Live data from Hacker News

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

winteriscoming.net

191–200 of 605 posts

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

#191

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…

Why strange? Others have pointed out plenty of benefits that going with good but lesser known actors brings, so why take on more risk with more famous actors? They don't need them for their brand value in this case.

Amazon would probably like to have the next Orlando Bloom, but doesn't need or want the current Orlando Bloom (or any other famous actor).

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

#192
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…

From what I've read, the show is basically guaranteed to run it's course which is 5 seasons. They probably gave the show runners some degree of long-term investment. They likely spent a ton on set design and character design to setup events that won't air for a few years.

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

#193

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…

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 is a deeply evil ideology. The only way to achieve equality of outcome is to repress the out-performers. Promoters of this dogma of course deny that, but the result is inevitably always the same. [0]

[0] Vancouver School Board cuts honours programs

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-sc...

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

#194

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.

well at least i don't need to feel so guilty about all those amazon returns.

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

#196
post #156
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…

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.

If they had a black Legolas in LotR and Hobbit, sure, why not. Since they didn't, well, having a black Legolas just destroys continuity. But who am I complaining about missing continuity, after all we have the latest Dr. Strange with the sole purpose of including the Fantastic 4 and X Men into the MCU without invalidating the entirety of the MCU so far.

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

#197

Let's hope they won't turn it into a diversity thing checking all the boxes and loosing the plot

Lol, the "diversity thing" is the star of the show here as evidenced by both the media they (creators) have put out (images, etc) + by their own admission.

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

#198
post #10

Even with the rebate, how can they hope to recoup the investment? Merch? DVD Sales? Increasing sign ups to Prime? I have a doubt the profits from that will help them earn money to cover up the remaining 300 million or so they have still invested. And the "internet" really reacted negatively to the trailer as well. (I personally didn't hate the trailer myself but after having watched the original trilogy and the first…

Keep in mind that Amazon needs to get only ~0.2M incremental Amazon Prime subscribers to recoup the investment. The lifetime value (LTV) of a Prime subscriber has been estimated at ~$2,300.[a] You can play around with the figure, but given that every LOTR fan is going to want to watch this series even if it sucks , I wouldn't be surprised is Amazon ends up getting far more than ~0.2M new Prime subscribers because of…

> given that every LOTR fan is going to want to watch this series even if it sucks, I wouldn't be surprised is Amazon ends up getting far more than ~0.2M new Prime subscribers because of it.

You're assuming they actually subscribe to watch it. Amazon Prime already has enough subs that it should be pretty easy for most die-hard LOTR fans without a Prime account to just watch it on a friend or family member's account. Or they could just pirate it.

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

#199
post #177
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…

>Also, I don’t recognize the actors at all. Like not a single one. Compared to LOTR, they didn’t rely on stars but they had Ian McKellen, Elijah Wood, Sean Aston, Viggo Mortenson, Liv Tyler, Christopher Lee, Sean Bean, Cate Blanchett. It seems strange to not have anyone. I thought this was a cost cutting effort, but that doesn’t make sense if $465M. Well, lets start off by admitting to ourselves that guys like Elijah…

Well... Sean Astin was Rudy.

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

#200

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN