Live data from Hacker News

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

winteriscoming.net

161–170 of 605 posts

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

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never thought I’d live to see the day where people would unironically call equity dogma. But here we are. What a sad state of affairs.

Equity means equality of outcome, basically meaning you believe every person is equal in their results. This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in outcome in society. If you cannot see this, you are trapped in religious level dogmatic thinking. (PS: if you want to talk about equality, which we might perhaps call equality of opportunity, I'm all fo…

> Equity means equality of outcome, basically meaning you believe every person is equal in their results.

> This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in outcome in society.

> If you cannot see this, you are trapped in religious level dogmatic thinking.

Equity is something that societies create, not an assertion about people's innate abilities or a statement of fact about the universe.

For example, we make buildings handicapped accessible rather than simply declaring that all people are able to walk.

> (PS: if you want to talk about equality, which we might perhaps call equality of opportunity, I'm all for it. But equity is certainly not that).

Perhaps it would be illustrative to show that you could actually make the exact same rhetorical sleight of hand about "equality of opportunity":

"Equity of opportunity means you believe every person is equal in their opportunity. This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in opportunity in society."

This is clearly silly because "equality of opportunity" is a goal you are aspiring to rather than a statement of fact about current society, but the same applies to "equity."

You could also say the same thing about "justice" or any other concept that's not actually a statement of fact about society.

I'm actually not sure where the idea that "equity" is an assertion that outcomes are equal as a matter of fact comes from. It doesn't seem to be a definition that is used anywhere except when people are trying to make this argument that "equity" is obviously absurd and therefore we should abandon it and focus on "equality of opportunity."

Note that this is completely separate from any argument about to what degree we should attempt to achieve "equity" versus "equality of opportunity"; it is simply an issue with this argument using a dubious definition of "equity" to show that "equity" is obviously absurd being a bad argument.

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

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This usage of equity is, what, five years old? Does something that new really call for an “I never thought I’d live to see the day”?

I think that OP is not objecting to the usage of "equity" but its association with "dogma".

It’s a good sign that something is dogma when emotions run very high over exact word choices.

For example there were huge controversies in the fourth century over homoousion (“same in essence”) vs homoiousios (“similar essence”).

Reminds me of equity vs equality.

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

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No perhaps. Ned being killed off early is a key part of the "no one is safe in the game of thrones!" motif. Having a known actor and playing against type (nice guy when usually villain) just underscores the surprise. There is a similar story about Gene Wilder in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. He first appears with a limp and then somersaults to show he's fine. The whole point of that scene is to have the audience…

> Having a known actor and playing against type (nice guy when usually villain) just underscores the surprise. Normally you'd be right, except Sean Bean always dies.

You’re right, he was killed off early in Equilibrium too!

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

#164
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…

I'm not optimistic after they shat the bed on WoT. Turning epic fantasy into visual media content is hard work and they aren't spending the money in the right place. I'll check it out but my expectations are extremely low.

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

#165

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.

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 endin…

What made the ending bad in that series? To actually see the women wasn't terrible.. Seinfeld had a bad ending but it doesn't ruin the show.

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

#166
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…

> amazing empires that ruled the african continent in the past because then you'd have to confront that african empires had slaves too

I think that would be an interesting story. And I think, with time, we’ll get more of these stories.

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

#167

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.

Oh, please... no one is complaining about having minorities. The point is retconning a different type of "diversity" into a story just for the purpose of marketing for the current consumer base and its cultural sensitivities.

Taking a cultural landmark and just repackaging it (new version with 20% more "minorities"!) where the race of the actors does not change anything for the story being told is just cheap tokenism.

By all means, I'd love to see new stories and new characters, and these stories could benefit greatly from a diverse cast. You can use the diversity then to show how different people value different things, how conflict can come up due to these differences, how conflict can be solved despite these differences, and so on... let's just not pretend that this crap that Hollywood wants to shove down our throats is any good just because it ticks the right woke checkboxes.

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

#168
post #61

Cool. And if the series flop it will trigger some major review to modern movie/tv making

It may not happen with this series, because too many will probably still watch it even if it’s terrible, but it’s bound to happen for some franchise at some point, and maybe things will get interesting then.

Last interesting sci-fi show I watched was The Expanse, it was on Prime. One may hope.

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

#169
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 les…

That's true, though I suppose if they had stuck the landing the relative decline after the end of season four (which I agree with) would have been forgiven.

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

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As an example, Mad Men, especially because it's set in the 1960s will probably still be watched in the 2060s. Why ? The only old TV shows I see being popular long term is era defining shows you watch for nostalgia (eg. Seinfeld, Friends). Maybe some real classics like Sopranos that everyone was watching at the time. Shows like Mad Men ? I really don't see it. And more importantly this LOTR show - how many people are…

Seinfeld Is not just watch r for nostalgia, its still in syndication, and also has a massive overseas fan base. Mad Men is timeless in its lessons, novel in its execution, and holds a unique place in TV history. It’ll be watched for decades.

Seinfeld is the exception. Heres the top TV shows of 1993:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-rated_United_States_tele...

Seinfeld is the only one that people still watch.

Post reply on HN