one of several actual official titles.

To answer the specific question in "Ack", it's a recognition of the person who is day-to-day the final decision maker. They can be overruled from above by executives (the showrunner is not the supreme content creator overlord), but the executives are overseeing a lineup or channel. The showrunner is the one who are making sure the season goes right as a full-time job.

Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series

#472

Post by asdff »

xdennis wrote: post #459
asdff wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quality matters if you care about having a cash cow and not just a one off. Paramount+ is big on telling us halo TV's first episode set records on their service, but I haven't seen any data from other episodes which is telling. I don't think that a series scoring 6 on rotten tomatoes can continually smash records and continue to look like a sound investment for media buyers.

> Quality matters if you care about having a cash cow and not just a one off. I'm not trying to be provocative, but how do you explain superhero movies then? They all seem to be the same and are a huge cash cow. IMHO, if you throw hundreds of millions of dollars at something and the same in marketing, they will come because the majority of people will just watch what's on.

Because those do have quality to them. Actors and directors people have heard of, no money held back on production budget, and people actually think they are good movies. Avengers infinity war has a 91% fan rating on rotten tomatoes and an 85% critic rating. These marvel movies aren't one offs, they are a constant cash cow of seemingly consistent quality in the eyes of their fans who fill these theaters.

Meanwhile with the halo series you just don't have that. No one has heard of the actors or directors. It's been widely panned by critics and fans. It probably will be cancelled before long once paramount can no longer ride off the success of the first episode which if it doesn't continue means people were baited into watching it with the Halo IP more than anything.

Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series

#473

Post by CivBase »

AlexandrB wrote: post #406
snickerbockers wrote: post #299

This is going to be terrible. I can't imagine the SHEER FUCKING HUBRIS modern TV writers must have of they think they can write a fanfic that stands next to Tolkien's greatest work. These writers' only experience is working on a 4th film in JJ Abrams' Star Trek reboot universe which ended up getting cancelled too.

It's probably just a job. Some Amazon executive says, "Hey, can you write us some Lord of the Rings episodes for X dollars?" Writer says, "Sure." I don't think hubris enters into it, the same way that construction workers don't usually compare their output to the Roman Colosseum. I also don't think that the Tolkien universe is somehow sacrosanct. If the show sucks, then it sucks - it doesn't take away from the origin…

> If the show sucks, then it sucks - it doesn't take away from the original writing.

I disagree. Tolkien's work is not just a story; it is a fictional world. Merchandise exists outside that world, but new stories in that world become an inherent part of that world. Good stories elevate the value of that world. Bad stories damage the value of that world.

Keeping with your first example, imagine if a cheap, ugly, concrete, brutalist structure was added onto the Roman Colosseum. The original structure may still be a work of art, but the addition would detract from it. Imagine putting cheap steak sauce on an expertly prepared, high-quality steak. The steak may still be delicious, but its value would be lessened by the added sauce. The same is true for fictional worlds like Tolkien's.

All that said, most of my favorite fictional worlds from my childhood have been tarnished by cheap cash grabs, so I have learned to scrape the sauce off the steak and enjoy the original for as much as I can. It's still a great steak, after all. If Amazon's show bombs - which seems likely - I'll do the same for Tolkien's works.

Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series

#474

Post by notahacker »

namelessoracle wrote: post #297
notahacker wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then Star Wars was envisaged as a series of films and the sequels and prequels are part of a directly related story with overlapping characters and pacing, with the original creators around to give it their blessing and the occasional bit of creative input. Fans can overlook a lot of shoddiness to see C3PO again or how Darth became Darth. The forging of rings or founding of Rivendell, not so much, and I think the…

Them not doing Silmarillion is odd.... I mean that had some very textual readings that would have been easily loved by the woke crowd. (The Beren storyline, overall strength of female heroes during the narrative)

Assume the Tolkien Estate wanted more money for those rights...

Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series

#475

Post by wmeredith »

dragonwriter wrote: post #458
danso wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides Sean Bean — who was far from A-list — how many of the Games of Thrones cast were well-known? Jason Momoa and Pedro Pascal, who’ve probably had the most post-GoT success so far (and who were two of the most popular/memorable characters on GoT), didn’t have widespread recognition before GoT.

> Besides Sean Bean — who was far from A-list — how many of the Games of Thrones cast were well-known? None A-list, obviously, but (in no particular order) Lena Headey, Iain Glenn, Natalie Dormer, Peter Dinklage, Nicolaj Coster-Waldau, & Charles Dance, arguably.

Game of Thrones was packed with a murderer's row of character actors from British stage and screen.

Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series

#476

Post by HWR_14 »

bobdvb wrote: post #233
hbosch wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also, I don’t recognize the actors at all. Like not a single one. Compared to LOTR, they didn’t rely on stars but they had Ian McKellen, Elijah Wood, Sean Aston, Viggo Mortenson, Liv Tyler, Christopher Lee, Sean Bean, Cate Blanchett. It seems strange to not have anyone. I thought this was a cost cutting effort, but that doesn’t make sense if $465M. Well, lets start off by admitting to ourselves that guys like Elijah…

I think I'd disagree with the assertion about Elijah Wood, Deep Impact was a pretty big film and he had a key role in that. He also had many other roles before that in some pretty notable films, especially The Faculty and heck, he was playing alongside Kevin Costner in 1994! Perhaps I am just old, and a keen film watcher, but I wouldn't describe him as a lesser known actor at that point in his career. Also, Sean Bean…

Elijah Wood was famous as a child. That doesn't really translate into adult roles.

I mean, seriously, look at Wil Wheaton or that Home Alone kid.

Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series

#477

Post by rglullis »

workingon wrote: post #446
rglullis wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. The same guy who thinks that parroting their self-righteousness is a virtue. The same guy who can not understand the difference between diversity and tokenism. That's the guy who can not understand nuance in thought.

Your cognitive disconnect is ridiculous. Pointing out that you finding that a show is worse because they cast brown people as elves is not a fault of the show has nothing to do with my self-righteousness, though you're happy to spread your own self-righteousness throughout this thread while talking about how butthurt you are that they'd dare destroy your favorite show by casting brown people in a traditional white ro…

> Pointing out that you finding that a show is worse because they cast brown people as elves

Go ahead and tell me where I am saying anything about my personal opinion about this particular show. (Hint, I didn't!) Also, please tell me why you chose to ignore everything I wrote in the third paragraph of the top comment.

You are passing a value judgement over what you think you read instead of what was actually written, and you continue to try to push that as an argument.

Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series

#478

Post by mkaic »

I feel like I'm one of the only people here who's actually... quite optimistic and excited about this? Like -- I really don't see Amazon screwing this up. Bezos is a fan of the franchise and is smart enough to know that this can't be screwed up without consequences. I also think that the lack of established talent being hired is actually a good thing, because it means they looked beyond the famous names we've all heard and presumably found a whole collection of diamonds in the rough. If Bezos is willing to spend half a billion on a bunch of unknowns, I'm going to bet that those unknowns are pretty darn promising.

Anyways, thought I'd counter all the pessimism here with a bit of positivity. I'm stoked for this series, and if it turns out bad after all? Oh well, they tried. It wouldn't be the end of the world.

Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series

#479

Post by logifail »

HWR_14 wrote: post #471
logifail wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't use the terms interchangeably Right, but what's the actual definition of the term "showrunner"? It's "the leading producer", according to the first sentence of that Wikipedia article. Why aren't we talking about the "lead[ing] producer"? Is the term "showrunner" perhaps just industry jargon that slipped out into the mainstream? EDIT: Go read through the Wikipedia:Talk page for 'Showrunner'[0], the quote "…

The showrunner is the person responsible for the long-term trajectory and story health of a tv show. It's a real term (Joss Whedon is the showrunner for the Whedon-verse shows), but "leading producer" is not a term, it's an attempt at a description. The showrunner can also have one of several actual official titles. To answer the specific question in "Ack", it's a recognition of the person who is day-to-day the final…

> It's a real term [..] the showrunner can also have one of several actual official titles

Q: Is "showrunner" an official title, or not?

EDIT: apparently not[0]:

"The highest ranking producer is the showrunner, the man or woman ultimately responsible for the creative direction of the series. Showrunner is a function, not a title — this person is credited as an Executive Producer. In many cases, he or she has “Created by” credit on the series"

[0] https://johnaugust.com/2004/producer-credits-and-what-they-m...

EDIT2: "A showrunner is the unofficial title given to the top-level creative decision maker and manager overseeing all episodes of an individual season of a television/episodic series. The showrunner is usually credited as an executive producer, producer and/or writer. "[1]

[1] https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credi...

Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series

#480

Post by adynaton »

cromulent wrote: post #388
subsubzero wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huge LOTR/Tolkien fan ever since I was a kid, loved the Ralph Bakashi animated LOTR film from the 70's(great rotoscoping and creepy mood), absolutely loved the Peter Jackson trilogy, liked the hobbit animated films Rankin and Bass(good music!, weird animation?), even found enjoyment in the newer Hobbit trilogy(3 movies for 1 small book? Smaug was great though!). After seeing this amazon trailer though I am beyond dis…

Did you ever see the Finnish LoTR series Hobitit ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobitit

Or the Soviet adaptation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khraniteli
Post reply on HN