For those interested in learning more about cgi and vfx check out the YouTube channel Corridor Crew those guys do some great breakdowns of special and practical effects.
*****The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power*****
151,378 Views |
1847 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by maroon man
Also do stunt scenes as well, just a great series in generalOrome said:
For those interested in learning more about cgi and vfx check out the YouTube channel Corridor Crew those guys do some great breakdowns of special and practical effects.
Coming home after taking the kids to school but not having Rings of Power to watch is weak
Definitely a bummer, I've watched it every Friday night with my daughter and it's been a fantastic experience for us both. I was blown away how into she was. Andor is too grown up for her at this point, so we're searching out a new Friday night show.redline248 said:
Coming home after taking the kids to school but not having Rings of Power to watch is weak
Life is better with a beagle
The PowerPoint slide for Halbrand -> Sauron.
C@LAg said:
https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/does-amazon-have-a-1-billion-flop-on-its-hands-poor-ratings-for-the-rings-of-power-tv-series-are-beginning-to-worry-wall-street-/articleshow/94105848.cms
BI is a legitimate source but damn this has some hyperbole init.
It's a lot of hyperbole, but there is legitimate a question on ROI. Prime subscribers won't quit over RoP because prime is a platform, not a streaming service. Free shipping, Amazon music, Amazon prime, etc are all bundled, so quitting everything over a single show makes no sense. However, Amazon probably isn't attracting many new subscribers, or driving more viewership from existing subscribers, with RoP either.
From an investment point of view, Amazon was betting big with RoP to position prime video as direct competition for Disney+, Netflix, HBO Max, etc, all of which have incredibly popular original and exclusive content. This was about growth and attracting new subscribers, as well as adding perceived value to prime through more viewership from existing subscribers and potentially increasing prime subscription fees. To do that, they've been investing pretty heavily in creating content like their streaming competitors, with some moderate success. I think here they were looking to replicate GoT and show they could turn out content that was competitive with Netflix and Disney+. Netflix has hit it out of the park with Orange is the New Black, Stranger Things, Bridgerton, and other series over its lifespan. Disney+ has highly successful Marvel and Star Wars series to its name. HBO obviously has GoT and HotD as well as everything else they've made over the last 30+ years. Marvelous Mrs. Maisal and Man in the High Castle are all that come to mind for Amazon in terms of original series. Amazon was hoping RoP would be a huge draw and put prime video on the map with the other streaming services.
For a successful series or movie, the hours watched per dollar spent metric is important. Viewing hours is somewhat more important than subscriber count because it measures engagement, which is a good predictor of retention and willingness to pay higher subscription fees. More viewership per dollar spent gives better ROI. Stranger Things season 4 had a budget of around $270 million and had 1.35 billion hours viewed, so Netflix got 5 hours of viewership for every dollar spent. Bridgerton season 2 had almost 12 hours per dollar spent. If Amazon spent $750 million (the lowest budget number I've seen) on about 8 hours of content with 175 million subscribers, the most they could hope to achieve in that metric is only about 1.8 hours of viewership per budget dollar. That's with EVERY subscriber watching the entire series. You don't spend that kind of money with that kind of ROI cap compared to your competition if you aren't expecting something else. In Amazon's case, it's growth in subscribers and engagement and increased ROI potential on cheaper projects in the future. RoP was a spectacle to get people in the door, but the jury is still out on the success of that strategy.
With prime video being tired to the rest of amazon prime, I imagine just looking at subscriber gain/loss is not as accurate as other streaming sites. Surely they have a way to tell the difference in engagement with the Prime Video portion of the site, and hours watched. There must also be some value in driving engagement with that portion of the site, even if its just something to do with advertising dollars.
PatAg said:
With prime video being tired to the rest of amazon prime, I imagine just looking at subscriber gain/loss is not as accurate as other streaming sites. Surely they have a way to tell the difference in engagement with the Prime Video portion of the site, and hours watched. There must also be some value in driving engagement with that portion of the site, even if its just something to do with advertising dollars.
Netflix and all of the other streaming companies track what you watch, when you watch it, for how long, when you start/stop it, etc. All of that is fed into analysis and recommender algorithms, and they have a very good idea of what content is driving what traffic. Amazon is the same. They track subscriber behavior to a very granular level, and they can pretty easily tell if a show is getting new subscribers or generating more engagement.
The value of added engagement is partly the potential of people buying or renting on prime video, but also in capturing a larger share of your time. You only have so many hours a day to watch TV. The more you're willing to devote to a platform, the more you're willing to stay committed to it and the more you'll pay for it. Amazon wants you spending more time on Prime Video because it means you didn't less time elsewhere. When they inevitably raise prices, you're more willing to absorb that cost and cut someone else if need be. There is also some value in advertising and data gathering. What, when, and how much you watch can ultimately into their advertising recommendations and help drive sales.
PatAg said:
I would say your ignoring whatever value the prestige of having a "top show" represents
No. That's baked into getting you to spend more time on the platform. The "prestige" of having a "top show" doesn't translate to money unless it results in new subscribers or engagement that provides value to you.
Look at The Irishman. Widely critically acclaimed and nominated for several Oscars IIRC, but it had a $160 million budget and generated maybe 120-150 million viewership hours. Prestigious, but not really money well spent unless Netflix sees something in viewership data that says it boosted viewership elsewhere.
Cool vid about Bear McCreary recording soundtrack for Rings of Power, unfortunately not on YouTube so I can't imbed it.
https://gizmodo.com/lord-of-the-rings-rings-of-power-bear-mccreary-music-vi-1849704967
Love that guy, loved his music for BSG re-imagined big time.
https://gizmodo.com/lord-of-the-rings-rings-of-power-bear-mccreary-music-vi-1849704967
Love that guy, loved his music for BSG re-imagined big time.
Life is better with a beagle
Nerd of the Rings guy (in my opinion the best resource on YouTube for all things Lord of the Rings) expands on his theory that The Stranger is a blue wizard and not Gandalf. I've seen some pretty confident predictions from other YouTube channels who review fantasy/science fiction movies and tv shows.
I haven't watched the video but I swear if the Stranger ISN'T Gandalf...then Idk what tf the show was doing by trolling the audience with all of Gandalf's sayings/mannerisms/etc. Lol like it would be borderline disrespectful to the people who love the films to lay all that groundwork as nothing but misdirection.
Well thought out video, thanks for posting.
EDIT...This is incorrect. 
Haven't watched the video yet, but it would be interesting legally as the showrunners apparently don't have license for 3rd age stuff, and Gandalf doesn't appear until the 3rd age in all source materials.
Haven't watched the video yet, but it would be interesting legally as the showrunners apparently don't have license for 3rd age stuff, and Gandalf doesn't appear until the 3rd age in all source materials.
So you have almost everything backwards in your postOl Jock 99 said:
Haven't watched the video yet, but it would be interesting legally as the showrunners apparently don't have license for 3rd age stuff, and Gandalf doesn't appear until the 3rd age in all source materials.
They have license to the third age stuff, they don't have license to any second age stuff not in the appendices.
This is exactly why it's definitely Gandalf.
Oops. I did say "apparently".powerbelly said:
They have license to the third age stuff, they don't have license to any second age stuff not in the appendices.
So they DON'T have Silmarillion/Unfinished/etc? Only the back of the trilogy?
https://lrmonline.com/news/what-material-does-amazon-have-the-rights-to-for-the-rings-of-power-answered/
Quote:
So what did Amazon buy? "We have the rights solely to The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King, the appendices, and The Hobbit," Payne says. "And that is it. We do not have the rights to The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The History of Middle-earth, or any of those other books."
If we assume each of those estimated 120-150 million viewership hours was smeone buying a month of membership. Using a three hour movie, and a minimum of a month of subscription.Quote:
Look at The Irishman. Widely critically acclaimed and nominated for several Oscars IIRC, but it had a $160 million budget and generated maybe 120-150 million viewership hours. Prestigious, but not really money well spent unless Netflix sees something in viewership data that says it boosted viewership elsewhere.
150,000,000 viewership hours / 3 hour movie = 50,000,000 monthly memberships * $15 membership = $750 million or 4 times the budget. I'd take that deal if I were Netflix.
And if its not him after those scenes, it's just bad storytelling.bobinator said:
This is exactly why it's definitely Gandalf.
It's being subversive for the sake of it, instead of it being an appropriate story point.
Which we have seen the bad end result of with Star Wars and Game of Thrones most recently.
Or, they were simple nods for the fans.
whatBrian Earl Spilner said:
Or, they were simple nods for the fans.
M.C. Swag said:
Lol like it would be borderline disrespectful to the people who love the films to lay all that groundwork as nothing but misdirection.
That's an interesting take, because I think it's outright disrespectful to make him Gandalf.
We know Gandalf didn't come to MIddle Earth till the 3rd age. We know Gandalf said specifically that he never traveled to the east, which is *exactly* where this wizard is headed straight for.
Giving him a quote that's something Gandalf said doesn't have to be misdirection, it could be an affectionate nod toward the character, or as the author of the video says, toward the Peter Jackson films themselves.
It's also just a foolish thing to do, narrative wise. They can do just about anything they want with a Blue Wizard, because Tolkien never really elaborated on them. They're an open book.
Making him Gandalf would be lazy and cheap, and displeasing to a ton of Tolkien fans.
M.C. Swag said:
I haven't watched the video but I swear if the Stranger ISN'T Gandalf...then Idk what tf the show was doing by trolling the audience with all of Gandalf's sayings/mannerisms/etc. Lol like it would be borderline disrespectful to the people who love the films to lay all that groundwork as nothing but misdirection.
Is it possible that if the character is a blue wizard, he and Gandalf eventually meet, and maybe Gandalf gets a saying or two from him? Almost like a mentor of sorts? Not that we'd ever have to see that relationship, but maybe by series' end they hint at it to come?
TCTTS said:M.C. Swag said:
I haven't watched the video but I swear if the Stranger ISN'T Gandalf...then Idk what tf the show was doing by trolling the audience with all of Gandalf's sayings/mannerisms/etc. Lol like it would be borderline disrespectful to the people who love the films to lay all that groundwork as nothing but misdirection.
Is it possible that if the character is a blue wizard, he and Gandalf eventually meet, and maybe Gandalf gets a saying or two from him? Almost like a mentor of sorts? Not that we'd ever have to see that relationship, but maybe by series' end they hint at it to come?
I think Gandalf tells Frodo he doesn't know much about the BW's.
Considering Amazon just announced they are sidelining the showrunners and retooling the show, I guess he could turn out to be anyone at this point.
gggmann said:
Considering Amazon just announced they are sidelining the showrunners and retooling the show, I guess he could turn out to be anyone at this point.
Seriously??
Ol Jock 99 said:gggmann said:
Considering Amazon just announced they are sidelining the showrunners and retooling the show, I guess he could turn out to be anyone at this point.
Seriously??
It's a rumor from a podcast where a guy says ge knows someone who has a contact at Amazon. Not exactly iron clad.
Life is better with a beagle
AgE2theBONE said:M.C. Swag said:
Lol like it would be borderline disrespectful to the people who love the films to lay all that groundwork as nothing but misdirection.
That's an interesting take, because I think it's outright disrespectful to make him Gandalf.
We know Gandalf didn't come to MIddle Earth till the 3rd age. We know Gandalf said specifically that he never traveled to the east, which is *exactly* where this wizard is headed straight for.
Giving him a quote that's something Gandalf said doesn't have to be misdirection, it could be an affectionate nod toward the character, or as the author of the video says, toward the Peter Jackson films themselves.
It's also just a foolish thing to do, narrative wise. They can do just about anything they want with a Blue Wizard, because Tolkien never really elaborated on them. They're an open book.
Making him Gandalf would be lazy and cheap, and displeasing to a ton of Tolkien fans.
A nod is one thing, but they've already copy+pasted multiple Gandalf traits (from the films). Off the top of my head:
- the sky darkens, wind swirls, when he gets mad
- talking to flying bugs; specifically cupped in his hand
- gray robes, gray beard, long hair
- "when in doubt, follow your nose" < most damning
Like, that's effing Gandalf. He even takes an affinity to hobbits who like adventure. I'm sorry but a nod is one thing, but that's outright subversion for the sake of trolling if it's not Gandalf.
To be clear, I don't care if he's a blue wizard. That's fine, but don't prop up his character as something he's not for the sake of popularity. Lazy is piggybacking off the most iconic fictional character in literature to curry some sort of "click"/viewership metric.
He's Gandalf's brother, Randolf.
M.C. Swag said:AgE2theBONE said:M.C. Swag said:
Lol like it would be borderline disrespectful to the people who love the films to lay all that groundwork as nothing but misdirection.
That's an interesting take, because I think it's outright disrespectful to make him Gandalf.
We know Gandalf didn't come to MIddle Earth till the 3rd age. We know Gandalf said specifically that he never traveled to the east, which is *exactly* where this wizard is headed straight for.
Giving him a quote that's something Gandalf said doesn't have to be misdirection, it could be an affectionate nod toward the character, or as the author of the video says, toward the Peter Jackson films themselves.
It's also just a foolish thing to do, narrative wise. They can do just about anything they want with a Blue Wizard, because Tolkien never really elaborated on them. They're an open book.
Making him Gandalf would be lazy and cheap, and displeasing to a ton of Tolkien fans.
A nod is one thing, but they've already copy+pasted multiple Gandalf traits (from the films). Off the top of my head:
- the sky darkens, wind swirls, when he gets mad
A wizard thing, not a Gandalf thing. We see very similar powers from Saruman.
- talking to flying bugs; specifically cupped in his hand
Same as above; we see the same from Radagast.
- gray robes, gray beard, long hair
Need I say it?
- "when in doubt, follow your nose" < most damning
Affectionate nod is not the same as confirmation.
Like, that's effing Gandalf. He even takes an affinity to hobbits who like adventure. I'm sorry but a nod is one thing, but that's outright subversion for the sake of trolling if it's not Gandalf.
To be clear, I don't care if he's a blue wizard. That's fine, but don't prop up his character as something he's not for the sake of popularity. Lazy is piggybacking off the most iconic fictional character in literature to curry some sort of "click"/viewership metric.
Featured Stories
See All
Texas A&M adds former Auburn TE Micah Riley via transfer portal
by Ryan Brauninger
Elko closes curtains on 'circus' with major culture shift in Year 1
by Olin Buchanan
42:47
3h ago
775
Reed Report: Joseph Jones looks back on decorated career in Aggieland
by Luke Evangelist
Presenting Texas Aggies United's Aggies in Vegas Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
Legalize-It-Ags
SIAP - Likely Changes coming to Playoff Structure - Josh Pate
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
125