Live data from Hacker News

Amazon’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ series will cost at least $465M for first season

cnbc.com

101–108 of 108 posts

Re: Amazon’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ series will cost at least $465M for first season

#101

Is this what we do now? Remake things that are still in the majority of our living memories? Have the original LOTR movies stopped holding up? Are we playing the long game and intending to have an Into The Smiegalverse?

I thought the Hobbit films sucked horribly but I'm still glad we have more LotR. It's funny how the biggest "fans" seem to strongly shun having more material.

I’m not a biggest fan, I’m not even much of a fan.

I’ve just been very skeptical of remakes ever since we now have something like 11 Spidermen from 3 reboots in like 20 years.

Edit: apparently it’s 8 movies, 3 remakes, 19 years, ignoring into the spider verse and including the one coming out in Dec 2021

Re: Amazon’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ series will cost at least $465M for first season

#102
post #49
post #2

Curious if I'm the only one here who thinks that LotR is overrated. Let them spend the money on a better story.

I would rather hollywood invested in "random" fantasy/sci-fi books. Probably each one of those books is a unique universe on its own that can be used as a setting for literally any kind of story. Yet here we are, still stuck with orcs, vampires, zombies and wizards (don't mean to demean it, I love all of it). Just wish they would use some new kind of universe with its own unique mechanics. They do drip out once in a…

Milking existing familiar to everyone universes is just more profitable. MCU, as primitive as it is(my apologies to fans), has been best money maker of last decade for a reason.

Re: Amazon’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ series will cost at least $465M for first season

#103
post #2

Curious if I'm the only one here who thinks that LotR is overrated. Let them spend the money on a better story.

For me, LotR hits a sweet-spot. Long enough to get your teeth into, fantastic world-building, amazing music that I still listen to, and it was made at the point in time before films over-used CGI. Don't get me wrong, I like computer graphics (I used to work in video games) but modern films are almost lazy in their use of CGI. Ridiculous camera angles that simply wouldn't be possible take me right out of the movie. Characters (CGI models) swinging and jumping all over the place that don't feel "grounded" (see the Marvel movies for example). LotR did have plenty of CGI but I get the feeling they were conservative with its use, and resorted to physical artefacts such as sand in-place of flowing/gushing water in scale-models (yes they still used scale-models!).

I can compare it to Jurassic Park - whereby the CGI looks great even today, but due to the high cost at the time was used conservatively.

The Mandalarian used physical models for a lot of the space sequences, so I think at least some people in the business are realising that CGI has to be used appropriately.

Anyway rant over :)

Re: Amazon’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ series will cost at least $465M for first season

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> None of them pr[a]y to God when in danger. The entire story of LotR is of people either obeying or defying a divine command, delivered through an angel, to sacrifice apparent immediate self interest to defeat a fallen angel and his followers. Plenty of stories in the Bible don’t deal so much with ritual religious observance by the characters was with following (or not) moral rules and/or response to divine emissari…

I don't follow. Who is the angel in lord of the rings? Gandalf? He's a wizard not an angel. There might be something in the Silmarilion that backs up your interpretation but I don't think it's in Lord of the Rings.

Gandalf is an angel, like Sauron and Saroumane. Well, rather: all wizards are Maiars, and Maiar are immortal spirits, brought down middle-earth by the gods to stop Sauron.

Re: Amazon’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ series will cost at least $465M for first season

#105
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This series is supposed to be set during the time of Morgoth. So the story is going to be completely different from LotR. I think they are just using the name as a stop gap (and maybe for PR) until they officially name the series.

It's actually set after the war against Morgoth. It's after the sinking of Beleriand, at the time of the ascendency of the Island of Numenor. This is the era during which the Rings of Power are forged, so they may well stick with the Lord of the Rings banding as it is going to be part of the overall story of the rings, and Sauron will likely feature as a prominent character.

Thank you for correcting me!

Re: Amazon’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ series will cost at least $465M for first season

#106
post #99
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone once joked that if Kubrick had been asked to fake the moon landings he would have insisted on filming on the moon for maximum realism. The main problem is probably cost disease; if you tried to recreate any Apollo missions today it would cost you more (adjusted for inflation even) that it originally did.

"Cost disease" generally refers to the phenomenon of things becoming (relatively) more expensive because of the unavoidable human-labor component, but the Apollo missions would be more expensive for other reasons, or other requirements that necessitate human labor where said requirements didn't exist before.

yeah, the cost of human life is significantly higher than what it used to be.

Re: Amazon’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ series will cost at least $465M for first season

#107
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that LotR is not a straightforward allegory, but I'm also going off more than the author's religious identity. In Tolkien's words: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like "religion", to cults or practices, in the Imagin…

I think that's an interesting point, that a book can both be a religious work but at the same time not contain anything overtly religious. As a non-believer, I quite enjoy the lack of anything overtly religious in his works.

The covert religiosity is perhaps more insidious. The books are drenched in his particular religious world-view: not just Catholic, but a medieval kind of Christianity. The world he's created is deliberately pre-Christian, but the characters and overarching story arc think about the trajectory of the world in a way familiar to medieval Christians.

That comes through in a fascinating sense of alien-ness. The books feel both realistic and unfamiliar because he's capturing a sense from the past as a very foreign country. That's a sense available to you as a non-believer because it's not gussied up in the specific trappings of any belief system you've been exposed to (and probably put off by).

The highest virtue in The Lord of the Rings is a very Christian kind of hope -- hope for the next world rather than this one. And the key virtue of humans, rather than Elves, is that they get to go there, while the immortals are trapped here. It's easy to miss all that in The Lord of the Rings because it does ultimately depend on hope in this world -- they win and evil loses.

But look at the sadness of the Elves, who know that they will ultimately lose and the world will decline. Think of that from the point of view of somebody living among Roman ruins that they cannot repair. And the only hope comes from a far-off entity promising a better afterlife.

It's not propaganda, but it's a very real demonstration of the virtues of his outlook.

Re: Amazon’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ series will cost at least $465M for first season

#108
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow. Who is the angel in lord of the rings? Gandalf? He's a wizard not an angel. There might be something in the Silmarilion that backs up your interpretation but I don't think it's in Lord of the Rings.

Gandalf is an angel, like Sauron and Saroumane. Well, rather: all wizards are Maiars, and Maiar are immortal spirits, brought down middle-earth by the gods to stop Sauron.

I suppose you could frame the Maiar as angels if you want, but it feels like a stretch. If they're angels, then every divine being that is not explicitly god is an angel.

There's definitely Christian morality at play in LOTR, but everything I've read from Tolkien's letters says that the works were not meant to be an allegory or based on Christianity. If you're going to apply Christian themes to LOTR, you might as well hit up Homer's works as well. It's a work by a Christian, not necessarily a work about Christianity.

Post reply on HN