Hacker News Reader

Comment by cs702 | Hacker News Reader

Keep in mind that Amazon needs to get only ~0.2M incremental Amazon Prime subscribers to recoup the investment. The lifetime value (LTV) of a Prime subscriber has been estimated at ~$2,300.[a] You can play around with the figure, but given that every LOTR fan is going to want to watch this series even if it sucks, I wouldn't be surprised is Amazon ends up getting far more than ~0.2M new Prime subscribers because of it.

[a] https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/21/whats-a-pr...

EDIT: Updated the figures to more accurate (based on LTV).

View on HN

> 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.

I stopped after the first Hobbit movie and I'm very unlikely to watch this unless it gets rave reviews.

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.

Not that I am interested in defending Amazon's series, which I think will be a disaster, but I don't think the comparison with the Hobbit movies holds.

True, the material they have rights to is from the appendixes of The Lord of the Rings. The difference, though, is that in this case they are going to create a completely new story. So, they can fill as many episodes they want.

With the Hobbit, instead, they had the story already and they had to stretch it to create a trilogy.

My opinion on this matter has less to do with stretching and more to do with creating. It feels like the further we get from what the author actually wrote- in terms of dialogue, characterization, etc.- the worse the final output is. LOTR isn't just good because hobbits, it's good because Tolkien's writing is good. The Jackson trilogy was close-ish to Tolkien's writing, the Hobbit films further, and this even more so. I'm of the opinion that this was a major issue with the last few seasons of Game of Thrones as well.

Exactly this. there's nothing about an existing universe that prevents bad writing for new stories in that universe. And big studio creative talent is at a historical low right now.

I don’t get the “stretched explanation”, there was plenty of material. To me the problem was that the action sequences lacked the emotional gravitas of the LOTR trilogy. It was like watching a video game.

Consider that many fans watch things they routinely disparage online. For example, many Star Wars fans routinely disparage "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace," and yet it's still one of the most-watched, highest-grossing movies in the history of cinema.

Also, keep in mind there are people who are really fanatical about LOTR. At the end of the spectrum, some of them enjoy this stuff so much that they regularly attend LOTR conventions dressed up as wizards, knights, hobbits, orcs, etc. Those people will watch the new series even if it's only to criticize all the things it got wrong!

> Consider that many fans watch things they routinely disparage online.

they might not bother to subscribe to Prime for that and instead just get a copy off the high seas

I am one of those people (roughly speaking). Do with that as you will.

Isn't the growth for Amazon Prime kind of stagnating in the US? I don't think they can get 1-2 million sign ups from the US alone.

Plus, there would be folks who would subscribe for two months that the shows runs and then they may even quit.

In India, I am paying 1000 rupees for my yearly subscription to Prime Video although the only thing I watch on it is The Boys. I don't what the numbers for Prime Video are in India, but it would earn them less as compared to someone signing up from the US or UK for sure.

>but given that every LOTR fan is going to want to watch this series even if it sucks, the cost is totally worth it.

There is also a big question mark on this as well.

More like ~0.2M. I updated the figures to use the LTV of a Prime customer :-)

> given that every LOTR fan is going to want to watch this series even if it sucks, I wouldn't be surprised is Amazon ends up getting far more than ~0.2M new Prime subscribers because of it.

You're assuming they actually subscribe to watch it. Amazon Prime already has enough subs that it should be pretty easy for most die-hard LOTR fans without a Prime account to just watch it on a friend or family member's account. Or they could just pirate it.

In Poland Amazon Prime is only 10 usd / year. So the math is much harder outside the US.

Wow that sounds like an amazing value, even with differences in purchasing power. Is amazon's retail network decent in Poland?

Isn't it more complicated than that? Many of those consumers already own Prime. How will this impact their desire to stay? Will people actually buy Prime for this and then keep it, or will they watch and then cancel?

Your analysis makes sense, but I was under the impression that RoP was a pure passion project from Jeff Bezos with no regard for the financials or for a return on investment.

Based on what, second or third hand sources?

Jeff Bezos isn’t spending the money, Amazon is.

I'm a fan, I've got Prime, and I'm not interested in the slightest, I'm done watching giant companies ruin good franchises and legacy characters. Would have to put a gun to my head to watch this one

Reply on news.ycombinator.com