Winespring Inn

[AusLeviathan]

33 minutes ago, DojoToad said:

We'll know if the marketing was a success or not based on the number of watchers.

Small correction there, the amount of people watching isn't important for Amazon, plenty of shows on streaming services have been cancelled even if they were getting a lot of watchers.

 

The only thing Amazon cares about is how much the show affects their subscribers and that's a big part of why a lot of shows on streaming services are struggling to make it past the 3rd/4th season as by that point it becomes hard for a show to bring in new subscribers and the streaming services prefer to end shows once that happens and invest the money in new properties.

 

Since the interesting details of those subscriber numbers (like when people subscribed and their reason for doing so) aren't generally released we won't know how successful the marketing has been until a decision has been made on whether to order a 3rd season.

Edited October 13, 2021 by AusLeviathan

[DojoToad]

24 minutes ago, AusLeviathan said:

Small correction there, the amount of people watching isn't important for Amazon, plenty of shows on streaming services have been cancelled even if they were getting a lot of watchers.

 

The only thing Amazon cares about is how much the show affects their subscribers and that's a big part of why a lot of shows on streaming services are struggling to make it past the 3rd/4th season as by that point it becomes hard for a show to bring in new subscribers and the streaming services prefer to end shows once that happens and invest the money in new properties.

 

Since the interesting details of those subscriber numbers (like when people subscribed and their reason for doing so) aren't generally released we won't know how successful the marketing has been until a decision has been made on whether to order a 3rd season.

I don't know that I agree - though I'm far from an expert.  Initial marketing success will be measured by how many people watch the first few episodes.  If clips, teasers, trailers, commercials, and other marketing wows enough people the numbers should be huge.

 

But down the road, if the show is awful, successful marketing won't keep it afloat.  Whereas I think that a great show can be successful with little marketing at all.  Quality matters.  How many people got HBO subscriptions just to watch GoT?  Plenty.  If I didn't have Amazon already, I would subscribe just to watch WoT.  But if I hate the show after the first 3 episodes - I'm cancelling my subscription no matter how successful the marketing is.

 

Again, hard to gauge how good the marketing is or isn't due to my deep ties to the source material.  Don't really think I can be objective.

[king of nowhere]

1 hour ago, DojoToad said:

But down the road, if the show is awful, successful marketing won't keep it afloat.  Whereas I think that a great show can be successful with little marketing at all.  Quality matters.  How many people got HBO subscriptions just to watch GoT?  Plenty.  If I didn't have Amazon already, I would subscribe just to watch WoT.  But if I hate the show after the first 3 episodes - I'm cancelling my subscription no matter how successful the marketing is.

 

+1 here. I don't have an amazon subscription, i normally don't watch tv. now i will because i have a reason for it. If I won't like it, i will cancel

[SinisterDeath]

5 hours ago, JaimAybara said:

Bad examples: 

 

1) Star Wars Episode I - The CGI in many instances didn’t age well, but everyone at the time wanted to try using more CGI. 

2) Wolverine - His claws alone…what happened? 
 

3) Green Lantern - Everything 

4) The Last Starfighter - Some decent practical effects and makeup, worst CGI ever. 

Good: Matrix 1

Bad: Matrix 2

[TheDreadReader]

12 hours ago, TheMountain said:

Look, we all want the show to succeed right? What percentage of the audience will groan (either aloud or internally) when they see Lan's entrance? What percentage of those people will read an explanation on a forum and go, "ah, that makes sense now, my mind has been changed and I no longer think this is cheesy. You have convinced me to give it another try."

 

I just don't see this scene as a net win.

 

I really think you have to consider the preview scene as being targeted only to the fanbase.  The teaser and eventually the trailer will be the one's targeting the average person.

 

Just my take, but I think that the Amazon marketing people have a pretty good grasp of how to lead book fans around by the nose by feeding us little treats along the way.   Does that translate to the general population?  I don't know but we will see.

 

Today, the marketing for WOT Wednesday seems to be sending out twitter DM's with pictures of puzzle pieces to some of the more well known accounts and trying to get the recipients to retweet them with the #PuzzleOfTime hashtag.  That's totally existing fan focused.  

 

The key thought on their part seems to me to be... get and keep the existing fans on board and use them to create a positive buzz leading into the wider marketing efforts. 

 

Edited October 13, 2021 by TheDreadReader
I hate my typos.

[JaimAybara]

13 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Good: Matrix 1

Bad: Matrix 2

Oh yeah, 100%. This is a great example of relying too much on CGI to do the impossible. Unfortunately, this was also due to the fact that they had to raise the stakes since Neo went “Superman”. But the fight sequence against all of the agents was terribly done still. It looked fake and was just a CGI fest that aged horribly. In sci-fi/fantasy it is that much more important to get people to believe because we go into watching and knowing it isn’t a real place etc. Had they come up with a more artistic way to film those scenes we would have enjoyed it much more and it would have been better overall. “Woah what choreography” vs. periodic video game cinematics which ruined the suspense of disbelief. 
 

*side note* I have a family member who thought until very recently that Neo’s name was actually Neil...Haha, twenty years of hearing people say, “Neil, you are the one.” 

Edited October 14, 2021 by JaimAybara

[JaimAybara]

How cool would it be if during the hunt for Rhavin they did a five minute clip that was similar to the one shot one take in season 1 of True Detective?

 

This would be brilliantly stunning and could potentially hide numbers in room to room action. But what a sight that would be cinematically. 

[JaimAybara]

As to marketing. If they are focusing on book fans I think this is the best move. They are the ones that will more likely stick it out regardless so they will A) Hold onto a core viewership (which high fantasy is lacking on Amazon so they will get new subscribers, I’m one of them.) and B) If they do hit it out of the park they have a bunch of devoted fans that will spread the good news via word of mouth like wildfire. I mean positive word of mouth lead to Avatar becoming the biggest hit ever.  So, all things said this insulates them the best if it goes wrong and maximizes word of mouth if it goes right. 

[SinisterDeath]

37 minutes ago, JaimAybara said:

Oh yeah, 100%. This is a great example of relying too much on CGI to do the impossible. Unfortunately, this was also due to the fact that they had to raise the stakes since Neo went “Superman”. But the fight sequence against all of the agents was terribly done still. It looked fake and was just a CGI fest that aged horribly. In sci-fi/fantasy it is that much more important to get people to believe because we go into watching and knowing it isn’t a real place etc. Had they come up with a more artistic way to film those scenes we would have enjoyed it much more and it would have been better overall. “Woah what choreography” vs. periodic video game cinematics which ruined the suspense of disbelief. 

Yea, the problem with #2 was they went full CGI even when mixing the two was possible. The segments in "reality" were great.
The fight scenes that were full CGI aged VERY poorly. Thankfully #3, for all its hate aged much better.

 

23 minutes ago, JaimAybara said:

As to marketing. If they are focusing on book fans I think this is the best move. They are the ones that will more likely stick it out regardless so they will A) Hold onto a core viewership (which high fantasy is lacking on Amazon so they will get new subscribers, I’m one of them.) and B) If they do hit it out of the park they have a bunch of devoted fans that will spread the good news via word of mouth like wildfire. I mean positive word of mouth lead to Avatar becoming the biggest hit ever.  So, all things said this insulates them the best if it goes wrong and maximizes word of mouth if it goes right. 

You know, as book fans, we'll probably watch regardless of who the TV Series is marketed towards.

There's something like 90 Million books (14 main books) sold internationally, which is an average of ~6.4M per book. It's probably that Eye of The World alone could be in the 10-30 Million range, as I've seen figures alluding to the later novels having less than ~1M sold.... 

And honestly, Amazon is in the best position to know just how many people have bought the books over the years!

So the hard part is, we may not be the best people to market to, because if even half of the ~1M diehard fans like the TV Series, our reach probably isn't as great as marketing to non-book fans.

 

[TheDreadReader]

4 hours ago, AusLeviathan said:

Small correction there, the amount of people watching isn't important for Amazon, plenty of shows on streaming services have been cancelled even if they were getting a lot of watchers.

 

There are other limiting factors at play for why a show on a streaming service might get cancelled than just the number of watchers.  Viewers is still important but it can be less important than it was in the past.

 

Take the Marvel shows on Netflix which were just as likely cancelled because Marvel/Disney wanted to do their own thing as they were cancelled because of viewership.  All Disney had to do to convince Netflix not to do more was price the future rights higher than Netflix would be willing to pay. 

 

Part of the reason the metrics are opaque is they can get really technical and don't always translate well to the old ratings models that people are used to.   For example, on a cable video on demand platform, you might look at daily asset views over the course of 30,60, or 90 days, establish the declining trendline and cut the asset off after 90 days.   You might also never look at the viewership and just default to keeping things for 90 days.  Or, you may only have the legal right to maintain the asset for 90 days.   You can never really know from the outside.  

 

 

 

 

[Elder_Haman]

9 hours ago, zacz1987 said:

I'm not sure why they chose it.

My guess is it is the most non-spoilery scene that included all of the actors who participated in the NYCC panel.

 

[CaddySedai]

The good news is we get at least 2 seasons. 

 

So plenty of new content ?

[mogi68]

1 hour ago, CaddySedai said:

The good news is we get at least 2 seasons. 

 

So plenty of new content ?

Lots to argue over!

[AdamA]

I honestly wouldn't worry about this not going the distance being on Amazon. It's Netflix that keeps canceling shows prematurely because Netflix has no other source of revenue aside from subscriptions. Prime Video is just another division of Amazon Prime, and Amazon the mothership makes most of its money from AWS anyway. All of the big name Prime shows have gone the distance so far and most of them were not all that popular. Bezos seems to be treating this like he does the Washington Post acquisition. It's a play for prestige, and he has so much money from other sources, he doesn't care if the film studio and newspaper also make money. Amazon has actually been amazingly hands off with its creators and made some really good content that likely wouldn't have been made anywhere else because of this. Looking at them saving The Expanse just because Bezos was a fan and blowing up its budget, even though no one is watching it.

 

If anything, I don't even think the pressure is really on Wheel of Time to hit that "next Game of Thrones" home run. It's the Lord of the Rings prequel they're hoping will do that.

[templar7]

21 hours ago, CaddySedai said:

Anime?

 

I’d have gone with a western.

 

And the spurs are correct … that part at least is what one would have heard. And honestly in a place like the TR the sound of spurs alone would have stopped a ton of conversation. Spurs are used for race or war trained horses, not on workhorses like would be common in TR or even the peddlers and gleemen with wagons attached.

 

Its almost like - imagine being in a place like a church or temple at a wedding and a loud door slams behind you. It stops everyone to look. Thats what them hearing spurs would be. You may have well told them that an entire occupying force was in town at that sound lol.

Great analogy! So over played.

[Guest Wolfbrother31]

On 10/12/2021 at 8:04 PM, templar7 said:

I agree. I just can't get past that entrance scene... uughh...  But you're right! It's the only part that, as you say, could have been better. I think I bumped up against it so much on 1st viewing that It kind of took over my overall opinion. Thanks to you, and others, I'm seeing the forest through the trees now. Lets see what the full episode says. Though I still have trouble trying to see how that entrance can really satisfy, even in context. We shall see.

 

This is how I felt too.

Initially, I really didn't like it. 

I read all this... And I feel a little better. 

 

There are some neat attention to detail things. And there is not context to the scene we saw. 

 

Having a hard time though - with the whole thing feeling ... Like an over-dramatic, cowboy entrance into a saloon ... But

 

I think if Winternight is freaking awesome in how they do fighting and channeling. All will be quickly forgiven. 

[JaimAybara]

To the notion that some of it is being over dramatized I think we might be over analyzing too. The innkeeper in Fellowship’s “Prancing Pony,” was a bit hammy as well. “He’s one of them rangers, dangerous folk they are… don’t know his right name but around here…we call him Strider.” Sorry, one could argue that this scene feels like forced exposition in your local D&D party from the innkeeper.

 

If that scene was the scene we got snipped out of context we would be saying, “why does the innkeeper know this?”/ “of course he has his hood up in the corner which is oddly well lit for some reason when we look at him from afar, but strangely Dark when smoking his pipe up close.” / “He would never have the ring fall perfectly on his finger when he fell to the floor that was so dumb.”

[Guest Wolfbrother31]

10 minutes ago, JaimAybara said:

To the notion that some of it is being over dramatized I think we might be over analyzing too. The innkeeper in Fellowship’s “Prancing Pony,” was a bit hammy as well. “He’s one of them rangers, dangerous folk they are… don’t know his right name but around here…we call him Strider.” Sorry, one could argue that this scene feels like forced exposition in your local D&D party from the innkeeper.

 

If that scene was the scene we got snipped out of context we would be saying, “why does the innkeeper know this?”/ “of course he has his hood up in the corner which is oddly well lit for some reason when we look at him from afar, but strangely Dark when smoking his pipe up close.” / “He would never have the ring fall perfectly on his finger when he fell to the floor that was so dumb.”

 

You're right of course ... That scene in LoTR was pretty bad.  

But that's also why the LoTR marketing team wouldn't have given us that as the first scene we saw! Lol

And yes. This feels like that. 

 

On the other hand...

The posters & pics are sweet! 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by Wolfbrother31

[JaimAybara]

3 minutes ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

 

You're right of course ... That scene in LoTR was pretty bad.  

But that's also why the LoTR marketing team wouldn't have given us that as the first scene we saw! Lol

And yes. This feels like that. 

 

On the other hand...

The posters & pics are sweet! 

 

True haha, if memory serves we also got our nostalgic “in a world” narrator for the teaser. And that Moiraine and Lan poster is pretty sick. 

[templar7]

9 minutes ago, JaimAybara said:

To the notion that some of it is being over dramatized I think we might be over analyzing too. The innkeeper in Fellowship’s “Prancing Pony,” was a bit hammy as well. “He’s one of them rangers, dangerous folk they are… don’t know his right name but around here…we call him Strider.” Sorry, one could argue that this scene feels like forced exposition in your local D&D party from the innkeeper.

 

If that scene was the scene we got snipped out of context we would be saying, “why does the innkeeper know this?”/ “of course he has his hood up in the corner which is oddly well lit for some reason when we look at him from afar, but strangely Dark when smoking his pipe up close.” / “He would never have the ring fall perfectly on his finger when he fell to the floor that was so dumb.”

Having been a D&D nerd in my youth, I genuinely see your point here.

To be honest though, I hate those LOTR scenes just as much! I should have made mention of that in my post. The LOTRs trilogy is brimming with exactly the same over played and unrealistic exposition.

I will admit that in a movie there is far less time to set these things up and introduce characters. But in the context of a multi-season series such as this, I see it as totally unnecessary. I appreciate your pushback though.

[JaimAybara]

I agree with you guys too haha just playing devil’s advocate and we do have an example where overall scenes like that are survivable. 
 

*Also, not hating on D&D. I play myself. Got me through covid. 

Edited October 14, 2021 by JaimAybara

[Tim]

3 hours ago, templar7 said:

I will admit that in a movie there is far less time to set these things up and introduce characters. But in the context of a multi-season series such as this, I see it as totally unnecessary. I appreciate your pushback though.

This would normally be true, but given the length of WOT I'm not sure it translates. In length, The Eye of the World is roughly double The Fellowship of the Rings, I think? And to get through the entire series arc within a manageable number of seasons (say, eight) means covering more than 1 book per season, which seems to be borne out by the indications that season 1 will include some material from the second book. 

That suggests that the show would need to be almost as compressed as the LOTR films were. This leaves aside other differences between the two series of course.

I mean yes, there is more time and space for character development overall in a tv show, but that's really a whole-of-series issue - Rand is not a more complex character than Frodo in book 1 but he is across the entire series, and the same is true for Moiraine vis a vis Gandalf. But I don't think that gives the showrunners much room to stretch out in the early episodes. They still have to drive the show forward with maximum economy.

[DaddyFinn]

5 minutes ago, Tim said:

season 1 will include some material from the second book. 

And even book 3

[Guest Wolfbrother31]

Where did you guys hear S1 would cover stuff from book 2 & 3? 

 

Pretty sure that's not true.

If memory serves... S1 will have material from New Spring & Book 1. 

And there's stuff even from that that's been cut & moved to S2 ... Like Caemlyn and Trakands. 

[AusLeviathan]

10 minutes ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

Where did you guys hear S1 would cover stuff from book 2 & 3? 

Rafe said stuff from books 2 and 3 was included whilst Sanderson said it's almost all book 1.

 

The Aes Sedai stuff is probably a combination of book 2 and New Spring using the book 1 setting of Logain's capture. It's also possible we get Egwene's accepted ceremony from book 3 (or at least something close to it based on that visual of her in a pool of water whilst others watch on behind her).

Edited October 14, 2021 by AusLeviathan