I doubt anything interesting will came out from that expensive series. They're doing it for the money, not for the product. And that as always be a clear indicator of a low quality product.
Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series
11–20 of 605 posts
Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series
#12[dead]
Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series
#13> New Zealand, where the show is shooting
I think they’ve switched to England and Wales haven’t they? Which is probably closer to the author’s inspirations (Tolkien never set foot in New Zealand.)
Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series
#14I’m not so sure the LOTR series is ideal for expansion. It feels like Peter Jackson has already tackled all the really interesting parts of the LOTR world.
Silmarillion has some very interesting stories, though. Much more potential than in Hobbit, really.
Potential can be squandered though.
Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series
#15Even with the rebate, how can they hope to recoup the investment? Merch? DVD Sales? Increasing sign ups to Prime? I have a doubt the profits from that will help them earn money to cover up the remaining 300 million or so they have still invested. And the "internet" really reacted negatively to the trailer as well. (I personally didn't hate the trailer myself but after having watched the original trilogy and the first…
Keep in mind that Amazon needs to get only ~0.2M incremental Amazon Prime subscribers to recoup the investment. The lifetime value (LTV) of a Prime subscriber has been estimated at ~$2,300.[a] You can play around with the figure, but given that every LOTR fan is going to want to watch this series even if it sucks , I wouldn't be surprised is Amazon ends up getting far more than ~0.2M new Prime subscribers because of…
Isn't it more complicated than that? Many of those consumers already own Prime. How will this impact their desire to stay? Will people actually buy Prime for this and then keep it, or will they watch and then cancel?
Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series
#16Even with the rebate, how can they hope to recoup the investment? Merch? DVD Sales? Increasing sign ups to Prime? I have a doubt the profits from that will help them earn money to cover up the remaining 300 million or so they have still invested. And the "internet" really reacted negatively to the trailer as well. (I personally didn't hate the trailer myself but after having watched the original trilogy and the first…
Keep in mind that Amazon needs to get only ~0.2M incremental Amazon Prime subscribers to recoup the investment. The lifetime value (LTV) of a Prime subscriber has been estimated at ~$2,300.[a] You can play around with the figure, but given that every LOTR fan is going to want to watch this series even if it sucks , I wouldn't be surprised is Amazon ends up getting far more than ~0.2M new Prime subscribers because of…
Your analysis makes sense, but I was under the impression that RoP was a pure passion project from Jeff Bezos with no regard for the financials or for a return on investment.
Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series
#17Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good. bezzzos bezzosn my bezzzos
Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series
#18Obviously, I’ll wait and see once it comes out.
But it seems odd to spend so much and not have a single established creator that has put out great content. And not to involve Jackson seems off because even having him in a consulting role would be a good sign.
Looking at the imdb page this seems like a corporate driven project rather than a creator driven project with lots of different directors that haven’t don’t anything remarkable and seem to have just done other Amazon shows.
Of course there are video projects done by unknowns that turn out great (Jackson had done Heavenly Creatures and Frighteners and a few others before LOTR), but I was kind of hoping there’d be some creative team who is really into Tolkien who tells great stories.
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.
I worry that this is Amazon saying “cost is no limit” to a project team instead of artists and creators.
Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series
#19I’m not so sure the LOTR series is ideal for expansion. It feels like Peter Jackson has already tackled all the really interesting parts of the LOTR world.
Silmarillion has some very interesting stories, though. Much more potential than in Hobbit, really. Potential can be squandered though.
As much as I would like to see live action Silmarillion, it would probably be the most expensive tv show of all time. Many epic scenes can't possibly be shot for real so the show would require odious amounts of CGI. Heck at this point, hire a studio that makes video game trailers and turn the whole thing into a 50+ hours CGI tv show.
Re: Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series
#20Even with the rebate, how can they hope to recoup the investment? Merch? DVD Sales? Increasing sign ups to Prime? I have a doubt the profits from that will help them earn money to cover up the remaining 300 million or so they have still invested. And the "internet" really reacted negatively to the trailer as well. (I personally didn't hate the trailer myself but after having watched the original trilogy and the first…
> Even with the rebate, how can they hope to recoup the investment? Merch? DVD Sales? Increasing sign ups to Prime? I have a doubt the profits from that will help them earn money to cover up the remaining 300 million or so they have still invested. Probably all of the above plus it's a long term move. Amazon needs to build up a strong catalog and marquee TV shows are long term attractions. As an example, Mad Men, esp…
I don't know. 465 million seems still steep for 8 episodes TV show. I am all for it cause Disney has seemingly skimped on their CG budget for their newer shows. So more competition means more TV shows will have film quality production.
But it is a concern, if their show costs more than something like Avengers: Endgame which had some of the biggest actors in Hollywood involved in addition to the probably insane VFX budget.
Obviously COVID would have affected the budget for the show, but I have a feeling that it went way over budget than was initially intended.
Although I agree with the marquee concept. HBO had their own marquee show: Game of Thrones, though it produced a lot of quality stuff like the Pacific, Band of Brothers, Sopranos etc that can be watched for years to come. Game of Thrones on the other hand was a big disappointment for the fans and its negative reception probably made HBO wonder what they would do after it was over (hence the Targaryen origin show and the Jon Snow series are being developed... personally I'm skipping both)