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

551–560 of 605 posts

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

#551

Post by oxfeed65261 »

freilanzer wrote: post #219
rsynnott wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the characters in LoTR weren't even _humans_, were they? It's hard to see what issue people would have with minority actors playing an elf or whatever.

If I write a (non-human, not that that matters anyway) race and describe them as being of "ivory skin" vs "ebony skin" then it matters. If it's just regular people then it doesn't. It depends on the setting.

John LeCarre explicitly describes George Smiley as short, overweight, and balding. None of these apply to Alec Guinness or Gary Oldman in their respective portrayals of the character. This doesn’t make their portrayals any less arresting.

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

#552

Post by jacobr1 »

karaterobot wrote: post #407
deelowe wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Mr. Big" and "Head Honcho" are euphemisms for "the person who is actually in charge", or the boss. "Director" and "Showrunner" are job titles you'd have on your resume. In the case of the showrunner, they're directly involved in day to day stuff. I've heard interviews in which showrunners say their job involves making 500 snap decisions every day: "which fabric swatch should we use? is it worth an extra $80k to film…

Showrunner isn't a job title though. Most likely the actual title on the resume would most likely be "Executive Producer".

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

#553

Post by jollybean »

jacobr1 wrote: post #552
karaterobot wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Mr. Big" and "Head Honcho" are euphemisms for "the person who is actually in charge", or the boss. "Director" and "Showrunner" are job titles you'd have on your resume. In the case of the showrunner, they're directly involved in day to day stuff. I've heard interviews in which showrunners say their job involves making 500 snap decisions every day: "which fabric swatch should we use? is it worth an extra $80k to film…

Showrunner isn't a job title though. Most likely the actual title on the resume would most likely be "Executive Producer".

Showrunner is definitely job. It's something you put on your resume.

'Executive Producer' is just a credit, it doesn't mean anything really. A powerful actor participating in a film, might get an exec prod. credit, not for doing anything at all.

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

#554

Post by prepend »

twiddling wrote: post #530
boringg wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed more about Tom Bombadil would have been the way to go. Can't believe he didn't make the cut. Not sure how they managed to do that. If this was built as if it was MCU they would have had a small cameo then a full movie on Tom Bombadil.

A Taiki Waikiki directed Tom Bombadil series would be epic

Or a Taiki Waikiki short of Tom Bonbadil would be great.

I’ve been expecting a 15-20 shirt put out that would fit into Fellowship with just Tom Bombadil and Elijah Wood et al. The cast and effects should be minimal so would be a great student project that would probably attract the few actors needed to make it.

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

#555

Post by jollybean »

logifail wrote: post #479
HWR_14 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The showrunner is the person responsible for the long-term trajectory and story health of a tv show. It's a real term (Joss Whedon is the showrunner for the Whedon-verse shows), but "leading producer" is not a term, it's an attempt at a description. The showrunner can also have one of several actual official titles. To answer the specific question in "Ack", it's a recognition of the person who is day-to-day the final…

> It's a real term [..] the showrunner can also have one of several actual official titles Q: Is "showrunner" an official title, or not? EDIT: apparently not[0]: "The highest ranking producer is the showrunner, the man or woman ultimately responsible for the creative direction of the series. Showrunner is a function, not a title — this person is credited as an Executive Producer. In many cases, he or she has “Created…

You are misrepresenting those definitions a bit. Or they are poorly written.

Showrunner is a thing, TV projects have them. They are the 'nexus' - both creative and a bit operational of the show. Like the 'founder' and 'visionary' of the show. They also kind of 'make the show happen'.

Dan Levy is the 'Showrunner' for Schitt's Creek.

Just type the name of your favorite TV show along with 'showrunner' and you'll see who it is.

Usually will be 'creator' and 'writer'. They will probably get a producer credit. Note that 'showrunner' is generally not a specific kind of 'credit' but that a feature 'credit' isn't really a title either. 'Exec. Producer' can mean anything. Or nothing.

The 'director' in TV is generally less important.

For film, usually the Director kind of plays that role as the lead visionary, especially if they pitched and raised the money, got the team together, got the actors to sign up etc..

Producers are generally not directly creative visionaries.

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

#556

Post by jpgvm »

rcpt wrote: post #359
jpgvm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last 2 seasons of GoT still hurt to think about. It's not the ending that hurts it's how it got there. The last 2 seasons probably should have been 3 full seasons instead of the barely 1.5 we got and had a lot more build up/Dany descent into madness/Bran having some relevance that would justify his elevation to ruler, etc. The suddenness of everything, the exposition, everything was just poorly executed. Too much mon…

idk man that ending hurt pretty bad edit: also the complete destruction of Jamie's character out of the blue in one scene jfc

Yeah they did my boi Jamie pretty raw. :(

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

#557

Post by bsder »

theshrike79 wrote: post #503
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. To put this in context: All 9 books of The Expanse were written during this period along with a six season TV show based on the same material. The two writers were involved in both actively. I've 100% given up on ever seeing how ASOIAF ends. Same with Rothfuss's Kingkiller, it's been 11 years and I stopped caring during the previous decade

Pffft. Amateur.

David Gerrold is never going to finish the "War Against the Chtorr" series. The last book was 1993. We're about to hit 4 decades since the last book.

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

#558

Post by bsaul »

tomtheelder wrote: post #528
xdennis wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think the counterargument would be that casting people of different races isn't really supposed to be about culture at all. In theory it's meant to provide a sense of inclusion to those who might not look like the characters as they were intentionally written. As in: "LOTR is still for me, even if I don't look like a European." I don't really want to get into the validity/efficacy of that. I just don't really have…

The problem is that racially diverse cast while keeping the same euro-centric stories is all they've been doing for the past 15 years, because all they really care about is looking "nice".

If they produced movies with original storylines more regularly, then every minority would naturally find something they could relate to, simply because author would naturally produce contents aligned with their time.

Instead of that, studios give the impression of beeing hostage of the "diversity mob" which demand its payback on every single content. It's just pathetic, and a missed opportunity for truely great and interesting content.

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

#559

Post by prepend »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #316
bobdvb wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I'd disagree with the assertion about Elijah Wood, Deep Impact was a pretty big film and he had a key role in that. He also had many other roles before that in some pretty notable films, especially The Faculty and heck, he was playing alongside Kevin Costner in 1994! Perhaps I am just old, and a keen film watcher, but I wouldn't describe him as a lesser known actor at that point in his career. Also, Sean Bean…

I'm genuinely puzzled by this assumption - that the top talent pool largely begins and ends with the best known actors. I'm not debating their obvious talent but I am confident that the industry limits who gets to be well known. One way is by excluding actors who aren't immensely attractive.

> assumption - that the top talent pool largely begins and ends with the best known actors.

I don’t think anyone is making this assumption, and certainly not me.

What I’m saying is that in a show with such a big budget, not a single actor is well known or even decently known. That’s unusual and not a good sign. It’s possible that this show is unique in that it has all great actors and is not paying a ton for them. Certainly it’s possible.

But try to think of another show with even a moderate budget that was awesome with an entire cast of “unknowns.”

There are some movies, Kids comes to mind with a new director, writer, and stars like a then unknown Rosario Dawson and Chloe Sevingny. But that budget was like $400k and I think if they had had $40M they would have had different actors.

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

#560

Post by maxerickson »

prepend wrote: post #559
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely puzzled by this assumption - that the top talent pool largely begins and ends with the best known actors. I'm not debating their obvious talent but I am confident that the industry limits who gets to be well known. One way is by excluding actors who aren't immensely attractive.

> assumption - that the top talent pool largely begins and ends with the best known actors. I don’t think anyone is making this assumption, and certainly not me. What I’m saying is that in a show with such a big budget, not a single actor is well known or even decently known. That’s unusual and not a good sign. It’s possible that this show is unique in that it has all great actors and is not paying a ton for them. Ce…

Babylon 5 managed okay with little known actors and mediocre effects.
Post reply on HN