Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Isn't Apple planning to sanitize all it's content so as to be non controversial and family friendly? It's hard to imagine good award winning content under those constraints except for animated kids movies I guess.
Just curious. What price would people like to see for say, one episode of Game of Thrones?
My Netflix account costs me $16 a month (actually minimum 20% less since I use discounted iTunes cards for billing, but new users can’t bill though iTunes anymore). Even though I pay for Netflix, my account is shared with three other people. So basically $4 (before my discount) a person per month. That’s pretty cheap. One movie a month to break even? I think their original content is very good.
I have Spectrum for my cable, high speed internet and phone. It also includes HBO and Showtime. I also have Prime and can log onto my daughter’s Hulu. Other than local news, I don’t watch very much old school network TV. There just aren’t any “free” programs that interest me.
My Netflix account costs me $16 a month (actually minimum 20% less since I use discounted iTunes cards for billing, but new users can’t bill though iTunes anymore). Even though I pay for Netflix, my account is shared with three other people. So basically $4 (before my discount) a person per month. That’s pretty cheap. One movie a month to break even? I think their original content is very good.
I have Spectrum for my cable, high speed internet and phone. It also includes HBO and Showtime. I also have Prime and can log onto my daughter’s Hulu. Other than local news, I don’t watch very much old school network TV. There just aren’t any “free” programs that interest me.
I wish that dude that did that Star Wars fan film with Vader would have 30 million. With that money, it would be really good.
It's still early days in these streaming wars so exclusivity will eventually disappear. But right now these new studios need to build up marketshare with loyal audiences kind of like the studio/star system from the 40s. Besides, if Apple is gunning for academy awards like the rumor suggests, these movies will have to play in some public theaters in order to be eligible.
[doublepost=1560785741][/doublepost]
There are different classes of pro. I considered buying a Mac Pro in 2013 but waited to see how it was received (glad I waited) and went with an iMac instead. Not a pro machine but it handles 5k video streams which is enough for me and pays the bills.They’ll sell just fine, no need to be concernedSure, 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.
I'm not even considering a new Mac Pro now because I realize that I can afford the base model but the entire point is expandability which would add another $20k to the price. Now if I was shooting and editing 8k streams, I could justify a new Mac Pro but I haven't advanced with the technology. So like I said, different classes of pro.
Making films to win awards is antithetical to what Apple always preaches. It’s like making computers to earn profit. What does Cook always say? The goal is to put the best product in customers’ hands.
You make something great, and the awards (or profit) will follow.
You make something great, and the awards (or profit) will follow.
That's not strictly true. If you want to see HBO series when it first comes out, you need to subscribe; but pretty much all HBO shows eventually become purchasable elsewhere.
[doublepost=1560787346][/doublepost]
If your film doesn't require intensive special effects, complicated location shoots, and an "All-Star Cast", you can shoot a quality feature for under $30M.
[doublepost=1560787907][/doublepost]
I disagree. You can suspend your Netflix subscription at any time, and restart at any time. If there are only a handful of programs that you consider to be good, just subscribe for a month and watch those. If there are a lot of good programs, extend your subscription a few months until you have watched as much as you want.
A streaming TV subscription model isn't a lifetime commitment, unless you make it so through inertia.
[doublepost=1560788140][/doublepost]
There already is a price. It's $3.99 per episode. So a better question would be, "is this a reasonable price"?
“Up to $30M.”
$30M is the newly negotiated threshold for streaming companies to where they have to make their content under the IATSE Basic Agreement, where they have to pay the full wage scale for the crew. Anything lower than $30M, they can use lower tier agreements and side letters.
Cheap.
$30M is the newly negotiated threshold for streaming companies to where they have to make their content under the IATSE Basic Agreement, where they have to pay the full wage scale for the crew. Anything lower than $30M, they can use lower tier agreements and side letters.
Cheap.
Even OTA channels has exclusive content. Most of the shows are exclusive until the studio decides to license them to other networks/streaming sites And some content on streaming sites do sometimes become available for sale. Right now you can buy all seasons of House of Cards, for instance, on iTunes.
Well consider me educated and taught something I didn’t know. Although the only film I think is decent from this is District 9 but those are some low costs for big films!
And Yeap will take it with a pinch of salt.
i’m not assuming any stances here, but if you’re against exclusivity, that means you’re asking for:
- macOS on PCs
- iOS on Android devices
- Android on iOS devices
- Death Stranding on Xbox
- Halo on PS4
- All sports events available for streaming without a subscription
the thing is that companies are able to make these because they are able to budget a lot money from the sales of being exclusive.
I’m kind of shocked by everyone’s ideas of normal movie budgets! I would say 95% of Netflix originals are made for between $500,000 to 5 million.
I’m in the indie horror world and it’s very rare for any of my friends to get over $500k for a movie. In all likelihood, if you think a movie costs 1-3 million along the lines as movies like You’re Next (1 million) or It Follows (2 million), it probably cost $200k to $500k.
Anything over $200k is going to look pretty good up until you get above 2 million, then you will take another leap up to the quality of something like The Witch (4 million) or Sinister (3 million) or The Purge (3 million).
The higher the budget the more diminishing the returns.
The indie world I’m in is pretty brutal though as you have to do so much work yourself. I directed a movie where I spent every day for a month cleaning and renovating a house myself before we could start shooting. It’s what had to be done. But doing those kinds of things allowed us to afford a full-blown practical creature.
We also partnered with a film school to borrow most of the equipment when school was out of session, which allowed me to shoot on the same 8K camera they shot some of the more recent Marvel movies on.
These Apple budgets not only seem reasonable to me, they seem higher than I’d expect. Another plus of someone like Apple is that they probably have advertising for their platform in a separate budget, so these movies will probably get every dime of that budget to work with.
The DOWNside of budgets for streaming platforms is that there’s no backend. You can’t hire a famous actor and give them a percentage of profit in lieu of a high salary, as a Netflix movie doesn’t generate its own profit alone.
That’s always the bummer when I think of these services. With traditional distribution there’s always the SLIM chance your movie blows up like Paranormal Activity and maybe you only own 5% yourself but it’s still enough that you are set for life. But if Netflix buys it for 1 million profit, that’s all you get and you’ll maybe take home $35,000 after lawyers and paying back dues and that’s a decent chunk of money but a relatively bad salary for the 2 years of work you put in. It’s still a great scenario though, as most movies only ever break even and often take years to do that. That’s why I have a “real” job outside the business. Most of us do until the fourth or fifth movie.
I’m in the indie horror world and it’s very rare for any of my friends to get over $500k for a movie. In all likelihood, if you think a movie costs 1-3 million along the lines as movies like You’re Next (1 million) or It Follows (2 million), it probably cost $200k to $500k.
Anything over $200k is going to look pretty good up until you get above 2 million, then you will take another leap up to the quality of something like The Witch (4 million) or Sinister (3 million) or The Purge (3 million).
The higher the budget the more diminishing the returns.
The indie world I’m in is pretty brutal though as you have to do so much work yourself. I directed a movie where I spent every day for a month cleaning and renovating a house myself before we could start shooting. It’s what had to be done. But doing those kinds of things allowed us to afford a full-blown practical creature.
We also partnered with a film school to borrow most of the equipment when school was out of session, which allowed me to shoot on the same 8K camera they shot some of the more recent Marvel movies on.
These Apple budgets not only seem reasonable to me, they seem higher than I’d expect. Another plus of someone like Apple is that they probably have advertising for their platform in a separate budget, so these movies will probably get every dime of that budget to work with.
The DOWNside of budgets for streaming platforms is that there’s no backend. You can’t hire a famous actor and give them a percentage of profit in lieu of a high salary, as a Netflix movie doesn’t generate its own profit alone.
That’s always the bummer when I think of these services. With traditional distribution there’s always the SLIM chance your movie blows up like Paranormal Activity and maybe you only own 5% yourself but it’s still enough that you are set for life. But if Netflix buys it for 1 million profit, that’s all you get and you’ll maybe take home $35,000 after lawyers and paying back dues and that’s a decent chunk of money but a relatively bad salary for the 2 years of work you put in. It’s still a great scenario though, as most movies only ever break even and often take years to do that. That’s why I have a “real” job outside the business. Most of us do until the fourth or fifth movie.
I would be sooooo content...
If the music playlists I put together on iTunes would "just work" on my iPhone.
If the music playlists I put together on iTunes would "just work" on my iPhone.
I hope you’re right about exclusivity going away, but I’m somewhat skeptical. Exclusive content can drive subscriptions and provide a competitive advantage. Like HBO vs. Showtime; they have much the same licensed content, but their original content differentiates them and brings subscribers. I’ve heard quite a few posters say the subscribe to CBS all access just for Star Trek: Discovery, for instance.
Agreed that there are all kinds of pros, and many have switched to iMac particularly since the 5K iMac was released in 2014; with its truly excellent display and specs like quad core 4.0GHz and 32GB RAM, it satisfied (and to this day still satisfies) the needs of many pros who, five years earlier, would have had to buy a Pro to get the performance they needed. These pros have the iMac Pro as an upgrade path if they need more power, further cannibalizing traditional Mac Pro demand.
That said, there are those that don’t want an all in one and/or need more power and expandability than iMac Pro provides. These are the pros I was referring to when I said anyone who could afford a 2013 Mac Pro can afford a 2019. The Mac Pro already sells at a low single digit market share, and my point was that any pro who needs the capability of a Mac Pro couldn’t possibly be priced out due to the increase in base price between the 2013 and 2019 models.
Last edited:
Apple is not a tech company.
Apple sells you the experience, made possible by its control over hardware, software and services. Apple evidently sees that there is value in offering their own video content and this will allow them to better differentiate their offerings.
Maybe Apple is right and maybe they are wrong. Either way, I don't think it's fair to say that Apple should just stick to tech alone, especially they have gone so far as to claim that "technology alone is not enough" in one of their keynotes.
I agree. The same way Google is not a tech company, the same way Amazon is not a tech company, and the same way Microsoft is not a tech company. If Apple isn’t a tech company then neither are they.
Let’s say for argument’s sake that I agree with you.
Your point is?
Maybe I am off my game a little these days, but I find I am having a harder time following your arguments than usual.
Apple should get a clue. They should be doing at least 10 movies, each with 100 million budget. Small budget films can be great, but they will never bring in a large audience. I guess Tim wants to do "art" films and stick with a small audience of elites?