Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,489
30,727


Apple plans to increase its spend on movies for Apple TV+ to $1 billion annually, as well as release them in theaters globally, Bloomberg reports.

apple-tv-plus-banner.jpg

The Apple TV+ movies "CODA" and "Cherry" debuted in select theaters for a few weeks in 2021, but Apple apparently plans to instigate broader, more conventional theatrical releases in the future, facilitated by bigger movie budgets. The move is designed to raise the profile of Apple TV+ in Hollywood, attract subscribers, and create "cultural events."

Apple is believed to have already approached several third-party distributors about collaborating to release Apple TV+ titles in theaters this year, including Martin Scorsese's "Killers of the Flower Moon," Matthew Vaughn's "Argylle," and Ridley Scott's "Napoleon." The movies are expected to be in theaters around the world for at least a month. Apple is purportedly looking to third-party studios owing to its lack of expertise in movie distribution across thousands of cinemas worldwide, but it has concerns around the hefty fees and marketing budgets that such partners would demand.

Article Link: Apple Reportedly Planning to Release Movies in Theaters and Increase Spend to $1 Billion Per Year
 

syklee26

macrumors 6502a
Jul 26, 2005
901
2,435
If this will bring better quality movies to Apple TV, I am all for it! (unless Apple releases movies first at theater and then to Apple TV months later... if so, I will not be a happy customer)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 00sjsl

brucewayne

macrumors 6502
Nov 8, 2005
363
630
Or Ol' Timmy wants a seat at the Oscars...

What makes a film eligible for the Oscars?

Theatrical premiere

Aside from the period of theatrical screenings, to be eligible for the Oscars a film must also have received its first public exhibition in a theatrical setting. If the film premiered on television, on a streaming site or on DVD, for example, it will not be eligible.
 

MacsRgr8

macrumors G3
Sep 8, 2002
8,284
1,753
The Netherlands
Looks like all a lot of attention is on becoming a media giant?
 TV+ - MLB rights, English Premiere League rights.. and now this...
 

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
$1 Billion is a big amount of cash... except in the movie making business. To put it in perspective, Black Adam had a $260 million budget, so $1 Billion could fund about 3 Black Adam movies. A much bigger success like Avengers: Endgame is believed to have a budget of about $400M. Avatar: The Way of Water is believed to have a budget of about $450M. If so, $1 Billion could make about 2 of that quality of movie(s).

On the other hand, Best Picture Winner The Whale is believed to have a budget of only about $1.5M, so $1 Billion could fund a very high volume of "Best Picture" movies like that one.

Try a search like "How much does Disney spend on making movies each year?" to get a corporate level, relative perspective. Do the same for Paramount and the other studios that make some movies that you actually like to watch.

None of that is necessarily arguing that Apple needs to spend more or less than $1B- just offered to put some perspective to what can read like a big (or not big) number in the headline.
 

211

macrumors regular
Feb 27, 2020
211
494
51.531011,-0.023979
Or Ol' Timmy wants a seat at the Oscars...

What makes a film eligible for the Oscars?

Theatrical premiere

Aside from the period of theatrical screenings, to be eligible for the Oscars a film must also have received its first public exhibition in a theatrical setting. If the film premiered on television, on a streaming site or on DVD, for example, it will not be eligible.
This is what happened with CODA, which then won Best Picture at the Oscars. And Tim Cook was there
 

StudioMacs

macrumors 65816
Apr 7, 2022
1,120
2,063
$1 Billion is a big amount of cash... except in the movie making business. To put it in perspective, Black Adam had a $260 million budget, so $1 Billion could fund about 3 Black Adam movies. A much bigger success like Avengers: Endgame is believed to have a budget of about $400M. Avatar: The Way of Water is believed to have a budget of about $450M. If so, $1 Billion could make about 2 of that quality of movie(s).

On the other hand, Best Picture Winner The Whale is believed to have a budget of only about $1.5M, so $1 Billion could fund a very high volume of "Best Picture" movies like that one.

Try a search like "How much does Disney spend on making movies each year?" to get a corporate level, relative perspective. Do the same for Paramount and the other studios that make some movies that you actually like to watch.

None of that is necessarily arguing that Apple needs to spend more or less than $1B- just offered to put some perspective to what can read like a big (or not big) number in the headline.

It would be “on brand” for Apple to focus on high quality productions instead of blockbuster hits, so I’d expect them to continue in that vein.

Personally, I tend to prefer films with substance over high budget movies like Avengers. The larger the budget, the more people moviemakers need to appeal to, which leads to pandering to the lowest common denominator. Apple already does that with the music they promote, so it’s nice they seem to be taking a different approach with TV+.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hyperactiv8

Spaceboi Scaphandre

macrumors 68040
Jun 8, 2022
3,414
8,097
Or Ol' Timmy wants a seat at the Oscars...

What makes a film eligible for the Oscars?

Theatrical premiere

Aside from the period of theatrical screenings, to be eligible for the Oscars a film must also have received its first public exhibition in a theatrical setting. If the film premiered on television, on a streaming site or on DVD, for example, it will not be eligible.

A lot of Netflix's movies debut at film festivals which is how the dumpster fires of Diana and Blonde were able to get nominated for Oscars. Doesn't matter if it was only in theaters once, the movie just has to debut at a theater to qualify for a Oscar nomination

If this sounds like a stupid rule, that's because it is, but hey the Oscars are stupid so I guess the boot fits.

This is why The Game Awards keeps making fun of the Oscars.


 

5105973

Cancelled
Sep 11, 2014
12,132
19,733
$1 Billion is a big amount of cash... except in the movie making business. To put it in perspective, Black Adam had a $260 million budget, so $1 Billion could fund about 3 Black Adam movies. A much bigger success like Avengers: Endgame is believed to have a budget of about $400M. Avatar: The Way of Water is believed to have a budget of about $450M. If so, $1 Billion could make about 2 of that quality of movie(s).

On the other hand, Best Picture Winner The Whale is believed to have a budget of only about $1.5M, so $1 Billion could fund a very high volume of "Best Picture" movies like that one.

Try a search like "How much does Disney spend on making movies each year?" to get a corporate level, relative perspective. Do the same for Paramount and the other studios that make some movies that you actually like to watch.

None of that is necessarily arguing that Apple needs to spend more or less than $1B- just offered to put some perspective to what can read like a big (or not big) number in the headline.
Lol your post and the headline on this news article reminds me of the scene in Austin Powers where Dr. Evil talks about demanding a 1 million dollar ransom for the world’s safety and Robert Wagner’s character tells him $1 million isn’t much money these days and points out things that cost 90 billion dollars. Finally Dr. Evil arrives on an agreeable figure:

65FAC1BF-06CE-4135-91DE-3EDDEFCBBB5F.jpeg
 

Nikojas

macrumors newbie
Feb 11, 2023
21
15
🇬🇧
You need a lot of 6.99 subscribers to make your billion dollars back. I have had at least 3 free trails of up to 5 months each time, I certainly wouldn’t pay for it 12 months a year, though I do sign up for holidays with more free time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: compwiz1202

_apple_apple_

macrumors member
Dec 11, 2021
68
119
$1 Billion is a big amount of cash... except in the movie making business. To put it in perspective, Black Adam had a $260 million budget, so $1 Billion could fund about 3 Black Adam movies. A much bigger success like Avengers: Endgame is believed to have a budget of about $400M. Avatar: The Way of Water is believed to have a budget of about $450M. If so, $1 Billion could make about 2 of that quality of movie(s).

On the other hand, Best Picture Winner The Whale is believed to have a budget of only about $1.5M, so $1 Billion could fund a very high volume of "Best Picture" movies like that one.

Try a search like "How much does Disney spend on making movies each year?" to get a corporate level, relative perspective. Do the same for Paramount and the other studios that make some movies that you actually like to watch.

None of that is necessarily arguing that Apple needs to spend more or less than $1B- just offered to put some perspective to what can read like a big (or not big) number in the headline.
A decent chunk of the cost of those movies derives from:
• big-name actors (can be expensive)
• CGI/practical effects/large sets (can become expensive easily)

If you avoid the above, even a little bit, you could easily lower the cost and thus make more things. I assumed that's why most of the Apple TV+ shows are real-world dramas where the big-name actor is the main draw; more cost effective and faster to produce.

I do hope Apple actually does try to create cultural hits, not just academy bait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grjj

ProfessionalFan

macrumors 603
Sep 29, 2016
5,829
14,784
You need a lot of 6.99 subscribers to make your billion dollars back. I have had at least 3 free trails of up to 5 months each time, I certainly wouldn’t pay for it 12 months a year, though I do sign up for holidays with more free time.
There is more to this service than simply having subscribers to it. It is also another way to bring people into the ecosystem even if Apple products aren't required to use it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnnyboy55

steve09090

macrumors 68020
Aug 12, 2008
2,086
4,057
A decent chunk of the cost of those movies derives from:
• big-name actors (can be expensive)
• CGI/practical effects/large sets (can become expensive easily)

If you avoid the above, even a little bit, you could easily lower the cost and thus make more things. I assumed that's why most of the Apple TV+ shows are real-world dramas where the big-name actor is the main draw; more cost effective and faster to produce.

I do hope Apple actually does try to create cultural hits, not just academy bait.
Foundation fits that bill, albeit was a series. Palmer would have been good at the cinema. The Banker, Selena Gomez - My Mind & Me! 😂
 

apocalyarts

macrumors regular
Sep 22, 2015
117
242
Well they must have noticed that the 4 Oscars for "All Quiet on the Western Front" really had an impact and it's worthwhile trying to make a movie of that class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KaplanMike

grjj

macrumors 6502
Apr 5, 2014
269
530
More like Greyhound please!
That's funny to me because as I understand it Apple had just about zero to do with the making of the movie. Sony and Stage 6 basically had the entire film ready to release but the theaters were all closed due to Covid. So Apple bought it to release on Apple TV+. I find the content that Apple actually develops to be of rather low quality.

_apple_apple_:​

...not just academy bait.
Here here. I find most of the stuff on TV+ to be critically acclaimed but nearly unwatchable.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.