Live data from Hacker News

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

winteriscoming.net

361–370 of 605 posts

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

#361
post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IP is only used for its value as a brand. There’s an argument to be made that such productions are prone to diminishing the value of the brand if they turn out to be subpar. On the other hand, mainstream consumers usually aren’t too demanding. So brands tend to get watered down to minimal viable mediocrity.

I see that argument a lot but my thought is that people just aren't looking at a long enough time frame, I mean everyone was excited for fantastic beasts and it was considered okay, but it made a ton of money because of the brand. But then they made the second one which the general reaction to seems to be "What the HECK?" but it still had decent sells because people liked the brand and most importantly didn't realize…

Right, it can go either way depending on inertia and on how bad it is for how long. But there is a large middle ground of “not good but still profitable”. Recent examples may be The Walking Dead and Star Wars.

And I’d argue that for something to be financially successful it doesn’t need to be especially good, or loved by a large number of people, it just needs to be mildly entertaining and be marketed well.

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

#362

Good God can someone come up with a unique or at least mildly novel idea? I'm getting sick of seeing remakes and spinoffs of classic franchises or series that absolutely disrespect the originals by pumping out some garbage ass show that will somehow last longer than a season.

Chernobyl 2

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

#363
post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 anything remarkable and seem to have just done other Amazon shows. With the exception of, say, the first season of True Detective, most TV shows use multiple directors. The director on a TV show is usually in charge of the technical execution of the writers scr…

In TV 'Mr. Big' is usually the 'Showrunner'. Basically the original creators. It's like a form of creative production and management. For film, the Director is often kind of the version of 'Showrunner'. If the director was the one doing the pitching, raising the money - they they are that. If it's a big IP asset, like Star Treck, then it's different, sometimes a team effort. Like Kathleen Kennedy is the 'Big Honcho'…

Sure - the MCU uses a lot of TV directors for example - since it functions more like a TV show than a auteur-driven series of films.

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

#364
post #340
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…

> 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 anything remarkable and seem to have just done other Amazon shows. With the exception of, say, the first season of True Detective, most TV shows use multiple directors. The director on a TV show is usually in charge of the technical execution of the writers scr…

Actually, you could say we're in the middle of a transition. All the Marvel shows have used one director for the whole season of their shows, and they're not the only ones to have moved on to this format.

As for OP's point, with the series' budget so high, a gun-for-hire TV director might not be accoustemed to the staggering budget they have to manage.

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

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

But Malcom in the Middle was in syndication (151 episodes), so plenty of people knew his face if not his name, because reruns were airing 2x a day in virtually every US television market, and this was back before streaming so syndication was a huge way to get audience awareness. . The That 70s Show comparison is apt, and while he wasn’t Ashton level of famous from the show, he and the actress that played his wife (Jane Kaczmarek) were both better known than the actors who played the parents on That 70s Show.

Cranston was also the perfect person to cast for Breaking Bad because his character was so different from who audiences expected him to be. It worked brilliantly, the juxtaposition between the kind of zany (if put-upon and long suffering) dad then playing a dramatic role of a high school teacher turned drug-lord.

Having a cast of mostly lesser-knowns and unknowns is one thing. Having zero even recognizable names for a production that costs half a billion dollars is something else.

And Bryan Cranston was a recognizable, if not super famous, name. That’s part of why Breaking Bad worked, it subverted expectations and brought in some character actors that were at least visually familiar to audiences.

Same with the LOTR films. Liv Tyler was actually really huge at the time, having been in a series of high-profile blockbusters and also famous as a pop-culture figure thanks to her dad her music video appearances. Cate Blanchett was already famous, having been nominated for Oscars and BAFTAs. Sir Ian McKellan had been knighted for 20 years and also had nominations and awards out the ass. Sean Astin and Elijah Wood were successful child actors trying to bridge to adult roles. No one was too big of a name to cost too much or detract too much from the story, but you had enough recognizable names to get people excited about the trailer.

The Marvel films followed a similar thing. RDJ, obviously extremely famous already but Iron Man was his ultimate comeback role. ScarJo was also already a huge name (which Marvel used to their advantage for the next decade plus, b/c she was A-list and at the top of her career), and they balanced that with lesser-known names that became big stars.

I don’t think anyone is saying you need a star-studded cast. If anything, that works against you for properties like this, because people have already seen the characters in their mind or in other adaptations. But you usually need one or two recognizable faces, at least with a budget of this size. A smaller-budget show can have a cast of unknowns that hopefully then blow up into superstars, but we’re talking about a budget that eclipses even the largest film properties, where you’re not paying a lot of it towards the above the line expenses.

I think Amazon execs think the power of the LOTR brand can overcome anything else, and maybe they are right. But I don’t know if I would risk $500m of a production with zero recognizable names in front of or behind the camera. Even Stranger Things had Winona Ryder, after all.

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

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the original army of the dead like? It always seemed like the weakest point of all the films and certainly the most glaring plot hole of why didn’t they keep using them.

In the original the army of the dead was used to capture the ships, and grab the army under a Prince in southern Gondor, (I think it was Imiril) and bring his army up from Osgiliath, to surround the armies of darkness on 3 sides, who then broke and ran.

Were they a tide of untouchable murder ghosts though? Or were they more of a conventional zombie force that could be killed?

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

#367
post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 anything remarkable and seem to have just done other Amazon shows. With the exception of, say, the first season of True Detective, most TV shows use multiple directors. The director on a TV show is usually in charge of the technical execution of the writers scr…

In TV 'Mr. Big' is usually the 'Showrunner'. Basically the original creators. It's like a form of creative production and management. For film, the Director is often kind of the version of 'Showrunner'. If the director was the one doing the pitching, raising the money - they they are that. If it's a big IP asset, like Star Treck, then it's different, sometimes a team effort. Like Kathleen Kennedy is the 'Big Honcho'…

Am I the only one struggling to understand this? Are 'Mr. Big' and 'Showrunner' references to something specific? Why are these terms in quotes?

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

#368
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…

Having Jackson even nominally involved in the project would be a pretty terrible sign for me, after the Hobbit fiasco (which in turn colored my appraisal of ROTK and, in particular, the extended LOTR editions).

As for the writer's room on this show, it looks solid to me:

* Jason Cahill wrote a bunch of episodes for The Sopranos

* Justin Doble wrote 4 episodes in S1 and S2 of Stranger Things, and those are the only two good seasons of Stranger Things

* Gennifer Hutchison won a WGA award for her work on Breaking Bad, which is one of the best shows ever to air

* Bryan Cogman wrote 11(!) episodes of Game of Thrones

* Stephany Folsom was a writer on Toy Story 4 and Thor: Ragnarak

The two show-runners (JD Payne and Patrick McKay) are people I'm not familiar with, but so was DB Weiss before Game of Thrones.

Except for Sean Bean, I didn't know any of the GOT actors either; they're all famous for GOT now. The Amazon LOTR show could be a debacle, but it won't be because they chintzed out on actors.

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

#369
post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Unheard of actors is generally a good thing when doing a new series: there isn't really a series where it's felt like a good thing that it was being initially run as "starring ". If they're any good at all (and most actors are absolutely fine) then they'll be good. The CGI on the other hand I agree though I can put my finger on exactly the issue: the virtual sets "feel" small in the footage I've seen. There's a certa…

idk, all of the best characters in game of thrones were the established actors. ned stark, Robert baratheon, roose Bolton, tywin lanister.

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

#370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Fun" fact: men would play women because acting was considered a very low class activity, and women that acted were seen as prostitutes. Anyway, you just missed the point and I am not in the mood of arguing with someone who can't understand nuance in thought. Have a good day.

Yeah, the guy who can enjoy a show with a brown person playing an elf is the one who can’t understand nuance in thought.

Precisely. The same guy who thinks that parroting their self-righteousness is a virtue. The same guy who can not understand the difference between diversity and tokenism. That's the guy who can not understand nuance in thought.
Post reply on HN