Amazon spending $465M on season 1 of The Lord of the Rings series • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by larrik » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

AlwaysRock wrote: post #315

snickerbockers wrote: post #299

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 k…

> prime is fucking expensive

Prime is similar to or cheaper than Netflix (depending on your Netflix plan), and yet also includes "free shipping", a selection of free movies, a selection of free books, all the "Prime Gaming" goodies, and a bunch of other stuff.

Netflix, meanwhile, charges you extra for 4k (and by some perspectives, HD).

I dunno, Prime doesn't feel that expensive, even if it is more than Disney+ or HBO.

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

#392

Post by thaumasiotes » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 5:48 PM UTC

bsaul wrote: post #86

cloutchaser wrote: post #63

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…

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…

> If you want diversity and black people on screen, why not create stories about the amazing empires that ruled the african continent in the past

That'd be a hell of a story. Compare the extent of an actual African empire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire

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

#393

Post by nonameiguess » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

seanwilson wrote: post #354

nonameiguess wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As has been hinted at here, the fact that they included Strange Dogs into season 6 is a pretty clear hint that more is coming. There is no reason to include that if they aren't going to adapt the Laconia storyline at some point, since the only purpose of that story is to introduce us to this new planet and what the Mars rebels discovered there. I suspect they're going for a film trilogy with a much bigger budget per…

Can they write around the time jump? Is it that critical to the story?

Eh, maybe. They'd have to handwave a lot about how technology advanced so quickly. The Laconians having much better technology than everyone else is critical.

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

#394

Post by bsaul » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 5:50 PM UTC

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.

"there's not wildly successful books with wildly successful movies about the amazing empires that ruled the African continent"

I guess that's the interesting problem the studios and equality advocates should try to solve. To me, what they're doing right now is close to an insult to the african-american community. It's like saying "there are really no original cultural production coming from your community, nor anything remotely interesting in your past writing about, so we'll have to recycle ours to make some room".

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

#395

Post by antisthenes » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 5:52 PM UTC

cameronh90 wrote: post #160

Sebb767 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we all know how it ended once they ran out of his material. Yes, I'm still salty.

Is it possible the reason it ended so badly is the same reason they ran out of material? It's been 11 years since the last ASOIAF novel. I think GRRM may have written himself into a corner and is unsure how to tie up all the threads and satisfactorily end the series.

> It's been 11 years since the last ASOIAF novel. I think GRRM may have written himself into a corner and is unsure how to tie up all the threads and satisfactorily end the series.

A much simpler explanation is that GOT show creators/owners paid him off not to publish the newer books, until they consider the market life of the TV show exhausted.

Unless GRRM is struggling with mental health issues, it doesn't take 11 years to finish a book. Heck, it's his series anyway. If he has trouble wrapping up all his plotlines, he can always write an 8th book to extend the story.

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

#396

Post by runarberg » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

mrob wrote: post #380

b112 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different species, not races.

In Lord of the Rings, humans, elves, and orcs can all interbreed, so they are all the same species.

Different species can also interbreed in the natural world. E.g. wolves and coyotes regularly produce fertile offspring (most often via dogs since wolves and coyotes mate at different times), grizzle bear and polar bear likewise (will happen more often as polar bears migrate south from the melting ice caps). Even humans interbred in the history of our species with different species of humans (most notably Neanderthals).

I think the both terms are correct, but I like races better because species also includes every lifeform which can never be characters, like ravens, wargs or even tobacco plants.

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

#397

Post by b112 » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

mrob wrote: post #380

b112 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different species, not races.

In Lord of the Rings, humans, elves, and orcs can all interbreed, so they are all the same species.

Just like donkeys and horses then?

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

#398

Post by thaumasiotes » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #285

zpeti wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Storytelling, that's how. Which doesn't exist. What you'll notice is that in better storytelling, there will be an explanation of why the hobbit can beat the giant spider. Outsmarting it, being invisible with a ring, whatever. Good storytelling means you make the impossible seem possible. Now, all we have is token women who we all know are there because they are women, beating up men in ridiculously impossible ways,…

> there will be an explanation of why the hobbit can beat the giant spider Please give me a timestamp in this scene when that happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfJirrzRQ60&ab_channel=TheLo...

Sam is using a magic item. Compare the summary from the LOTR wiki:

> Using the Phial of Galadriel, they managed to at first fend her off. The light of Eärendil's Star shone from the Phial, causing unbearable stabbing pain to Shelob's darkened senses, but she returned to attack Frodo, poisoning him with her stinger in a surprise attack just as they reached the exit of the cave on the Mordor side. Her venom paralyzed Frodo, and she then wrapped him in her web.

> Sam then assaulted the creature using Sting and the Phial of Galadriel in order to rescue his master. In a pitched battle, Sam managed to stab one of her eyes and injure her leg, but she held the upper hand. However, when she tried to use her stinger to inject Sam with venom, he dodged at the last moment and was able to stab her in the abdomen with Sting. This wounded her enough that Sam forced her to retreat using the Phial of Galadriel.

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

#399

Post by larrik » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

layer8 wrote: post #361

buscoquadnary wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, some could argue Star Wars hasn't been "good" in almost 40 years.

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

#400

Post by Shorel » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

AlwaysRock wrote: post #315

snickerbockers wrote: post #299

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 k…

I think the issue is not that quality doesn't matter. If any, it matters more than anything.

The issue is, execs have no idea at all of what is quality. In fact, they more often than not lower the quality of the films and series with their changes.