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

151–160 of 605 posts

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

#151

Post by titzer »

bsaul wrote: post #86
cloutchaser wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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’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.

Been happening since forever. Jesus was a dark-skinned Middle-easterner. It's funny that in nearly every story over the world of people who have claimed to seen Jesus in a miracle, he appears as their own race!

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

#152

Post by sn0w_crash »

Miner49er wrote: post #120
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #33

For all that money wasted on politically correct elves and dwarven maidens, they could have filmed 10 seasons of "The Expanse", "Firefly", or some other new show.

Being black is now called "politically correct"? Why not just say black?

I think they mean having to hit a certain quota of ethnicities of people. LOTR has been very vocal about how “diverse and inclusive” this production is.

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

#153

Post by synu »

nicce wrote: post #126
JCharante wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do known actors matter? When I see Chris Pratt in a movie I just think oh it's Andy from parks and rec. I see Forrest Gump but in a different movie or Jim Halbert in a horror movie. Known actors make it hard to be immersed.

Nobody becomes known if they don’t have their first time. I think it is not bad at all.

It's not necessarily bad if you have someone amazing in charge of casting, but it's really hard to build a cast out of people who nobody has heard of who it turns out are actually incredible talents. Known actors are a known quantity in that regard, which is why it's safer to go for them. Normally you'd expect there to be some on a big budget project that isn't taking risks around quality.

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

#154

Post by fumblebee »

JCharante wrote: post #119
prepend wrote: 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…

Why do known actors matter? When I see Chris Pratt in a movie I just think oh it's Andy from parks and rec. I see Forrest Gump but in a different movie or Jim Halbert in a horror movie. Known actors make it hard to be immersed.

I agree that the feeling of immersion is at stake here (I feel this is why it was so off-putting to see Ed Sheeran in GoT scene), but I think this actually depends on the actor. There's so many that lack the talent or the will to mix it up, and consequently just playing themselves in roles. Chris Evans, Megan Fox, Jennifer Aniston, Jason Statham are some examples that come to mind.

Then there's others, like Daniel Day Lewis, Di Caprio, Ralph Fiennes, etc. who's roles comes across as being fiercely distinct and yet still utterly convincing.

This is a total paraphrase and possibly a mis-creditation, but I'm pretty sure Ian McKellen said something along the lines of "When you watch good actors, you think, they're a good actor. When you watch great actors, you actually believe they're a real person."

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

#155

Post by schnitzelstoat »

titzer wrote: post #147
prepend wrote: 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 thing…

I had read LOTR just before the movies came out and I think Jackson did a pretty good job, although the books have a different feel with all the walking bits and the songs etc.

I agree 100% about The Hobbit though, the movie was pretty decent, but really feels very different to the book. I think this is expected though as they extended a pretty small book to an entire trilogy of films and adapted what is essentially a children's story for a far wider audience.

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

#156

Post by treis »

bsaul wrote: post #86
cloutchaser wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Because there's not wildly successful books with wildly successful movies about the amazing empires that ruled the African continent.

And it's hardly rewriting parts of LOTR to have a black actor portray Legolas. Everything is still the same except the color of the guys skin. You'll be fine.

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

#157

Post by synu »

MisterTea wrote: post #135
prepend wrote: 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…

> (Jackson had done Heavenly Creatures and Frighteners and a few others before LOTR) No one ever mentions his first, a splatter flick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Taste Hilariously bad but a fun watch.

Meet the Feebles never seems to come up either.. one of the weirdest movies I've ever seen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Feebles

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

#158

Post by Sebb767 »

synu wrote: post #149
anshumankmr wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you look at discussions, you'll see that the actual decline started earlier, by some opinions as far as the end of season 4. The problem is that back then, it was not as clear that the series was declining - it could've been a super interesting new story thread or a new intrigue starting out. But now, with the knowledge that it leads nowhere, you can clearly see the problems starting out.

Also, of course, it's less fun watching the stuff now, knowing that it will slowly fade out into a bad ending.

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

#159

Post by prepend »

nicce wrote: post #126
JCharante wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do known actors matter? When I see Chris Pratt in a movie I just think oh it's Andy from parks and rec. I see Forrest Gump but in a different movie or Jim Halbert in a horror movie. Known actors make it hard to be immersed.

Nobody becomes known if they don’t have their first time. I think it is not bad at all.

For me, it’s not that there are any unknown actors, it’s that every single one is unknown.

I like seeing “fresh” actors because they are unknown. LOTR had many unknown actors and lots who later went on to notoriety (eg, Karl Urban). But they also had some known.

My apprehension isn’t that there are any unknown, but that all are unknown. And I think that’s a bad thing for a $400M project.

Kind of like startups. I’ve met some great people who were working for their first company ever. I’ve also worked with some terrible people who didn’t work out. To get small funding this happens all the time. But to get $465M in funding with a leadership team that’s entirely new is unusual.

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

#160

Post by cameronh90 »

Sebb767 wrote: post #46
pflenker wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a huge ASOIAF fan, I had the same concerns after Game of Thrones was announced and first details were shared. The crucial difference, though, is that GRRM himself was involved in the series.

And we all know how it ended once they ran out of his material. Yes, I'm still salty.

Is it possible the reason it ended so badly is the same reason they ran out of material?

It's been 11 years since the last ASOIAF novel. I think GRRM may have written himself into a corner and is unsure how to tie up all the threads and satisfactorily end the series.

Post reply on HN