Rings of Power has stolen this show's thunder
Note how active the Rings of Power board is compared to this. Also how many more viewers Rings of Power got. It is not looking good for the Targaryens.
sharePlants arguing with plants.
share
MovieChat Forums > House of the Dragon (2022) Discussion > Rings of Power has stolen this show's th...
The Rings of Power has made a splash alright, but for all the wrong reasons.
What wrong reasons? People crying about black dwarves/hobbits/elves?
shareJust go and read the Rings of Power board and see for yourself.
I have, that is basically the sum of he complains. Oh and Galadriel being awful for some reason (hint: they are made she dispatched the troll so easily even tho if it were a man doing that like Legolas they wouldn't complain).
shareNeah, that wasn't the complaint about her.
Most people brushed that off.
There are countless reasons to complain about her character.
It seems to be getting more hits than HOTD but is that because it's a better show or what? So far, HOTD is getting the better ratings/reviews.
I haven't watched any of the RoP episodes yet but I might eventually go back to PV and check it out. I'm just so occupied watching other shows right now and HOTD is one of them.
That show doesn't really appear to be a threat to this one. It's not like the old days when shows air at the same time, people can watch both shows whenever they feel like it.
shareThe Rings of Power board is so active because of how much hate the show is getting. Just go look at the RT audience scores, or the IMDB scores, to see who the real winner is here.
Also, in regard to the viewership, take a look at this:
https://www.xfire.com/house-of-the-dragon-millions-viewers-rings-of-power/
It says RoP premiere had 15m more viewers than House of the Dragon(despite that show setting a HBO record).
share Everything I've read says the opposite. HoD is better reviewed and gets better ratings.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/amazon-lotr-rings-of-power-tolkien-fans-trash-prime-video-2022-9%3famp
Then you need to learn to read better:
"More than 25 million people watched the series the day it dropped, Amazon said in a press release last week, compared to 10.2 million people who watched HBO's "Game of Thrones" spinoff, "House of the Dragon.""
It says that according to some third party HotD got slightly more views over the next 3 days, and the way those third parties estimate online views is wildy innacurate.
Are you an Amazon shill? Direct from the article I linked.
HBO's "House of the Dragon," released last month, is performing much better. It has an 8.8/10 rating in IMDb and an 84% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. For each show's three-day post-debut window, "House of the Dragon" attracted 51% more viewers than "Rings of Power," according to Whip Media data reported by TheWrap. The publication also looked at data from Samba TV, which tracks viewership through connected TVs in the US. That told a similar story: 3.1 million households watched the first two episodes of "Rings of Fire" in the first three days, while 4.8 million watched the HBO premier in the same window.
Yes, assuming those numbers are correct, (which they are not, since Samba TV uses methods to estimate views that amount to making up numbers), that would amount to HotD having 15m views over 4 days, and RoP having 28m views over 4 days, which still amounts to 13m more views than HotD. But the only official numbers we have are the 25m and 10m, the rest is speculation.
So this is what you can get from the article if you look for the facts, rather than the spin.
And yes, the HBO numbers are for the US only, but half of their subscribers are in the US. If the international numbers were any good, they would have released them.
So do you:
"For each show's three-day post-debut window, "House of the Dragon" attracted 51% more viewers than "Rings of Power," according to Whip Media data reported by TheWrap. The publication also looked at data from Samba TV, which tracks viewership through connected TVs in the US. That told a similar story: 3.1 million households watched the first two episodes of "Rings of Fire" in the first three days, while 4.8 million watched the HBO premier in the same window. "
51% more or 3.1 vs 4.8 isn't "slightly more views", but I know why you didn't provide that quote, so I did.
And Prime has more than twice the subscribership of HBO/HBO Max.
You just repeated what I already said. 4.8 million is 1.7m more than 3.1m, whereas 25m is 15m more than 10m. And those numbers are made up, since samba TV uses methods that have proven to be unreliable. Amazon prime doesn't have 200m subscribers because of it's video content, most of those people use the Amazon prime delivery service. The streaming is just tagged on as a bonus.
share1.7mil in that window isn't "slightly more"
51% in that window isn't "slightly more"
that's what you said, and you didn't quote that b/c it doesn't say that.
And you still didn't read.
"The series' viewership looks smaller, though, compared to the 200 million Prime members who stream videos and TV shows."
You quote when it serves your narrative, you paraphrase with your own spin when it doesn't.
There are 200m Amazon Prime members who are subscribed for the delivery service, not for the streaming. Amazon Prime has almost as many subscribers as Netflix, despite having a fraction of the content and views. Work it out for yourself.
I know that Samba TV makes up numbers, because I have seen their estimates for other streaming shows that subsequently turned out to be completely wrong when numbers were later released.
Later released by what party? The 3rd party is in question, but we're to believe what Amazon or HBO says? Some trades don't even describe in that way. They say "According to" b/c they have no way of knowing. It's in the best interest of HBO and Amazon to augment their numbers, but the 3rd party is the shady one? What do they get out of it?
And Prime has more than 200mil subs, but the point is that if you're not already an HBO/HBO Max, you can't just choose to check it out. The pool of potential watchers is a fraction of that of AP. You don't think if HBO/HBO Max had more subs to start with, their numbers wouldn't change??
The only party that have the actual numbers are Amazon and HBO, so yes, I take those numbers to be accurate. I don't know of streaming services making up viewing numbers, they just don't release them if they are bad.
People pay a lot of money to be subscribed to HBO, so those people are obviously probably going to watch HBO's biggest show. Amazon prime costs a fraction of the price and was originally just a delivery service, the streaming got tagged on later. There are a lot of people who have no interest in watching TV shows, hard as that may be for you to believe. Non of them are subscribed to HBO.
You didn't answer what 3rd parties get out of fudging numbers. And the whole point of 3rd party ratings was to be neutral -- b/c commercial interests didn't trust internal reporting. And thinking that when the $ at stake is this high, these entities wouldn't mess with their reporting is preposterous. They need to pull in more subscribers, and to retain their current. Making people believe it's the thing that must be seen now is the goal.
And if you're even a mild Prime viewer, you've been beaten over the head that this is the "it" show on Amazon. If there's one show that current subs might check out, it's the one that has been ballyhooed as Amazon's gaudy flagship attempt. Using your logic, Amazon shouldn't even care about their streaming portion, but obviously that's not the case since they dumped a ton of money on a show.
I said third party estimates are inaccurate, where did I say they "get anything" out of fudging numbers? With box office and Network Television views, the numbers are known. However with streaming, only the streaming services themselves know the numbers, which is why there are third parties like Samba TV that try to find ways of estimating streaming views, because people are interested. However their methods are not accurate.
shareYou said they "make up numbers" -- what's the motive? Their selling point is "We're not accurate!"?
And I did a little research, since what you said about AP didn't make sense. There's no way that with increasing prices and catalogue, that AP subs wouldn't stream "to extract more value" as Bezos put it. According to the source (Bezos himself), which you say should be believed, as of 4/21, there were over 175mil PV users, up 50mil from the year before. According to the quote from the same article that you like quoting from when it suits you, it's now 200mil. That's hardly the number of a minor "tagged on" that the vast majority of AP subs don't make use of. You use it, or you don't, and they clearly do. And be sure to remember your source, when Amazon talks about subscriber growth, and attributes it to RofP, rather than the other reasons you're saying account for that subscribership -- b/c that's the only reason why they bet so so big on a show, to grow their subscribership apart from those other reasons, and to keep the 200mil the already have, who may no longer think AP is worth it without that streaming, that, according to Bezos, 175 of 200mil were using as of 4/21.
I never said Amazon prime users never stream anything, but they are no subbed to Amazon Prime primarily for the streaming content. HBO subscribers are, and they pay a substantial fee every month to be subscribed. If the majority of HBO users were not watching their flagship show, it would be weird. Not the case with Amazon.
Amazon are making RoP to develop their brand. It is never going to make a profit. HBO and Netflix have lots of brand shows, whereas up to now Amazon Prime's biggest show has been The Boys.
Your point was to diminish the idea of the number being so much higher than HBO/HBO Max subs, when in reality, an extremely high % of AP subs DO watch tv, and DO use Prime Video. All you're saying about AP should make it easier to draw more viewers, not harder. Their base is so much bigger. They're already there.
"There are 200m Amazon Prime members who are subscribed for the delivery service, not for the streaming."
That's not an either/or proposition. Your decision to subscribe or stay that way hinges on all you get, not just one aspect. And the point I made from the start was that there are a lot more Amazon Prime Video users than HBO/HBO Max subs. Bezos can attest, if you believe him. If the latter had as many as the former, would that not increase the number of viewers of HofD? You never answered.
And a flagship show is earned thru viewership. It's not a title that you just apply; it's a hope. HBO bet on Vinyl and it flopped. It bet on Westworld, but it never drew more than a modest audience. Results make it a flagship show, not a declaration beforehand. HBO hopes on HofD. Bezos is trying to make RofP one of those for his streaming service. And he bet a ton on it (much more than HBO did for the original GofT before it blew up), rather than pretending people don't care that much about video on Prime, just the other stuff -- or that new subs won't be the result if it becomes a hit show.
Oh, and as far as the accuracy of self-reporting from streaming services, remember this nifty accounting from Netflix?
https://www.wired.com/story/netflix-viewership-two-minutes/
Gee, I wonder if an entity, that was worried enough to block bad reviews, would ever make something seem better than it actually is? Yeah, only streaming services know the real numbers, but that doesn't mean we get them in their reporting.
We can be sure that if Amazon is inflating views, so is HBO. Those are still the only hard numbers we have. You can choose to believe them or not. What you can't do is claim that they show that HotD is beating RoP in views.
shareI already said that it applies to both. But their hardness is the very thing in question. If you choose to believe their claims, you view them as hard. If you don't, they're not hard at all -- or maybe silly misrepresentations like I just pointed out with Netflix.
shareIn years to come this will be a great way to quickly classify someone you are talking to.
Instead of "cats or dogs?" we can ask "HoT or Rings of Dogshit?"
If they answer the latter you can quickly go find someone else to talk to.
Because the comments on the RoP board are complaining about what absolute shit it is.
This one isn’t great and a pale, limp version of GoT, but it’s still far superior to RoP.