Can ‘Lord Of The Rings’ Save Amazon?

There are a few reasons why many industry experts thing the Amazon/Tolkein deal is a bad move. It all comes down to two main points: One, you can’t expect to catch the same “lightning in a bottle” that is Game of Thrones with another, super-similar, high-fantasy TV adaptation, and two, Amazon might have spent way too much money for the rights – just the rights! — to a franchise that many feel was already flagging. (Did we really need THREE Hobbit movies?)

As to the first point, as Vox’s Todd Van Der Werff pointed out on twitter yesterday, the last 20 years of television have been dominated by unexpected hits no one saw coming. You can’t predict what the next big thing will be — it just happens — and it rarely is a paint-by-numbers copy of that cultural juggernaut.

Moreover, the premium television landscape is set to be inundated with fantasy epics in the next few years, all placed to attract the Game of Thrones fanatics who will be yearning for their fantasy fix after the show ends in the next year or so. Besides Amazon’s deal for Lord of the Rings, Showtime has just announced that they will be adapting Patrick Rothfuss’s The Kingkiller Chronicle. At last count, HBO has no less than five Game of Thrones spin-offs in production. Oh, and Amazon already has two other high-fantasy series in the works: an adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s Good Omens and an original series called Carnival Row. In other words, Game of Thrones fans will have too many options come 2018.

Furthermore, there’s the business angle of this decision. Amazon may have a deep war chest, but the money has to bleed out eventually. That $200 million deal was only for the rights to adapt The Lord of the Rings. Amazon still has to assemble a creative team, a cast, and pump money into at least two seasons of opulent fantasy storytelling. At what point do these lavish deals cease to make sense? When does the consumer feel the crunch? Many are already predicting that streaming sites and premium cable channels are likely to find themselves in a debilitating fiscal arms race in the next few years. As Variety’s Mo Ryan put it in an op-ed in September called “Taking the Wrong Lessons from the Success of Game of Thrones“: “cash is what’s flooding into the TV market now, not patience.” And cash alone cannot determine a hit. Just ask Amazon themselves. They spent a reported $80 million to lure Woody Allen to their camp only for the controversial artist to deliver a resounding dud.

So Amazon is throwing money at a problem that money alone can’t fix, and they’re betting on a franchise that may not be able to be the zeitgeist-defining breakout they hope it will be. That’s why this may be a bad idea.

Okay, so all things considered, Amazon might be on to something good here.

Streaming services have two challenges when it comes to membership. They need to give people a reason to sign up for the service in the first place and they need to keep those customers by engendering a sense of brand loyalty. Netflix has an advantage on both counts. The streaming platform was on the vanguard of the cord-cutting movement and made bold steps to become most people’s first streaming site. Then they worked hard to build up a robust library of popular original hits to maintain that consumer base even as their original line-up of borrowed content gets siphoned away.

So how do you stand out in an ever-booming streaming marketplace and attract the kinds of subscribers who will stick with you for better or worse? You take a note from CBS All Access‘s playbook and appeal to a robust, fervent fan group. CBS All Access bet big on Star Trek: Discovery and by all perceivable metrics, CBS came out on top. The Lord of the Rings has a similar kind of brand power as Star Trek insomuch that it has a massive international fanbase thrilled to snap up any and all things Tolkein. Right now Amazon lacks this kind of built-in juggernaut. So if they’re going to invest millions of dollars into a property, this kind of popular fantasy epic with a recognizable name is a safer bet than whatever script Woody Allen wants to dust off and cut up into six episodes. Not to mention the fact that Amazon has been cultivating a rather more “literary” subscriber-base over the last few years, and Tolkein’s epic saga still fits in that wheelhouse. It makes…sense. It fits the brand!

So that’s the business reason for why The Lord of the Rings is a good call for Amazon, but what about creatively? Peter Jackson has already produced six films based on Tolkein’s four most beloved novels in just the last 17 years. What possible new creative ground could Amazon’s deal break? Well, they’re already hinting at that. In the official press release, Amazon stated: “Set in Middle Earth, the television adaptation will explore new storylines preceding J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Fellowship of the Ring. The deal includes a potential additional spin-off series.”

Along with other savvy fans, major Tolkein fan website TheOneRing.net has already produced a run-down of what this means in layman’s terms. No, Amazon is probably not going back to The Hobbit. Instead, it seems like Amazon will be mining the trilogy’s appendices for Game of Thrones-esque drama featuring warrior elves and messy human regimes. And that could be kind of cool. In other words, Amazon has a decent plan.

Money and ratings aside, the only way The Lord Of The Rings will be a good investment for Amazon is if they can produce a really freaking good show. That’s it. That’s what will give them the best bank back and it will rehabilitate the brand. The issue is great TV doesn’t come from popular IP, celebrity showrunners, or even tons and tons of online marketplace-based cash. It comes from a strong creative vision that is allowed to thrive.

Before New Line Cinema gave Peter Jackson the reins to Tolkein’s beloved masterpiece, the director was best-known for disturbing independent films like Beautiful Creatures and — dare I say it? — Meet The Feebles. Amazon may want to take a similar tact here and go with a lesser-known auteur or showrunner who has managed to do a lot creatively with not much financially. It would not only help Amazon stop the financial bleeding that’s defined many of its dramas, but it would help this new series stand apart from Jackson’s work and deluge of high-profile series that are being fast-tracked to replace Game of Thrones.

If Amazon really wants to get the most out of their big investment in Middle Earth, they should take calculated risks on up-and-coming artists. Not just at the top, though. They should comb portfolios for the next generation of geniuses in everything from production design to props. They should audition drama school alums for their heroes over struggling movie stars. Ironically, this is exactly what HBO did with Game of Thrones. Showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss had never worked in TV before, and stars Emilia Clarke and Kit Harington barely had any credits under their belt when they were cast as Daenerys Targaryen and Jon Snow. The gamble paid off big time. Amazon should take note.

Amazon now has the rights to a major franchise that could save them. They should take a clue from the text themselves and look to smaller folks with true heart to get The Lord of the Rings right. Otherwise it might just be a lot of fuss for something that viewers will get bored of after one bloated season. Amazon’s got to do the right thing with these, pardon the pun, precious rights.