Apple Wants to Produce Comedies and Dramas That Are Viewer Friendly Enough for Apple Stores

[sinsin07]

Public TV only sucks because they lack creativity and budget and have recycled the plots too many times, not because they're restricted from coarse content.

Do you have any data to back up that claim? Otherwise it a matter of opinion.

Generally, if you don't pay for something, it's gonna be worse.

Public TV? Not sure if you are referring to non profit stations like PBS or Network TV similar to ABC, NBC and CBS. If the latter they are not created for free. They are being paid for.

Same reason kids watch Nickelodeon and Disney Channel (which are cable only).

They are available by subscription also.

Though there have been some kinda cool game shows like Shark Tank on public TV lately.

Yeah. That's what we need. More reality TV shows/Game Shows.
Brilliant /s

Anyway, GoT sucks too.

Fortunately it didn't suck for everyone, thus the 8 seasons.
How much money has Game of Thrones made for its producers?
"According to New York Times , this TV series generates "slightly more than $1 billion annually," as compared to Showtime which is only producing $692 million."

You don't make that kind of dollar dollar if the show "sucks too".

 

[alex2792]

Im curious if Tim and Apple realized the irony when they publicly stand behind Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression, all while practicing censorship in the Apple Store.

They also have a habit of banning right leaning apps from the AppStore while opening Apple stores in Saudi Arabia. Apple is a corporation so they only care about free speech as long as it doesn’t impact the bottom line.

 

[gavroche]

They also have a habit of banning right leaning apps from the AppStore while opening Apple stores in Saudi Arabia. Apple is a corporation so they only care about free speech as long as it doesn’t impact the bottom line.

Pretty much, yea. Like China... they wanted to get their product in that huge market so badly that they are completely caving to China's demands in terms of removing Apps from the app store that allow Chinese citizens to bypass government censorship (VPN Apps, etc).

 

[rumplestiltskin]

"The report claims Apple wants every show it produces to be suitable enough for an Apple Store, as opposed to content with nudity, raw language, and violence. Hollywood producers that have pitched edgier content, such as an eight-part series produced by filmmaker Alfonso Cuarónto, have allegedly been turned away."

What is it about Netflix that Apple just doesn't understand? The point is that I have a choice within the channel. Oh, BTW, I use a Roku so I guess Apple's channel won't be available to me anyway.

 

[m4mario]

I don't think this is to compete with existing shows at all. If they can built that reliability, then Families will buy an Apple TV by default because all the other shows are available anyway.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

Star Trek? Star Wars? Harry Potter? Lord of the Rings?

There is a lot of entertainment out there which (depending on your particular set of morals of course) is clean and entertaining. The problem is, as I said above: good entertainment needs conflict. You can imagine a make-believe world where the reaction to conflict is all nobility and righteousness, but by and large that is highly unrealistic. And so, if you want that kind of entertainment you need to have it set in a universe pretty significantly divorced from our own.

And, yes, "Little House on the Prairie" is just as imaginary a universe as Lord of the Rings. That world never existed. IMHO, it has caused significant trouble in the US because it convinced a large portion of America that back in the "good old days" life was much better and "simpler" than in the modern day (thus if only we get rid of all the features of the modern era we can return to that simpler time). But soapbox aside, those two shows were set far enough in the past - a past in which your pious and wholesome grandmother grew up, or perhaps her grandmother - that they could pretend things were much different than they really were. This allowed low-grade conflict to be resolved with no more violence than a punch in the nose and more often than not a strident speech which brings everyone to their senses.

Now the problem with a show like that is that you know exactly what to expect. I grew up when those shows were on the air, and while we had them on each week, they were never considered "good" entertainment. You knew exactly what was going to happen. There is no character growth. You can't relate to the characters. Today we have much more to choose from than three channels with varying degrees of reception clarity. There is a lot of entertainment out there with relatable characters who grow and change. But it is incredibly hard to have a growing, changing set of characters who are never allowed to do anything that might challenge the viewer's morals.

It's like how my mother used to describe Stephen King stories. "Really good and exciting, but did they have to curse so much?" Well, yeah, they kind of did. A rabid dog keeps you stuck in your car for days on end, would you react with "golly this is gosh-darned horrible!" or maybe lay out a few expletives at the beast? Characters need to be relatable, and being relatable means sometimes not choosing the best thing, sometimes making mistakes.

While I don't disagree with anything you've said, my premise is still valid. Also, I added the "modern day" note b/c those would never resonate with current audiences.

Good entertainment does indeed need conflict. I mentioned those as examples of family-friendly entertainment that *did* have conflict, character growth, etc. (at least in my opinion). Granted, the conflict was usually simple in nature, but that's what makes it 'family friendly"... it's something the kids can understand and relate to. That's the whole point of family friendly.

Should Apple limit itself to this type of programming? I sure hope not!

 

[Mal Blackadder]

Im curious if Tim and Apple realized the irony when they publicly stand behind Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression, all while practicing censorship in the Apple Store.

I totally agree with you, Apple is such a LGBT friendly company, but won't make shows such as "Queer as folk" or "Sugar rush" in case it offends people. They should be open to making all types of shows. Let people decide what shows they want to watch, Apple should not try to decide for them. To really have creative shows Apple should be brave enough to take risks.

 

[2010mini]

the posts in this thread..... sigh....

Family friendly entertainment sells more than content targeted at mature audience. Ever wonder why Disney movies are timeless???

 

[joshen]

The overreactions are hilarious. Did someone force you to watch their stuff, or is Apple suddenly a monopoly in TV/streaming now? But anyway, I doubt any of the content will be successful with or without nudity, a bit too late to the game (especially if it's only available on Apple devices).

Oh and to those claiming this is a "PC/SJW" move, it's actually quite a conservative one lol.

 

[sinsin07]

the posts in this thread..... sigh....

Family friendly entertainment sells more than content targeted at mature audience. Ever wonder why Disney movies are timeless???

Sigh....
Timeless has nothing to do with "Family friendly entertainment sells more than content targeted at mature audience."
Nice claim by the way. You would need some third party stats to back that up however.

 

[vipergts2207]

Yes, but when you have limits you’re forced to be more creative. You don’t have to rely on naked body parts or expletives as a cover for lack of creativity. Personally I found Game of Thrones utterly boring and Breaking Bad is ok. Still, I wouldn’t want my kids watching either and this race to the gutter is getting old.

I don't agree that having to deal with limits makes someone more creative. However, creativity may certainly be a requirement to work around and within said limits in a way that still produces quality content. Still, those are two different things, though easy to conflate. And not letting kids watch those shows is just good parenting. Doesn't mean shows like that, which push the envelope, shouldn't be around. Much like parents wanting to ban "bad" video games like Grand Theft Auto and the like, that crosses the line into being too puritanical for me.

 

[Breaking Good]

Doesn't bug me. Too many shows have started using violence, sex, and nudity purely because they can. Think of how many episodes of Game of Thrones have characters delivering exposition with sex in the back ground or while having sex, purely because they could. It adds almost nothing to the actual show aside from saying it's there.

Having to work around nudity, sex, and gore has resulted in loads of endlessly creative solutions that have for now been abandoned on TV just because they can.

I agree with this 100%. It is amazingly sad how many shows have resulted to using sex as nothing more than filler.

If you want an idea of the way something could be done, look at Star Trek Next Generation. You knew two characters were going to engage in sex without having to show the act for two minutes.

Way too often these days the sex and the violence adds absolutely nothing to the plot.

 

[urbanslaughter1997]

Oh Great, well it's obviously worked so well for Network Television - there's so much "great" stuff on the networks (or at least that was what I was told 5 years ago, the last time I tuned into the networks) that's why so few people are cutting the cord, right?

 

[HiRez]

Great news! Everyone has been begging for Breaking Tame, The Graylist, and Gotham: Family Karaoke for years now.

Seriously though, can’t they enable some filter for the Apple Stores? That really should not be difficult since they control everything in the stores end to end. I get that they don’t want Game Of Thrones playing on the big screen while families are shopping, that makes sense, but to reject production of all such content because it might be seen in their store is ridiculous.

 

[niun]

This is going to make the Dr. Dre extended Apple Music Ad a tad tricky isn't it?
Dark semi-autobiographical drama? Me thinks they didn't think this through.

 

[dotsmada44]

The overreactions are hilarious. Did someone force you to watch their stuff, or is Apple suddenly a monopoly in TV/streaming now? But anyway, I doubt any of the content will be successful with or without nudity, a bit too late to the game (especially if it's only available on Apple devices).

Oh and to those claiming this is a "PC/SJW" move, it's actually quite a conservative one lol.

I don't think people are overreacting. I for one want Apple to create some good original content. I don't really care where my content comes from, I just want stuff that's good. Apple's got a ton of money so it would be nice if they created shows that I would actually be interested in. I'm not the only one that's interested in all the original content that's been coming out over the years that may not be kid friendly. It's disappointing to me that they'll be spending all this money on content that I most likely won't be interested in.

 

[2010mini]

Sigh....
Timeless has nothing to do with "Family friendly entertainment sells more than content targeted at mature audience."
Nice claim by the way. You would need some third party stats to back that up however.

From 1996 to 2016 PG and PG-13 movies represent about 60% of the box office revenue. This information is easy to obtain.

 

[millerlite]

This is the kind of business-like mentality that destroys creativity. I don't have much hope for any apple-produced shows. As if the two inane shows they have now weren't a big enough clue. Apple really needs to go in a different direction here.

 

[sinsin07]

From 1996 to 2016 PG and PG-13 movies represent about 60% of the box office revenue. This information is easy to obtain.

What happend to "G"?
Is PG & PG-13 US centric?
Is PG & PG-13 the defacto rule for "Family Friendly"?
In any regard I didn't make the claim.
Since you want to jump in, post it.
TIA

 

[dotsmada44]

It would be interesting to see how people are actually viewing TV shows nowadays. For myself and my family it's more of a personal choice, we are all watching exactly what we want to watch when we want to watch it on our own devices (i.e. i-phone, i-pad, etc.). We don't sit in front of a TV and all have to be watching the same thing anymore. This isn't the 90's for crying out loud. ;-) This means we don't have to make sure that the show we watch is suitable for everyone in the family like we had to do in the old days when we all sat in our living room to watch a TV show in the evening. So Apple limiting their shows to PG sounds like a pretty stupid move in my opinion. Not saying it's not possible to create good PG shows but they'll be missing out on a lot of eyes by limiting themselves like this. Of course, I'm guessing they'll ruin it anyways by the way they charge for their content. You can't charge a subscription if you only have a couple of tv shows under your belt, you would need other shows produced by other networks in order to justify a subscription. I can't imagine people buying a show by episode either with the prices they like to charge. If it has commercials, that will also turn people off. I'm really curious how they will monetize these original shows. Have they said yet?

 

[AssassuN]

Who is Alfonso Cuaronto?

 

[ipponrg]

...Of course, I'm guessing they'll ruin it anyways by the way they charge for their content. You can't charge a subscription if you only have a couple of tv shows under your belt, you would need other shows produced by other networks in order to justify a subscription. I can't imagine people buying a show by episode either with the prices they like to charge. If it has commercials, that will also turn people off. I'm really curious how they will monetize these original shows. Have they said yet?

Actually Apple iTunes is one of the largest VOD streaming platforms in the domestic market, so they can definitely monetize somewhat on original content. As far as profit is concerned, that's an entirely different story.

Commercials will not necessarily turn people off if they are short enough. Look at the old Hulu experience when it was free as an example.

If Apple follows suit like the rest of the pack, they may try to get some type of deal with the major studios and perhaps have a Netflix type platform where you can stream studio titles in addition to the original titles. Look at the recent Disney Movies Anywhere rebranding. If not, Apple may license their shows to other platforms and try to get a chip of the pie.

There are currently a finite amount of permutations when it comes to monetization for video streaming services.

 

[niun]

Why don’t they just buy Netflix? Let content people who have been successful do content. Apple should stick to technology.

Hell no. Keep Cook the *language altered for an Apple audience* away from Netflix!

 

[dotsmada44]

I

Actually Apple iTunes is one of the largest VOD streaming platforms in the domestic market, so they can definitely monetize somewhat on original content. As far as profit is concerned, that's an entirely different story.

Commercials will not necessarily turn people off if they are short enough. Look at the old Hulu experience when it was free as an example.

If Apple follows suit like the rest of the pack, they may try to get some type of deal with the major studios and perhaps have a Netflix type platform where you can stream studio titles in addition to the original titles. Look at the recent Disney Movies Anywhere rebranding. If not, Apple may license their shows to other platforms and try to get a chip of the pie.

There are currently a finite amount of permutations when it comes to monetization for video streaming services.

I myself have never watched anything from their VOD service as I feel they overcharge. Redbox for $2/movie and then Netflix/Hulu/Amazon for TV shows is how I consume content. I know I'm not everyone though so maybe you're right, when people want to actually purchase a movie maybe they do go to iTunes and purchase it digitally from them. I don't think they can go that route for original content though. Not many people will pay .99c - $3 an episode for a show they know nothing about. Sure some will, but it will not be successful.

In my mind commercials in a TV show when there's plenty of shows out there that don't have commercials, sucks. There's so much content out there that Apple is competing against and any inconvenience kills that.

If Apple follows suit and gets deals with other studios then I would be perfectly fine with that. I'd actually like that quite a bit if they can pick up studios that aren't on the other streaming services.

That Movies Anywhere thing isn't anything but putting your digital purchases in one place. Nice for folks that have purchased a lot of digital content from different places. Otherwise, not a big deal.

 

[ConfluxNZ]

Well, I’m glad they realize all “original content” doesn’t have to be explicit TV-MA all the time. Besides, family friendly always outsells the rest when done well.

Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones disagree with you.