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

31–40 of 605 posts

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

#31

Post by anshumankmr »

cs702 wrote: post #10
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…

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…

Isn't the growth for Amazon Prime kind of stagnating in the US? I don't think they can get 1-2 million sign ups from the US alone.

Plus, there would be folks who would subscribe for two months that the shows runs and then they may even quit.

In India, I am paying 1000 rupees for my yearly subscription to Prime Video although the only thing I watch on it is The Boys. I don't what the numbers for Prime Video are in India, but it would earn them less as compared to someone signing up from the US or UK for sure.

>but given that every LOTR fan is going to want to watch this series even if it sucks, the cost is totally worth it.

There is also a big question mark on this as well.

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

#34

Post by yonaguska »

cs702 wrote: post #10
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…

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#35

Post by pflenker »

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…

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.

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

#36

Post by framapotari »

darkerside wrote: post #21

From reading the article, $200M was for the rights alone, and NZ is rebating 25% so it comes out to more like 150M net on production of the actual show.

No, the NZ rebate is based on production costs, which doesn't count funds spent on purchasing the rights to a project.

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

#37

Post by jpgvm »

oblio wrote: post #3
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? 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. Probably all of the above plus it's a long term move. Amazon needs to build up a strong catalog and marquee TV shows are long term attractions. As an example, Mad Men, esp…

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 money spent on CG dragons, not enough money spent on episodes telling the story.

The books can remedy my pain but have already waited so long. :(

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

#38

Post by ProfXponent »

yonaguska wrote: post #34
cs702 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

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

#39

Post by andybak »

algorias wrote: post #26
cs702 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> but given that every LOTR fan is going to want to watch this series even if it sucks Citation needed. I'm a big fan of LOTR, but I didn't even bother with the last Hobbit movie. And I expect this series to be even worse than that.

I stopped after the first Hobbit movie and I'm very unlikely to watch this unless it gets rave reviews.

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

#40

Post by oneoff786 »

cgeier wrote: post #29
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…

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.

TV series are often bad though. You can often see drastic dips in episode quality. Do they really know what they’re doing with these directors?
Post reply on HN