>>/46476/
I guess they would measure success by the number of people that will be brought in to subscribe to their service.
> You overestimate consumers, they don't care and would watch anything that is actively advertised in media on popular platforms.
Normally I would say that is true but there does seem to be a massive backlash to this.
I'm not sure how the modern market works in regard to streaming services. I just did some research on costs, it cost them $715m to make the first season($465m for the show, $250m for the rights), it cost $13 a month for an Amazon subscription which means that they need 55 million people to subscribe break even. Assuming every single penny goes straight to LOTR which it would not and not taking into account people that already have the service or families that share the service. But still, that's actually much more feasible than I thought it would be, providing it works that way which I am sure it's not and the other issues I mentioned probably skew this even more.
But I don't know how normal people view it and how much they care, people that are not into LOTR probably won't bother paying a subscription to watch it and they angered all the people that do like it, you would assume they would not buy a subscription on principle even it was to laugh at it. So maybe it will not flop as badly as I thought but I still don't see it doing well.
> Most of viewers don't know what LOTR is except "oh is it that old movie about hair-legged little men with good CGI, yes?".
While that may be true of the younger generation and some women, I would say pretty much every man over 25 would know what it is and would have watched it(well up to 70years old maybe).