Apple's Oscar-Winning Ambitions to be Spearheaded By Six Original Movies a Year, With a Budget up to $30 Million per Film

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
7,457
8,520



Apple plans to produce six small-budget movies a year with an eye toward stories that could win Academy Awards, according to The New York Post.


The Post's sources claim Apple wants to spend between $5-$30 million on each movie, and that it has already approached "elevated" directors and other film talent about bankrolling projects with Oscar-winning potential.
Apple is looking to spend $5 million to $30 million per project, sources said, adding that the company is being driven by Netflix's recent spate of Oscar nominations and win for Best Foreign Film with "Roma" -- legitimizing Netflix head Reed Hastings' standing in Hollywood.

"They are taking meetings and hiring," one agency source said of Apple, adding that the meetings are being generated by the company's original feature films unit, headed by Matt Dentler, formerly of iTunes Movies.
According to the report, Apple's search for six small-budget movies is not related to its multiyear agreement to make films with A23, the studio that produced the Oscar-winning "Moonlight."

Apple is working on dozens of original TV shows and movies with high-profile directors, producers, and actors, with all of that content set to be available through a new Apple TV+ app that's going to be released this fall. Check out our dedicated roundup to learn everything that we know so far about Apple's new streaming TV service.

Article Link: Apple's Oscar-Winning Ambitions to be Spearheaded By Six Original Movies a Year, With a Budget up to $30 Million per Film
 

baryon

macrumors 68040
Oct 3, 2009
3,388
1,064
The more companies produce movies, the better for the movie industry and the audience. The monopoly of a handful of big studios is never good.

What I hate though is the exclusivity. If you want to watch an HBO series, you need to subscribe to HBO Go. Netflix film? Netflix subscription. Apple TV? Subscribe.

I think films should be free from the restraints of studios. You should be able to rent them, buy them or watch them anywhere, regardless of which company produced it. You should be able to watch a Netflix film on iTunes or an Apple TV film on Netflix. Exclusivity is poison.

Before, you could watch any film at the cinema, on TV, DVD, BluRay, iTunes, etc... It didn't matter who produced it, you were free to watch it on whatever platform you wanted. You shouldn't have to subscribe to every single damn service just to be able to watch all films that are being released. Renting or buying films one by one like on iTunes should be possible for every single film ever made.
 
Last edited:

AxiomaticRubric

macrumors 6502
Sep 24, 2010
432
376
On Mars, Praising the Omnissiah
The direct ‘replacement’ in the minds of big media is the monthly cable bill. Add up the costs of your various streaming subscriptions and it comes out roughly equal.



The more companies produce movies, the better for the movie industry and the audience. The monopoly of a handful of big studios is never good.

What I hate though is the exclusivity. If you want to watch an HBO series, you need to subscribe to HBO Go. Netflix film? Netflix subscription. Apple TV? Subscribe.

I think films should be free from the restraints of studios. You should be able to rent them, buy them or watch them anywhere, regardless of which company produced it. You should be able to watch a Netflix film on iTunes or an Apple TV film on Netflix. Exclusivity is poison.

Before, you could watch any film at the cinema, on TV, DVD, BluRay, iTunes, etc... It didn't matter who produced it, you were free to watch it on whatever platform you wanted. You shouldn't have to subscribe to every single damn service just to be able to watch all films that are being released. Renting or buying films one by one like on iTunes should be possible for every single film ever made.
 

stringbender

macrumors newbie
Mar 26, 2019
2
26
This is so dumb. Apple tv+ should run 1st run, 1st release movies that show up in the theater opening day. I'd pay twice as much to watch a movie from home than going to the theater.
 

ipodssss

macrumors member
Mar 31, 2017
61
35
Middle Earth
Z
The more companies produce movies, the better for the movie industry and the audience. The monopoly of a handful of big studios is never good.

What I hate though is the exclusivity. If you want to watch an HBO series, you need to subscribe to HBO Go. Netflix film? Netflix subscription. Apple TV? Subscribe.

I think films should be free from the restraints of studios. You should be able to rent them, buy them or watch them anywhere, regardless of which company produced it. You should be able to watch a Netflix film on iTunes or an Apple TV film on Netflix. Exclusivity is poison.

Before, you could watch any film at the cinema, on TV, DVD, BluRay, iTunes, etc... It didn't matter who produced it, you were free to watch it on whatever platform you wanted. You shouldn't have to subscribe to every single damn service just to be able to watch all films that are being released. Renting or buying films one by one like on iTunes should be possible for every single film ever made.
Stick to computers Apple. Don't forget your core business. (waiting for the onslaught)

They are... all there Macs have been updated in the last 6 months pretty much and there too end machines are now getting a few times in a single year...

Now the Mac Mini is out and the new Mac Pro is coming I'm curious to see what posts like this translate into? Seeing as these people don’t buy any anyway they just want to find something to moan about
 

Relentless Power

macrumors Nehalem
Jul 12, 2016
30,386
30,654
This is so dumb. Apple tv+ should run 1st run, 1st release movies that show up in the theater opening day. I'd pay twice as much to watch a movie from home than going to the theater.
Apple wants to promote there new material, and someways in order to execute that, using the ‘big screen’ helps market their transition in the movie industry. From a tactical standpoint for strategic marketing, it makes complete sense what they’re trying to do here. You have to realize this is all new for Apple, They need to find out what works and what doesn’t.
 

Lesser Evets

macrumors 68040
Jan 7, 2006
3,476
1,208
The barrel of entertainment has scraped bottom years ago.... but not because they are running out of available talent.

The entertainment industry has walled itself in and created a creepy little closet full of creative regurgitation, incest, and ideological nepotism. Walls went up to keep out the barbarians, because we shouldn't have any expression of the masses to reinforce said masses or create contentment or moral certainty.

Apple will merely scrape what is thinning out and dying off. Their boomer/status quo culture has only a few contributors. And you can only be "so niche" before you become irrelevant in the business of mass communication.
 

baryon

macrumors 68040
Oct 3, 2009
3,388
1,064
The direct ‘replacement’ in the minds of big media is the monthly cable bill. Add up the costs of your various streaming subscriptions and it comes out roughly equal.
Where I live TV is completely free, there is no cable bill. You receive it with a TV antenna, for free. So unless you pay for special channels, for most people, TV is entirely free, just like radio.

But with TV there is no exclusivity, since movies were so far not produced by TVs, TVs are simply distribution platforms. The problem begins when the distribution platform (HBO, Apple TV, Netflix) starts to produce movies and then of course decides to not let anyone else distribute them.

It's the same with cinemas: every cinema usually plays every film that's available for cinemas. It would be against the law for a cinema to produce a movie and then not let anyone else show the movie but them. There was a famous antitrust case called the Paramount Case which lead to this law in 1948, because big studios like Paramount produced movies but also owned cinemas, and of course they only showed their films in their own cinemas. And now it's happening again on digital platforms and so far it seems totally legal. I hope not for long.
 
Last edited:

maflynn

Moderator
Staff member
May 3, 2009
63,857
30,381
Boston
30 million a film is rather small - I'm not sure producing an Oscar worthy movie is feasible with such a small budget

Link

he Average Cost to Produce a Feature Film
Many film budgets come in a bit lower, ranging from $100 – $150 million. And The Hollywood Reporter notes that the average cost of a feature film is even lower, spanning between $70 and $90 million. In this range, we see a lot of movies many would consider… well, pretty average. A lot of comedies fall in this range (most of Adam Sandler’s latest), as well as your average action movies (around half of the Fast & the Furious franchise), and some animation (lots of DreamWorks films). But there are also some memorable titles in this range as well: Cast Away (2000), Seabiscuit (2003), and Steven Spielberg’s Artificial Intelligence: A. I. (2001).
 

vaxes

macrumors member
Sep 21, 2012
43
207
“Oscar-winning ambitions” at “5-30 million” USD. LOL.
Manchester by the sea had a budget of 9 mil, Moonlight had a budget of 1.5-4 mil and La La Land had a budget of 30 mil.
All 3 won the big awards.
Art house films don't need a massive budget to win big, I am sure Apple will play right into to the target audience to get a few awards.

-AE
 

PickUrPoison

macrumors 601
Sep 12, 2017
4,437
4,736
Sunnyvale, CA
Well, at least someone will buy their new Mac Pro, I guess.
They’ll sell just fine, no need to be concerned :) Sure, the 2019 Mac Pro is great for film studios. It’s also great for any other Pro who needs the capabilities of a Mac Pro.

It’s rather amusing to see the manufactured outrage over the pricing of the new Mac Pro. Any pro who could afford a 2013 Mac Pro can afford the 2019.

In 2013, the 8-core/16GB RAM/256GB SSD Mac Pro was $5,500. No slots. 256GB max RAM. Yes, the cheapest base machine is now $6,000. 8-core, 32GB. 8 slots, 1.5 TB max RAM. Yes, in 2013 the base machine was $4,000 (for a 6-core, 12GB config).

But even comparing base config pricing, how can $30/month (more like $20/month after tax in the US) possibly make the new Mac Pro unaffordable for ANY pro? If that’s really going to break you, you’re doing something wrong. Time to change your business model or close it down. It’s not up to Apple to subsidize your failing business.
 
Last edited:

69Mustang

macrumors 604
Jan 7, 2014
6,936
12,449
In between a rock and a hard place
Ex Machina had a $15 million budget and Battlefield Earth had a $73 million budget.

You can’t throw money at a film to make it good. $10 million+ is still a significant budget and can produce some incredible results in the right hands.
Partially agree. A large budget is not guaranteed to lead to a successful film. There are many large budget films that have put studios out of business due to failure at the box office. $10 million+ is not a significant budget my any means. $10-30 million is slightly above indie level and firmly in budget film territory... the territory that Apple seems to be parking it's film aspirations. Films in that range tend to be character driven pieces. They don't cost as much as tentpole films, but they are in the crowded area where it can be hard to stand out. Apple has an advantage of having their own distribution channel, so their films have a better than average chance of being successful with it's captured audience.
 

2010mini

macrumors 601
Jun 19, 2013
4,103
3,688
The more companies produce movies, the better for the movie industry and the audience. The monopoly of a handful of big studios is never good.

What I hate though is the exclusivity. If you want to watch an HBO series, you need to subscribe to HBO Go. Netflix film? Netflix subscription. Apple TV? Subscribe.

I think films should be free from the restraints of studios. You should be able to rent them, buy them or watch them anywhere, regardless of which company produced it. You should be able to watch a Netflix film on iTunes or an Apple TV film on Netflix. Exclusivity is poison.

Before, you could watch any film at the cinema, on TV, DVD, BluRay, iTunes, etc... It didn't matter who produced it, you were free to watch it on whatever platform you wanted. You shouldn't have to subscribe to every single damn service just to be able to watch all films that are being released. Renting or buying films one by one like on iTunes should be possible for every single film ever made.

People shouted from the mountain tops that they want a la carte. Now the market has responded. What we asked for is here: paying only for channels you watch.

We won! So why aren’t we happy?
 

ersan191

macrumors 65816
Oct 26, 2013
1,212
1,667
This is so dumb. Apple tv+ should run 1st run, 1st release movies that show up in the theater opening day. I'd pay twice as much to watch a movie from home than going to the theater.
Everyone should get 50 million dollars cash on their birthday too.