Amazon's Lord of the Rings TV show to cost $465 million for one season

midian182

Posts: 6,663   +59
Staff member
In brief: Amazon is putting a lot of faith into its upcoming "Lord of the Rings" series. The company has invested a record $465 million into producing the first season alone, but that could be considered a fair amount for "the largest television series ever made."

Amazon had already bet big on a Lord of the Rings series when it paid $250 million to secure the rights to the franchise in 2017. The Hollywood Reporter confirmed that the company would spend roughly NZ$650 million (~$465 million) on the first season—initial reports claimed Amazon would spend $500 million on multiple seasons. While that figure does include startup costs, it's still an obscene amount of money.

"What I can tell you is Amazon is going to spend about $650 million in season one alone," Stuart Nash, New Zealand minister for economic development and tourism, told Morning Report. "This is fantastic, it really is … this will be the largest television series ever made."

The Lord of the Rings series' first-season budget dwarfs the biggest shows in television history. The final and most expensive season of Game of Thrones cost $90 million, or $15 million per episode; Disney's Marvel series cost up to $25 million per episode, which means WandaVision's first nine episodes totaled around $225 million; the Mandalorian, meanwhile, came in around $100 million for season one.

The show is causing some controversy in New Zealand—the same location used for the movies—over higher-than-usual subsidies offered by the country's government, with the first season qualifying for $160 million in taxpayer-funded subs.

"These grants are part and parcel of the international film industry, and without this you don't get a look in the door," said Nash. Stuff reports that Amazon is also required to partner with local companies to invest in R&D as part of the deal, and it could establish offshoots of its other businesses in the country.

According to the official description, the Lord of the Rings show is "set thousands of years before the events of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and will take viewers back to an era in which great powers were forged, kingdoms rose to glory and fell to ruin." The series is scheduled to arrive later this year.

Image credit: Andrei Diomidov

Permalink to story.

 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 293   +242
Here in NZ - we always get the complainers - the money could be used elsewhere - What money ??? - But mainly we should give breaks to mega rich corps .Actually as far as movie deals go it's reasonably good - that's a lot of jobs ( no I can not be a hobbit ) .
The first LOTR was a big tourist boost - so there will be some flow on there - especially as Covid 19 - will be lingering around in developing countries mutating.
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 677   +582
Geez louise, it better be damned good and get rave reviews, because no way will there be a second season if it doesn't with those costs.
 

Ravey

Posts: 286   +121
Time for a google searh!
.......
.....
..
According to google: All three origional LOTR movies cost around $281 million. Apparently this went on to make around $2.917 Billion worldwide! So to be a success I would say the new season would have to at a minimum, double it's profit on this. If not more! Of course if they are making the season purely for the fans.. this wont mater....... lol

There is also a list of most expensive Movies on wikipedia. With Pirates of the Carribean - On Stranger Tides, topping this list at a cost of £379 Million.

Amazon really want to hope that the season is a total success!
 

Kosmoz

Posts: 149   +231
Its not a movie, its a TV show with episodes.
That's your response to what I said? Correcting me on the terminology? Rofl...

Also FYI I'm not a native English speaker, so I call both TV shows and cinema movies, movies. They have actors that act in them in front of camera, recorded not live, then they are movies for me. I don't care about specifics...
 

Bamda

Posts: 231   +112
That's your response to what I said? Correcting me on the terminology? Rofl...

Also FYI I'm not a native English speaker, so I call both TV shows and cinema movies, movies. They have actors that act in them in front of camera, recorded not live, then they are movies for me. I don't care about specifics...
OK, get back to listening to your internet. LOL