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.
J.J. Abrams Declined Apple's $500 Million Offer Because it Would Have Restricted Bad Robot Productions to Apple TV+
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In order to be eligible for an Oscar, you have to have a theatrical release.
No amount of money is worth giving up creative control of your company for a specifically length of time. A company wants multiple clients, not one client.
^^ I don't watch Oscar so I wouldn't care to win a award I believe award shows is overrated but for adults it's important
I think it is more of a "nice try Apple". Abrams wants to sell to anyone - including Apple. He's still currently making stuff for Apple.
So they (Apple) aren't getting a 'whole lot of nothing' - Apple just has to bid on his productions like all the other studios.
In otherwords they now can only get 'a little bit something, instead a whole lot of everything'.
Last edited:
He took the money. Just not from Apple. He signed for less with warner, but non-exclusive. The non-exclusive is so that he can take even more money from others. It was a monetary decision. Not a decision to put his art above money.
[doublepost=1568399000][/doublepost]
There is always SOME amount of money that is worth it.
[doublepost=1568399041][/doublepost]
You think it is greedy to offer someone $500 MILLION?
I wish my employer was that greedy.
He only directed the first Star Trek and Star Wars movies. He's not responsible for the sequels (though he wrote and directed the third unreleased Star Wars movie). Super 8, Alias, Felicity, Joy Ride, and Armageddon are the only other projects he was actively involved in either as writer and/or director. He directed the pilot of Lost, which is one of the best pilots ever created for a television series (but that's where his involvement ends). The rest he just gets producer credits.
I feel bad for people that Lost all that time they’re never ever getting back. Was never interested in that crap.. I’m confused why being confused constantly is considered solid entertainment? And I like a good mystery occasionally too.
Super 8 was unforgivably bad / nostalgia fail.
And don’t even get me started on Cloverfield
He had nothing to do with Cloverfield or Lost (beyond the first episode), so you're complaining for nothing.
SICK BURN!
[doublepost=1568400072][/doublepost]
If you've been paying any attention to Apple, you would realise their services play includes getting their content on other people's devices. Apple Music on Android, "iTunes" movies and TV shows on rival smart TVs (iTunes in quotes because it is being rebranded), etc. Apple know they can't survive on hardware sales alone, it's why services is increasingly talked up on earnings calls and at their keynotes.
He had nothing to do with Cloverfield or Lost (beyond the first episode), so you're complaining for nothing.
I don't think you understand what sorta weight executive producer (or even producer without the executive title), can hold over a show or movie. It isn't always just hurling money at the project and waiting for an ROI.
From a quick search:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/525176/10-surprising-facts-about-cloverfield
Drew Goddard and Abrams wrote an outline of the film and asked Reeves to direct it. “I was very taken with it, but I was like, ‘This is huge, it’s visual effects. It’s a monster movie. Why are you thinking of me?’” Reeves told IGN. “They were like, ‘Look, there’s no question, we know you love movies and you can get the monster part. We’re interested in what you would do in terms of the tone, in how you would do that and what you would do with the characters.’ And then I got very excited because the idea of doing sort of an outrageous idea, but doing it sort of naturalistically with a real aesthetic, was a real exciting idea. So that got me hooked. I jumped in.”
Writing the outline of the movie and picking director and dictating aesthetic, doesn't seem like 'having nothing to do with it.' It actually sounds like has a lot to do with it.
Last edited:
The reason he turned them down is pretty simple and exposes the biggest flaw in all streaming services.
There’s simply no back-end (percentage of profits) in streaming. There’s no future monetization. The content is released on the platform and lives there forever.
Besides his actual blockbusters, J.J. Abrams has produced some very inexpensive movies that have performed like blockbusters (Cloverfield and 10 Cloverfield Lane at the least). He makes a killing on those on the back-end.
It’s actually a great system as it is performance-based. You have to deliver something people want to see to make money... and if you deliver something truly exceptional, you’ll get paid exceptionally as the audience grows.
All of the streaming services have to drop HUGE bucks to make deals with high-profile names because they can’t offer anything else.
Netflix paid Jerry Seinfeld $100 million for 2 standup specials and a few episodes of Comedians in Cars. They had to pay that, because that’s all Jerry will ever see for that content, but he has personally made at least half a billion on Seinfeld (the show) syndication.
The problem is... he deserves that syndication money for making (with Larry David) a phenomenal show and would have never made that money if the show sucked. He’s got Netflix’s 100 million regardless of what he puts out and will not receive any more money so there’s less pressure on the content.
That’s how we end up with a ton of terrible Adam Sandler movies on Netflix that are simply phoned in. There’s no stakes.
J.J. strikes me as the kind of guy who likes the stakes. He believes in his value more than the studios. He probably welcomes a lesser salary for more back end.
One final note: Apple’s Morning Show costs FAR more per episode than Game of Thrones. It makes NO SENSE. It literally takes place in a simple television studio. But Apple has to pay Jennifer Aniston and Steve Carrell full price, as there’s no Friends/The Office syndication payments in AppleTV land. Even HBO sells their shows to other networks overseas but dedicated streaming platforms have no secondary revenue stream at all.
There’s simply no back-end (percentage of profits) in streaming. There’s no future monetization. The content is released on the platform and lives there forever.
Besides his actual blockbusters, J.J. Abrams has produced some very inexpensive movies that have performed like blockbusters (Cloverfield and 10 Cloverfield Lane at the least). He makes a killing on those on the back-end.
It’s actually a great system as it is performance-based. You have to deliver something people want to see to make money... and if you deliver something truly exceptional, you’ll get paid exceptionally as the audience grows.
All of the streaming services have to drop HUGE bucks to make deals with high-profile names because they can’t offer anything else.
Netflix paid Jerry Seinfeld $100 million for 2 standup specials and a few episodes of Comedians in Cars. They had to pay that, because that’s all Jerry will ever see for that content, but he has personally made at least half a billion on Seinfeld (the show) syndication.
The problem is... he deserves that syndication money for making (with Larry David) a phenomenal show and would have never made that money if the show sucked. He’s got Netflix’s 100 million regardless of what he puts out and will not receive any more money so there’s less pressure on the content.
That’s how we end up with a ton of terrible Adam Sandler movies on Netflix that are simply phoned in. There’s no stakes.
J.J. strikes me as the kind of guy who likes the stakes. He believes in his value more than the studios. He probably welcomes a lesser salary for more back end.
One final note: Apple’s Morning Show costs FAR more per episode than Game of Thrones. It makes NO SENSE. It literally takes place in a simple television studio. But Apple has to pay Jennifer Aniston and Steve Carrell full price, as there’s no Friends/The Office syndication payments in AppleTV land. Even HBO sells their shows to other networks overseas but dedicated streaming platforms have no secondary revenue stream at all.
You're saying Apple is greedy for offering someone half a billion dollars for an exclusivity deal which would give Apple an advantage in trying to establish a foothold in a new (to them) industry?
Apparently finding a big exclusive (Abrahams or otherwise) was more of a priority to Apple than securing a smaller production deal with him. I don't know how many streaming services you have launched, but I'm in no position to judge. I'm not saying that Abrahams was wrong to turn it down - that's entirely his business. What is incredible is that these types of numbers don't manage to clue you in to the value of exclusivity and that you write off Apple's offer as base corporate greed.
While his company incurs costs. Those big budget films are paid for by someone else. Such as Warner Media. The production company gathers up the writers, directors, scripts, talent, &c. They orchestrate all the permitting, equipment and locations. They get paid to produce the film/show. For someone like Abrahms. He probably makes a decent chunk on the backend if the movie/show does well.
An old rule of Hollywood goes something like "Never make a movie with your own money."
They didn’t lose anything, they simply didn’t make an exclusivity deal. Bad robot is still making shows for Apple TV
"it's not about the money" "But it is about the money, billions"
but Apple is being shortsighted
but Apple is being shortsighted
Thank you for making clear a fallacy many have as to who is responsible for the final look and feel of television and film; it is the producer. That is why when productions win "Best Picture" the producers accept the award. To state that someone's involvement ends because they are "just" the producer demonstrates ignorance of the process. As an example, on most small screen projects the director is gone long before the edit is completed, the producer finishes the show (with a team). This is the case with most movies as well. That's why the most talented directors will also have a producer (or executive producer) credit so they can stay involved in the final decisions. Love Abrams or hate him, he is ultimately responsible for everything as the producer.
The story is told three times: when it is written, when it is shot, and when it is edited. Producers have the final say on the edit. And if you think that the editor's hands are tied by what has been shot watch a little movie you might of heard of called "Star Wars" which was saved in the edit suite.
I am speaking from 25 years of making a living in film and television.
I don't think so. I don't find AppleTV+ able to stand toe to toe with the other streaming services. They do have the most opportunity to grow though if they convince and play their cards right.
In the industry, we all recognize Apple is trying to get some attention. After all, they have some patents on streaming technologies and what not. The issue though is content creators want to be ubiquitous. We're talking not just android/ios/roku but also set top boxes, consoles, public spaces like stores/kiosks, etc. If Abrams was to deal exclusively with Apple, they would hamstrung that initiative.