Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.
They could but look what it’s doing to its reputation. Reputation is everything when you are that size.
 
:oops:

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.
The art selling world is also a money laundering scheme. Just look into free ports. I would say money laundering is likely spot on or close to the truth. Also see: video games. That Concord game was definitely some sort of money laundering or embezzlement scheme.
 
They could but look what it’s doing to its reputation. Reputation is everything when you are that size.
It’s doing nothing to their reputation, the company thrives and have very high consumer rating in the real world after all, it’s only in some tiny forums eco chamber that a few dozens people keeps whining about them (while still buying their products!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: sflagel


Apple is retreating from its ambitious plans for wide theatrical movie releases after several of its high-budget films failed to meet box office expectations, Bloomberg reports.

Apple-TV-Plus-Feature-2-Dark-Teal.jpg

Apple is believed to have initially set aside $1 billion annually to produce big-budget films for cinemas, aiming to compete with traditional Hollywood studios. The company's goal was ostensibly to release a series of blockbuster movies that could drive ticket sales, win prestigious awards, and elevate its profile in the film industry.

Films such as Martin Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon, Ridley Scott's Napoleon, and Matthew Vaughn's Argylle were expected to perform strongly at the box office, but each delivered disappointing results. As a result, Apple is now said to be scaling back these plans with a growing emphasis on using limited theatrical windows to qualify for awards while primarily marketing its films as streaming titles.

One of the biggest signs of this shift was the cancellation of the wide global release of Wolfs, an action comedy starring George Clooney and Brad Pitt. The film had originally been slated for a broad theatrical debut in thousands of cinemas around the world. Instead, it was released in a limited number of theaters before becoming available for streaming on Apple TV+ on September 27.

Apple's leadership has reportedly been seeking to rein in costs across its entertainment division. While the company is said to remain committed to its $1 billion annual film budget, it will now focus on producing fewer high-budget films, reducing the number of theatrical releases, and scaling down the average production cost of its movies. According to sources familiar with the company's plans, Apple will continue to produce about a dozen films per year, most with budgets under $100 million.

Only one or two major titles each year will be given larger budgets and wide theatrical releases, such as the upcoming film F1, starring Brad Pitt, which is set for a global release in June 2025. F1 is expected to be Apple's most expensive movie to date, with a reported production budget of over $300 million.

Article Link: Report: Apple TV+ Pivoting Movie Strategy Amid Disappointing Performance
The movies just haven't been good enough to get me to the theater.
 
I know the movie business is in a weird place right now but its not so weird and unpredictable that "Brad Pitt $300m F1 movie" isn't an obvious bomb. Who the hell is the audience for this?

Lots of F1 and racing fans in general.
 
I know the movie business is in a weird place right now but its not so weird and unpredictable that "Brad Pitt $300m F1 movie" isn't an obvious bomb. Who the hell is the audience for this?

Ridley Scott is infamously hit-or-miss with more misses than hits as he's gotten older. Funding that Napoleon project was ridiculously irresponsible.

The people green lighting these movies must just be Gen-X types excited to work with the auteurs and stars of their youth and they should just not be allowed to make these decisions.
I am very much looking forward to F1! Anyone watching the 6 season hit documentary “Formula One: Drive to survive” on Netflix is likely interested in this film!
 
It kind of feels like Tim Cook commissioned and greenlit a lot of the content on TV+ personally. It‘s well made, but lacks a certain kind of fire, personality, quirkyness or humor. That seems to work well for a mass product like phones, but not for entertainment.
 
Apple TV wants to be HBO. There is nothing "prestige" about See, I can tell you that.
Well, the shows I listed were great. I haven't seen "See" but I bet it's fine. Not "prestige," but fine.

Masters of the Air was expensive and you see every drop of that money on screen.

Severance was remarkably expensive, though. Dunno what's going on there.
 
I just want an Apple Tv that I can plug a usb device into with my own files on.
 
  • Love
Reactions: peterdev
Well, the shows I listed were great. I haven't seen "See" but I bet it's fine. Not "prestige," but fine.

Masters of the Air was expensive and you see every drop of that money on screen.

Severance was remarkably expensive, though. Dunno what's going on there.
Looking cheap was never the issue of Apple TV+. All of their shows are beautifully produced.
That's not enough. Many of them are just pretentious and/or dull.
Severance is amazing, their best show to date. It's also very niche.
 
This seems a ridiculously naive expectation.

Personally, I would never pay for a cinema ticket for an Apple movie because I know that its coming to AppleTV+ very soon.
Argyll we had to wait quite a few weeks for but it was coming so why go and pay cinema prices when its coming as part of the AppleTV+ subscription you already pay.

That's why they haven't done well in cinemas - sure some of them have been less than stellar movies but hey.
But this seems to be the problem theatres in general are facing, and the dilemma a lot of movie producers are now dealing with. People just aren't willing to pay increasingly higher prices to watch most movies in the theatres and will wait as long as it takes to watch at home because their home setup in a lot of cases is now just as good. In that light, Apple's movie to direct more of their productions to streaming rather than waste time outside of awards season on theatre releases make sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huck and sflagel
It kind of feels like Tim Cook commissioned and greenlit a lot of the content on TV+ personally. It‘s well made, but lacks a certain kind of fire, personality, quirkyness or humor. That seems to work well for a mass product like phones, but not for entertainment.
The movies are bad (but so are Netflix, Amazon movies); the shows are top. Only Amazon comes close or is better at times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Burton
Apple absolutely destroyed one of my all-time favorite shows as a kid, "Amazing Stories." What was originally a family friendly, fun show, became a preachy, social awareness, "we need to be better" type of production.
I watched a couple of episodes of Amazing Stories and... well, I can't remember anything about it, which says it all, really. However, Hollywierd has an obsession with trying to re-hash successful ideas - and, at the time, successful & critically acclaimed SF anthology == Black Mirror == Dark & edgy adult social commentary. They even did another anthology - Circuit Breakers that was even more blatantly "Black Mirror for Kids" - with predictable results.

However, I think the most obvious "what possible confusion of ideas made them think that would work?!" case was "Time Bandits remake starring Phoebe from Friends". It was actually better than it had any right to be but that's hardly a recommendation. Turns out that Pythonesque humour is actually really hard to do well - nobody expected that! Didn't they noticed how well Willow worked out on Disney?

On the other hand ATV+ has had a run of really top-tier shows - Severance and Slow Horses being the stand-outs for me, as well as For All Mankind (once you accept it's not primarily a space opera), Bad Sisters, Shining Girls... Silo is looking like a pretty solid adaptation that doesn't completely throw away the book. Foundation has the makings of a good space opera - if only they focussed on the screenwriters' more original ideas and stopped pretending it was an adaptation of anything.

My impression of Apple TV+ is that when they are good, they are very, very good, but they've had a few serious turkeys that are hard to excuse - and their movie output is wall-to-wall, derivative "meh" and failed Oscar bait.
 
But this seems to be the problem theatres in general are facing, and the dilemma a lot of movie producers are now dealing with. People just aren't willing to pay increasingly higher prices to watch most movies in the theatres and will wait as long as it takes to watch at home because their home setup in a lot of cases is now just as good. In that light, Apple's movie to direct more of their productions to streaming rather than waste time outside of awards season on theatre releases make sense.
I agree.

Stop chasing meaningless awards and stop chasing big names who will never pay back the investment.
 
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).
I still love the movie theatre and will always go to see big stuff that I personally am interested to see ASAP to avoid spoilers etc.

Ill mainly go to see the MCU movies in the cinema and made sure to see Deadpool and Wolverine soon after release to avoid the spoilers that frankly Marvel themselves put out a week later ruining cameos etc.

However, Marvel themselves caused a lot of the problems by the ever decreasing window between theatrical release and Disney+. In recent memory I believe it was just ridiculous for Dr Strange Multiverse of Madness when it appeared on Disney+ 6 weeks after it opened in theatres. That was WAY TOO SOON and when people experience that then going forward they are significant less inclined to go to the cinema with all the expense and potential disruption from badly behaved moviegoers etc etc etc

Its a problem that the movie companies have made themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sflagel
Wolfs was a failed mix of Ocean 11 meets Reservoir Dogs. Waste of talent. Argyll was even worse.

The TV Series (Slow Horses!) are much better imho.
These paint by number movies like Netflix Red Heat and Ghosted; or Apple’s Wolfs are beyond just bad; they are infuriating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huck
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.