Wow, I had no idea. Game of Thrones was famously $15 million per episode and I thought that was ridiculous....I still lost interest somewhere during season four.
No episodic show is worth anywhere near that, and I have no interest in watching Wolfs.
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.
Report: Apple TV+ Pivoting Movie Strategy Amid Disappointing Performance
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow, I had no idea. Game of Thrones was famously $15 million per episode and I thought that was ridiculous....I still lost interest somewhere during season four.
No episodic show is worth anywhere near that, and I have no interest in watching Wolfs.
They should remember that they are a hardware company. They should only produce software and media if it's necessary to drive hardware sales.
The ending was a spoof of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid". I thought it was clever and funny.
I wouldn't say "most of Hollywood" but the issue in general is not really new. Some people have been complaining about this for a long time.
The problem lies in their focus. They're not trying to make something interesting or even artistic; they're looking for a return on their investment. In cinema (as in the arts in general), that rarely ends well.
A company the size of Apple can easily do several things at once. I don't think getting involved with movies/streaming takes anything away from iOS or other development. iOS would be just as good (or bad) with or without Apple in the movie/streaming business.
I've never watched a single thing on Apple TV+. I always get free 3 month trial offers and never even use those. It all looks boring.
If it wasn't included in Apple ONE I would never pay for it. There is almost no content and the one that is on their is bad. I would have thought apple would deliver better.
It’s very mid. Not bad, not great just somewhere in the unspectacular middle. I’m not sure why it was made.
Apple TV wants to be HBO. There is nothing "prestige" about See, I can tell you that.
Oh! I know, I know! Here, pick me!
Answer: all of these movies were bad movies. That’s why they did not perform at the box office. They were bad movies.
You can get viewers for bad movies at home because people will watch anything when they are bored. But to buy the tickets online, get up, drive to the theatre, pay for popcorn, and then sit for two hours quietly? You need a compelling product.
That’s why movies suck now.
Answer: all of these movies were bad movies. That’s why they did not perform at the box office. They were bad movies.
You can get viewers for bad movies at home because people will watch anything when they are bored. But to buy the tickets online, get up, drive to the theatre, pay for popcorn, and then sit for two hours quietly? You need a compelling product.
That’s why movies suck now.
Constellation. One of Apple's shows I just couldn't continue as it made no sense. There are a few others I start but just don't deliver.
They didn't need to choose the oldest directors making the longest movies. As opposed to their series, the movies they've produced were mostly poorly rated. They should have chosen excellent scenarios instead of old Hollywood royalty. And also wait 6 months between their Cinema releases vs streaming.
A lot of those movies (and series) are missing something. Hard to put into words - you can see what they are supposed to convey, they are going through the motions, but you don't feel it. In the end, I guess, they are well executed except for the scripts - which is the most essential part. They feel a little tamed or held back or just don't work emotionally as they were obviously meant. Tldr, the are ok-ish, but not very good. As another poster said - 85% there. But it's the other 15% (which take just as much effort) that count.
Last edited:
That is your loss. Their series are actually very good. To name a few: Severance, Ted Lasso, Shrinking, Presumed Innocent, Bad Monkey.
Good point. Look at their best shows: good scripts with excellent but less billable actors: Slow Horses, Pachinko, Severance, Silo, Ted Lasso. And HBO did it with GoT and Chernobyl.
Last edited:
Something else id like to add.
Apple get involved with projects that are... shall we say.... po-faced, serious in nature, highlighting social injustice etc.
Things they want you to want to like.... instead of things that the majority will like.
Sure theres some 'fun' stuff but theres always a message or some reason for it to be there.
Where's the fun and action? Where's the mainstream stuff. Yes we can have things like Foundation - a mega budget spectacle but it's not really got mass appeal. Silo too is good but again the 'message' is strong.
Basically.... where's the pew pew space adventure sci fi fantasy fun stuff that appeals to the majority?
AppleTV+ needs to diversify a bit and get out of its holier-than-though approach instead of looking for things that 'enrich the masses' (in their opinion) how about things that 'entertain the masses' instead?
Apple get involved with projects that are... shall we say.... po-faced, serious in nature, highlighting social injustice etc.
Things they want you to want to like.... instead of things that the majority will like.
Sure theres some 'fun' stuff but theres always a message or some reason for it to be there.
Where's the fun and action? Where's the mainstream stuff. Yes we can have things like Foundation - a mega budget spectacle but it's not really got mass appeal. Silo too is good but again the 'message' is strong.
Basically.... where's the pew pew space adventure sci fi fantasy fun stuff that appeals to the majority?
AppleTV+ needs to diversify a bit and get out of its holier-than-though approach instead of looking for things that 'enrich the masses' (in their opinion) how about things that 'entertain the masses' instead?
Eddie... At some point Apple is going to have to start to diversify its top-level, middle-late-aged white guys mgmt consortium. What in Eddie's background suggested... Anyway its really a club I guess.
I didn't go to the cinema for years due to a similar thought process... be it streaming or DVD rentals prior, or even just eventually arriving on TV in the days of cable, I was in no rush to see over 99% of what came out. What changed for me was living close to a VIP theatre with reclining chairs that made watching the bloated 3+ hour movies more comfortable. I honestly will not sit and watch a 3 hour movie at home, so I tend to watch such things over 2-4 days.
I still only see a small number of movies in the theatre though, and it has to be something I really am desiring to see as well as something that I think the theatre experience will enhance.
Sadly, movie studios shot themselves in the foot when they began producing primarity for the longer-lasting smaller screen, as it renders viewing on the larger screen not so fantastic. For example, close-ups - on a smaller screen, seeing a screen filled with a face is fine but on a theatre screen... I don't need to see a king kong sized headshot of Brad Pitt, for example (first actor I thought of given the comments on Wolfs).
Brad Pitt’s and George Clooney’s salary alone on ‘Wolfs’ was around $40 million. To put that into perspective the budget on ‘La La Land was $30 million.
Never have I even heard of these films. Maybe that's part of the problem. I cancelled tv+ a long time ago so I don't keep up. It was boring and everything I watched felt sterile and like the story is missing something.