Live data from Hacker News

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

winteriscoming.net

61–70 of 605 posts

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

#61

Cool. And if the series flop it will trigger some major review to modern movie/tv making

It may not happen with this series, because too many will probably still watch it even if it’s terrible, but it’s bound to happen for some franchise at some point, and maybe things will get interesting then.

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

#62
I suspect this will go down beside the Fire Phone.

Amazon just sometimes gets this idea that if they spend enough money they're sure to win.

I just wish the government would finally break them up so that AWS could keep it's profits and stop funding the rest of the unprofitable divisions.

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

#63
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…

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 probably why no-one is involved who was involved in the films, as those actually respected the original story.

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

#64
post #3

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. And the "internet" really reacted negatively to the trailer as well. (I personally didn't hate the trailer myself but after having watched the original trilogy and the first…

> 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 even watching Game of Thrones now and how much interest will it generate in the future ? Unless this LOTR show is somehow groundbreaking with visuals (and it's a lot harder to do now then back when they did the films because the bar was so low back then) - I doubt it's a valuable long term play.

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

#67
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.

> It feels like Peter Jackson has already tackled all the really interesting parts of the LOTR world. looks sideways to The Silmarillion looks sideways to The Children of Húrin looks sideways to The Fall of Gondolin

Looks sideways to the licensing agreement that covers none of that material

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

#68
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a huge ASOIAF fan, I had the same concerns after Game of Thrones was announced and first details were shared. The crucial difference, though, is that GRRM himself was involved in the series.

And we all know how it ended once they ran out of his material. Yes, I'm still salty.

I never even bothered with Season 8.

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

#69
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but given that every LOTR fan is going to want to watch this series even if it sucks Citation needed. I'm a big fan of LOTR, but I didn't even bother with the last Hobbit movie. And I expect this series to be even worse than that.

Come on, it's really unlikely this show will be worse than the Hobbit movie.

I am not so sure that your statement is obviously true. One of the issues with The Hobbit films is that they stretched one relatively short book into three movies...this time around, it looks like they're stretching some apocrypha from the appendix of a book into an 8-episode TV show. Feels like a fairly similar effort to wring blood from a stone.

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

#70
post #29
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…

While I'm not particularly looking forward to this series, having rather unknown actors isn't putting me off at all. And why shouldn't they go with directors they are happy with? TV series often have a lot of different directors, often directing just a single episode of a season or even a series.

The budget-talent-ratio just seems off. Usually, movies spend a lot of money on hiring talent, which here clearly isn't the case here. So the question is where is that money going. Grandparent and I are afraid that we end with something graphically completely overproduced and no story.

Also, if you provide a junior engineer with a few million, you can't expect perfect software, even with that budget. Same reservations apply here.

Post reply on HN