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

561–570 of 605 posts

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

#561

Post by nicolapede »

philistine wrote: post #364
jowday wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 anything remarkable and seem to have just done other Amazon shows. With the exception of, say, the first season of True Detective, most TV shows use multiple directors. The director on a TV show is usually in charge of the technical execution of the writers scr…

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.

> Actually, you could say we're in the middle of a transition.

I recently noted the same while watching Severance. Almost all of the episodes, barring one or two, were directed by Ben Stiller. I found it one of the best (first) series ever.

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

#562

Post by Philadelphia »

wodenokoto wrote: post #267
oblio wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those shows are contemporary to the 90's. Seinfeld just has generic situational humor + great characters, and even Seinfeld will probably fade as its nostalgic watchers age and go away. It will just take 30-40 more years :-)

There’s a lot of landline / phone booth / message machine based jokes and story lines. I don’t think 20 year olds will have an easy time picking up the show as they can’t relate to those problems. I think Seinfeld is very much riding the nostalgia train now. Mad men don’t assume any of its audience knew what the 60’s was like, so it has a chance of being more timeless.

We all used to watch TV from the 50’s and 60’s in the 80’s and 90’s. You pick up on the context as you watch. A lot of situations are universal and timeless.

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

#563

Post by spoonjim »

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…

The established creator thing is so important. For things where the parameters of success are hard to define (what makes a hit movie?) there is no good marker of skill other than having done it before.

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

#564

Post by TrapLord_Rhodo »

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…

This is a bezos driven project. He has said he loves LOTR. Take that how you will, but i'm sure Bezos is directly involved, especially with the budget so high.

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

#565

Post by HWR_14 »

abhorrence wrote: post #541
HWR_14 wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elijah Wood was famous as a child. That doesn't really translate into adult roles. I mean, seriously, look at Wil Wheaton or that Home Alone kid.

Often child actors (like Wil, for example) don’t actually want to be actors and it’s just overbearing parents making them do it. Naturally, for many of them, as soon as they reach adulthood and gain more control over their lives, they don’t continue a career in acting.

That's possible (although it is entirely possible Wil is misremembering what he said in elementary school to his mother). But I also think it's hard to make the transition. Who did it successfully?

Even Neil Patrick Harris needed a "big break" as an adult to get back into acting.

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

#566

Post by tomp »

snowwrestler wrote: post #463
tomp wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’ve described meritocracy.

Equity is pretty explicitly anti-meritocratic. E.g. a woman should be hired over a man, or a black should be accepted to university instead of an Asian, not because they’re more skilled or have greater potential, but to address historical grievances and/or ensure proportional percentage-wise representation.

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

#567

Post by kurupt213 »

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…

Not involving Jackson, the guy who wanted to put Aragorn in the Hobbit, sounds like a good idea

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

#568

Post by kurupt213 »

jodrellblank wrote: post #534
danso wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides Sean Bean — who was far from A-list — how many of the Games of Thrones cast were well-known? Jason Momoa and Pedro Pascal, who’ve probably had the most post-GoT success so far (and who were two of the most popular/memorable characters on GoT), didn’t have widespread recognition before GoT.

Ser Bronn spent seven weeks at the UK chart number one, bestselling single of 1995, had an album that went 6x platinum and another that went 4x platinum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robson_%26_Jerome https://youtube.com/watch?v=r5V8ecsrxeY Ian McShane was Lovejoy on British TV for 8 years and after GoT has been in John Wick; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_McShane

Ian McShane was a major Cast member in HBO’s deadwood like 20 years ago

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

#569

Post by bergenty »

tomp wrote: post #193
workingon wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Equity is a deeply evil ideology. The only way to achieve equality of outcome is to repress the out-performers. Promoters of this dogma of course deny that, but the result is inevitably always the same. [0] [0] Vancouver School Board cuts honours programs https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-sc...

No, there’s a perfectly valid course to help the under-performers perform as well as they can and help the out performers reach new heights. Equity doesn’t have to be perfect, the closer we can approach the ideal the better.

What’s deeply evil is your opinion purporting your straw man is the only way forward to blatantly push your agenda.

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

#570

Post by bergenty »

tomp wrote: post #566
snowwrestler wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You’ve described meritocracy. Equity is pretty explicitly anti-meritocratic. E.g. a woman should be hired over a man, or a black should be accepted to university instead of an Asian, not because they’re more skilled or have greater potential, but to address historical grievances and/or ensure proportional percentage-wise representation.

Meritocracy only works when everyone starts on an even footing. What we are attempting to do is equity of circumstances so meritocracy can truly take hold.
Post reply on HN