Live data from Hacker News

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

winteriscoming.net

311–320 of 605 posts

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

#311
post #280

> $465 million ... New Zealand ... would be rebating the production around 25% of its costs, or $116 million. So it probably cost $100 mil but Bezos found a way to get NZ taxpayers to pay for it.

That's probably closer to the truth than most other ideas...

does this new Arri camera really cost 4 million a pop? hm... well could be... I'm just a Wellington tax officer...

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

#312
post #280

> $465 million ... New Zealand ... would be rebating the production around 25% of its costs, or $116 million. So it probably cost $100 mil but Bezos found a way to get NZ taxpayers to pay for it.

if it was all just a scam to get NZ to pay for it, presumably they would have kept that going instead of moving production to the UK for subsequent seasons, where they get drastically less tax credits.

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

#313
I'm sure people find this offensive and offtopic, but As much as I'm a LOTR fan, I really can't wrap my head around why we spend so much money on creating a fiction series while millions of people are at risk of death from hunger, thirst, and climate change.

With 465$M, so many people could be saved. :(

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

#314
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…

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…

As a fan of post-modern movies, I would love if this was the case. However I’m afraid that you are misremembering history a bit here. Postmodern movies heydays have long passed. I’m afraid the reached their peak in the 90s with e.g. the Danish dogma movies (pun intended), independent American movies like Clerks, etc. In fact Pulp fiction was a counter punch to the scene by taking elements of postmodern movies, telling a pulp story and dressing it in a Hollywood film. Ironically it is a long running joke among postmodernists to over-analyze Pulp Fiction with a postmodern reading.

Postmodern films got a tiny resurgence around 2007, but never with the same popularity as the pomo scene of the 90s.

So Lord of the Rings is made between those two modes. The movie industry is living in the wake of the unexpected Titanic success, and the studios are trying to create the next big hit. Movies like Gladiator, Pearl Harbor, Cast Away, Meet the Parents, The Mummy, Moulin Rouge! or Chicken Run etc. is what most people are seeing. The themes of the post modern movies is indeed far away.

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

#315

This is going to be terrible. I can't imagine the SHEER FUCKING HUBRIS modern TV writers must have of they think they can write a fanfic that stands next to Tolkien's greatest work. These writers' only experience is working on a 4th film in JJ Abrams' Star Trek reboot universe which ended up getting cancelled too.

Quality doesnt matter anymore. It will get views because it has a brand attached to it and lots of people already have prime.

I don't know what their break even number is but prime is fucking expensive. If this pushes 1% of people who are on the edge of buying prime and not buying prime into making that decision its a massive win for them.

I don't think it will be any good. But 95% of film and tv is terrible and it keeps getting made.

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

#316
post #233
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I think I'd disagree with the assertion about Elijah Wood, Deep Impact was a pretty big film and he had a key role in that. He also had many other roles before that in some pretty notable films, especially The Faculty and heck, he was playing alongside Kevin Costner in 1994! Perhaps I am just old, and a keen film watcher, but I wouldn't describe him as a lesser known actor at that point in his career. Also, Sean Bean…

I'm genuinely puzzled by this assumption - that the top talent pool largely begins and ends with the best known actors. I'm not debating their obvious talent but I am confident that the industry limits who gets to be well known. One way is by excluding actors who aren't immensely attractive.

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

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tokenis…

There is a long history in theatre of casting people in roles who aren’t the same as the character. Notably men would often be cast in female roles. Maybe, just maybe, if seeing a brown elf ruins a show for you the problem isn’t with the show.

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

#318
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…

Huge LOTR/Tolkien fan ever since I was a kid, loved the Ralph Bakashi animated LOTR film from the 70's(great rotoscoping and creepy mood), absolutely loved the Peter Jackson trilogy, liked the hobbit animated films Rankin and Bass(good music!, weird animation?), even found enjoyment in the newer Hobbit trilogy(3 movies for 1 small book? Smaug was great though!). After seeing this amazon trailer though I am beyond dis…

> there are so many interesting tales Tolkien wrote that have not seen the screen

Beorn! Completely left out of the Hobbit movies https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Beorn

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

#319
post #22

They should have taken 100M of that and fund the remaining three seasons of The Expanse.

I'm pretty sure that we've not seen the end of The Expanse 's universe.

I hope you're right, but they had an entire scene in the last episode where the main characters complained at Bezos for cutting off funding.

This is not the mark of a show that they plan to renew. :-(

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

#320
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…

I’m not saying that that list were major stars. I’m saying they were known with substantial resumes.

I don’t recognize a single person in the RoP list. I watch 100 movies a year. Not a single person.

So my point is that that is weird and there’s no precedent that I know of where a show used complete unknowns for every role and was good.

I think giving unknown actors is a great idea. For some roles, not all.

Post reply on HN