Apple Shares Trailer for Upcoming Apple TV+ Show 'Dickinson'

[thisisnotmyname]

The life of someone who was completely obscure until she died? Dickenson was an agoraphobic shut in that was probably on the spectrum given her lack of interest in human contact. Not a very interesting story to tell....but maybe someone with talent could do it and find the beauty of her inspiration.

But the trailer is very disrespectful of Emily Dickeson's life story. She is just every teen girl ever filled with commonplace insipid rebellion. Thats boring and tasteless. Dickenson was a complicated likely conflicted person but her conflicts would not make for teen drama. They make for human drama of a rich nature. Nope - TEEN! Magazine!

yep, and they made that movie, "A Quiet Passion." It was a decent movie, much better than this show appears on the surface of a short trailer.
[doublepost=1566850269][/doublepost]

You do realize that milennial women are a large segment of the viewing audience. Many shows like this have done very well, and Apple feels the need to attract a diverse audience, not just middle aged white men.

See anything on CW, Gossip Girl, Pretty Little Liars, Dawson's Creek, etc. These shows keep getting made because people want to see them. Neither you nor I do, but I am open minded enough to realize that my worldview isn't universal.

I like all three of the shows you referenced. I'm not looking forward to this one based upon that limited trailer though. I'm not exactly the target audience (I'm getting older every day, as much as I try not to ;-) ) but I'm close to it.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

And Apple is competing against Disney+ ?

Lol!

 

[69Mustang]

The life of someone who was completely obscure until she died? Dickenson was an agoraphobic shut in that was probably on the spectrum given her lack of interest in human contact. Not a very interesting story to tell....but maybe someone with talent could do it and find the beauty of her inspiration.

But the trailer is very disrespectful of Emily Dickeson's life story. She is just every teen girl ever filled with commonplace insipid rebellion. Thats boring and tasteless. Dickenson was a complicated likely conflicted person but her conflicts would not make for teen drama. They make for human drama of a rich nature. Nope - TEEN! Magazine!

This isn't a documentary. PBS made already made one. Nothing about this show seems disrespectful. What's very disrespectful is not bothering to even spell the woman's name correctly. You had 3 chances to get it right. This is a fictional show that seems to be targeted to Y.A. girls. It's apparently inspired by Emily Dickinson. There's nothing that says the story of Dickinson's life can't be revisited with a more mature adult telling or a more biographical telling inspired by her poetry, or a... you see where I'm going here.

 

[Mike MA]

Seems I’m more a Mandalorian guy.

 

[Duel]

And Apple is competing against Disney+ ?

Lol!

I don’t think they are? They have deal with Disney+. Apple TV app includes disney shows so Apple want people to Watch them and subscribe. Disney+ users are bringing money to Apple too. Only? big player who is against Apple is Netflix and after disney deal with Apple, Netflix situation just got lot worse and eventually Netflix might have to make a deal with Apple TV app so their content is right away available inside one app with others like disney+. That would be win for everyone except Netflix.

 

[cardfan]

I dare they try variety! You say variety like its s


You say Variety like its a dirty word. I guess you’d rather be spoonfed the same crap over and over instead of trying something new.

Whoosh. When you try to appeal to everyone you tend to be mediocre to all of them. But I’m sure Apple thinks they have the brand power to do it.

 

[ipedro]

I like most things Apple does. I normally buy most things Apple puts out. I love my HomePod. I think Siri is underrated at worst. I'm a huge Apple Music proponent. I upgrade my iPhone and iPad every year there's an update. I love Apple TV. I love my iMac. I think iCloud Photo Library has been a fantastic solution. I could go on and on. I'm a pretty big Apple fan and usually rise above the fray of negativity.

But let's be serious.

As far as Apple TV+ is concerned, based on what we've seen, not even thinking about the $9.99 rumors, this has all the early beginning signs of being a flop. Again, as I've said, maybe it'll be fine, but what you and other more positive-minded people aren't recognizing is that even if these shows are great by some empirical standard, this is still an incredibly tough path to climb.

And this isn't at all like Apple Music. Apple Music was a subscription service for essentially all the recorded music that was and is to come, not a small selection of shows from a company with no history in content creation in an era where everyone and their mother is trying and typically failing at this game and subscribers are getting burnt out on all these subscriptions.

You can positive this and negative that all you want, but the reality is that they're late to an already-tired party where people are leaving. And unlike the iPod or the iPhone or other hardware/software products, this is just content. This isn't innovation on an existing idea. It's just more content in an era where people already are overwhelmed with too much content, and again, too many subscriptions.

Maybe it'll work out for them; who knows, stranger things have happened. But you're not a fool to doubt this one. And if you're comparing this to previous Apple successes and late-game entries, you're confused on the fundamentals and should probably take a minute to rethink the comparisons you're making.

You really are misreading the TV industry.

Was HBO “late to the game”? NBC, ABC and CBS were operating for half a century before Game of Thrones was even written, let alone become the phenomenon it became. Was AMC “late to the game”? Breaking Bad and Walking Dead are huge hits but these shows came in decades after other channels had long been established. Netflix itself: late to the game but has beat the established players. Now Netflix is about to be beaten by Disney+, a new streaming service that is late to the streaming game by a decade.

Are you seeing a pattern here? TV is reset every Fall season. You’re only as good as your most recent hit. If Apple has a couple of hits like Netflix had Stranger Things and Dark Mirror, then they’ll be successful. That’s all it takes. Being “late to the game” has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Given the unbelievable roster of talent and industry leaders that Apple has been able to get behind AppleTV+, the odds of them getting out at least a few huge hits is as high as it gets.

 

[DeepIn2U]

It would have been cheaper filming someone throwing $100 bills into a burning fireplace. Probably more interesting too.

^ that is actually considered treason is it not?

 

[Naaaaak]

Is that how you judge Netflix? Two random shows and you’ve decided they can’t do anything right? Must suck for you.

I don't have Netflix.

It's at least 3 random shows; don't pretend "Planet of the Apps" didn't happen. The Tim Cook Entertainment Network is looking like the Pippin of TV content.

If you belong to the group which wants easy-to-repair Apple prodoucts and a desktop Mac with a great graphics card for CUDA and gaming, Apple is probably not making any shows for you.

Why are the two groups mutually exclusive?

 

[Meandmunch]

I sure ain't the demo for this.

Apple should have bought FOX and every other library they could have AND made they own content.

Starting from scratch is quit an uphill battle.

 

[ipedro]

This looks maybe good, i'm willing to try the series out but that's about it.

To bad Apple isn't serving its base with hardcore syfy, manga, edgy humor and even pure horror. They are so catering to the most average public possible but in the end, risking to reach almost nobody.

Its base? You mean “you”?

I’m by accounts Apple’s base — I’m fully integrated into Apple’s ecosystem with an iPhone, AppleWatch, iPad Pro as my primary computer, iMac, MacBook, iPad Air, AppleTVs on every TV, HomePod, entire HomeKit based home, subscribed to Apple Music and Apple News and use iCloud Drive as my online storage and have been an Apple user for decades — yet I would watch only maybe one or two of those genres.

I’m not interested in Dickinson but I get that there will be shows that don’t appeal to me whatsoever but will to others and that’s perfectly fine and frankly, totally expected.

 

[Naaaaak]

Not looking like a great start for Apple. Hopefully they show something worthwhile one day.

Just think: 1000 Mac ideas were turned down so the Tim Cook Entertainment Network could see the light of day.

 

[BootsWalking]

There's a difference between posting an opinion or deeming it all trash, Apple is doomed blablabla. You could also say something like "okay, this is clearly not for me". But no, I haven't seen that. If you can't understand that (not so subtle) difference, well, in that case I can't help you.

Exploring this further, by your posting guidelines is it acceptable for someone to say the show looks absolutely fantastic?

 

[ZipZap]

I could not get past "titular role". The word is both appropriate and inappropriate.

 

[Nipommu]

Comments here never disappointed if you’re looking for the most negative crap coming from commenters. As The Morning Show, if the show is not for you, it doesn’t mean it’s bad. It’s just not for you. To me this looks interesting and I’ll surely give it a chance. But hey, a nuanced, non-negative comment on MacRumors, it will disappear in the sea of negativity that is so common here.

but still tho, awful = awful. people have opinions and this is a platform to express one's opinion. Having said this, the show looks like a toilet paper AFTER I used it

 

[nutmac]

You really are misreading the TV industry.

Was HBO “late to the game”? NBC, ABC and CBS were operating for half a century before Game of Thrones was even written, let alone become the phenomenon it became. Was AMC “late to the game”? Breaking Bad and Walking Dead are huge hits but these shows came in decades after other channels had long been established. Netflix itself: late to the game but has beat the established players. Now Netflix is about to be beaten by Disney+, a new streaming service that is late to the streaming game by a decade.

You are probably and hopefully right.

Apple needs to play a long game here. Build a quality library over time until it boasts 2-3 critical franchises (e.g., "Game of Thrones" or "Stranger Things") to carry the service.

If $9.99/month is correct, it would suggest Apple does not intend to play bait-and-switch pricing that many suspect Disney+ might pull (for instance, $6.99/month now, $9.99/month a year from now) and what Netflix has been pulling (price increase every 18 months or so).

At the same time, Apple can't possibly expect to charge full $9.99/month for a handful of launch series and not face ridicules.

Bundling has been widely speculated as Apple's secret recipe (e.g., $19.99/month for Apple Arcade, Apple Music, and Apple TV+) and that may very well be what Apple unveils. Another possibility is giving away the service for 6 month or so to get people hooked and for word of mouth.

But bigger question is sustainability. In order for Apple to continue charging $9.99/month, it needs to add a steady stream of new shows and episodes. Unlike CBS All Access and HBO Now, Apple does not have any classic library of shows to fall back on. Most people don't like paying monthly subscription for something they use few months a year.

 

[AgentElliot007]

You really are misreading the TV industry.

Was HBO “late to the game”? NBC, ABC and CBS were operating for half a century before Game of Thrones was even written, let alone become the phenomenon it became. Was AMC “late to the game”? Breaking Bad and Walking Dead are huge hits but these shows came in decades after other channels had long been established. Netflix itself: late to the game but has beat the established players. Now Netflix is about to be beaten by Disney+, a new streaming service that is late to the streaming game by a decade.

Are you seeing a pattern here? TV is reset every Fall season. You’re only as good as your most recent hit. If Apple has a couple of hits like Netflix had Stranger Things and Dark Mirror, then they’ll be successful. That’s all it takes. Being “late to the game” has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Given the unbelievable roster of talent and industry leaders that Apple has been able to get behind AppleTV+, the odds of them getting out at least a few huge hits is as high as it gets.

Who had a meaningful streaming platform before Netflix? How many have there been since, particularly ones that aren’t from established players and/or bundled with other content (Amazon Prime). Even with some successful shows now and a hefty back catalog of non-original content, I’d venture to guess they would struggle to spin Amazon Video off into it’s own subscription. That they haven’t tried should be telling.

 

[ipedro]

You are probably and hopefully right.

Apple needs to play a long game here. Build a quality library over time until it boasts 2-3 critical franchises (e.g., "Game of Thrones" or "Stranger Things") to carry the service.

If $9.99/month is correct, it would suggest Apple does not intend to play bait-and-switch pricing that many suspect Disney+ might pull (for instance, $6.99/month now, $9.99/month a year from now) and what Netflix has been pulling (price increase every 18 months or so).

At the same time, Apple can't possibly expect to charge full $9.99/month for a handful of launch series and not face ridicules.

Bundling has been widely speculated as Apple's secret recipe (e.g., $19.99/month for Apple Arcade, Apple Music, and Apple TV+) and that may very well be what Apple unveils. Another possibility is giving away the service for 6 month or so to get people hooked and for word of mouth.

But bigger question is sustainability. In order for Apple to continue charging $9.99/month, it needs to add a steady stream of new shows and episodes. Unlike CBS All Access and HBO Now, Apple does not have any classic library of shows to fall back on. Most people don't like paying monthly subscription for something they use few months a year.

I don’t expect Apple to charge $9.99 for AppleTV+ alone. They simply don’t have enough content. And their strategy so far indicates a different play.

Watching Apple laying its cards on the table, one by one, it’s becoming clear that AppleTV+ is an added value service to another one of their services that will directly generate hardware sales and ecosystem loyalty. Given that Apple is expanding the AppleTV app’s reach beyond its own hardware, the goal isn’t to sell AppleTV’s and Tv+ isn’t going to sell iPhones.

The reward is in bundling Apple TV+ with Music, which itself is a hardware sales generator — Apple Music sells iPhone, Apple Watch and AirPods.

The cards that I feel are left to reveal will show whether Apple will price Music+TV strategically to go in for the kill on Spotify. Given that Apple is able to sell Music for half of its regular $9.99 with promotions and for students, there’s room to add TV in there and charge a flat $9.99 for both and make the choice between Spotify (music only) and Apple Music + TV an easy choice. Apple would steal the rest of Spotify’s user base in the iOS ecosystem real quick.

Unlike Music where each time a user listens to a song results in Apple having to pay the license owner, Apple isn’t paying any licensing whatsoever for any of its TV shows. Aside from production costs, every subscription is profit. They can afford to practically give it away and see it as a cost of growing its Music base and therefore its hardware sales and ecosystem loyalty. $6B is peanuts compared to how much Apple makes selling iPhones, Apple Watches and AirPods. Apple makes more than enough to fund their entire annual TV production budget in one week of iPhone sales.

 

[mi7chy]

At least it's an upgrade from Carpool Karaoke.

 

[glindon]

It would have been cheaper filming someone throwing $100 bills into a burning fireplace. Probably more interesting too.

I keep wondering if Apple is trying to fail at streaming. Who green-lighted this show? The emperor has no clothes.

 

[lunarworks]

To bad Apple isn't serving its base with hardcore syfy, manga, edgy humor and even pure horror. They are so catering to the most average public possible but in the end, risking to reach almost nobody.

Anyone who thinks the MacRumors crowd, or nerds and geeks in general, are Apple's "base" hasn't really been paying attention to Apple for the last 20 years. Or even the last 40 years, really. The people here are just its loudest cheerleaders... or detractors, if we're talking reality here.

Computers aren't the realm of nerds anymore. Get with the times.

 

[ghanwani]

I was hopeful for Apple TV+, but so far it's looking like is going to be a huge flop.

I was never hopeful mostly going by the non-engaging quality of the majority of recent ads. And whoever is helping them with soundtracks has some weird taste. Maybe spending too much time in night clubs.

 

[MacMikePro]

It's sad to see this, knowing that Apple TV+ is going to fail before it even begins, they seriously should price it at like $3.99 a month. So many more people would subscribe simply because it's so cheap and Apple would make way more money. If it does come out at $9.99 I know for sure I will not be subscribing. But say at $3.99...I think I would, and I would check out the shows for myself, and hopefully enjoy it. I want Apple to be successful with this but I just don't see it happening, unless maybe they bundle it with Apple Music, iCloud storage, etc.

 

[doelcm82]

I could not get past "titular role". The word is both appropriate and inappropriate.

Heh. Heh, heh. You said titular.

 

[Baehrs]

Vomit emoji.

Historical realism today has descended into costume hell. Get the costumes right, not even the hair, just the costumes, and rip the soul out of the actual people. Turn everything into 2019, b/c real people don't matter. And the world is so much more interesting when everything is exactly the same?!? Who doesn't want more bland, gross, Hollywood teenager, grey unholy sameness.

Congrats Apple. Emily Dickinson was a real person. Her actual life could have been interesting to watch.