Live data from Hacker News

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

winteriscoming.net

141–150 of 605 posts

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

#141
post #70
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm not particularly looking forward to this series, having rather unknown actors isn't putting me off at all. And why shouldn't they go with directors they are happy with? TV series often have a lot of different directors, often directing just a single episode of a season or even a series.

The budget-talent-ratio just seems off. Usually, movies spend a lot of money on hiring talent, which here clearly isn't the case here. So the question is where is that money going. Grandparent and I are afraid that we end with something graphically completely overproduced and no story. Also, if you provide a junior engineer with a few million, you can't expect perfect software, even with that budget. Same reservation…

In Hollywood you don’t always hire people for talent but branding and audience awareness.

If you have a brand like the Hobbit you don’t need brand name actors or directors to attract an audience.

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

#142
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you'll be happier if you keep it that way :-) The only worse ending I know is that of How I Met Your Mother. Just skip the last two episodes there, seriously.

The last season of Game of Thrones is genuinely the worst possible ending to the show and genuinely takes the top spot for the most disappointing ending of all time. At least,HIMYM had its defenders but I've never seen a good thing spoken about the story in the final season.

This is subjective, of course. But for me, the ending of GoT just cast a shadow over the other seasons. It's a bit less thrilling to watch them now, since I know it will lead to an inevitable jumping of the shark, but I still like them as-is. The ending of HIMYM, on the other hand, completely ruined the series for me. I honestly have a harder time enjoying them, knowing the actual ending. That's why I think the ending of HIMYM is worse.

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

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not so sure that your statement is obviously true. One of the issues with The Hobbit films is that they stretched one relatively short book into three movies...this time around, it looks like they're stretching some apocrypha from the appendix of a book into an 8-episode TV show. Feels like a fairly similar effort to wring blood from a stone.

Not that I am interested in defending Amazon's series, which I think will be a disaster, but I don't think the comparison with the Hobbit movies holds. True, the material they have rights to is from the appendixes of The Lord of the Rings. The difference, though, is that in this case they are going to create a completely new story. So, they can fill as many episodes they want. With the Hobbit, instead, they had the s…

My opinion on this matter has less to do with stretching and more to do with creating. It feels like the further we get from what the author actually wrote- in terms of dialogue, characterization, etc.- the worse the final output is. LOTR isn't just good because hobbits, it's good because Tolkien's writing is good. The Jackson trilogy was close-ish to Tolkien's writing, the Hobbit films further, and this even more so. I'm of the opinion that this was a major issue with the last few seasons of Game of Thrones as well.

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

#144
post #5
post #4

I’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.

Tolkien created a lot of content, an entire fantasy universe. With good storytelling there's a lot more to tell. If Star Wars, which let's be frank here, is a 2 bit creation compared to Tolkien's works, managed to become a multi billion dollar franchise, then the LotR world should be able to do the same, if it's managed wisely.

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 story of how Gollum became Gollum is off limits to the series too.

The Amazon LOTR proposal is basically some new fantasy stories set in a different millennium from the LOTR world which loosely tie in with some chronologies Tolkien wrote as lore rather than narrative, with a license which prevents them from reinterpreting events from the LOTR/Hobbit books from a Tolkien Estate that isn't exactly keen on giving the series canonical status. Instead of hobbits from the Shire and kingdoms of Rohan and Gondor under threat - all places that don't exist, never mind the characters - we've got a blank slate fantasy civilisations called Numenor and Eregion (which will resemble LOTR in the same way most high fantasy civilisations tend to) and a pretty loose narrative arc which implies the bad guy eventually destroying them.

The output might be very good stories in their own right, or it might be bland as hell, but the hardcore Tolkien fanbase is going to be hard to please. Create a series of episodes purporting to show the full history of the Second Age and it'll be [probably correctly] accused of being disjointed and completely lacking Tolkien's epic storytelling skill; create a compelling quest narrative involving dwarves and hobbits and it'll be accused of discarding Tolkien's actual histories in favour of a cheap knockoff of his plot structure.

I mean, a licensee could probably randomly choose a third rate LOTR fanfic plot and sell millions of tickets to watch it, but that doesn't necessary mean its a good idea from a creative standpoint.

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

#145
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The budget-talent-ratio just seems off. Usually, movies spend a lot of money on hiring talent, which here clearly isn't the case here. So the question is where is that money going. Grandparent and I are afraid that we end with something graphically completely overproduced and no story. Also, if you provide a junior engineer with a few million, you can't expect perfect software, even with that budget. Same reservation…

In Hollywood you don’t always hire people for talent but branding and audience awareness. If you have a brand like the Hobbit you don’t need brand name actors or directors to attract an audience.

You're missing the point: We (GP and I) don't think you need known actors. There are great series with (then) unknown actors. It's just strange to have such a massive budget (which usually would go, in part, to known actors and directors) and then forgo them.

Also, for directors, there's definitely a case to be made that you need someone who can handle such a large budget. That's why I made the example with the junior engineer.

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

#146
post #18

Obviously, 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 any…

LOTR, and also Peter Jackson are not compatible with modern media. LOTR is completely opposed storytelling wise to the current dogmas of postmodernism and equity, it's fundamentally a story based on old western/european/christian myths, basically what gets called white supremacy these days. I think this will turn out to be an absolute morbid tv series as it will force LOTR into the current dogmas, but this is probabl…

> LOTR is completely opposed storytelling wise to the current dogmas of postmodernism and equity

Amazon literally make (made? not sure is it still going) a TV drama about Nazis. I think they can cope.

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

#147
post #18

Obviously, 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 any…

> And not to involve Jackson seems off

Personally, the more I reflect on the Jackson series, the less I'm a fan. He borrowed heavily from the pacing, framing, and selectiveness of Bakshi's animated film, which didn't finish the trilogy.

But worse, though inevitable when you have billions of $$ in your eyeballs, Jackson over-printed a lot of kids' imaginations with his depictions. I can't remember what I thought things looked like before I saw his films--and I probably read LOTR for the first time in 1993...

And I'm not just "new stuff bad". But seriously, the source material looked way different in my head--and felt different, too. Especially the Hobbit.

"Consult Jackson". Jackson had his say. He has no authority over new depictions; he didn't write a word of it.

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

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other word would you describe when people cry over "lack of diversity" when the story is set in a fantasy world that did not have such type of diversity to begin with?

I love how it's fine for there to be dragons and magic in fantasy. But minorities ? That's a bridge too far.

Most of the characters in LoTR weren't even _humans_, were they? It's hard to see what issue people would have with minority actors playing an elf or whatever.

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

#149
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you'll be happier if you keep it that way :-) The only worse ending I know is that of How I Met Your Mother. Just skip the last two episodes there, seriously.

The last season of Game of Thrones is genuinely the worst possible ending to the show and genuinely takes the top spot for the most disappointing ending of all time. At least,HIMYM had its defenders but I've never seen a good thing spoken about the story in the final season.

It's amazing how they managed to go from beloved franchise to salted earth in one season. People used to rewatch the seasons, but not so much now that they know where it's all headed.

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

#150
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

although i wouldn’t have worded it the same way, there’s definitely something true in your comment. I’m still amazed that people keep torturing stories made at different eras with different mentalities to try and promote today’s philosophy instead of coming with original materials. If you want diversity and black people on screen, why not create stories about the amazing empires that ruled the african continent in th…

I have a morbid fear that studios want the “conflict” as it’s 1) news and any news is good news, 2) set up a right vs wrong narrative that puts their tv show on the right side against whatever jerks are being racist/sexist/whatever. So it seems like a non-creative way to get free promotion, but I think it distracts from storytelling. The example I remember is how bad the 2016 ghostbusters reboot was. And the studio h…

very interesting theory... I used to attribute those choices to lazyness and "playing it safe", but your point is a reall possibility. I sincerely hope you're wrong though.
Post reply on HN