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

461–470 of 605 posts

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

#461

Post by rglullis »

AlexandrB wrote: post #416
rglullis wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> where the race of the actors does not change anything for the story being told So what's the problem with casting someone of a different race then? There are plenty of talented non-white actors in Hollywood that get passed over for roles because the "canonical" race of so many classic characters is "white". I agree that the motivation at the corporate level is sometimes to check a "diversity" check box - but for th…

The issue is not with the casting.

The issue is with the lack of new stories and the idea that just putting some color on "stories where the classic characters is white" is enough.

Diversity is something to be cherished. But if all we do is to, e.g, take Mozart pieces and give to conductors of different races and backgrounds, are we really promoting diversity or are we just putting a corporate spin in institutionalized racism, and implicitly perpetuating the idea that "classical" (or better, "erudite") music can only be valued if it comes from dead white people?

I haven't been watching much TV or movies lately, and one of the main reasons is that it seems that most of things come out are just re-heated servings of old stuff. The one exception that I can think of is Atlanta, which deserves praise exactly because it is more focused in telling a story and taking risks than in merely following a certain formula to please the audiences.

So, to repeat: the story of LoTR has been told already. It has its context and its place. To get diversity now, I rather see these talented people telling new stories, with their own voices and their own perspectives, not just put on some kind of display by the studios and used to manufacture fake virtue.

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

#463

Post by snowwrestler »

tomp wrote: post #457
snowwrestler wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re just really confused about what equity is. It’s not “equality of outcome.” The whole point of seeking equity is to free the out-performers from the chains holding them down. Edit to add: Seeking equity is about surfacing relevant merit, and fighting irrelevant demerits. For example if someone has the skill to be a great engineer they should not be given the job of taking notes in meetings just because they are…

Can you define what “equity” is then, according to your understanding? To me, “freeing the outperformers” sounds like “meritocracy” which I wholeheartedly support!

See my edit. Equity means your outcome is determined by relevant metrics, and not by irrelevant metrics.

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

#464

Post by HWR_14 »

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…

> I don’t recognize the actors at all.

That's a good sign. First, there are far more great actors than famous actors. Second, that's how you get someone to make a 7 season (or longer) commitment. Look at the MCU. They don't get A-listers (except Ryan Reynolds), they make them in return for an N-movie commitment.

The MCU also seemed to transition to hiring lesser-known directors, etc. so they could be trusted to be willing to follow the directions from corporate.

I don't particularly need something done super-artistically. I need a long-running series to be managed well. Otherwise you end up with all the situations where the series takes an abrupt turn and fucks itself up.

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

#465

Post by DrSiemer »

oblio wrote: post #5
addicted wrote: post #4

I’m not so sure the LOTR series is ideal for expansion. It feels like Peter Jackson has already tackled all the really interesting parts of the LOTR world.

Tolkien created a lot of content, an entire fantasy universe. With good storytelling there's a lot more to tell. If Star Wars, which let's be frank here, is a 2 bit creation compared to Tolkien's works, managed to become a multi billion dollar franchise, then the LotR world should be able to do the same, if it's managed wisely.

This over 5 hours long review of all the Lord of the Rings video games ever made should give a clear indication of how much this universe has to offer:

https://youtu.be/poMnJKLGYo0

It also clearly shows how all the cash grab attempts generally fail and how those that get the freedom to create something with passion usually end up successful. So yeah...

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

#466

Post by srveale »

Does anyone else find it ironic and kind of sad that Amazon, of all companies, has taken over a story about the evils of greed and lust for power, and which idolizes the simple, pastoral lifestyle above all else?

There are few places less Shire-like than an Amazon warehouse.

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

#467

Post by Corrado »

I would love for this to be good, but I'm afraid it's going to follow in the footsteps of "The Shannara Chronicles". I read every single one of the "Shannara" books as well as the sub-series (Word & Void, etc.) but I watched 2 episodes of Chronicles and couldn't stand it.

I don't know if it's because I had a whole look and feel for the characters in my mind's eye and the show didn't reflect that. Or maybe it was because they told a story that was similar to the books but not quite the same. Or maybe it was bad CGI and writing. Whatever it was, the show just didn't sit right with me. This LOTR series feels very similar.

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

#468

Post by xdennis »

moonchrome wrote: post #64
oblio wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even with the rebate, how can they hope to recoup the investment? Merch? DVD Sales? Increasing sign ups to Prime? I have a doubt the profits from that will help them earn money to cover up the remaining 300 million or so they have still invested. Probably all of the above plus it's a long term move. Amazon needs to build up a strong catalog and marquee TV shows are long term attractions. As an example, Mad Men, esp…

>As an example, Mad Men, especially because it's set in the 1960s will probably still be watched in the 2060s. Why ? The only old TV shows I see being popular long term is era defining shows you watch for nostalgia (eg. Seinfeld, Friends). Maybe some real classics like Sopranos that everyone was watching at the time. Shows like Mad Men ? I really don't see it. And more importantly this LOTR show - how many people are…

> defining shows you watch for nostalgia (eg. Seinfeld, Friends)

But what about new viewers? As someone who is too "young" to have seen them originally, I don't find either of those to be funny. But something much older, such as Fawlty Towers, stands the test of time.

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

#469

Post by slightwinder »

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…

> And not to involve Jackson seems off because even having him in a consulting role would be a good sign.

Probably better that way. The project has no right for the 3rd age, meaning the stories of the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit-Books, where Jacksons main-expertise is. Not having him involved is just safer for the legal side.

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

#470

Post by robonerd »

mrob wrote: post #411
b112 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like donkeys and horses then?

Donkeys and horses produce infertile mules. Elves and humans produce fertile offspring. Aragorn has elvish ancestors.

> Donkeys and horses produce infertile mules.

Usually.

Post reply on HN