Sure, but my point was that if it was such a huge important part of the character, that had to be part of the adaptation, then it would even have been obvious to someone who had never read the books that something was off.
Yeah, I can't get upset about Harfoot Hobbits being around in the second Age. They should probably be east of the Misty Mountains (Hithaeglir) though and not in Arnor - at least to start with. Hobbits weren't a widely known race even in the late Third Age. They are also fan favourites and will probably be used to provide an everyman's viewpoint of the larger events that are unfolding. The only things I'm really nervous about is who is Halbrand supposed to be, the exact nature of his relationship with Galadriel, and where are her husband Celeborn and their daughter Celebrian. I suspect in this adaptation that she has either not yet met Celeborn or she believes him to be dead.
That's because it is made for Tolkien fans--a large part of the story non-Tolkien fans wouldn't give a damn about.
This is an incorrect statement. Whether or not the Tolkien fandom responds positively or negatively to this series is irrelevant to Amazon; what they care about is the reception from general audiences (people who may have never heard of Tolkien's works at all or who may be aware of them but never read them or seen previous adaptations of them).
Yeah, it's meant to attract subscribers to Amazon Prime. Jeff Bezos wanted his own Game of Thrones, is a Tolkien fan and decided he could leverage the popularity of Peter Jackson's movies. However, I doubt that anyone who isn't at least a fan of those films would necessarily be tempted. Some people don't like fantasy just as others don't like SF. If this show doesn't draw in a sufficient number of subscribers, it might well be written off after one season.
Indeed. The show needs general audiences, like my dad, who are unfamiliar but attracted to it for the story and the visuals.
How in the world does Amazon make money with prime? Free delivery, streaming service worth the cost of admission alone, plus many other perks like ebook rentals, comic books, music and other stuff... And it's free for all students and faculty...
Probably impossible to say, though I do think that while Prime is a pretty good streaming service it has a pretty small amount of original content in comparison to Netflix and D+. The free shipping is a thing that Amazon offers/has offered six ways from sunday, not just with a prime subscription, so is apparently already calculated into the Amazon store business plan somehow (and yes I do think it may be calculated on the basis of deliberately taking a loss on it to make people more addicted to shopping there). Ebook rentals and comic books are probably pocket change given the scale of investment we're talking about and I'd hardly be shocked to hear they pay much lower prices than people think for those and for music rentals, too, because they're in a powerful enough position to force the price they want. In other words, it's likely not pretty at all how they do it but they apparently do it somehow. To some extent or other, at least.
Sheer economy of scale. Tens of millions of users paying not very much still equates to multiples of hundreds of millions.
Prices for “free” Prime delivery are compensated for in the base price. If you compare them with other prices of identical items from independent sellers, you’ll often find that the base price is lower but the S&H brings it back to about the same price as Prime; maybe a little more. Plus, it’s all MSRP anyway. Amazon I’m sure buys everything bulk for pennies on the dollar. They’re making plenty of money for Count Bezos and their shareholders, fear not.
Oh yes, absolutely! I didn’t even want to try to get into the back-end data mining angle of that business, it’s such a rabbit hole. Merch sales are only scratching the surface of their revenue generation. Amazon, Facebook and many others have majorly monetized their user’s PII without consent.
The figure I quoted above is $20 billion (150M users x $139/yr) for the US alone. Maybe not everyone keeps Prime for the whole year but still it's not chicken feed...
I'm currently reading Unfinished Tales. One of the first things that Christopher Tolkien quotes is a letter written by his father in which he regrets having allowed the appendix concerning the history of the rings of power to be added to The Return of the King. Of course, it is this appendix on which the Amazon series is supposedly based - not The Silmarillion and not Unfinished Tales. Christopher Tolkien acknowledges discrepancies between the accounts of pre-Third-Age Middle-earth and states that he believes The Silmarillion to be the primary source. His father disliked fan fiction based on his legendarium (and also cats for some reason). I doubt he would have approved of this series but does anyone need to respect his wishes nearly 50 years after his death?
He would not have approved. That said, for me, if it invites more people to share in the imagination of his sub-creation then I'm willing to acknowledge his lack of approval while appreciating the adaptation.
Not in the slightest. He sold the rights for the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings for others to do with as they will. And he did so knowing just during his life span how far properties could veer from original material just for those on tv and film. Let alone stage productions, ect. He was certainly smart enough to know what that could entail.
He is on record as hating adaptations and fan fiction of his work. Hence why people quote his famous words about evil only corrupting but not creating. I guess he thought his family could do with the money so long as they retained some control over the rights and respected his wishes regarding what was allowed. His equation seems to have been either art or cash in a reciprocal relationship. This might seem to some as having gone by the wayside since his son's death but his estate is getting a mountain of cash from Amazon for the rights to adapt the appendices to The Return of the King. In letter 210 of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Tolkien comments on a proposed script for a movie adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. Things he disliked included: Unnecessary shortening of time Disregard of correct seasonal changes Added action sequences Following is a relevant quote about adaptations from JRRT, written in 1958: We do live in a corrupted world just as though Melkor had breathed over it long ago. I do not ascribe this state of decline to metaphysics, however. ETA: A video that explains why the depiction of a warrior Galadriel is not as inconsistent with Tolkien "lore" as some might have you believe - it certainly agrees with my view that there is no canonical depiction of Galadriel during the Second Age. The writers do seem to have taken into consideration later views of the development of Galadriel's character as detailed in Tolkien's letters.