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

441–450 of 605 posts

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

#441

Post by logifail »

xsmasher wrote: post #428
logifail wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the showrunner This term seems to have entered common usage quite recently. Q: Why? "In United States network television [the showrunner is] typically credited as an executive producer"[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showrunner

You can't use the terms interchangeably. An "Executive producer" credit may be applied to lots of people who are not the showrunner. >This credit is given to the showrunner, or the head writer, and is sometimes also given to other important members of the production. These could include the show’s creator if different from the showrunner, other high-level writers (often future seasons’ showrunners), the owner/creator…

> You can't use the terms interchangeably

Right, but what's the actual definition of the term "showrunner"?

It's "the leading producer", according to the first sentence of that Wikipedia article. Why aren't we talking about the "lead[ing] producer"?

Is the term "showrunner" perhaps just industry jargon that slipped out into the mainstream?

EDIT: Go read through the Wikipedia:Talk page for 'Showrunner'[0], the quote "so much conflicting terminology, contradictions within contradictions" seems pretty apt. An ill-defined and (?) informal position?

Q: Is it just me or are people - particularly journalists - desperate to use terms that make them sound like they're part of the "in" crowd?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Showrunner

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

#442

Post by frumper »

asdff wrote: post #418
AlwaysRock wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Quality matters if you care about having a cash cow and not just a one off. Paramount+ is big on telling us halo TV's first episode set records on their service, but I haven't seen any data from other episodes which is telling. I don't think that a series scoring 6 on rotten tomatoes can continually smash records and continue to look like a sound investment for media buyers.

The first episode auto played for me after I finished another show. It wasn't on more than a minute, but I wouldn't be surprised if events like that helped drive the record.

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

#443

Post by azekai »

dopeboy wrote: post #346
AlwaysRock wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a desperate Star Wars fan, I concur. It is a canon and world I am so bought into that I will consume substandard content. I imagine the same applies to LOTR fans.

As a long-time SW fan, I can't do it anymore. Book of Boba Fett was so plodding and awful I am washing my hands of Disney Wars.

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

#444

Post by xdennis »

workingon wrote: post #72
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…

Never thought I’d live to see the day where people would unironically call equity dogma. But here we are. What a sad state of affairs.

I think it's because "equity" is a code word used by people who think equality is bad.

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

#445

Post by karmasimida »

subsubzero wrote: post #309
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…

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…

Technicality wise, I think the show looks solid that you can smell the money.

I am not sure about your last complaint, the original LOTR is 20 years old, the actors/actress involved are in their 50s/60s (Sean Bean!), I am not sure what is your argument there, like what connection you want to establish?

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

#446

Post by workingon »

rglullis wrote: post #370
workingon wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your cognitive disconnect is ridiculous. Pointing out that you finding that a show is worse because they cast brown people as elves is not a fault of the show has nothing to do with my self-righteousness, though you're happy to spread your own self-righteousness throughout this thread while talking about how butthurt you are that they'd dare destroy your favorite show by casting brown people in a traditional white role. I care little about e-cred. You also aren't the guy that gets to decide what the difference between diversity and tokenism is.

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

#447

Post by frumper »

treis wrote: post #170
imwillofficial wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seinfeld Is not just watch r for nostalgia, its still in syndication, and also has a massive overseas fan base. Mad Men is timeless in its lessons, novel in its execution, and holds a unique place in TV history. It’ll be watched for decades.

Seinfeld is the exception. Heres the top TV shows of 1993: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-rated_United_States_tele... Seinfeld is the only one that people still watch.

I still enjoy a good episode with Jessica in Cabot Cove, the murder capital of the world.

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

#448

Post by Semaphor »

istjohn wrote: post #344
auggierose wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given this other recent fantasy show on prime was just horrible, I am not surprised by this. Strangely, a lot of people liked it! Maybe it is going to be the same here. Don't even remember the name of this other show.

Wheel of Time. I enjoyed it.

Same, but then I also never read the books.

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

#449

Post by tptacek »

blakebreeder wrote: post #369
XorNot wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are "established actors", if Michael McElhatton is the standard we're using, in the new show. Sean Bean was the biggest draw in GoT and was gone after the first season. When we're quibbling over the resumes of character actors, we've conceded the main point, which is that GoT didn't use star power to attract its following.

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

#450

Post by robonerd »

jmyeet wrote: post #296

This is going to be a disaster, Like GoT Season 8 level diaster. Mark my words. My reasoning: 1. The budget for the original LOTR trilogy was $281 million [1]. Obviously there's inflation but we're also talking film vs TV. Films tend to be much more expensive to produce to the point where only theatrical releases tend to make films economical; 2. The showrunners are JD Vance and Patrick McKay. If you check their IMDB…

> There's nothing wrong with elevating talented no name actors but you need to pepper in some name recognition.

That pepper is doubtlessly good for marketing, but I think it's bad for the art. With some exceptions, every time a famous celebrity is in a movie, it breaks immersion for me. I think fame makes an actor intrinsically worse at their job, even when their acting skill is the reason for their fame.

Except for Gary Oldman of course.

Post reply on HN