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

431–440 of 605 posts

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

#431

Post by smsm42 »

antisthenes wrote: post #395
cameronh90 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nah, that sounds too conspiratorial. Martin by now should have enough money to basically not have to think of money ever again in his life, especially given his relatively modest lifestyle. It's not mental health issues, it's just he seems not to be very interested in finishing them up anymore. Writing 8th book is not gonna help if he has trouble mustering his creative juices to finish the sixth.

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

#432

Post by oaiey »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #33

For all that money wasted on politically correct elves and dwarven maidens, they could have filmed 10 seasons of "The Expanse", "Firefly", or some other new show.

Or a real diverse series based on a diverse book series which never spent a dime on reminding everyone how diverse they are. Eg The Expanse.

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

#433

Post by kevinmchugh »

tptacek wrote: post #373
philistine wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not one of the Marvel Shows would break any reasonable TV top 10. The "1-2 showrunners, a writers room, and a rotating cast of directors" model is unimpeachably successful; it got us Breaking Bad, The Wire, The Sopranos, Deadwood, The Americans, and Mad Men, among many others.

Atlanta and Barry both have small director pools, being mostly Hiro Murai and the series star/creator. Even those benefit from being able to switch for tonal benefit.

To some extent I think Louie set the precedent there, as CK was given complete creative control. Comedians were asking for "the Louis deal". Glover (and Ansari) seemed to get it, and both had the sense to hire other talented people. Louie (the show) suffers from its self-indulgence to the point it can't be rated that highly, where Atlanta maybe mostly avoids that fate.

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

#434

Post by smsm42 »

anshumankmr wrote: post #117
Sebb767 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The last season of Game of Thrones is genuinely the worst possible ending to the show and genuinely takes the top spot for the most disappointing ending of all time. At least,HIMYM had its defenders but I've never seen a good thing spoken about the story in the final season.

"Lost" is also a strong contender there. Yes, I am still disappointed about that.

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

#435

Post by pfortuny »

oneoff786 wrote: post #366
buscoquadnary wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They cannot be killed but their aim is to abandon Earth, and they only need Aragorn to liberate them after they have fulfilled their oath. Not that Aragorn has true power over them. He has only the power to set them free, and they obey because that is the way to freedom.

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

#436

Post by tester756 »

resoluteteeth wrote: post #161
cloutchaser wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equity means equality of outcome, basically meaning you believe every person is equal in their results. This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in outcome in society. If you cannot see this, you are trapped in religious level dogmatic thinking. (PS: if you want to talk about equality, which we might perhaps call equality of opportunity, I'm all fo…

> Equity means equality of outcome, basically meaning you believe every person is equal in their results. > This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in outcome in society. > If you cannot see this, you are trapped in religious level dogmatic thinking. Equity is something that societies create, not an assertion about people's innate abilities or a s…

I believe the difference is

"Everyone will be working highest paid jobs" vs "Everyone can have highest paid jobs (if they put effort)"

You can't make people go for highest paid jobs, but you can definitely let them decide if they're interested in trying to get them.

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

#437

Post by acchow »

softwaredoug wrote: post #328

I think people are burned out by prestige TV The market is flooded and there’s only so many complicated series people can keep track of at one time. It’s like trying to read a dozen book series at the same time. Years ago with shows like game of thrones, the market was more sustainable. A single show could justify a high budget and dominate cultural discussions for a while. Now the market is so streaming forward and…

> I think people are burned out by prestige TV

Can you give some examples? I'm re-watching Westworld from the beginning now because I find most of what's out there to be boring

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

#438

Post by chaostheory »

tptacek wrote: post #368
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…

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 tw…

Agree with Jackson being terrible to even have on for consulting due to what he did to The Hobbit. I wasn’t happy with what he did with some key scenes in LOTR either. I feel the main reason he was left out though is because there might be animosity between him and the Tolkien family in terms of art direction.

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

#439

Post by AlexandrB »

Akronymus wrote: post #140
AlexandrB wrote: post #131

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.

Tolkien wrote from a perspective of what he experienced. That being early to mid 1900s england. Which simply didn't have many nonwhite people. Also, I think most aren't actually opposed to minorities being in the show, but rather the hamfisted way they think theyll be included with. (I personally expect racism being a big part of the show that will need to be fought.)

> I personally expect racism being a big part of the show that will need to be fought.

I agree that this would be extremely hamfisted. Especially considering the books already have some metaphors for racism like the strained relationship between elves and dwarves. However, I also think this kind of a thing is just a symptom of bad writing - not some woke conspiracy.

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

#440

Post by xdennis »

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.

> Everything is still the same except the color of the guys skin.

That's exactly what people mean when they say wokesters use people's cultures as skins, with no content.

If you wanted to add African representation, let's say Zulu, you'd add something specific to Zulu culture: people, language, songs, stories, etc. But instead they just change some skin colours in an existing story.

That's not representation, that's just skin.

Post reply on HN