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

[nt5672]

This will make Apple the dominate force in the 5-10 year old demographic for sure. Genius move.

And where Apple's devices are not totally focused on this demographic it will allow them to remove functionality and talk about what a great experience is to be had for their customers.
[doublepost=1508969698][/doublepost]Most video today is just poor rehashes of old stuff with the plot ripped out and a bunch of special effects added. Apple saying they just want to do more poor rehashes of old stuff without risk is as unexciting as water dripping from the faucet.

 

[niun]

I'm trying to think of an adult comedy or drama released in the last decade that would pass the Apple PC filter. Nothing is coming to mind outside of the Pureflix collection.

 

[bluespark]

I like Game of Thrones as much as most people, but this is a good move. Most stories can be told without much or anything in the way of filmed sex/nudity, extreme violence, or swearing. For creative filmmakers who want to work in that space, there are all sorts of opportunity to embrace those rules to make great shows. In fact, I suspect some will find it liberating. If anything, the expectation that shows will sexually titillate sometimes seems to get in the way of the storytelling. Plus, many viewers (like me) will welcome a non-Disney source for shows we can watch with our families.

 

[nwcs]

Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones disagree with you.

So those sell better than Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, etc? Frozen? Toy Story? No, family friendly outsells “mature” stuff.
[doublepost=1508971565][/doublepost]

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.

Except these companies outspend and outmaneuver parents at every turn. And it’s not like there aren’t already many, many places people can get their “mature” stuff. Why add yet one more?

 

[ipponrg]

I

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.

I work in the industry, and you'd be surprised on people's habits (similar to our current president situation).

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.

The problem with this is there is a large premium to be on an Apple platform. The cost that other studios would charge may not make sense for the amount of uses on an aTV / iOS platform.

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.

Think about it from a bigger picture. The fact that Disney was able to convince other studios to also go onto the MA platform is an interesting move. Studios previously were very adamant about ultraviolet.

 

[nwcs]

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

You do know it’s easy to find this information: http://www.the-numbers.com/market/mpaa-ratings

 

[2010mini]

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

There are not a lot of G rated movies anymore. PG and PG 13 means you can still take the kids without exposing them to obvious sex, gore and bloodshed. Studios tend to aim for these ratings as they appeal to a wider audience and can be shown on a lot more screens which theatres want.

This has been a widely known outside the movie industry. Many discussions on this has been in print and various news/entertainment outlets for years. Actors and directors and studio executives have articulated this subject
ad nauseam.

 

[mwined]

Won't be going there very often then.

 

[CartoonCat]

Boo...Sounds boring as hell.

 

[sinsin07]

There are not a lot of G rated movies anymore. PG and PG 13 means you can still take the kids without exposing them to obvious sex, gore and bloodshed. Studios tend to aim for these ratings as they appeal to a wider audience and can be shown on a lot more screens which theatres want.

I am sure the nude body of dead woman dripping in oil is "Family friendly". This would be your PG-13.

There are numerous other examples which I'm sure you can find on your own.
Bottom line, the PG and PG-13 designations do not automatically mean the film is "Family Friendly".

G: General Audiences. All ages admitted.
PG: Parental Guidance Suggested. Some material may not be suitable for children.
PG-13: Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.
PG and PG-13 not necessarily Family Friendly.

There is a reason why PG and PG-13 have those descriptions.

 

[niun]

I think Apple are heading for U+.

 

[vipergts2207]

Except these companies outspend and outmaneuver parents at every turn. And it’s not like there aren’t already many, many places people can get their “mature” stuff. Why add yet one more?

Not exactly sure what you mean by 'companies outspend and outmaneuver parents'. They don't just break into homes and force children to watch mature content. People need to take personal responsibility; the buck stops with the parents. It's nobody else's responsibility to police other children's entertainment intake. With the multitudes of parental controls out there, if a kid still accesses mature content the parent needs to pay attention what their kids are doing. iTunes and Apple Music have explicit music, do you have a problem with that? Should they only sell edited versions so that lazy parents can ignore what their kids are listening to?

 

[kildraik]

I’m not expecting Rick and Morty brilliance, here, but would likely scoff at content without any zip or a little zing.

 

[sinsin07]

Not exactly sure what you mean by 'companies outspend and outmaneuver parents'. They don't just break into homes and force children to watch mature content. People need to take personal responsibility; the buck stops with the parents. It's nobody else's responsibility to police other children's entertainment intake. With the multitudes of parental controls out there, if a kid still accesses mature content the parent needs to pay attention what their kids are doing. iTunes and Apple Music have explicit music, do you have a problem with that? Should they only sell edited versions so that lazy parents can ignore what their kids are listening to?

Easy answer:
They want "safe zones" created for them so they don't have to do any parental work.
Sit them down in front of Disney or Nickelodeon while they go about their business.

 

[nwcs]

Not exactly sure what you mean by 'companies outspend and outmaneuver parents'. They don't just break into homes and force children to watch mature content. People need to take personal responsibility; the buck stops with the parents. It's nobody else's responsibility to police other children's entertainment intake. With the multitudes of parental controls out there, if a kid still accesses mature content the parent needs to pay attention what their kids are doing. iTunes and Apple Music have explicit music, do you have a problem with that? Should they only sell edited versions so that lazy parents can ignore what their kids are listening to?

Your tome clearly shows that whatever I say you’ll disagree with it. I also find it interesting that people throw out the “personal responsibility” card for anything they like that others have objections to but also end up not taking “personal responsibility” for their actions.

In any case, since you can’t envision what I was saying: companies have billions of dollars in advertising directly aimed at kids. They market R rated movies at tweens (look it up), the lack of parental controls on many devices
(of many kinds beyond smartphones), the inadequacy of such controls, etc.

Then you look at the sheer number of services that operate in such a way to hide user activity from parents from snap to other tools. Then you have other parents who actively undermine your wishes while saying they support them, etc.

But this strays from my original point which some people are pointlessly arguing: there are plenty of services out there with plenty of “mature” junk out there. We don’t need yet another recycling the same level of content.

 

[2010mini]

I am sure the nude body of dead woman dripping in oil is "Family friendly". This would be your PG-13.
View attachment 727374
There are numerous other examples which I'm sure you can find on your own.
Bottom line, the PG and PG-13 designations do not automatically mean the film is "Family Friendly".

G: General Audiences. All ages admitted.
PG: Parental Guidance Suggested. Some material may not be suitable for children.
PG-13: Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.
PG and PG-13 not necessarily Family Friendly.

There is a reason why PG and PG-13 have those descriptions.

family friendly depends on the age of your children. Stop thinking of family friendly as parents with kids under 9 years old.
PG and PG13 means less "in your face" violence, gore, sex and language. If you have kids 8 to 12 you can definitely take them to see Spiderman: Homecoming or Wonder Woman which is PG13. By the way it does say "some material..." so as a parent you need to do your research.

 

[nwcs]

Easy answer:
They want "safe zones" created for them so they don't have to do any parental work.
Sit them down in front of Disney or Nickelodeon while they go about their business.

Lol, if you ever have kids I hope they are just like you.

 

[sinsin07]

Lol, if you ever have kids I hope they are just like you.

To late, both already college grads with Masters.
Bringing up grandkids now and I definitely wouldn’t want them to be like you.

 

[kwikdeth]

why is anyone surprised by this with the connection to Pixar?

 

[mmm1345]

vanilla, cookie cutter content that can be found everywhere. Why even bother with this exercise? stick to hardware.
[doublepost=1508982163][/doublepost]yet, most of their big exec highers are known fir producing quality, edgy content. Yeah, tis smells like failure. If I wamt to watch Disney,I'll watch Disney because unlike Apple,they know what they are doing.
[doublepost=1508982205][/doublepost]they want to turn your kids into apple sheep.
[doublepost=1508982382][/doublepost]

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.

and Im sure there will be ******* customers who would complain about seeing Star Trek in the store because its a multicultural show or too "violent", or Harry Potter because its about witches. This is a stupid, impossible "standard" to meet.

 

[nwcs]

To late, both already college grads with Masters.
Bringing up grandkids now and I definitely wouldn’t want them to be like you.

That’s a relief.

 

[sinsin07]

family friendly depends on the age of your children. Stop thinking of family friendly as parents with kids under 9 years old.

Stop trying to impose what you deem family friendly means.
The ratings tell you right there what should be Family Friendly.

PG and PG13 means less "in your face" violence, gore, sex and language.

That does not mean family friendly. It just means exactly what your stated : Less in your face

If you have kids 8 to 12 you can definitely take them to see Spiderman: Homecoming or Wonder Woman which is PG13.

I don't disagree that there are some tamer PG-13 movies.

By the way it does say "some material..." so as a parent you need to do your research.

Yep, that same principal can be applied to any original content Apple provides, whether it PG, PG-13 or R.
No need for Apple to go all Bambi

Here's some research and since it's PG-13 it should be Family Friendly?

Mission Impossible, PG-13
In the opening credits, we see a knife being pulled out of a man's bloody gut. (See paragraph 6 for more details)

• Jack, while trying to control the elevator's procedures, is stabbed in the eye with elevator equipment. We see the equipment go in the eye and then cutting away to Ethan and Sarah but gory sound effects are heard after. This is the most graphic and intense scene in the movie, and it might disturb/disgust some viewers. But because of the elevator going up all the way to a detailed floor, we can imply that after he is impaled through the eye, he is crushed. However, we only know that he is dead, hence why the film probably got a PG-13 rating for intense violence.
• Claire gets into her car, and then the car explodes. No possible explanation of what happens after that, but we hear that she dies.
• Jim apparently during the mission is shot, and on IMF camera equipment, we see his hands full of blood, and falls off of the bridge, and into the water. We later learn that he faked his death.
• Ethan throws an explosive disguised as gum onto a fish tank; It shatters and the whole building is flooded, with him jumping out just in time. No reported casualties.
• (Continued from paragraph 1) The target of Ethan's mission is seen being stabbed to death, you see some blood on the gate. Later, we see one of Ethan's recruits is actually the one who killed him, with the stabbing clearly seen. Ethan searches the man, we see blood on his clothes. Sarah is also found dead, we see no blood on her, but we see the knife used held up by Ethan, with blood on it and possibly little bits of gore.
• Ethan contacts the IMF, with blood still on his hands, at a public telephone. He wipes off the blood with a napkin.
• A man holds out his bloody hands at another man, walking slowly towards him.
• Ethan grabs Claire and searches her.
• A man shoots a woman and she dies. He then hits another man in the head and he is dazed.
• A helicopter is blown up and crashes in a tunnel; A man that was holding on to the helicopter is smashed against the train tracks (this is only briefly seen).

 

[kazmac]

Please keep offering the foreign genre movies for sale/download at good prices and you'll get iTunes revenue from me.

And get back to producing great hardware and software so Hollywood can create these family friendly shows you want to make (for some ridiculous reason) and then perhaps I will take a peek.

 

[topdrawer]

Alfonso Cuaronto?

yeah, he's like Alfonso Cuarón but a little tonto

 

[Ghost31]

“They don’t have content with naughty words? Nooooo”

My god people. There’s a world outside of tv ma that has good quality content as well. Just because it’s not mature content, doesn’t mean it’ll be bland or uninteresting. Lots of stuff I like to watch is kid friendly. Myth busters, dirty jobs, lots of discovery and sci fi channel stuff.