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

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

baryon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree wholeheartedly. I've been steadfastly against piracy, I want to pay for the content I view.

But it's getting harder and harder. It's not just happening with streaming.. there are lots of channels exclusive to given satellite/cable providers, so you pick one and lose all the content from the other. Ditto with live sports coverage. I used to watch rugby for free, then it was moved to a paid sports package. Which became a bigger, more expensive package padded with rubbish. Then half the events were bought up by a competing broadcaster, then all of them were. But I can't even switch to that package since it's not available with my cable provider and I don't want to downgrade my broadband to get a sports package - which could migrate again in a few seasons anyway.

I can't even give the money to get the content I want any more. "No, paying for the content isn't enough. Now we want you to switch to lots of our other services too." What next, I need to buy life insurance from them in order to be able to pay for the content? :)
 
2010mini said:
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?
Click to expand...
Go back and look at some of those threads about cable bundles. Hilarious. Anyone with a modicum of common sense knew this current landscape was going to be the only outcome from the race to a la carte "freedom". Subs, subs, and more subs was all we were ever going to get. Anyone who thought differently was only playing themselves.

We played stupid games and won a stupid prize: subscription paradise
 
  • Like
Reactions: rocknblogger and decypher44
2010mini said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think everyone just wants everything for free.

Rampant piracy taught the music industry how to build a business model that people actually like - the same will happen to movies and TV eventually.
 
baryon said:
. . . . .
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. . . . . .
Click to expand...

The real problem is that most home delivered movies, for example on Netflix, are terrible, or copies of terrible. Most of the time the acting is good or at least acceptable, but the writing or story telling is really bad. Showing your own content will not matter if said content is terrible.

The problem we have now is that as young people get into the movie watching habit, they are getting used to terrible and they don't read any more so they do not have any reference to what telling a good story is like. The stories they are forced to read in school are not the best stories, they are the politically correct stories. The cinema is better, but not much as the more they focus on special effects, the story seems to suffer.
 
One very good outcome from all of this 'original content' coming from multiple different directions (Prime, Netflix, Apple, etc.) is a more robust job outlook for anyone in the performing arts business. This holds true for every line of work...not just actors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: martyjmclean and jmovie
2010mini said:
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?
Click to expand...

Since when does "a la carte" mean "exclusivity"? We got a la carte, great. But we also got exclusivity, which sucks. Companies are taking advantage of their position of being the content producer and distributor simultaneously. This was the case with cinemas before the Paramount case, and a law was created specifically for this reason. And now it's happening again, and I don't see anyone intending to create a law to stop this so far. Basically monopoly is coming back.

"Paying only for channels you watch" is not the same thing as having Netflix, because no TV channel had exclusivity for any films they played. You could always go to the cinema and watch a movie there, regardless of what TV channels you were paying for. TVs merely had exclusivity for their news and their shows, but not the actual films. Now something made by Netflix can only be seen on Netflix. It is not shown in cinemas, it's not available on DVD or BluRay, you can't buy it or rent it on iTunes, and it won't be available on HBO Go or Apple TV. For the first time ever in history, certain feature length films are locked behind monthly subscriptions and loyalty to a distribution platform.

You just wanna watch "I am Mother"? The one and only way to do it is to subscribe to Netflix. You can't see it anywhere else. No more cinema tickets, no more renting/buying. It's great for Netflix, sure. But it's bad for the ones who made the movie, and bad for those who want to watch it. It would be better for everyone except Netflix if the movie could be seen everywhere, by everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nt5672
69Mustang said:
Go back and look at some of those threads about cable bundles. Hilarious. Anyone with a modicum of common sense knew this current landscape was going to be the only outcome from the race to a la carte "freedom". Subs, subs, and more subs was all we were ever going to get. Anyone who thought differently was only playing themselves.

We played stupid games and won a stupid prize: subscription paradise
Click to expand...

Nope. I was one of them that wanted something different and we did not get what we asked for.

What we wanted was all content on one delivery system, but the ability to determine what we paid for. So if I watched HBO on Apple TV then part of my Apple TV subscription would go to HBO. We did not want to pay for HBO and not find any good content for 2 months yet still pay for it.

The big problem we wanted to fix, was rewarding good programming with revenue. That is what happens at the cinema, and it needs to happen in home delivery. We do NOT want to pay subscriptions services that are being spread out to countless worthless programming.

There is nothing in the Netflix model that rewards good programs and punishes bad ones.
 
Val-kyrie said:
“Oscar-winning ambitions” at “5-30 million” USD. LOL.
Click to expand...
I quit watching the Oscars several years ago as they kept getting more and more political. But from what I remember of them, Oscar winning movies were not necessarily big budget films films with tons of special effects (i.e. The Avengers). "Titanic" won a boat load of Oscars (sorry, I couldn't resist) but there were a lot of lower budget films that relied on a great story and superb acting even from relatively unknown actors. I think Apple could pull this off.
 
It feels like for the past 5+ years we've been hearing the "Apple will produce this awesome content for AppleTV! Just you wait and see!!!!" every 6-9 months.

zzzzzzz
 
  • Like
Reactions: heffsf
Jakewilk said:
Over half of the oscar winners in the last 50 years were made for less than $30 million, even adjusted for inflation
Click to expand...

5M-~30M its plenty - that’s what Fox Searchlight budgets for their Oscar caliber movies - these will not be VFX laden comic-book movies, ex: A quiet place 17m, The shape of water 20m, Roma 15m

The most important thing - I think someone in the thread already mentioned - is Apple willing to tackle 'controversial' subjects - LGBT, Race/political issues, nudity, etc - sounds like Tim will be putting his stamp on this so I would think no.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: martyjmclean and schmegs
baryon said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's called the internet, you have it, and can use it to get all these films.
 
  • Like
Reactions: martyjmclean
nt5672 said:
Nope. I was one of them that wanted something different and we did not get what we asked for.

What we wanted was all content on one delivery system, but the ability to determine what we paid for. So if I watched HBO on Apple TV then part of my Apple TV subscription would go to HBO. We did not want to pay for HBO and not find any good content for 2 months yet still pay for it.

The big problem we wanted to fix, was rewarding good programming with revenue. That is what happens at the cinema, and it needs to happen in home delivery. We do NOT want to pay subscriptions services that are being spread out to countless worthless programming.

There is nothing in the Netflix model that rewards good programs and punishes bad ones.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I meant. What you wanted was never going to happen. It was always going to be subs, subs, and more subs. A lot of people knew that (subs galore), but you still had threads full of people who honestly thought (or wanted) the eventual outcome would be along the lines of what you described above.

Pure fantasy without an ounce of realism. When the content creator, content distributor, and distribution pipeline are often times the same company... yeah, none of that was ever gonna be possible. Comcast and AT&T own content, studios, and the internet infrastructure. Then you have the Disney's of the world who own even more content. Add the medium to smaller players... the a la carte utopia was never more than a pipe dream.

What we're going to get is more subs until consolidation starts to happen due to some failures. Then we'll be right back where we were. Similar to the breakup of Bell in telecom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rocknblogger, ipponrg and Jax44
So make small movies no one watches that appeal to the political sensibilities of Hollywood. Ok.

What’s good for Hollywood (for creators) is the tech companies have more money than they can imagine. It’s bad for Hollywood corporations but good for the workers. Movies and entertainment are a tiny fraction of the economy that gets big press and is large in our minds. Amazon and Apple make more money every day than Hollywood makes in a year. Netflix makes as much as all of Hollywood put together. So the tech companies are probably going to reorder some things and reinforce some other things as they enter these waters.
 
5-30 million budgeting is encouraging, not just from the standpoint of not putting all your eggs in one basket. Smaller budgets mean smaller focus, possibly gambling on newer talent, and maybe even better scripts (?!!).
Since Disney recently closed the small tier studio Fox Studios, which made projects for sub 50 mil, this is Apple's chance to fill a gap now lost because of the Mouse.
 
While they are off making movies, they should remember who they are and start building a good 5K display and a 16" MacBook Pro. I miss the Apple of the 1990s and early 2000s. Even the Apple of the mid 80s had more direction.
 
sparkie7 said:
Stick to computers Apple. Don't forget your core business. (waiting for the onslaught)
Click to expand...


Shouldn't be an onslaught. You're just repeating a slogan that hasn't worn well since uttered when Apple first came out with the iPod, and then similar advice to Apple about getting into music with iTunes, and then "stay the heck out of cell phones, what does Apple know about cell phones? " And "why buy a headphone company?" And, "we don't need another news service, Apple's not good at this?" And, "Apple's too late to music streaming," etc., etc.

At this point, after success after success, when Apple rakes in Billions and becomes the number one choice of consumers worldwide in all these and other non-computer companies, when people think Apple can't walk and chew gum at the same time, when they ignore the Billions and Billions Apple keeps pouring into computers, when they ignore the new computers pouring out of Apple-in the past year, e.g., new Mini', new iMacs, new iMac Pro, new Mac Pro, new MacBooks, new MacBook Pros, new iPads, new iPhones, it doesn't even merit an LOL, but rather a sigh.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: martyjmclean and Eddie Beeps
baryon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just pirate the film you want man... I see the world going back to piracy if these companies continue with their price hikes and exclusivity ****.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
69Mustang said:
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.
Click to expand...


Pretty much this. Fantastic movies can be made under 30 million but you are not going to be producing Dunkirk or Lord of the Rings for 30 million.

Alien was done for about $40 million in 2019 dollars and they had to keep a tight budget but its a good example on how fantastic you can make a cutting edge sci-fi movie with smart cinematography using crafty angles and lighting along with brilliant set designs. Keep the cast small and focus on the important aspects to the story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: martyjmclean and jimbobb24
keysofanxiety said:
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.
Click to expand...

the problem is that they're looking at established directors, instead of edgier new talent.

Established directors costs more.
 
AxiomaticRubric said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd rather pay more for one streaming service than have 10 different apps and accounts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back