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

181–190 of 605 posts

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

#181

Post by ilikecakeandpie »

randomsearch wrote: post #130
jpgvm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last 2 seasons of GoT still hurt to think about. It's not the ending that hurts it's how it got there. The last 2 seasons probably should have been 3 full seasons instead of the barely 1.5 we got and had a lot more build up/Dany descent into madness/Bran having some relevance that would justify his elevation to ruler, etc. The suddenness of everything, the exposition, everything was just poorly executed. Too much mon…

Spoiler! Maybe edit

It's been over for three years now, one of those years where everyone was inside for a long time, and was very hotly debated on social media. I think it meets the criteria for not needing a spoiler warning

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

#182

Post by [deleted] »

bigDinosaur wrote: post #121
anshumankmr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sean Bean wasn't an unknown. He wasn't a star either, but he was the villain in one of better Bond movies and also was in the first Lord of the Rings.

Also the voice actor for the emperor's son in The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. I'd say he was pretty well known and a bit of a star given that he was sought out for such roles and used in marketing, although not obscenely famous.

[deleted]

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

#183

Post by hef19898 »

Tao3300 wrote: post #124
alexpotato wrote: post #98

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.

Which makes Sharpe so much more impressive, he saved Sean Bean over multiple episodes / movies!

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

#184

Post by oblio »

treis wrote: post #170
imwillofficial wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All those shows are contemporary to the 90's. Seinfeld just has generic situational humor + great characters, and even Seinfeld will probably fade as its nostalgic watchers age and go away. It will just take 30-40 more years :-)

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

#185

Post by Clubber »

Sebb767 wrote: post #145
newsclues wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 junio…

Yes, some of the best titles have none or just 1 top tier actor at the time: Star Wars (Alec Guinness), West World (Anthony Hopkins), Game of Thrones (Sean Bean), Breaking Bad, The Wire. I'm sure there's other's I can't remember.

Some directors prefer fresh actors for some movies. It s not necessarily a red flag, but it could be. Time will tell.

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

#186

Post by prometheus76 »

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…

This parasitic move is intentional and done for several reasons. A brief summary of what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFxu3Q71NvE

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

#187

Post by detritus »

Not to be That Guy, but crikey - think of all the good that could be done in the world for half a billion dollars.

.

Cue my usual thought about how the likes of Apple could make/break Fusion Energy (prove/disprove viability) for a small percentage of their bank balance.

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

#188

Post by hef19898 »

fumblebee wrote: post #154
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.

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 Da…

Christopher Lee is another one, always playing the villain, always playing it good and never just being Christopher Lee.

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

#190

Post by Clubber »

ipaddr wrote: post #165
Sebb767 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>What made the ending bad in that series?

For me, the ending seemed very scripted, very boilerplate, very forced, very unimaginative. It seemed like the writers were in the contract longer than they wanted too and they were just "phoning it in."

Post reply on HN