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

221–230 of 605 posts

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

#221

Post by adventured »

Clubber wrote: post #185
Sebb767 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not a great list for that premise. The Amazon Lord series not only lacks stars, it lacks famous mid-tiers as well.

West World had Ed Harris, Evan Rachel Wood, James Marsden, Thandie Newton, among others. These are mid tier actors that are quite well known (even though they're not superstars).

Breaking Bad had as its lead a very prominent television actor in Cranston. Malcolm in the Middle was a hit tv show that had a long run as far as TV shows go. He was already very TV-famous prior to Breaking Bad. Getting Cranston to carry Breaking Bad was them going with a TV heavy-weight with tons of experience and a deep familiarity for TV audiences.

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

#222

Post by ankaAr »

Sebb767 wrote: post #70
cgeier wrote: 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…

From an IT perspective, we know that the money is going to management and marketing department. And maybe a new pool for HHRR.

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

#223

Post by dylan604 »

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 because even having him in a consulting role would be a good sign.

Didn't the Tolkein group basically disavow Jackson and said never again after fiasco known as The Hobbit? If that's true, then it makes a lot of sense not to involve Jackson in any new project blessed by the Tolkein powers that be.

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

#224

Post by asciiresort »

anshumankmr wrote: post #2

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…

> Even with the rebate, how can they hope to recoup the investment? Merch

Isn’t that why Disney acquired Star Wars and Marvel?

Imagine an Amazon theme park alongside Universal Studios and Disneyland.

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

#225

Post by zpeti »

prometheus76 wrote: post #186
bsaul wrote: 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…

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

Yeah, this is a great explanation.

And it's not just characters they destroy, but beauty, any past tradition whether good or bad. It really is about dismantling everything. (and somehow magically once you dismantle everything some sort of equity based marxism is what we're supposed to have). Why is marxism as a philosophy immune to dismantling? That's the million dollar question...

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

#226

Post by dylan604 »

Sebb767 wrote: post #75
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never even bothered with Season 8.

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.

Have we forgotten about Lost?

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

#227

Post by jl6 »

treis wrote: post #156
bsaul wrote: 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.

I didn’t think Legolas was in this new series at all?

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

#228

Post by ceejayoz »

imwillofficial wrote: post #103
chrisseaton wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s talent out there beyond celebrities and movie stars.

But that talent comes cheaper, where is this $400MM going?

Hopefully: big sets, lots of extras, on-location shooting.

Probably also some internal accounting bullshit like "the Amazon home page is worth $100M as an ad placement spot".

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

#229

Post by Clubber »

adventured wrote: post #221
Clubber wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not a great list for that premise. The Amazon Lord series not only lacks stars, it lacks famous mid-tiers as well. West World had Ed Harris, Evan Rachel Wood, James Marsden, Thandie Newton, among others. These are mid tier actors that are quite well known (even though they're not superstars). Breaking Bad had as its lead a very prominent television actor in Cranston. Malcolm in the Middle was a hit tv show that had a…

I forgot about Ed Harris, I think he's way higher than mid-tier; he's very good and has been around forever. West World was probably a bad example thinking about it.

>a very prominent television actor in Cranston

He wasn't very prominent (he certainly is now). The show was for a particular demographic (later GenX) but that's about it. I'd say it was on par with That 70's Show. He was in a few Seinfeld episodes too. Compare that with the cast of LoTR and it's a stark difference.

Point being, some directors prefer fresh faced actors for certain projects and it's worked out well. I'm sure with the supply and demand, there are a lot of good actors that haven't gotten much screen time.

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

#230

Post by themitigating »

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…

Harry potter movie changed directors a few times right?

Amazon is getting a 160mil tax credit in NZ.

Regarding the team: "The team who will be creating the “LOTR” TV series includes: executive producers Lindsey Weber (“10 Cloverfield Lane”), Bruce Richmond (“Game of Thrones”), Gene Kelly (“Boardwalk Empire”) and Sharon Tal Yguado; writer/executive producer Gennifer Hutchison (“Breaking Bad”); writer/executive producer Jason Cahill (“The Sopranos”) writer/executive producer Justin Doble (“Stranger Things”); consulting producers Bryan Cogman (“Game of Thrones”) and Stephany Folsom (“Toy Story 4”); producer Ron Ames (“The Aviator”); writer/co-producer Helen Shang (“Hannibal”) and writing consultant Glenise Mullins."

So they have established people in the background and a well known franchise. As for not involving Peter Jackson maybe they just wanted to start fresh, no idea but George Lucas isn't involved of the Mandalorian

Post reply on HN